The Building and a Bride in the Bible

[Indiana]

There has been much discussion concerning Witness Lee’s worth as a teacher. Igzy had shared on The Ministry Becomes the Lampstand thread, post #80,

Originally Posted by Igzy

Some of the things Lee taught I still believe, some I don't. And some things that he said which I still believe I think he put in a way that made some very profound things very accessible. Here's one example:

The Church is God's dwelling place, the place he wants to live. Most Christians know that the Church is "the house of God." But they still consider heaven as God's prime dwelling place. Lee opened my eyes to see that God's desire is to make the hearts of people his primary dwelling place. Emanuel doesn't just mean God is with us--it means God lives with us.

Now, you might argue that I could have gotten that somewhere else. But the fact is, I didn't. And I really haven't heard it emphasized anywhere else, anyway.

Lee was the same way. When you read some of his stuff, you think. "Wow! This is good! Where has this been all my life?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------
www.ourneedtoexamineourselves.com/BuildingandBrideintheBible.pdf

The Building and a Bride in the Bible

At the beginning of the Bible and through it to the end, the major line of God’s thought is made clear – that He desires a dwelling place with man and to have the man He created as His loving counterpart. This line of thought begins early in Scripture with Adam and Eve, as she was built by God from a rib taken from Adam’s side, and presented to him as his wife; and this thought is found in Old Testament types of Noah’s ark, the tabernacle, and the temple. It is found in the gospels with Jesus being the Tabernacle of God and also the Bridegroom of the Bride; and it continues in Ephesians with Christ and the church as a mutual dwelling place of God and man, with the church brought into being through Him to correspond to Him in life and love. This line of thought is finalized in Revelation with the New Jerusalem prepared as a Bride adorned for her Husband. (Genesis 2:21-22, John 1:14; 3;29 Ephesians 2:21-22; 5:31-32, Revelation 21:2-3)

Seeking the Place

Abraham and David were Old Testament saints who cared for God’s habitation. Abraham, in fact, sought more than a house; he sought a city. “By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God. (Hebrews 11:8-10, KJV) Abraham and others who sought a dwelling place “died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth….Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.” (Hebrews 11:13-16, KJV)

David was a man who sought God and also His dwelling place. When God wanted to remove Saul as king of Israel after 40 years, he said to him, “But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart....” (1 Samuel 13:14, KJV)
In Acts Paul said, “And when God had removed Saul, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, „I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.‟” (Acts 13:22, KJV)

When David was made king, he right away wanted to take care of what was on God’s heart - to return the ark of testimony to God’s tabernacle and move the tabernacle to a suitable location. And he made a vow, saying, “Surely I will not come into the tabernacle of my house, nor go up into my bed; I will not give sleep to mine eyes, or slumber to mine eyelids, until I find out a place for the LORD, an habitation for the mighty God of Jacob….Arise O Lord into thy resting place; thou and the ark of thy strength...” (Ps. 132:2-8, 11, 13-14)

Many Psalms of David were about God’s house, His dwelling place. He declared, “surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever;” and “one thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after, to dwell in the house of the Lord….to behold the beauty of the Lord and inquire in His temple.” (Ps. 34:8; 27:4)

As believers, we should be seeking Christ and experiencing Him; and our experience will give us the desire to be in God’s house. David had a heart for this, saying, “O taste and see that the Lord is good” and “Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever” (Ps. 34:8; Ps. 23:5).

Even though David had a great fall, his repentance was received by God, who did find him to be a man after His heart. In that repentance (Ps. 51), David even mentions that which is on God’s heart, His house. His son, Solomon, would take up the task to enlarge God’s dwelling place from the tabernacle to a temple

The house of God must be on our hearts also. In the New Testament we have the grace, love, and fellowship of the three in one God for our portion and participation in the building up of the house of the Lord “in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

“Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.” (Eph. 2:19-22, KJV)

Seeking a Counterpart

The dwelling place in the Bible is also related to the counterpart God seeks. This is brought to our attention in both the Old and New Testaments, as the building and the bride progress in a relationship with God toward consummation in a marriage to the Lamb of God in Revelation.

Prophets spoke of God as being a Husband to a wife, “I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; and…I was a Husband unto them” (Jer. 31:32); and “Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you” (Jer. 3:14); and “I will betroth thee unto me in lovingkindness, and in mercies” (Hosea 2:19).

The Song of Songs portrays the love relationship God desires with man. The seeker of God says, “He brought me to the banqueting house and His banner over me was love”; “My beloved is mine and I am his”. And the Lord’s response is “Behold, thou art fair my love”; “Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb”; “thou art beautiful, O my love…comely as Jerusalem”.

In the gospels John the Baptist said: “He that has the Bride is the Bridegroom”. And, Jesus asked, “Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the Bridegroom is with them?”

In the New Testament, Christ and the church are shown as husband and wife, Paul writing, “I have espoused you to one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ”; and “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:25, 27, 31-32). The church as the enlargement of Christ, is His counterpart and dwelling place.

The New Jerusalem is the Bride

The building is further enlarged in “the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” The New Jerusalem is the Bride, and also God’s eternal dwelling place.

The Marriage Supper

In conclusion to the line of the building and a bride in the Bible, there is a wedding and the wife of the Lamb has made herself ready! And, there is a great supper for those invited.

Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. Then he said to me, “Write: Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!” (Rev. 19:6-8, KJV).

The word in John’s gospel that “He who has the Bride is the Bridegroom” is fulfilled here in Revelation, as God gains both a dwelling place and a counterpart; a building and a bride in what has been His quest throughout Scripture (John 3:29; Rev. 21:2-3, 22:17).

Lee like David

There has been discussion concerning Witness Lee’s worth as a teacher, and one testified to receiving help from his ministry concerning God’s desire for a dwelling place with man. His ministry is full of the truth of this teaching on God’s dwelling place because his ministry is full of the truth of God’s word and is according to His heart. The subject of my writing today was derived from his teaching, which is much more fully covered by him in his book, The Vision of God‟s Building and his Romans life-study on The Divine Romance.

These are not books of straw that should be burned. (He has such a book.) His writings are plentiful, rich, and good for God’s building. Witness Lee, like David, had a heart for God and His building. He, from the beginning, continuously exhorted congregations and readers to experience Christ and to build in the church life with gold, silver, and precious stones the building of God, or their work, he warned, would be burned (1 Cor. 3:12-17).

He spoke also of the fine linen of the Bride being the righteousnesses of the saints that adorned her. He worked tirelessly on the building of God and on preparing a bride for Christ. If anyone was to tell of all the righteous acts that he did since the day he became a believer, we would have a more fair and balanced approach in dealing with him publicly about our concerns.

Like David also, brother Lee did err. We don’t want to see David’s blots on the record; or Abraham’s; or the children of Israel’s, whose twelve tribes are referred to with honor in the book of Revelation. But the word says of those “children”, “Behold, I see no iniquity in Israel;” and of Abraham, he is our father; and of David, that God “found him to be a man after His own heart.” I sympathize with the frailty of fallen man. I have erred myself and have blots. To point out the failings of Witness Lee and list them in the manner often done on this forum, and wipe out genuine contribution of his to the Lord’s work to build His church, is not properly representing him. He misaimed and misdirected the churches; he mistreated and misrepresented brothers. But we should not misaim ourselves and dismiss altogether his six decades of work of faith and labor of love in bearing heavy responsibility and burdens daily in the churches.

He is responsible for his mistakes, and he himself has said, “I have made mistakes, even big mistakes” (Eph. L. S., p. 273). Shall we list them? I have already done so in the link below which I call Mistakes to Contemplate. http://www.hidinghistoryinthelordsre...ontemplate.pdf I don’t list certain mistakes referred to on the forum that were from pre-1974 days in which he showed the propensity to do damage. It wasn’t yet affecting the U.S., until he made the move forward in 1974.

His position in the background was fine, even if he might have made some mistakes in that earlier going. His fellowship with elders and helping direct churches and giving conferences might have been as it should be in his capacity and function in the Body. How are we to judge that it was not? His ministry and gift was for the churches. His coming forward later, however, and increasingly upward, was not fine. Paul was involved intimately with the churches when with them, and he wrote letters full of love and intimate concern for them; and he gave direction and instruction to them. He had the capacity and the function to do so. But he never came to the foreground; he positioned himself and his ministry in the background to be for the churches. The churches did not have to be for him and his ministry. Brother Lee changed his position when he came forward in 1974.

It is not that brother Lee did not care for God’s building. He did care for what was on God’s heart. But, like David, he had discrepancies in his good testimony that he cared for God’s heart only. There is no anointing in me to speak to any pre-1974 problems. In 1970 thru 1973 - my first 4 years in the church life, there was a moving of the Spirit among us that had been going on increasingly since 1962.

In January 1974, Lee and Max stormed to the forefront and the changes that took place outwardly changed the spirit of the move inwardly. The move of the Lord was stopped! I witnessed this and so did Don Rutledge, more intensely, as a leader. Many others testify to this, and brother Lee even pointed to this time as being the beginning of a decline, giving his different reasons for it. See Don and Benson in http://www.ourneedtoexamineourselves...entintheLC.pdf for a closer look.

Steve Isitt
February 3, 2013
Cagayan de Oro, the Philippines

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Brother Steve,

If Witness Lee's ministry, (which borrowed so heavily from the ministry of the Plymouth Brethren, without appropriate acknowledgement and credit), was really so wonderful and godly and spiritual and full of "Christ", then we would have to expect it would have produced a great deal of spiritual fruit; for Christ said "He who abides in Me bears much fruit." (John 15:5)

And what are "Spiritual fruits"? Paul tells us in his letter to the Galatians:

Galatians 5:22-23 "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law."

And what is the ultimate results of such an abundance of spiritual fruit?

John 13:35 "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Steve, Brother, where is the love? If Witness Lee was (earlier on or ever) such a spiritual giant "raised up by the Lord", then when did we this kind of love from him and his ministry? We're told that such a move of the Lord ought to set the whole city - even the whole world to talking and taking notice! (see also Romans 1:8).

But what happened to you, Steve? Were you shown love, gentleness, kindness, goodness, peace and patience? Were Christians in "denominations" outside of the Local Church ever shown these things? Were any who stood in Lee's way ever shown such things? Were any who were "quarantined" shown such things?

No. In fact, many were stumbled because of Lee; and the testimonies of those who were stumbled are all here for you to read. Serious damage was done to hearts, minds, psyches, and yes - spirits, because of Lee and his ministry. You know this.

What did Christ say about those who cause others to stumble?

Mark 9:42 "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea."

Don't be wowed by Lee's vocabulary or Brethren education. You know what became of the Exclusive Brethren, and you can read the testimonies of those damaged and stumbled by that movement too; despite their "high peak truths". That's why we are to judge the tree by it's fruit, and not by the loveliness of it's bark and leaves. Consider what Christ said to those who caused little ones who believe in Him to be stumbled - it was no small matter to Him. It doesn't sound like such a one will even be "saved as though through fire", does it?

"It is terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Hebrews 10:31

Your brother In Christ,

Ray

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Steve, Brother, where is the love? If Witness Lee was (earlier on or ever) such a spiritual giant "raised up by the Lord", then when did we this kind of love from him and his ministry? We're told that such a move of the Lord ought to set the whole city - even the whole world to talking and taking notice! (see also Romans 1:8).

But what happened to you, Steve? Were you shown love, gentleness, kindness, goodness, peace and patience? Were Christians in "denominations" outside of the Local Church ever shown these things? Were any who stood in Lee's way ever shown such things? Were any who were "quarantined" shown such things?

No. In fact, many were stumbled because of Lee; and the testimonies of those who were stumbled are all here for you to read. Serious damage was done to hearts, minds, psyches, and yes - spirits, because of Lee and his ministry. You know this.

What did Christ say about those who cause others to stumble?

Mark 9:42 "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea."

NFNL, the question goes without saying where is the love? Brothers may say they love Steve, however actions speak louder than words.

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 1 Corinthians 13:1

As you have experienced, all it takes is the utterance of a blended co-worker for one to become persona non grata. Because of man-honoring, all past memories of fellowship is erased out of respect to another man deemed more honorable. I see preference, but I do not see love.

In the context of Luke 6:32 what love does exist is conditional. A manner of conditional love saints are stumbled by when they don't measure up.
How many times have we read throughout the Bible, "love your neighbor as yourself"? This love is without condition. It is a commandment.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Indiana

[COLOR=Navy]
It is not that brother Lee did not care for God’s building. He did care for what was on God’s heart. But, like David, he had discrepancies in his good testimony that he cared for God’s heart only.

Steve, Lee taught some good things, and he taught some bad things. Just because you were really blessed by the good things does not make the bad things he taught any better. They are still just as bad.

The problem here is not that you defend Lee. The problem is you make it sound like you agree with most or all of Lee's teachings, but take exception to some of his actions. I diverge with you here. Many of Lee's bad actions can be directly traced to his bad teachings.

Some of these include:

• MOTA -- Made him unaccountable.
  
• Extreme views of spiritual authority -- led to abuse and control.
  
• Extreme view of separation from "the world" -- isolated people, making them vulnerable to suggestion. Closed door on legitimate options and leading.
  
• Belief in one organizationally unified eldership per city to whom all should submit. -- More oppression and closing the door on reform and fresh starts.
  
• Declaring his movement the unique move of God -- Again, locking in a following and limiting options.
  
• Becoming God -- Confuses one's own nature with God himself.
  

These are just a few.

Just because Lee shared some good things, even some great things does not mean everything he shared was good. I think you need to make it clear what you believe about this.

The abuse you experienced is directly related to some of Lee's core beliefs. So you can't have it both ways. You either need to reject the bad beliefs, or admit you deserved the treatment you got. But there is a fundamental discrepancy in your worldview that just doesn't add up.

[Cal]

I realize I might sound like I'm all over the map here. I seem to be against Lee. Then I defend a teaching of his. Then Steve segues from my defense to more defense of his own, and I get on Steve for being too much.

Come on, Igzy! Where do you stand?

Where I stand is at trying to find balance between two extremes, both of which I think lead to cognitive dissonance, which steals peace.

One extreme seeks to dismiss Lee almost totally. This view leads to the dissonance from being unable to rationalize the rejection of ideas and things which genuinely were a blessing. This is could be called the Dump the Baby with the Bathwater extreme.

The other extreme wants to hang on to the idea that Lee was intended to be a great leader of a new movement which would revolutionize the Church. The view leads to the dissonance from trying to rationalize all Lee's failings, and also from continuing to accept those teachings of his which should be dropped, because of one's reverence to him. This could be called the Adore the Dirty Baby extreme.

The middle ground is this. Lee had some amazing insights, and he had some awful misses. At time he soared. Other times he belly flopped. In short, he was, like everyone else who ever lived except Jesus, unworthy of the kind of devotion the LC afforded him. He is proof positive no one should ever be considered THE minister of this or any other age.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Good evening Brother Igzy,

I understand, I think, what you're saying... and secularly speaking, what you are saying makes a lot of sense.

If Lee weren't a Christian leader, but was instead a CEO of a large multi-natonal conglomerate who had, on the one hand:

1) Made some poor business decisions in order to benefit his own family (nepotism).

2) Swindled some investors out of their investments, in order to cover the losses of his own company.

3) Maligned his competition in the market place, in order to gain more market share.

4) Black-balled employees who dissented from his decisions.

5) Increased his autonomous authority and greatly decreased his own accountability to his shareholders; becoming a defacto tyrant.


But who, on the other hand also:

6) Implemented radical new ideas that increased the wealth of the company.

7) Invested in R&D to develop new products to push his company to the forefront of it's market.

8) Gained market-share to greatly increase the profitability of his corporation.

9) Secured the loyalty of his employees to such an extent that he was able to reduce and even eliminate wages, increase work hours, and yet increase the workload of his employees.

10) Gained the hearts of his own employees to such an extent that when he died, no successor could be chosen; rather, only his previously handed down decisions and minutes from his meetings can be repeated and reiterated, for fear of losing the principles that made his company so strong.

...Such a CEO, were he uplifted to "sainthood" by some, and demonized by others, might indeed be someone we could cautiously learn from. Someone with whom we maybe could take the "balanced approach" you suggest.

But Lee was no CEO. Lee was a man who claimed to speak for God as his Oracle of this Age - and that being the case, we must use BIBLICAL, not secular principles, to judge how we ought to weigh his work.

And how are we to judge "Oracles"?

Jeremiah 23:28-40 "The prophet who has a dream may relate his dream, but let him who has My word speak My word in truth. What does straw have in common with grain?” declares the Lord. “Is not My word like fire?” declares the Lord, “and like a hammer which shatters a rock? Therefore behold, I am against the prophets,” declares the Lord, “who steal My words from each other. Behold, I am against the prophets,” declares the Lord, “who use their tongues and declare, ‘The Lord declares.’ Behold, I am against those who have prophesied false dreams,” declares the Lord, “and related them and led My people astray by their falsehoods and reckless boasting; yet I did not send them or command them, nor do they furnish this people the slightest benefit,” declares the Lord.
“Now when this people or the prophet or a priest asks you saying, ‘What is the oracle of the Lord?’ then you shall say to them, ‘What oracle?’ The Lord declares, ‘I will abandon you.’ Then as for the prophet or the priest or the people who say, ‘The oracle of the Lord,’ I will bring punishment upon that man and his household. Thus will each of you say to his neighbor and to his brother, ‘What has the Lord answered?’ or, ‘What has the Lord spoken?’ For you will no longer remember the oracle of the Lord, because every man’s own word will become the oracle, and you have perverted the words of the living God, the Lord of hosts, our God. Thus you will say to that prophet, ‘What has the Lord answered you?’ and, ‘What has the Lord spoken?’ For if you say, ‘The oracle of the Lord!’ surely thus says the Lord, ‘Because you said this word, “The oracle of the Lord!” I have also sent to you, saying, “You shall not say, ‘The oracle of the Lord!’”’ Therefore behold, I will surely forget you and cast you away from My presence, along with the city which I gave you and your fathers.I will put an everlasting reproach on you and an everlasting humiliation which will not be forgotten.”

The Lord was very clear, in the latter days False Prophets would come. In fact, every book of the New Testament (except one) speaks of False Prophets, and how we are to deal with them (as well as how the Lord deals with them).

You have likened, perhaps unintentionally, Lee to a "Baby" in your argument - either a "baby being thrown out with bathwater", or a "filthy baby". But babies are innocent. If they are dirty, it is because they haven't been properly cared for or watched. Lee was not innocent. Lee was not under the care of any others; he claimed authority for himself, and that has very serious repercussions before our Lord.

James 3:1 "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly."

Lee didn't claim to be a "Teacher" of the Word of God, but "THE" Teacher of the Word - and without his footnotes (private interpretations), he taught that one could not properly grow in faith or understanding. How seriously (strictly) will he be judged for that?

Further, what you acknowledge as being "genuinely Lee's" were parts of his teachings (interpretations) of the Word. But Jesus Christ our Lord never taught that full understanding of the Written Word was required for spiritual growth or salvation. On the contrary, Christ said that study of the Scriptures (apart from acceptance of Christ as He is - our LORD) was worthless:

John 5:39-44 "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. "I do not accept praise from men, but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?"

Faith saves, not knowledge; and the kind of faith Christ told us he sought was "child-like" faith and repentance.

Matthew 18:3 "Then he said, "I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven."

So what is child-like faith, to the Israelite and a Father? Children in the Old Testament are commanded to "Honor their Father (and their mother)"; they know their place, they trust completely in their parents to care for them and meet their needs. They are content in all things with their parents provision, regardless of it's material worth. They love their parents with their whole heart, mind, soul and strength.

If Christ wanted us to know and understand His every Word (rather than simply trust and obey), then why did He say to His disciples:

John 16:12 "“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now."


And if Christ wanted us to sift through the teachings of false teachers, to gleen what might have been "good' (right) about what they taught, then why did He say to us in His Word:

Titus 1:10-11 "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers.... Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake."

Igzy, Christ didn't treat false teachers and false teachings with kid gloves. Over and over again the Word of God stresses that false teachers are damned by God, and that we must beware of them.

Steve, you have likened Witness Lee to David. There are many, many differences between these two men, and I won't go into an exposition on those differences save to say this:

When David sinned before the Lord (with Bathsheba), and was confronted by God's prophet (Nathan), he repented before the Lord. Further, although David prayed on his face before God for mercy for his newborn son, God would not answer that prayer. God told David he was forgiven, but that the sword would never depart from his house. When David's son died, David got up, and worshipped his God - the God who gives, and who takes away. David praised God for His Holiness, and His Righteousness.

When Lee sinned, he covered it up. When he was caught, he destroyed the reputations of those who outted him. Lee did not repent, he did damage control, by going on the offensive. Lee did whatever it took to protect his reputation, his standing amongst "his churches" and maintain his religious empire. Witness Lee denies the Righteousness of God, and teaches instead that "the greatest sin before the Lord is not to enjoy Him." That is nothing more than a damnable lie, and you won't find it anywhere in the Bible.

If David behaved the way Lee did, (if he accused and 'quarantined' Nathan, if he went after Nathan's supporters by propagating and publishing lies to cover up his crime, if he refused to acknowledge his sin and guilt) do you REALLY think God would STILL have said "David is a man after My own heart"? Brother, there is NO WAY.

...I find it most telling indeed that the Bible says that God disciplines those whom He loves (Proverbs 3:12, Hebrews 12:6), and yet Lee seemingly "got away with it all". He lived a very long life, died with his "empire" intact, and was interred in a monumental cemetary before his weeping followers; upheld as the "perfect God-man" by the LSM loyal. That alone speaks volumes, does it not?

[Cal]

Ray,

I think you are still missing my point a bit. I'm not talking about how we should ultimately judge Witness Lee. Because at this point I'm not interested in judging Lee. That's God's job. Lee's dead. I can't stone him and I'm not sure stoning false prophets carries over into the New Testament. And even if it did we couldn't legally carry it out anyway. So what are you suggesting we do to him at this point?

I'm talking about what we should do with the things he taught. You are making a strong case for judging Lee harshly. Okay, fine as far as that goes. But that still doesn't tell me what to do with the what he taught. Lee taught redemption. Should I throw that out because Lee taught it? You'd probably say "of course not." Okay then, what should I throw out? Only the things he taught that were different than conventional Christianity? That's an convenient standard, but it's also arbitrary.

I think people are ambivalent about Lee because though some of the things he did they can't countenance, some things he taught touched them deeply. It's easy to simply want to wipe his legacy away with a broad brush, and some have taken that path. But that still doesn't satisfy all the questions.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ray,

I think you are still missing my point a bit. I'm not talking about how we should ultimately judge Witness Lee. Because at this point I'm not interested in judging Lee. That's God's job. Lee's dead. I can't stone him and I'm not sure stoning false prophets carries over into the New Testament. And even if it did we couldn't legally carry it out anyway. So what are you suggesting we do to him at this point?

I'm talking about what we should do with the things he taught. You are making a strong case for judging Lee harshly. Okay, fine as far as that goes. But that still doesn't tell me what to do with the what he taught. Lee taught redemption. Should I throw that out because Lee taught it? You'd probably say "of course not." Okay then, what should I throw out? Only the things he taught that were different than conventional Christianity? That's an convenient standard, but it's also arbitrary.

I think people are ambivalent about Lee because though some of the things he did they can't countenance, some things he taught touched them deeply. It's easy to simply want to wipe his legacy away with a broad brush, and some have taken that path. But that still doesn't satisfy all the questions.

That was a serious question. You've made a strong case that Lee should be judged as a false prophet. But there are some troublesome questions about this that I'd like your opinion on.

• If Lee was a false teacher, then why at times did his ministry seem so anointed?
  
  
• How can seemingly serious and thoughtful Christians be so deceived by someone you clearly see as a false teacher?
  
  
• Why would God seemingly bless the ministry of a false teacher? Why confuse followers in that way?
  
  
• What does one do with the truly innovative teachings of a false teacher?
  
  
• What does a former follower do with those teachings that he felt blessed him and he even treasured when he finally concludes there were elements of a false teacher in the source?

I'm not weighing on either side of this right now. I'm just asking what people think, because I think the area I'm talking about is a real source of confusion.

I know OBW has offered that the source of Recovery blessing was not Lee, but the commitment of the members. That is plausible. But it doesn't explain why the blessing often seemed strongest when we were sitting at the feet of Lee. Can anyone explain?

[Indiana]

I cut out parts of this section below before posting the paper at the top. I would like to share more of my thoughts on the subject here,

Lee like David, cont.

Like David also, brother Lee did err. I am not happy to see David’s blots on the record; or Abraham’s; or the children of Israel, whose names are written with honor on the 12 gates of the of the New Jerusalem in Revelation. But the word says of those “children”, “Behold, I see no iniquity in Israel;” and of Abraham, he is our father; and of David, that God “found him to be a man after His own heart.” I sympathize with the frailty of fallen man. I have erred myself and have blots. To point out the failings of Witness Lee and list them in the manner often done on this forum, and wipe out all he has contributed to the Lord’s work to build His church and prepare a Bride, is not to properly represent the person.

He misaimed and misdirected the churches; he misrepresented and mistreated brothers. But we should not misaim ourselves and dismiss altogether his six decades of work of faith and labor of love in bearing heavy responsibility and burdens daily in the churches.

He is responsible for his mistakes, and he himself has said, “I have made mistakes, even big mistakes” (Eph. L. S., p. 273). Shall we list them. I have already done so in the link below which I call Mistakes to Contemplate. http://www.hidinghistoryinthelordsre...ontemplate.pdf

I don’t list certain mistakes referred to on the forum that were from pre-USA days in which he showed the propensity to do damage, which certainly did come to fruition in the USA. I don’t list them because I don’t know both sides of the story of those occurrences with other leaders or those business dealings, and what happened in the Far East in the sixties didn’t affect the blessing of the Spirit in the USA. Both he and Watchman Nee had very tough jobs in dealing with other leaders. It is not that brother Lee did not care for God’s building. He did care for what was on God’s heart. But, like David, he has discrepancies in his testimony that he cared for God’s heart only. There is no anointing for me to speak to any pre-1974 problems. In 1970 thru 1973, there was a moving of the Spirit among us. In January 1974, Lee and Max stormed to the forefront and the changes outwardly that took place after that changed the spirit of the move inwardly. The move of the Lord was stopped. I witnessed this and so did Don Rutledge in more intense fashion as a leader. Refer to http://www.ourneedtoexamineourselves...entintheLC.pdf (Don and Benson)

Make no mistake, you know who I am; I speak the truth about Witness Lee and the trouble he brought to the churches. He was not like Noah whose sin could be covered. He is responsible for untold anguish, suffering, turmoil; division, devastation, and damage in the churches. He has built with straw. Because he and others, especially those he mentored, have done their damage, effecting hundreds and hundreds of people and the oneness in the Body, the truth has to be told about their deviation. So, I have done this for the sake of truth http://www.makingstraightthewayofthe...dsRecovery.pdf

This book in the link takes apart point by point, or straw by straw, that evil book of lies, and straw, The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. It is a sin-ridden book of false witness. Truth is not its concern; headship of Christ is not its concern;keeping the oneness in the Body is not its concern, learning from Lee’s mistakes and listening to the Body is not their concern. The concern in the book is for Witness Lee and his image, to protect his ministry at any cost, and to further an agenda set forth by him.

This shows the appreciation of Witness Lee and his ministry is high, but, also the lack of integrity and regard for Christ and a true testimomy. I also have high regard for Witness Lee’s ministry, but not for the men who cannot tell the truth, handle the truth, or even acknowledge the truth, caring only to be in one accord on a path of deviation among ministry churches who support such an evil book and sordid past.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Indiana

..To point out the failings of Witness Lee and list them in the manner often done on this forum, and wipe out genuine contribution of his to the Lord’s work to build His church, is not properly representing him. He misaimed and misdirected the churches; he mistreated and misrepresented brothers. But we should not misaim ourselves and dismiss altogether his six decades of work of faith and labor of love in bearing heavy responsibility and burdens daily in the churches.

If Witness Lee actually had "genuine contribution to the Lord's work to build His church", then this could never be wiped out by some postings on a little Internet forum. "Every man's work shall be made manifest" says the holy Word of God. Nobody can escape this - not you, not me and not Witness Lee. Lee will get credit for the gold, silver and precious stones that he may have mined out. The laborer will not be denied his wages. Along with the gold, silver and precious stones there was wood, hay and straw.

Brothers and sisters. Besides the obvious intrinsic value, what is the real difference between gold, silver and precious stones and wood, hay and straw? Is it not that the latter is produced by the labor of man? If a man builds with gold, silver and precious stones it will remain. The wind and rain will come. The fire will come. If what was produced is truly of God it will remain. Whether it be six months, six decades or six hundred years....the gold, silver and precious stones will remain. And no man will have to point out to us and proclaim "see! see! Look at all that gold, silver and precious stones! Those who know God and know his Word will recognize and appreciate, and yes even give credit where credit is due.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by Igzy

He (Witness Lee) was a very impressive person. Not in the way of being charismatic or physically striking. You would just really sense the presence of God when you were around him....

Anointed just means full of the presence of the Holy Spirit. It means a real sense that the words are bringing you closer to God. They don't seem empty or dry but rich with the water of life. It's an experiential thing.

Good morning brother,

Thank you for answering those questions - I appreciate your honesty, and your testimony. If you would permit me, I would now like to offer some of those answers of mine that you asked about... and in doing that I want to reiterate that I wasn't there with you - any of you - who were with Witness Lee in the flesh. To my mind, that should not detract from what I have to say about his teachings, as I think they've been very faithfully relayed both here and in the published LSM literature. I also have the experience of being a part of Lee's legacy, of seeing both damaged saints and those who are still a part of the group. I have spoken to them, worshipped with them, and lived with them.

Igzy, I want to start with your quote above. You can see that I have italicized and bolded what I would say are your "key words" in defining an "anointing" or "anointed leader." Such a thing, you say, should be sensed.

I would like to share with you some quotes from a book Watchman Nee published in Chinese earlier in his ministry, about such things as these senses.

"....Satan's first work as deceiver... (is) working upon an innocent creature's highest and purest desires, and cloaking his own purpose of ruin, under the guise of seeking to lead a human being nearer to God."

"Caught with the bait of being 'wise' and 'like God', Eve is blinded to the principle involved in obedience to God, and is DECEIVED (1 Timothy 2:14)"

"The keenest way in which the Devil deceives the world, and the Church, is when he comes in the guise of somebody, or something, which apparently causes them to go God-ward"

"The arch-deceiver is not only the deceiver of the whole unregenerate world, but of the children of God also; with this difference, that in the deception he seeks to practice upon the saints, he changes his tactics, and works with acutest strategy, in wiles of error, and deception concerning thing of God (Matthew 24:24, 2nd Cor 11:3,13-15)"

"When he (the formerly fleshy or carnal Christian) emerges into the heavenly places, described by Paul in the Epistle to the Ephesians, he will find himself in the very keenest workings of the wiles of the deceiver, where the deceiving spirits are actively at work attacking those who are united to the Risen Lord."

"The believers highest experience of union with the Lord, and in the "high places" of the spiritual maturity of the Church, will the keenest and closest battle be fought with the deceiver and his hosts."

"The peril of the Church at the close of the age is, therefore, from supernatural beings who are "hypocrites", who pretend what they are not, who give "teachings" which appear to make for greater holiness, by producing ascetic severity to the "flesh", but who themselves are wicked and unclean and bring those they deceive into contact with the foulness of their presence."

"Working in the line of teaching, deceiving spirits will insert their "lies" spoken in hypocrisy, into "holiness" teaching, and deceive believers about sin, themselves, and all other truths connected with the spiritual life."

"texts are aptly picked out from over a wide field, and so netted together as to appear to give a full revelation of the mind of God; but the intervening passages, giving historical setting, actions and circumstances connected with the speaking of the words, and other elements which give light on each separate text, are skillfully dropped out."

"truth alone dispels the deceptive doctrines of the teaching spirits of Satan: the truth of God, not merely "views of truth".

"dependence upon a Christ within... is really a resting upon an inward experience, and a turning from the Christ in Heaven, which actually blocks the avenue for the inflow of His life, and disassociates the believers from co-operation with Him by the Spirit."

"The counterfeit "presence" of God is nearly always manifested as "love", to which the believer opens himself without hesitation, and finds it fills and satiates his innermost being, but the deceived one does not know that he has opened himself to the activity of evil spirits in the deepest need of his inner life".

Igzy, Watchman Nee considered these words so anointed and true that he translated them into Chinese for his people, and taught them in his Little Flock. Many years later, Witness Lee would refute all of the teachings in this book,and openly castigated it and it's original author - as well as Nee's "misdirected" acceptance of such a work.... but that's because it blows Lee's theology out of the water, and it does that with Biblical teaching, Biblical truth. Feelings, senses, and experiences are not to be trusted.

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" Jeremiah 17:9

"For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander." Matthew 15:19


Can God allow His people, His chosen, to be deceived? Absolutely. Even the disciples, at the Last Supper, when Christ told them that one among them was about to betray Him, did not turn their eyes to Judas. Even when Christ exposed him, by saying that "he who dips his bread into the bowl with me" was the one, they did not believe it. Judas Iscariot was one of the twelve, he was sent out to preach the gospel, to cast out evil spirits and to heal the sick... and apparently, he did all those things - why else was he never suspected? ...And yet it were better for that man had he never been born.

Paul said, in 2nd Corinthians 11:12-16 "I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us (apostles) in the things they boast about. For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve."

*******************

Interesting you should mention the Keswick Revival, as the quotes above were from a member of the Body whom the Lord raised up in that very place in time. Jesse Penn Lewis, and her book "War on the Saints". Nee was right to translate this work and teach it. The truths expose and cut to the quick, and that can be painful... but the truth also sets free... Praise the Lord!

[Cal]

NFNL,

Thanks for the quote and the warning that even God's people can be deceived.

While I appreciate your warning about the potential deception involved with subjective experiences, the fact is a Christian is supposed to have them. Verse after verse in the Bible tell us of things which can only be understood from the standpoint of experiencing them. Some examples:

Then coming to the borders of Mysia, they headed north for the province of Bithynia, but again the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them to go there. Acts 16:7.

As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him. 1Jn 2:27

In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. Jn 14:20

So while warnings about the potential pitfalls of taking one's cues from our subjective experience are warranted, the fact is they are a essential part of the Christian experience. And since we are supposed to have them, they are supposed to form something of the reality of our lives and worldview. They are not optional or expendable.

It's also good to be warned that our experiences should never contradict the Bible. The problem with that is that the Bible cannot be interpreted correctly outside of experience. We need the Spirit to guide us into the correct interpretation, and the guidance of the Spirit is a subjective experience. So it's a bit of a Catch-22. You need the Bible to check your experience, but you need your experience to correctly interpret the Bible. The verses above are prime examples. Without experience, there are all kinds of false interpretations one could take from them.

Like all things that really matter, theory is easy. It's application that matters.

[ZNPaaneah]

Steve sent me an email about this thread and asked me specifically to join the discussion.

It seems the thread is about a number of teachings that Steve learned in the LRC that are good teachings. I also am thankful for these teachings. I do not like the paragraph that compares WL to David, I think those kind of judgments are inflammatory and are better made by the Lord Jesus.

Perhaps if I share some personal experiences it might help. Igzy is focused on those people who are stuck in limbo in trying to decide to leave the LRC or not to leave. There are also those that had positive experiences in the LRC and cannot figure out what to make of those experiences in the light of the fuller picture of who WL really was. Perhaps this experience might help them.

I was on a Pee Wee football team. I think it was when I was in sixth and seventh grade. We went undefeated for both years. We flew to Florida and Texas to play bowl games. We were told that we were “National Champions” both years, but that calculation is based on GPA and other strange calculations like how much time our 3rd string played. About four years later this coach was accused of molesting kids on the football team. It was front page news and I was outraged. I went to some of the other players from my old team to find out how we should respond to this slander about our coach. They confirmed in private that he was a child molestor. This was devastating to me. But then my father told me something I have never forgotten. He said “he was a good coach”. He did not mean that this guy should be coaching, or that he shouldn’t be locked up, what he meant was that all the things that made us a good team were a result of good coaching. Yes he belonged in jail, but that doesn’t mean you can’t walk away with a lot of good lessons. In hindsight we were a very well coached team, and the coach was a child molestor. Both things were true.

For some reason the “ground of the church” doctrine is a lightening rod on this forum. I based my decision to leave the LRC on this doctrine. I visited another congregation and realized they were much more in line with the concept of embracing all genuine believers in the city than the LRC was. I agree that the application of this teaching in the LRC is divisive and arrogant, which Igzy has stated. However, I find plenty of NT justification to say that any congregation meeting as the church in a city should be open to and embrace every genuine believer in that city, and that principle is the “ground of the church”. I have concluded that a “single eldership” in a city is not practical and have discarded that concept. As long as every believer in a city accepts the 7 ones in Ephesians (One God, one Lord, etc.) then that is sufficient for me. And this brings me to the idea that Steve wants to reform the LRC. To me it is abundantly clear that there are many things that the LRC must repent of. They have become very divisive, perhaps the most divisive Christian group that I am familiar with. Considering the emphasis on “oneness” and condemnation of “division” in their teachings this is extremely hypocritical. If they receive mercy from the Lord to see they are blind, and naked and poor then perhaps they will repent. Telling them that WL, like David, was a man after God’s heart, is in my opinion, not an effective path towards repentance.

But what is made very clear on this forum is that everyone associated with the LRC is painted with the same brush as WL. It is not possible to be in the LRC for any length of time without having a crisis of conscience. I only met Phillip Lee once, but I knew immediately that he was a lascivious man of flesh that had no business being involved in a spiritual ministry. This caused me to question RG’s judgment (because he seemed blind to what was very obvious) and WL’s judgment. When I got the report of John Ingall’s leaving the LRC I knew something smelled rotten. Finally when I saw that the church in NYC was a divisive sect and did not embrace every believer in the city I felt free to walk away. I am reminded of the verse “your righteousness is as filthy rags”. When you try to balance out the bad with the good it is like mopping up a filthy mess with rags. You are left with “filthy rags”. I am pretty sure that the word here is actually more specific, I think it means “menstrous rags”, so this filth refers to blood. Being a “good coach” does not compensate for being a child molestor. Being a good Bible teacher doesn’t compensate for the sins you have done. Until the LRC sees this they are going to continue to be blind, and poor, and naked.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This was devastating to me. But then my father told me something I have never forgotten. He said “he was a good coach”. He did not mean that this guy should be coaching, or that he shouldn’t be locked up, what he meant was that all the things that made us a good team were a result of good coaching. Yes he belonged in jail, but that doesn’t mean you can’t walk away with a lot of good lessons. In hindsight we were a very well coached team, and the coach was a child molestor. Both things were true.

Being a good Bible teacher doesn’t compensate for the sins you have done. Until the LRC sees this they are going to continue to be blind, and poor, and naked.

Great story. So appropriate. Definitely appreciate your father's wisdom.

Just like some of us were, many in the LC's are just ignorant of what the "coach" in Anaheim was doing. Hence, they may have many wonderful experiences with the rest of the team, and like you said, "walk away with a lot of good lessons."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

For some reason the “ground of the church” doctrine is a lightening rod on this forum. I based my decision to leave the LRC on this doctrine. I visited another congregation and realized they were much more in line with the concept of embracing all genuine believers in the city than the LRC was.

ZNP, this has been my experience as well. Mutually at a SBC church and at the community church I currently meet with. There's no need to emphasize the ground of the church in order to receive all believers. Perhaps once you do need to emphasize the ground of the church is an indication of a lack. Much more than focusing on doctrinal truths, there is the need of first having a right heart.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I was on a Pee Wee football team. I think it was when I was in sixth and seventh grade. We went undefeated for both years. We flew to Florida and Texas to play bowl games. We were told that we were “National Champions” both years, but that calculation is based on GPA and other strange calculations like how much time our 3rd string played. About four years later this coach was accused of molesting kids on the football team. It was front page news and I was outraged. I went to some of the other players from my old team to find out how we should respond to this slander about our coach. They confirmed in private that he was a child molestor. This was devastating to me. But then my father told me something I have never forgotten. He said “he was a good coach”. He did not mean that this guy should be coaching, or that he shouldn’t be locked up, what he meant was that all the things that made us a good team were a result of good coaching. Yes he belonged in jail, but that doesn’t mean you can’t walk away with a lot of good lessons. In hindsight we were a very well coached team, and the coach was a child molestor. Both things were true.

But in the realm of Christian teachers, were are told to reject them outright.

As for your story, I like it. It does portray a complicated reality. And in the world, reality is complicated. People who are advocates for important causes often have other issues that would disqualify them from other things. As part of the American trend in tolerance, we would tolerate his/her advocacy of one cause even though disqualified for another.

But in the Christian realm, things that might seem unrelated are a basis for disqualification from many other things. And among those are any kind of Christian leadership. It doesn't matter how much of a teacher's words are wholesome, if they are not qualified to teach (among those that should be refused, among other statements made in scripture) then they are not to be heard.

The problem with this kind of story is not the story itself. It is that it is given as evidence that it is OK to be double-minded in the Christian realm. It is not OK to cheat your followers, make bold lies to discredit those who could expose your errors, but we can still get great benefit from your teaching. At least once, Paul essentially said that this was not correct. In at least one case he dismissed certain teachers without reference to what it was they were teaching. Based on other aspects of their personal life and the manner of leading, they were disqualified.

This story, though thought provoking, does not change the underlying principle. It tugs at our hearts. But it does not excuse Lee or Nee. It is provided as a basis for dismissing the scriptural mandate for a softer, kinder, more American way.