SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee

[Hope]

I have been reading posts on the other forum. Below I quote a post from Ohio.

The fruit of this teaching that I have seen is all bad -- for the most part, an arrogant, exclusive pride which causes its proponents to think more highly of themselves than they ought to think. I now believe that the reason for the teaching is simple -- arm the saints with teachings which cause them to be separated from other Christians, and provide them with ammunition to judge all outside Christians, in other words, put all the LC sheep into a pen and erect a high wall around it.

I know this post sounds harsh, but does anything else explain what has happened?

I first met WL in the early Spring of 1966. He came to Waco, Texas where 12 or so young people were meeting as the church in Waco. He came again in 1968. During that stay, he came to my wife's and my little one room efficiency apartment. We invited one of the college students, Bob Soroosh, to join us for a simple supper. He treated the three of us with great respect and answered all our questions with kindness and took our questions seriously. I can never forget Bob asked about dating. Brother Lee gave an excellent answer. I still remember it well. Bob called him by “Witness” and treated him like one would treat a kind old uncle. Brother Lee was not the least bit intimidating. Brother Lee showed great love and toleration toward Bob, my wife and myself. This is the image of Witness Lee that always comes first to my mind.

During this same time, Benson and I had a lunch with Brother Lee and an older bachelor man from Waco. He had been visiting some of our meetings and came to hear Brother Lee. Brother Lee showed him much respect and engaged him in fellowship. Afterwards he told Benson and I that the brother was surely a man of spiritual depth and was very complementary of him.

As I came to know brother Lee more, I did notice a difference between his public persona and the way he treated different individuals. Publicly, sometimes he got into hyperbole. He would say something extreme and some of the more extreme personality types would take off with it. Publicly he enjoyed stirring the pot and poking his thumb in the eye of official Christianity. When challenged on any level, public or private, he way over reacted, and a fight was surely on.

I have a hard time believing he was so complicated to have come up with a method of teaching and behavior in order to create a system for enriching himself or enshrining himself as an uncontested, anointed, God-man, who was God’s man of faith and power for this hour. But it did happen! How he, the local churches, the so called “recovery” got from that simple meal in a one room efficiency with three young people to La Palma headquarters is quite a story. Perhaps, the Lord willing, I will be able to tell it.

Hope

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Did anyone really know Lee? What really did anyone know about him in America except he was a coworker of Watchman Nee? He was taken at face value and his history was taken as the history of the Little Flock movement (of course with him and Nee at the center.)

How many brothers and sisters did he have? What were his parents and family life like when he was growing up? What school did he go to? What college if any did he go to? Did he grow up in poverty? What was he like as a father, husband, friend etc? What were his financial dealings in the name of the "Lord's work" prior to coming to America? etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc

Did anyone even bother to somehow attempt at verifying his claim that Nee essentially passed the mantle on to him to the exclusion of Simon Meek, Faithful Luke, Stephen Kaung etc.

When he started bad mouthing TAS in America did any American leader in his movement go directly to TAS and ask him about his version of events? If so who did it and what was the outcome?

[OBW]

Don,

I can accept your observation for what it is, a truthful observation at a point it time. But it must be noted that at some level, Lee was an outsider in 1966. He had not yet become of prominence to be what he eventually was. Even if not his intent, he would surely know that a bunch of Americans were not going to put up with an unknown Chinaman coming among them and being discourteous or condescending to what were essentially complete strangers.

But that was not the demeanor of the man who refused to even listen to John Ingalls in private, or listen to complaints about the LSM office dictating local church activities, which I note you stood up to do and were effectively rebuffed by an unceremonious termination of the elders meeting. It was not the man who spoke of having spies who saw a rebellion and allowed those words to be published. It was not the man who sort of like being exalted.

So we can ignore the evidence from the 50s. We can ignore Daystar, and the robbery of the savings of young people (probably not his direct doing anyway). Ignore the lawsuits. Ignore the words he spoke in which he indirectly called himself THE APOSTLE of the age. (Neither of us were around for that.)

Did he just change over time, or was he merely wise? I am beginning to think the latter more than the former. I didn’t think so originally. He may not have set out to declare himself the apostle of the age, but I believe he had a personal vision much grander than Benson’s and he did what it took to get there. It is unfortunate that he centered on Christian work in his vision instead of just business. If he had not shrouded his businesses in non-profit cloaks, any shenanigans might have been caught early on. But everything got wrapped up in “the Lord’s work” and we all forgave his failings. But he did not lose anything on those ventures. His portion of the Daystar enterprise made some motor homes and sold them all to the venture that his followers invested in. And their venture funded and guaranteed Lee’s. He made out alright. Then he found a way to make the entire operation into a not-for-profit.

My Dad was over for a few hours on Saturday. I kept from talking about the LC. But I was on the verge of asking him whether there was any real draw other than the 35+ years of friendships that would be lost. Seeing his mental emotional condition at this time, I think the answer would have to be “no” even if he didn’t want to say it. I mention this because even after the things you’ve been through with the LSM and the now-BBs, I understand that it is hard to admit that you could have been that wrong for so long. I now believe that I was and that the LC was. It wasn’t your fault, or that of so many other normal local brothers and sisters. But there was already termites eating at its frame before any of us realized that the walls were crumbling.

The condition of the LC, both now and even during Lee’s reign, are testimonies that there is and was something wrong. I believe it began with the man who put it in motion. That would be Lee.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by OBW

Did he just change over time, or was he merely wise? I am beginning to think the latter more than the former. I didn’t think so originally.

The answer to your question is going to depend on his personality as he was growing up. DJohnson asked good questions. What WAS he like growing up?
Did he have a strong, domineering personality?

What was he like as a young man studying the bible ?

IF indeed he 'changed', then the change could be attributed as his popularity increased and his 'power/authority' as well.

How many autobiographies have we read about famous people who came from humble beginnings...and are 'untouchable' now...both in civil and spiritual leadership positions.

If he was all the more 'wise', then whoever knew him when he wasn't 'Brother Lee', would know that he was preparing the ground of his future.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

The answer to your question is going to depend on his personality as he was growing up. DJohnson asked good questions. What WAS he like growing up?

You are altogether correct. And while I am not presuming that my take is "the one," I have included reference to troubles in Taiwan in the 50s for the purpose of suggesting that something was going on before 1960, although it still might not have been what it became. I would not expect that the real answer (which we will never know) is that he was always the control-hungry, domineering person that he seemed to become. But there is indication that there was a path toward something inconsistent with the kind of servitude that the the Christian serviant and minister he claimed to be would tend to operate under.

[Hope]

Dear Forum,

Can we really know the heart of a man? The most common psychological dysfunction or defense mechanism is projection. A person projects an opinion or view onto another.

The final outcome of a person’s life is seldom determined by their beginning. The Past is not necessarily Prologue. Of course the past can certainly influence the present.

From my early days in the local churches there were many myths and endless genealogies. I have heard many adventure tales regarding Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. I have heard oft repeated details of who knew who when and who spent time with whom and what was this one’s spiritual pedigree etc. Among believers there is always a lot of hagiography. In the same vein there is often a lot of diatribe.

I prefer to take the approach of the early Apostles. They reported “what they had seen and heard.” What I would expect from you all and intend to do myself also is to critically examine a report and seek to determine if it is reasonable. Are there any confirming witnesses? Is it consistent? Etc.

With any and every Christian leader their life must match their teaching. When it does, we should recognize it. When it does not then they should be held accountable. We are admonished to examine everything carefully. 1 Thess 5:20-22, do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil. NASB

I have always expected whatever I write here to be examined carefully and I examine what I read here carefully.

Thank you all for being patient with this brother in Christ Jesus.


Hope

[OBW]

I interviewed for a job about a month ago. I met with 5 different people at this company over a 3-1/2 hour period. When it was over, I had an impression about them. The following week, there was a one month project that my current employer was doing at that very company and I was assigned to it. So for one month got to observe some of the workings of these very people.

What I now understand is very different from what I originally saw. The top boss seemed very driven, but also seemed to be a very likeable person. Since then I have learned that he often simply “goes off” on people over small things. It seems that one of the others is looking for a way to get another of the people I interviewed with fired.

Now I’m sure that a lot about our personalities and even how we grow is nurture and not just nature. But just because one observes one thing at one point in time does not mean that something observed later did not exist even before the first observation.

In the case of Lee, I point back to Taiwan and even China because there are signs that what was presented in the 60s may not have been a complete representation of what was already there. I know I never like to admit that I could have been wrong. But when I learn something that I could not have known at the time but that was already true, I simply have to accept my error. While I do not say that Lee’s demeanor in 1966 was completely false, it now appears that it was not a complete and open display of what was already in existence. Was this an attempt to fool you? We can’t say. But even if it was an honest attempt to change back to what he realized he should be, we now know that there was already a history. Alcoholics sometimes get “on the wagon” for a while and can put on the face of succeeding at being rid of their addiction. If you never knew of their addiction, you might think they were the epitome of upright society. But if they fall back into drunkenness, you can think it is a new thing, but if it really is not, then you are deceived. It is not your fault. But the deception, whether or not intentional is very real.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

He may not have set out to declare himself the apostle of the age, but I believe he had a personal vision much grander than Benson’s and he did what it took to get there. It is unfortunate that he centered on Christian work in his vision instead of just business. If he had not shrouded his businesses in non-profit cloaks, any shenanigans might have been caught early on. But everything got wrapped up in “the Lord’s work” and we all forgave his failings. The condition of the LC, both now and even during Lee’s reign, are testimonies that there is and was something wrong. I believe it began with the man who put it in motion. That would be Lee.

Yes, but I go back even further. Look who taught him, who had such an impact on him. Who taught him about the "vision of the age" angle? Nee, I bet. So that "personal vision much grander than Benson's" got shaped under the tutelage of Nee, is my thought. Yes, it got expressed through the personality of Lee, but he at one point was a vessel, a receptacle, before he became a promulgator of a personal "vision".

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

Did he just change over time, or was he merely wise? I am beginning to think the latter more than the former. I didn’t think so originally. He may not have set out to declare himself the apostle of the age, but I believe he had a personal vision much grander than Benson’s and he did what it took to get there. It is unfortunate that he centered on Christian work in his vision instead of just business. If he had not shrouded his businesses in non-profit cloaks, any shenanigans might have been caught early on. But everything got wrapped up in “the Lord’s work” and we all forgave his failings. But he did not lose anything on those ventures. His portion of the Daystar enterprise made some motor homes and sold them all to the venture that his followers invested in. And their venture funded and guaranteed Lee’s. He made out alright. Then he found a way to make the entire operation into a not-for-profit.

Was Living Stream Ministry a family business, a non profit corporation, or both for a while?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

Was Living Stream Ministry a family business, a non profit corporation, or both for a while?

I'm pretty sure that the LSM was always a non-profit. But as someone has noted, LSM started about the time of the Daystar demise and his move to Anaheim. Prior to that, the publisher was Stream Ministries or something like that. I have no idea about its status as for profit or non-profit.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm pretty sure that the LSM was always a non-profit. But as someone has noted, LSM started about the time of the Daystar demise and his move to Anaheim. Prior to that, the publisher was Stream Ministries or something like that. I have no idea about its status as for profit or non-profit.

The following are quotes I posted on the Sacrifice and Sail On thread some time ago (my emphasis in bold).

Originally Posted by Philip Lin

Recalling the beginnings of the Anaheim LSM Station in 1974, I think about how everything was ragged and rough, without financial support and with a shortage of manpower. It was a very tough start. However, after years of labor, it became a rather big and well-organized publisher. It was the Lord’s blessing. It was also the hard work of Brother Philip Lee and many faithful saints who gave their whole being to the ministry of Witness Lee. It is appropriate to describe the beginning of LSM by quoting Brother Lee’s wife, Sister Lee, as she told me: “this was the result of the father with his son, two men beginning work like a “swap-meet.” It is admirable. It is also the Lord’s doing.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (Kindle Location 1292). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Following the Lord’s leading, I established the Gospel Bookroom and the Living Stream Ministry both to spread the messages of His recovery. The purpose of such establishment is not for building up an enterprise for myself or my children to secure any gain. In order to protect the copyright from confusion, I decided that the Gospel Bookroom and the Living Stream Ministry should pay me a royalty. Any excess that I received would be offered to the Lord for His use. Later, the royalty I received became more than before. In addition to offering to the Lord, I used the rest to support those of you children who are in need. At the beginning of 1994, while I was resting in the hospital, I felt that although what I received from my royalty payment was a result of my writing, the source of such writing is the word of the Lord. I vowed to the Lord that after I am taken away by the Lord, beginning from the year after that, I will offer all the royalty to the Lord.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (p. 277). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

It is clear that WL's family benefited financially from his ministry. On the surface, maybe that doesn't necessarily concern most people. But my question is why his adult children were needing his support? Why did his family as a whole need so much support? It's stated that at one point LSM was "ragged and rough", so we could presume that there was a point in time where everyone in Lee's family realized that they needed to fend for themselves. Apparently this never happened. Apparently what LSM needed all along was "the hard work of Brother Philip Lee..."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It is clear that WL's family benefited financially from his ministry. On the surface, maybe that doesn't necessarily concern most people. But my question is why his adult children were needing his support? Why did his family as a whole need so much support? It's stated that at one point LSM was "ragged and rough", so we could presume that there was a point in time where everyone in Lee's family realized that they needed to fend for themselves. Apparently this never happened. Apparently what LSM needed all along was "the hard work of Brother Philip Lee..."

I think LSM should have deep gratitude towards Philip Lee for having established the standing order as I have been led to believe....it's his creation.

As to your question Freedom, allegedly Timothy Lee became a millionaire as a result of Daystar. Lee's other children wanted a piece of the pie too. With Philip working for LSM in Anaheim, who knows how many other Lee children worked for LSM whether in Anaheim or Taipei?
In the mid-80's/early 90's I had attended a conference in Anaheim where Witness Lee referenced his grandson who was going to medical school. How would he go to medical school without support?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Was Living Stream Ministry a family business, a non profit corporation, or both for a while?

When I read Ingalls' Speaking the Truth in Love, I was shocked that Lee's wife sat on the board.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Hope

I have a hard time believing WL was so complicated to have come up with a method of teaching and behavior in order to create a system for enriching himself or enshrining himself as an uncontested, anointed, God-man, who was God’s man of faith and power for this hour. But it did happen! How he, the local churches, the so called “recovery” got from that simple meal in a one room efficiency with three young people to La Palma headquarters is quite a story. Perhaps, the Lord willing, I will be able to tell it.

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. We tend to think and understand people in more simplistic terms -- i.e. "he was a good man" or "he is a bad man." But when we look at great men, and I mean those who possess greater talents and natural powers, such reasoning cheats us from properly understanding them in context.

During my LC tenure, I heard many complementary stories and adulations concerning WL, such as the story provided here by Hope. One given by the late Francis Ball, years ago in the face of rigorous opposition, stands out in my memory, "He is just an old preacher whom we all love." I believe all of these stories and complements, e.g. "Brother Lee is like the sweetest Grampa you'll ever meet," are all true. I don't discredit any of them. I'm sure he could be far more charming than I could even dream of being. But ... if you get the impression, like I once did, that you know the whole story about this person, then you are are potentially vulnerable.

I basically held this simplistic view of people until several years ago, when I began studying Brethren history and LC history. John Darby became an enigma to me. How could a brother be so well loved, gentle as a lamb, charming in the gospel, tender to all the weak, etc. ... also be a ferocious tiger, an indefatigable assailant, undaunted attacker, mercilessly and publicly berating ... upon any and all those who appeared to him as a rival. Newton and Muller were just examples of those who never even suspected they had become rivals to Darby, nor could they possibly have ever prepared themselves for the onslaught which subsequently came their way.

Who is the real Darby? Who is the real Lee? If you only know one side of the equation, then you don't know "the half of it," as they say. Both men were extremely ambitious to serve God, build the church, edify the saints, and all positive things, but ... both men were also extremely ambitious for leadership, for expansion, for church impact, for lasting legacy, etc. with all the associated benefits, and herein lies the danger. Great men are capable of doing the greater good, and also the greater bad, especially when they go years unchecked, unbalanced, and untempered.

One historian said, "I have never seen in one man, the two natures so powerful, as in Darby." Another historian said, "In Darby, we see so much good, and yet so much more wrong." I suppose these two sayings could apply to WL also. The unbiased historical record of these two men must be fair to present all sides. The story should be told.

[Paul Cox]

Hope,

We must be constantly reminded of the peek we got of Witness Lee at the 1980's meeting in Pasadena, wherein he stated that ever since the mid forties he had been looking over the whole earth and couldn't find another "Oracle" speaking for God. It was clear that he held grandiose visions of himself even way back then, no matter what type of kind ole uncle he would present at strategic times later on.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Hope

I first met WL in the early Spring of 1966. He came to Waco, Texas where 12 or so young people were meeting as the church in Waco. He came again in 1968. During that stay, he came to my wife's and my little one room efficiency apartment. We invited one of the college students, Bob Soroosh, to join us for a simple supper. ... Brother Lee was not the least bit intimidating. Brother Lee showed great love and toleration toward Bob, my wife and myself. This is the image of Witness Lee that always comes first to my mind.

During this same time, Benson and I had a lunch with Brother Lee and an older bachelor man from Waco. He had been visiting some of our meetings and came to hear Brother Lee. Brother Lee showed him much respect and engaged him in fellowship. Afterwards he told Benson and I that the brother was surely a man of spiritual depth and was very complementary of him.

As I came to know brother Lee more, I did notice a difference between his public persona and the way he treated different individuals. Publicly, sometimes he got into hyperbole. He would say something extreme and some of the more extreme personality types would take off with it. Publicly he enjoyed stirring the pot and poking his thumb in the eye of official Christianity. When challenged on any level, public or private, he way over reacted, and a fight was surely on.

I have a hard time believing he was so complicated to have come up with a method of teaching and behavior in order to create a system for enriching himself or enshrining himself as an uncontested, anointed, God-man, who was God’s man of faith and power for this hour. But it did happen! How he, the local churches, the so called “recovery” got from that simple meal in a one room efficiency with three young people to La Palma headquarters is quite a story.

We in the west initially rejoiced that the Chinese were becoming more Christian, but we didn't see that simultaneously Christianity was becoming more Chinese. This is probably no different from the Greeks, the so-called Hellenists of Acts 2 and 6, importing their culture into a Jewish religious off-shoot, the Jesus-followers, called the Way. Look at the struggles Paul had with gentile and Jewish cultures! Or, for that matter, 19th century Europeans and Americans simultaneously bringing Western ways of thinking and organizational structures with their gospel to China, Africa, and elsewhere.

In the Case of Witness Lee, people got a humble, self-effacing man, deeply spiritual, who quietly harbored oriental ideas of despotism, lack of transparency, and non-accountability: the so-called Deputy Authority teaching, with its corollaries of "all churches must be absolutely identical", and "get in line, know who is ahead of you" and "we must not question God's oracle", and so forth. All of this cultural baggage was already there; just not yet evident.

Culture comes with humanity. This particular culture was so well-developed, and ingrained into its purveyors, that it often wasn't evident until it asphyxiated its new hosts. Even then some of them couldn't, or wouldn't, see the elephant in the room.

Originally Posted by Brent Barber

I know that he [James Barber] was severely disappointed and disillusoned at the way his dream had turned out. He saw it was a sham, but had nowhere else to go.