SPLIT THREAD - Control and Addiction in the Local Church

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Ohio in your post #39 you bring out an interesting point regarding Lee's behavior and those of his followers i.e. what and who did he really control? His claim that he controlled nobody is actually true in the literal sense. What did Lee actually make someone else do?

It's an interesting phenom. Why did people living in a country like America, Canada etc i.e. free societies feel controlled by a guy like Lee? Why do some still act like they are under his control after he is dead for over a decade? And even act like he is not really dead. At what point on the curve do we say: a person is responsible for their own emotions and thoughts and if they feel or think they are under control it is an internal reality but not an objective one?

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by djohnson

Ohio in your post #39 you bring out an interesting point regarding Lee's behavior and those of his followers i.e. what and who did he really control? His claim that he controlled nobody is actually true in the literal sense. What did Lee actually make someone else do?

It's an interesting phenom. Why did people living in a country like America, Canada etc i.e. free societies feel controlled by a guy like Lee? Why do some still act like they are under his control after he is dead for over a decade? And even act like he is not really dead. At what point on the curve do we say: a person is responsible for their own emotions and thoughts and if they feel or think they are under control it is an internal reality but not an objective one?

DJ,
Your question might be for Ohio, but if I may, I'd like to throw in my .02 worth into the hat.

People are attracted to 'power'. Often times, in the secular world for example, a beautiful young chickie-poo ends up marrying an old fogey...awww but the fogey has $$$ & power. And the old fogey gets a 'trophey'. So it's tit-for-tat.

There are many charasmatic preachers/teachers out there. Some are genuine and have been studying and studying the Word of God, living crucified lives unto the Lord, living in His Presence. Thus the Lord has 'rewarded' them..or should I say, called them to preach or teach. A true blue teacher will not only teach the Word of God but will draw people to GOD Himself..and to the WORD of God.

If a person under a teacher hungers for the Word & to be in the Presence of GOD & is drawn to the LORD through that person, he/she is a good teacher. The 'student' might give some credit to the teacher but is quick to give ALL GLORY & PRAISE to the LORD. That is a good teacher.

Lee may have started out that way...but by the late 70's many of us who had been under his ministry for a few years began to see the focus was on Lee not on the Lord.

How come they choose to follow a man be him dead or alive more than God?People are lazy! They'd rather sit under someone to teach them or preach to them than to search the scriptures and spend lots of time alone time with God getting to know Him. It's a lot of work searching the scriptures, learning to listen to the Holy Spirit guide you, counsel you, direct your heart & mind in Christ Jesus. A lot of WORK!

But it's BLESSED WORK! The work blesses us and we bless the Lord & bless people and if people are doing the same, then they become a blessing to us and a blessing to the Lord. This is how we build up the body of Christ.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by djohnson

Ohio in your post #39 you bring out an interesting point regarding Lee's behavior and those of his followers i.e. what and who did he really control? His claim that he controlled nobody is actually true in the literal sense. What did Lee actually make someone else do?

It's an interesting phenom. Why did people living in a country like America, Canada etc i.e. free societies feel controlled by a guy like Lee? Why do some still act like they are under his control after he is dead for over a decade? And even act like he is not really dead. At what point on the curve do we say: a person is responsible for their own emotions and thoughts and if they feel or think they are under control it is an internal reality but not an objective one?

I hate to say it, but you are correct, and incorrect all in the same breath. In a free society in a religion that speaks of free will, control is exercised only on those who grant it (assuming you are not talking about prison or some other forced servitude).

But just like that question that got a bunch of people riled up at you in the other forum a couple of years ago in which you questioned the exercise of free will, the fact is that human nature causes many people to abdicate their free will in situations in which they would not do so if they had all aspects of their faculties and free will working properly. It is a little like the elephant that is said to never break away from the relatively small rope tied around its leg and a stake in the ground even though they have more than enough power to walk away without hardly noticing it. (I do not know if that is true or jungle legend.) The mind is a fragile and quirky thing. When you think there is authority, then you tend to follow it even if there is no actual authority. And if you revere that authority highly enough, you tend to allow it to get away with more than it should.

Now those of us who tend to over-think things first, then slowly submit where we see valid authority, we get upset at such displays of control and eventually will either speak out or just leave the situation. But everyone is not the same.

So in pure terms, you are right. But because of the nature of man, you are not entirely right.

[IDon'tKnow]

Originally Posted by OBW

But in that quote from scripture, it is presumed that we love those who love us. And one of the ways that we show love is by helping others see their flaws — not as a way to shame them, but to help them improve. But when they refuse any counsel, then they seem to display even a lack of love for those who love them.

Yes but when we no longer think that they love us. When we believe that somebody has done something against us. Then do we get out the knifes. My point is that I believe Witness did. As soon as he saw something which was a threat to his work (and thus in his eyes God's work). It was open season on them. This could be somewhat akin to the mafioso who might be quite kind and gentle with someone until that person eventually refused to do him a favour (bow to his authority).

Also when we speak about control it should also be noted that Lee and his followers believe that he is the minister of the age, and hence to an extent his actions are equated with God's (Acting God). Therefore seeing as how Lee and his followers believe (at least at some level) that Lee's will and God's will are somewhat synonymous when he's controlling it's not him it's actually God. Furthermore when he is more overtly influencing the situation he's just helping God's will along.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by djohnson

Ohio in your post #39 you bring out an interesting point regarding Lee's behavior and those of his followers i.e. what and who did he really control? His claim that he controlled nobody is actually true in the literal sense. What did Lee actually make someone else do?

The issue of control is systemic to the LC's, beginning with WL, then the workers, leaders, elders, serving ones, saints, etc. Bad patterns were taught and duplicated throughout the program.

Here's a sad example of a story which occurred 10 years ago in the Cleveland hall #1 Lobby. An elder disagreed with a decision my wife and I made which affected a few saints. He knew of our decision well in advance, via prayer and much fellowship, yet disagreed with our decision. During break time, there was a short shouting match in a room filled with saints coming and going. At one point he shouted in my face, "can't you control your wife?"

Not being the fastest thinker afoot, I responded "it's against the law to control people." Fortunately, I was able to turn around and walk out the door before this little confrontation turned violent.

The point here is this: Define what control means. When is control ... control. Who sets boundaries for the word? Who determines when those boundaries are crossed? I could sit here and tell other more tragic stories of ones who felt they were controlled by leaders who would refuse to admit they controlled anybody. The LC lexicon for the word control obviously differed from that of the greater body of Christ.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

I define control as a person or person/s who can force you to do something against your will. Lee perhaps was perceived as such a person but in fact was not. In a free society very few people have that kind of power a/k/a "police power".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by djohnson

I define control as a person or person/s who can force you to do something against your will.

I'm not sure if this definition works. Now we need to define what the phrases "can force" and "against your will" really mean, and what healthy limits or boundaries are placed on these definitions. In some cases, dear saints never realized the controls upon them until they left the program and reflected years later.

When saints place trust in the authorities over them, all too often those in leadership to not serve them properly, as Peter says (IP5.2) "Feed the flock of God, taking oversight, not by constraint, not for filthy lucre, not lording it over them." How easy it is for immature leaders to "play god" with the saints lives, thinking they can do better than the Lord Himself.

[countmeworthy]

You guys need to google 'the spirit of Jezebel'. It's a controlling spirit obviously named after the wife of Ahab.

If you read up on that spirit, you'll find it's not a 'woman' spirit..it's a spirit running rampat in the church-universal church. It's a technique used by people..men & women alike. Sometimes the controlling technique is OBVIOUS and Blatant but the more dangerous one is the subtle one that sneaks up on an innocent person.

The RCC is notorious for having that spirit. It's exposed in Revelation 2. The church in Thyatira has the spirit of Jezebel. Why do you think Catholics are so resistant in leaving the RCC? The RCC doesn't care about their fornications, their adulteries, their sins...as long as you don't leave 'the one true church'.

How many threads/posts have we read about the similarities between Lee and the Pope? What do they have in common? Control-the spirit of Jezebel.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by djohnson

I define control as a person or person/s who can force you to do something against your will. Lee perhaps was perceived as such a person but in fact was not. In a free society very few people have that kind of power a/k/a "police power".

I understand. That is the reason that you got the kind of reception two years ago and you will probably get some of the same this time.

But control is not just forcing to act against will, but also to control the will so that it aligns with the controller and therefore does what it would not do before the change in will. It includes an altering of the will so that you willingly do what you would not do at some time in the past. Your analysis is presuming a strong will that sees, hears, and recognizes the attach upon it before it allows itself to be changed. But if we, and our wills, are not on guard, we can often be persuaded to change in very small ways. Then more small ways. Then even more. Eventually, our will is very different.

It is potentially easier to do in a religious context because we must presume that God does change our wills. So if the one who seeks control can convince you that his/her direction is consistent with God's will, then they can take you where you might not otherwise go.

I sort of see this happen without a control issue when people begin to realize that they must love their "neighbors" and they are mostly sinners. So how do you love a sinner but not his sin? Some unwittingly drop their strong stance against certain sins rather than simply dropping their hatred of the people who practice those sins. They take a wrong path toward a desired goal. The result may not be that they would actually engage in that sin, but they may become vocal advocates of accepting such sin into the church. Churches that reach out to the gay community have this issue all the time. Are they trying to bring them to Christ and ultimately repentance, or are they trying to bring a sinful lifestyle into a Christian social circle without any thought of changing it?

[OBW]

CMW,

I hate to say this, but I read the Jon Hamilton article on The Spirit of Jezebel again and had some of the same questions as I did before.

I admit that Jezebel was a wicked woman in the OT, and see that God referred to an influence in the NT as being from allowing Jezebel. But much of what Jon writes is his conjecture and add-ons. He adds one statement after another of what “a Jezebel spirit is,” yet only a few of those are from actual observations in scripture concerning the ways of the historical Jezebel, at least that are cited as such.

Then he goes on to state that this spirit is “the force behind” so many of the ills of American society. Yet Revelation is only concerned with what is being allowed into the church.

But the thing that is most troubling is the story concerning the Welsh revival and his version of the story of Evans Roberts and Jesse Penn-Lewis. Even if the chronological accounts are correct, the cast of evilness upon JPL is not substantiated. The reasons for the changes in Evans may have been true and spiritual.

It might have been that his leading of such a revival was more like phenomenon of the kid preacher (can’t remember his name) decades ago in the US. He could speak strongly and it wowed a lot of people. Many actually came to Christ as a result. But he had no actual conviction of his own — at least not one that would make him a viable preacher.

In any case, the character and reason for the events is stated as fact, yet there is no evidence that Jon has done more than cast his opinion about those events. Given that there is nothing more than an opinion about what happened and why it happened, it looks more like someone who has an ax to grind and can make his case by tricking us into believing his stuff as fact.

Even if there is some truth in the general premise of the article, the biggest problem I have is the kind of “watch out, there’s a snake under every rock” attitude that comes out. While we can argue that Satan is behind all the evils of the world, when you start to treat it as something about the spirit of the humans who practice the evil and some common denominator among them that must be avoided, it tends to make you want to run to the hills, build a private compound, stock up lots of food and water and retreat from all contact with them. It is the start of another separatism movement within Christianity. It will strike out at other Christians who do not see what they see. And having just read some of the other things on Jon's homepage, there is some hints at the truthfulness of that assessment. There's too much focus on the enemy. I will admit a prejudice of mine in saying that, in the contxt of the rest of what I read, the fact that he and his wife are homschooling their 8 kids adds to the picture that I suspected. (I have nothing specific against homeschooling except for some of the reasons given for doing it, expecially by people who have no business being the source of knowledge for kids that will need to know more than their parents know.)

We are to be wise. But we are also to be in the world, just not of it. Each day has enough evil for itself. If we start to put all the evil in the world into some huge interlinked web that is after us, ... well let’s just say that we don’t need to worry about the fact that all the world lies in the evil one. The scripture didn’t put this kind of fear into the believers about the world. Why should we accept it now. Surely Satan would try to destroy the church and our testimony. But that was true without a boogeyman in the form of a “Jezebel spirit.” Just don’t let it in the church.

I could be off with respect to the general message of the article, but what I see is to much of the things that I observe in some other "off the reservation" teachings, including Lee's.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by OBW

CMW,

I hate to say this, but I read the Jon Hamilton article on The Spirit of Jezebel again and had some of the same questions as I did before.

I could be off with respect to the general message of the article, but what I see is to much of the things that I observe in some other "off the reservation" teachings, including Lee's.

I had not heard of Jon Hamilton...so I checked him out before I replied to your post. You are correct he cast his own opinions on the Welsh revival and on JPL. I will also add, a person can go overboard and get paranoid that everyone in authority or leadership has a 'Jezebel spirit'.
As a personal observation..some of the characteristics of the Jezebel spirit are elements we experienced in the LC. I am listing a few:

A Jezebel spirit seeks control through manipulation.
It has a deep hatred of true spiritual authority, [I'm not sure what this actually means. I don't know if this is true or not]
It uses subtle persuasion to gain influence and get close to those in control.
It then uses this position to gradually dominate.

Were not the saints under Lee's ministry manipulated
Who did Lee answer to? Aside from 'God'. We 'know' he worked with Nee and a few others but by the time he was head of the 'local churches-that is 'the Lord's Recovery', he was 'the pope' and answered to no one to my knowledge.
He answered to no one but 'God' and correct me if I'm wrong, but did he ever take the fellowship of his 'co-workers' if they thought he was getting off the beaten path?

Though he is dead, it is LEE's ministry that lives on. Gosh, no one dares to be solely overlooking 'the Lord's Recovery' today. That's why the 'blendeds' are in charge.
Since we are mainly dealing with the Lee ministry on this forum and since I am a 'victim' of allowing myself to have been manipulated, I did a lot of personal research on controlling personalities.

I can be easily influenced and controlled if I'm not watchful and careful.
Growing up as a Catholic, I was 'afraid' to leave the RCC.
In the LC, I/we were told, the CHURCH-the LC church was God's MOVE on the earth. AGAIN a fear tactic.
In my personal journey, I attracted controlling personalities. UGH! And what a price I paid. So I had to figure out WHY these types of personalities were drawn to me or why I attracted these personalities.
That's how I learned about the Jezebel spirit. Jon Hamilton's opinions do not validate absolute truth. But there are elements to ponder. There are other websites that speak of controlling , manipulative personalities, the Jezebel spirit.

There is NO DOUBT in my mind we were controlled. I don't believe for one second "I" was the only one controlled!

It was/is obvious...the 'leading ones' all wear long sleeved white shirts with ties. No more skinny ties though.. (stores probably don't sell them anymore!) That look is a form of manipulation and control.
The Lingo that is exclusive to the LSM/LC from calling on the Lord in the LC tone to the 'amens'. It's all part of the LC control.
The books/messages/conferences/trainings....same look-same message.
--------------
The RCC-same mass all over the world. Don't matter if you're Japanese, Chinese, Indonesian, Caucasian, Nigerian. Every Catholic will feel right at home with the 'mass' no matter where it's being held...because it has 'the look' & the same 'message'.

Their message is once a Catholic, always a catholic. Why are Catholics who are raised in the RCC afraid to leave?...not afraid to sin...just afraid to leave the RCC.

The LSM/LC has the same spirit as the RCC. That's why there are forums like these to bring to light & help those who might be struggling to leave the LSM/LC. We did it...so can they.

In the Bible, Jezebel had a weak husband & she controlled him. Even Elijah was afraid of Jezebel!
The question to quote Ohio is that:

It's difficult for most of us "common folk" to understand the complexities of gifted, talented men, since they seem to possess enormous powers which, for the most part, are foreign to us.

The best answer I can offer is it's a 'spiritual' thing. (not in a good way.) But that's not to say every leader or person in authority has a controlling spirit on them!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The point here is this: Define what control means. When is control ... control. Who sets boundaries for the word? Who determines when those boundaries are crossed? I could sit here and tell other more tragic stories of ones who felt they were controlled by leaders who would refuse to admit they controlled anybody. The LC lexicon for the word control obviously differed from that of the greater body of Christ.

On the matter of control, one could say I don't control anybody. In a sense that is true, if you're not giving orders.
You could also say there's control indirectly via influence. By nature of relationships, there is indirect control when one's influence can impact another's decision making. This aspect of control can happen locally or extra-locally in church matters.

Terry

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

OBW it is interesting that you use Jonestown as an example. I have reiterated many times that in the case of a cult and/or addiction control of the will is quite possible. So we agree on both counts as far as I can tell. But you'll notice that members (of course) and also many who left the Lee church refuse to accept that they were engaged in either of these two possibilities. Most in this forum will admit neither.

Igzy has presented a third alternative reducing the idea of control to influence such as advertisers use to influence buyers. Never let is be said that Lee and his LSM are not master marketers! After all they convinced grown adults that he was God's sole oracle on the earth, his church was the only legit one and even had the gall to introduce a one publication policy. And surprise of all surprises the one publication publisher was none other than his very own LSM. A few people (thankfully only a few) people bought it lock, stock and barrel and created a captured exclusive market for his wares.

Should we blame the sellers of this fairy tale or the buyers? Personally I think at minimum 50% should go to the buyers for being so gullible and naive. After all if someone advertises that their dog can fly and you buy it for $500 are you likely to admit with your out loud voice that you got ripped off or will you save yourself the embarrassment and chalk it up as a life lesson?

[OBW]

DJ,

The talk is more reasonable now. But while in human terms I might quibble with you concerning which side of 50% the responsibility falls with respect to the people v the leaders and Lee, in spiritual terms I cannot accept that anywhere near 50% is the people and much more falls on the leadership.

Why? Why when some of Paul's and even John's writings seem to indicate that the Christian has responsibility concerning what he accepts? Because they also, along with Jesus, identified a higher responsibility on the leaders. Jesus did not condemn the people for following (or trying to follow) the heavy-yoke rules of the Pharisees. He condemned the Pharisees. And in 1 Cor 3, Paul clearly put a large charge on those who built (the builders) on the building of the church (the church in Corinth).

While it may seem in human terms that "we the people" have our own responsibility to revolt against bad teaching, that is not entirely true. It was primarily the responsibility of the leadership to refuse the bad teaching, and it was their "punishment" for building incorrectly. 1 Cor 3 said nothing about a "cost" to the Corinthians relating to the bad stuff that Paul, Apollos, or others "built" there. In those various words from Jesus and Paul, there a sense that it is expected that the people will follow those who are leading. We may be warned to watch out for ourselves, but I'm not sure that it is the same as the charge put upon the leadership.

[Cal]

I agree with Mike. Although there is responsibility on both sides, the leader has more because the nature of the relationship necessitates trust and thus vulnerability on the part of the follower. The leader, on the other hand, is not vulnerable in the same way.

If the follower needs to be vigorously skeptical of every directive of the leader, the one must ask why he is following him in the first place. In practice, there is a certain benefit of the doubt afforded the leader, or the relationship simply cannot work. So if the leader abuses this benefit of the doubt his sin is greater.

[OBW]

Ohio,

I agree that those leaving the church do not need a 12 step program. Well at least most do not. But it is not for the same reasons as you.

A 12 step program addresses your personal issues that have driven you to become your own problem. For the most part, that is not the problem with the LC. It is not about recognizing our own failures and turning it over to a “higher power.”

Instead it is about failure to assert your own sensibilities when they are offended. It is about failure to listen to your own good mind when it says “that is not what the scripture says.”

Instead of a 12 step program, a crash course in critical thinking centered around scripture, with the examples all coming from Lee’s teachings would be excellent. We need desperately to be deprogrammed — not in the manner of those “kidnap and deprogram” guys, but in a setting more like a classroom where the personal esteem of those being corrected rises with every personal discovery that they do have their own anointing and can trust their own understanding of scripture. (I do not mean to say “lean on our own understanding” but to point out that as John said in 1 John, we have an anointing and can recognize truth and also recognize error.

“Hi, I’m Mike and I still struggle with leftover scriptural error from 14 years in a personality cult.” At some level I can say that after over 21 years. But if I had immediately begun to question Lee’s teachings and search the scriptures, I might not still be finding as much LC garlic still hiding in the corners of my house.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Ohio I think you are missing the point i.e. getting lost in among the trees and missing the forest.

Was the audience forced to go and listen to Chen or did they voluntarily assemble? My guess is the latter. Was anyone forced to view the YouTube streams and read the materials or listen to a podcast or CD of Chen? Probably not. I don't have any podcasts on my ipod by Chen or any of the other Blended Babbler do you? But probably some people have chosen to do so.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by djohnson

Ohio I think you are missing the point i.e. getting lost in among the trees and missing the forest.

Was the audience forced to go and listen to Chen or did they voluntarily assemble? My guess is the latter. Was anyone forced to view the YouTube streams and read the materials or listen to a podcast or CD of Chen? Probably not. I don't have any podcasts on my ipod by Chen or any of the other Blended Babbler do you? But probably some people have chosen to do so.

DJ,

The biggest problem that I have with your discussions on control, free will, and the like, is that you are taking the position that only willful control of people who don't want to allow it constitutes control. No matter how hard you come back to this position, you are simply wrong. Control includes the slow an methodical changing of the minds of people so that they do what you want on cue and they are happy to do it. To keep coming back to this "there's no gun to their head" notion is simply ignorant. There's more ways to control than by guns, chains, ropes, etc.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by djohnson

Ohio I think you are missing the point i.e. getting lost in among the trees and missing the forest.

Was the audience forced to go and listen to Chen or did they voluntarily assemble?

DJ, the audience here gathered to break bread, remember the Lord, and worship Him. Instead they got an ambassador from LSM neutralizing any legitimate concerns they might have had from their brothers and sisters in Christ whom they used to assemble with, and attacking those brothers who formerly their leaders.

We are on different wavelengths here DJ -- as we have many times before -- so I see no reason to continue in this "forest."

[UntoHim]

In regards to these "re-take the ground" meetings in Toronto (the ones that Minoru Chen spoke at), those who attended knew fully well what was going on. Those with "legitimate concerns" (about outside control as a matter of fact) had a pretty good idea that they would be better off just staying with the original Church in Toronto, which after all never stopped meeting. It was the ones who didn't mind being "controlled" by the LSM that ended up splitting away. It was their choice. They went to this meeting of the "LSM/Local Church of Witness Lee" knowingly and willfully. There were nothing but thunderous and appreciative "AMENS!" to everything Minoru had to say. One of the recordings captured Minoru emphasizing how "the LSM does not control anybody"

-

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Exactly my point UntoHim: they went knowingly and willingly to hear Chen's babble and no doubt "amened" him after every other sentence.

OBW if I change my mind about something I changed my mind. For example: the communist tried to systematically indoctrinate Nee to denounce Christ. He would not change his mind about it even after 20 years of imprisonment. Some others in the same circumstances did. They recanted their faith in Christ. Ultimately it was the individual's personal choice even in those dire circumstances. Surely in a free society like those enjoyed in America, Canada, etc one cannot claim that someone else "controlled" them and "forced" them into certain behaviors. This is a cowardly and irresponsible claim. Even secular jurisprudence will not accept this as a legitimate defence.