Is it the Message, or the Men?

[Cal]

Those of us who have left the Local Church Movement have looked back in wonder at our experiences and what they meant. Trying to sort out what the lesson is, we observe the ongoing Local Church movement, and two basic characteristics, existing in tension, come into focus:

1. The movement thinks its positive legacy is of paramount importance.
2. The movement thinks that the defense of its founders, Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, is essential to this legacy.

In other words, the movement thinks beyond any doubt that many of the spiritual principles they uphold, which they see as neglected in other Christian groups, are absolutely crucial to God achieving what he desires to achieve. Thus they see themselves as stewards of these things. (Some examples are: locality, God's economy, various "high peak" teachings, the principle of Recovery and unity with the move of Recovery). It is not important to this discussion that you agree with those principles. It is important to understand that the mission of the Church always includes spreading principles. And so, the LC is not wrong for doing that. Whether those principles are valid or not is something that gets worked out in the arena of ideas.

The problem is, the LC for some reason also feels that the defense of Nee and Lee is essential to carrying out their mission. Probably if pressed they would not want to admit that protecting Nee's and Lee's reputations is part of their mission. Yet, clearly from their behavior they feel they cannot carry out their mission of preserving the principles unique to their movement without also preserving as pristine the reputations of their founders.

The question I have is, Why do they feel this way? If Nee and Lee were onto some things, and I still believe in certain cases they were, then those ostensive truths should stand on their own. They should not be dependent on the reputation of the men who communicated them. Clearly, our failure as servants can blunt the reception of even the most legitimate messages God gives us. Yet, our failures never invalidate those messages. So preserving a myth about a movement founder, even and especially for the sake of protecting the message he declared, is in the end counter to the mission of preserving any legitimate message. Dealing in lies to preserve the truth is a house divided against itself.

The fact is, God did not spare the reputations of his greatest servants. We see clearly the warts of Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Paul and Peter, to name some. God did not think he needed to present these men as pristine in order to preserve the incredibly important messages and missions he wished to convey and accomplish through them. Interestingly, the LC cites Noah as an example of the consequences of exposing the sin of a leader, as Noah's son Ham was cursed for doing. Yet apparently this principle was lost on Moses, who when he wrote Genesis included the account, thus exposing Noah! Personally, I think God lets every servant of his fail, to underscore that the important thing is the message, not the men.

There is nothing wrong with trying to preserve and pass along spiritual principles you think are important. We all should do this. And the Local Church is not wrong for doing it either. But that leads to the question, with LCers, is it really about the message, about passing on real spiritual truths from God to the rest of the Church; or is it about preserving the reputations of men, of Nee and Lee? And if the latter, why? As God himself has shown us, he is more than willing to let the facts be the facts, and allow the historic failure of his servants be known. His truth is not dependent on our reputations. It stands on its own. And dealing in lies and myths to preserve reputations is in fact just one more delay to his truth prevailing.

The truth stands. Men come and go. The Bible understands this. It's time the LC did, too--ironically, for the sake of their own message.

[OBW]

I beleive that the premise that they were "onto something" is much less significant than most of us want to admit. Even those of us that have separated ourselves from it and point at the mess and error that persists.

Why? I'm not entirely sure.

I think that maybe it is that we have a tendency toward correlation with respect to things that are long ago enough that we don't have a complete ability to assess everything about it. I think this is where that "early LRC v late LRC" or "early Lee v late Lee" come into play. We had something enjoyable. Something that uplifted us. I almost said "uplifted our spirits," but while I don't necessarily discount that, I don't think it is as simple to declare that as true as we would like.

As people, we tend toward extremes. When things are rocking along smoothly, we generally ignore it. When they get bad, we take note. And when they are suddenly better, we also take note. And in those "better" times, it is our natural tendency to be "up." Up in whatever way is reasonable or somewhat appropriate. The truth may not be much different from "rocking along smoothly," but because of the juxtaposition to some bad times, we elevate what might actually be simply normal — at least for a while.

And sometimes we are rocking along smoothly and someone comes along and sows seeds of discontent and suddenly things are bad even though nothing has happened. We just have some kind of thought that it could be better, so now must be bad.

Without any reference to Nee or Lee, this was a common thing in Christianity in the 60s and early 70s. There was a bunch of so-called "inner life" writers and speakers stirring up people. There was a charismatic wave such that there were charismatic meetings at Catholic, Episcopal, Baptist, and other denominational groups here in the DFW area. Guys like Kenneth Hagan (inner life) had a sort of cult following (that actually included my parents). There were others but I don't remember names right now. People in all sorts of places were reading all kinds of things. And those things were talking about Christianity in a way that was not fitting in with the status quo in their assembly of choice. At least not well.

So enter the free groups, including the LRC. People who got involved with some others of similar mind that started meeting together regularly rather than just sometimes began a more robust free group movement. In the middle of that came Lee and the LRC. Those who joined-up in those early days were given a fair bit of freedom to be experimental, in a way. They were no longer sitting in pews, singing three songs, 1st, 2nd, and last verse (every sing all of "Let Us Contemplate the Grapevine"?), to the sound of a piano and Hammond organ (or even pipe organ in some of the older traditions). Your voice was now heard regularly. (Notice that, at some level, the freedom for using your voice has now been diminished in the LRC. They have us now.)

It was different. But were the teachings really something worth taking note of? Ground, clergy (or lack thereof (really?)), etc., followed by God's economy, and then flowery term after flowery term with the intent that saying it better meant it was better (and they must actually teach that now).

What did they teach that needs Nee and Lee that is really worthy of keeping?

I can't find anything. They were smart enough to leave most of the base alone. That means it was not theirs. Everything that they played around with was at least pushing the envelope to have differences with the rest of Christianity. Some of it was questionably heretical. And I think that some of it even did not have any question about it.

Now don't go ballistic on me. Some level of heresy is not the end of the world (as we know it).

I am convinced that the LRC needs to keep Nee and Lee intact because they are the source of everything that causes there to be a need to remain separated (and sectarian) relative to everyone else. If Nee was simply a brilliant reader who could distill and repackage other's writings into something he wanted, and was doing it with little true spiritual training at age 21, what was he? From there he went on to become someone of renown, even starting a church at a pretty young age (not necessarily a bad thing). But the accusations of sexual improprieties began at a young age. By the time of the 1942 excommunication (or whatever you want to call it) this was at least the second time the issue had been raised. He may be commended for realizing the error of his ways and taking the discipline.

But it was fairly clear within less than 12 months after being allowed back in (in 48?) that he would not have it happen again. He gave a series of messages in which there was a hierarchy of authority that was understood based on who was the one to direct your spiritual questions to. Since no chain of who was above or below who had him anywhere but at the top, he was the pinnacle. Never had to say it. The whole group simply believed it to be true. But the teaching did not stop there. While you could avoid doing something that this spiritual authority demanded if it was illegal or immoral, you could not question their position or speak against their person on the basis of sin. That was made clear when he said that only God could deal with Nadab and Abihu because they rebelled against God. He declared that only God could deal with the sins of someone who was a deputy authority.

Then came Lee to America. He was just this humble preacher, going from place to place bringing the good news of the church life.

Or so he said.

He was the encourager of the people of the 60s. He was not revered as the MOTA, but some began to suggest "apostle" by the early 70s. I heard it in early 73. The rest is history. Daystar. Max. Run Max off. Lawsuits. Like being exalted. Run off Ingalls, Mallons, and others. Insist that your sexual predator son be the head of your ministry and direct how churches run their affairs.

But enough about the reasons to dislike Nee and Lee. The real question is what they brought that is worthy of keeping such that if they are found to be false teachers just trying to have a better job than being an accountant, or whatever would be seen as suspect to the rest of the Christian world.

I suggest the answer is "nothing."

We went through a little of this several years ago when Steve I started a thread in the other form titled something like "Teachings of Witness Lee that I Think True." (OK, not exactly the title, but the essence of it.) I don't recall there being even one example given that was soundly worth keeping. That was really a teaching discoverable in scripture. Most were bad positions and rewrites of scripture based on an overlay . . . almost always "because of God's economy."

Funny that the way that God orders his kingdom would be the reason that the words he gave to us to understand his kingdom cannot be trusted to mean what they say. It almost creates a circular problem. God speaks his kingdom. But his kingdom requires that the words be redefined, which results in a different kingdom than the one that was spoken of in the first place.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I beleive that the premise that they were "onto something" is much less significant than most of us want to admit. Even those of us that have separated ourselves from it and point at the mess and error that persists.

Why? I'm not entirely sure.

Well, for some reason you decided to comment on a side issue, rather than my main point. But, since you insist, I disagree with your basic thrust that they had nothing to offer. I think there were some things about the movement and what Nee and Lee emphasized that God wanted us to run with. I flatly do not believe we would still be talking about this movement 30 years later if there wasn't something about it that was compelling--and that goes back to more than just the fervor of the group, it goes back to some things Nee and Lee taught.

Some of the things Nee and Lee, IMHO, were onto include:

A greater emphasis on the unity of the Church and on the Church as the place where God dwells and puts his name. The tendency in churches is still to look at each individual church as more or less the work of a pastor or set of pastors, rather than a real and direct work of God. There is also a tendency to look at them more as "ours" than "God's." The sense of the church, the people, as the holy dwelling place of God is still not as strong as it I think it should be.

A greater emphasis on what God is after than what we are after. God is still sold as the answer to man's problems. This is indeed true. But the idea that God has a definite goal in mind which is being worked out in time is still not that popular an idea.

A greater emphasis of the Trinity as a central mystery crucial for our experience. The Trinity is, unfortunately, really de-emphasized in churches today. It's almost a subject they try to avoid, I guess because it's confusing. That's a shame, because in my experience, appreciating the Trinity enhances my relationship with God. Although I disagreed with Lee's flatly stating again and again ad nauseum that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit, at the same time in the best possible way I know what he was getting at. If you make the Son and the Spirit too distinct, it hinders your experience. I don't claim to completely understand it, because no one does. But I do think he was onto something.

Emphasis on God trying to build the Church on the earth as testimony and a Bride prepared before he returns. I rarely hear this taught anywhere else.

Emphasis on the indwelling Christ and union with Christ, being crucified with Christ. These ideas are very rudimentary in Christian teaching today.

I think many of the teachings on the human spirit are still very helpful. Many Christians I meet though they know Jesus lives in them are vague about it. But again, Nee and Lee went a little overboard with it, trying to turn it into a science. That doesn't negate the importance.

Now you might argue that all these things were out there somewhere already and still can be found. I won't argue with that, but I don't think it matters. My point is that I heard them from Nee and Lee, not others. I think God was trying to emphasize certain things through Nee and Lee, but they got off track with their own vision of their movement and how things should come about and the enemy basically torpedoed the thing.

The fact is, OBW, if I didn't feel that in some ways the LC movement imparted some quite amazing things to me, I would not have had a problem leaving it. In fact, it was the mixed feelings about it that confused me--that I knew some very heavenly things had been imparted to me, while at the same time knowing that I could not exist there, was the confusing matter.

Now I know better. I know that just because someone has some good things doesn't mean everything is good, or that I need to pledge my life to him. I also know that just because someone has some bad things, some really bad things, doesn't mean I feel the need to find fault with everything he taught. When I watch you, I seem to see this compulsion. It just doesn't work for me, because I know that many good things were imparted to me. To say otherwise would simply be lying, at least the way I see things now.

The bottom line is, all things our ours. If Nee and Lee had good things, they couldn't do anything to make them bad, in essence. And if they had bad things, we should leave those behind.

The point of this thread is that the reputation of the men and the validity of their teaching are two separate issues. The LC tries to make them the same thing.

[awareness]

Great post Igzy.

Concerning the message:

Now that I'm out of the local church am I still a living stone in The Building that's God's eternal purpose?
------------------------------------------
Deliberately leaving:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, for some reason you decided to comment on a side issue, rather than my main point. But, since you insist, I disagree with your basic thrust that they had nothing to offer. I think there were some things about the movement and what Nee and Lee emphasized that God wanted us to run with. I flatly do not believe we would still be talking about this movement 30 years later if there wasn't something about it that was compelling--and that goes back to more than just the fervor of the group, it goes back to some things Nee and Lee taught.

Some of the things Nee and Lee, IMHO, were onto include:

A greater emphasis on the unity of the Church and on the Church as the place where God dwells and puts his name. The tendency in churches is still to look at each individual church as more or less the work of a pastor or set of pastors, rather than a real and direct work of God. There is also a tendency to look at them more as "ours" than "God's." The sense of the church, the people, as the holy dwelling place of God is still not as strong as it I think it should be.

A greater emphasis on what God is after than what we are after. God is still sold as the answer to man's problems. This is indeed true. But the idea that God has a definite goal in mind which is being worked out in time is still not that popular an idea.

A greater emphasis of the Trinity as a central mystery crucial for our experience. The Trinity is, unfortunately, really de-emphasized in churches today. It's almost a subject they try to avoid, I guess because it's confusing. That's a shame, because in my experience, appreciating the Trinity enhances my relationship with God. Although I disagreed with Lee's flatly stating again and again ad nauseum that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit, at the same time in the best possible way I know what he was getting at. If you make the Son and the Spirit too distinct, it hinders your experience. I don't claim to completely understand it, because no one does. But I do think he was onto something.

Emphasis on God trying to build the Church on the earth as testimony and a Bride prepared before he returns. I rarely hear this taught anywhere else.

Emphasis on the indwelling Christ and union with Christ, being crucified with Christ. These ideas are very rudimentary in Christian teaching today.

I think many of the teachings on the human spirit are still very helpful. Many Christians I meet though they know Jesus lives in them are vague about it. But again, Nee and Lee went a little overboard with it, trying to turn it into a science. That doesn't negate the importance.

Now you might argue that all these things were out there somewhere already and still can be found. I won't argue with that, but I don't think it matters. My point is that I heard them from Nee and Lee, not others. I think God was trying to emphasize certain things through Nee and Lee, but they got off track with their own vision of their movement and how things should come about and the enemy basically torpedoed the thing.

The fact is, OBW, if I didn't feel that in some ways the LC movement imparted some quite amazing things to me, I would not have had a problem leaving it. In fact, it was the mixed feelings about it that confused me--that I knew some very heavenly things had been imparted to me, while at the same time knowing that I could not exist there, was the confusing matter.

Now I know better. I know that just because someone has some good things doesn't mean everything is good, or that I need to pledge my life to him. I also know that just because someone has some bad things, some really bad things, doesn't mean I feel the need to find fault with everything he taught. When I watch you, I seem to see this compulsion. It just doesn't work for me, because I know that many good things were imparted to me. To say otherwise would simply be lying, at least the way I see things now.

The bottom line is, all things our ours. If Nee and Lee had good things, they couldn't do anything to make them bad, in essence. And if they had bad things, we should leave those behind.

The point of this thread is that the reputation of the men and the validity of their teaching are two separate issues. The LC tries to make them the same thing.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now that I'm out of the local church am I still a living stone in The Building that's God's eternal purpose?

Absolutely you are! The LC has no monopoly on anything that matters, period. Although their control of their members largely rests on making them believe they do.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The point of this thread is that the reputation of the men and the validity of their teaching are two separate issues. The LC tries to make them the same thing.

Watchman Nee taught (not sure where) that a man's ministry ought to end with his death, based on a verse about King David (not sure which one.)

After Lee's death, Titus Chu used this teaching against the Blendeds. His point, of course, was two-fold. First, since Lee has passed, the ministry work (e.g. elders' trainings) he carried on should also end. Secondly, since none of the Blendeds had their own ministry, they should also cease to exist. The Blendeds, of course, would not let that happen, so they quarantined him.

Many brothers agreed with this. How could book editors, like Kangas and Marks, who had never even started or shepherded a church, give trainings to "perfect" the elders. But since Philip Lee had already paved the way for unsaved and immoral men to "perfect" all the elders during the new way, anything in the Recovery was now possible.

This, of course, diverges somewhat from your topic at hand, Igzy, but it emphasizes the LC mentality, that if Nee and Lee were perfect, then all their teachings were perfect, and even a caveman could use these teachings to raise up elders in the LC's.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This, of course, diverges somewhat from your topic at hand, Igzy, but it emphasizes the LC mentality, that if Nee and Lee were perfect, then all their teachings were perfect, and even a caveman could use these teachings to raise up elders in the LC's.

But if they weren't perfect, then they were just ministers whose teaching may or may not be beneficial, just like all the other ministers.

That is why it is okay, and in fact needed, to know and even discuss the imperfections, some gross, of even those Christians we might consider "great servants." Otherwise, given human nature, we would be tempted to succumb to damaging reverence for flawed men, and feel compelled to swallow the camels of bad teachings.

The flip side is this: Any party which tries to sell some person as the greatest minister of the age, or the sole authority, or the one we all need to defer to above all others, has an agenda other than God's. They might not think they do, but they do. For all their claims about being for the eternal purpose of God, the LC is really about something else. They just need to wake up to that fact.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The flip side is this: Any party which tries to sell some person as the greatest minister of the age, or the sole authority, or the one we all need to defer to above all others, has an agenda other than God's. They might not think they do, but they do. For all their claims about being for the eternal purpose of God, the LC is really about something else. They just need to wake up to that fact.

The LC's saints are among some of the most devoted, and know how to present all the good things of God in their possession to their new guests. Problems surface when new visitors get wind of what really is stressed at LSM, like this MOTA nonsense. Guests hear about "autonomous" local churches, and then quickly learn how much influence Anaheim has over the church.

Contradictions such as these, and there are many more like them, smell like hypocrisy and dishonesty, and they are. This is why Lee's influence can never go far. As much as Lee and company has tried to keep their dirty laundry from sight, it's too late. If you wanted to rightly maintain such an honorable and upright image for all to see and thus receive your ministry, then like my mom told me, "you should have thought about it before you did all those bad things."

[OBW]

Igzy,

First, if it is all about who you or I first heard it from, then I'm not sure that there is a way to extricate them. But I'm seeing that the things that were true and possibly new to us were not new to others outside of there movement.

First, at least part of your "likes" comes from the inner-life movement. neither Nee or Lee started that movement. In fact, Nee was somewhat steeped in some of the earliest inner-life writers. I think that Jesse Penn Lewis fits in that and he "borrowed" heavily from her. In fact, at some level, the local churches are a kind of inner-life movement group. And it is the near extreme of inner-life emphasis over everything else that underpins much of what we learned. But we didn't need Lee to learn it. And the LRC does not need Nee or Lee to keep those parts of it they want.

You mention several general areas of teaching that you learned from them. I will not deny that it is where we learned it. But is it specially theirs? At any point in time?

Let's look at them:

Originally Posted by Igzy

A greater emphasis on the unity of the Church and on the Church as the place where God dwells and puts his name. The tendency in churches is still to look at each individual church as more or less the work of a pastor or set of pastors, rather than a real and direct work of God. There is also a tendency to look at them more as "ours" than "God's." The sense of the church, the people, as the holy dwelling place of God is still not as strong as it I think it should be.

While there are places that don't have a lot to say about other assemblies, of their group or otherwise, I think that the level of disunity in the church was greatly misrepresented by Lee and the LRC. There is no doubt that we tend to meet with like minds, but with some exceptions, we are not antagonistically at odds, building vast fences to shake hands over. We were taught to look at the fact that there are different groups on the same corner as evidence of a problem. Of course, it was not a problem that right down the street the LRC open yet another franchise. So the rhetoric of disunity in the church was all hat, no boots. They painted a picture of disunity that was cast in terms that only they could cure with something that could duplicate every alleged point of disunity that they pointed at, but was washed away by something else.

Originally Posted by Igzy

A greater emphasis on what God is after than what we are after. God is still sold as the answer to man's problems. This is indeed true. But the idea that God has a definite goal in mind which is being worked out in time is still not that popular an idea.

At least that is the story we are told. But are we sure that the important things that they say God is after are that clearly different from what the rest of Christianity is teaching? It seems to me that the origins are very much about the image of God being exercised on earth by mankind. And most of what comes after that is the steps God has taken to provide a cure for the U-turn that we took as a species at a time long past. So becoming the people we were meant to be seems more important that so much of what we focused on in the LRC. Most of it seems to point to how we act toward God (sacrifice and worship — none of which are bad) and little about how we live as proof that God changes lives (and not how we live in the meetings, but in daily life).

As for not being a popular idea, there is some truth in that. But I'm not sure that the emphasis on what that should be is still a problem. I believe that the missing ingredient for most is that we do not become those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. That are peacemakers. That are truly meek. That tolerate persecution. (We double our fists and demand that our God-given rights as US citizens deny anyone the ability to persecute us.)

In short, sanctification. There is too little emphasis on what comes after deciding that you will check the box to be a believer in Jesus. We don't really see that following is not mostly about evangelism, but about change in our lives.

You can argue that Lee and the LRC made you think there was something God was after. But I'm not sure that they were talking about what God is after. Does that sort of make their teaching on the subject pointless? It seems so to me.

Originally Posted by Igzy

A greater emphasis of the Trinity as a central mystery crucial for our experience. The Trinity is, unfortunately, really de-emphasized in churches today. It's almost a subject they try to avoid, I guess because it's confusing. That's a shame, because in my experience, appreciating the Trinity enhances my relationship with God. Although I disagreed with Lee's flatly stating again and again ad nauseum that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit, at the same time in the best possible way I know what he was getting at. If you make the Son and the Spirit too distinct, it hinders your experience. I don't claim to completely understand it, because no one does. But I do think he was onto something.

I think that the claim that there is a danger of too much distinction between the Son and the Spirit is way over blown. Only if you start treating them as so separate that you pray to one to get aligned with the other so that you get what you want or something ridiculous like that. Start treating them as not truly One.

And I do not see that happening anywhere that I am aware of.

The Trinity is far from avoided in what I hear and read. And oddly, the older the "tradition" is, the more that they really appreciate the Trinity. They are more informed on what it was that scripture says about the Father v the Son v the Sprit rather than throwing them into a blender and getting a Trinity slushie. If there is anything unique about the things I learned concerning the Trinity from Lee and the LRC, it was that their Oneness overrides anything separate about them. And of all the things to unlearn, that should be at the top of our list.

Jesus taught us to pray in a way that was to the Father. It was not to the Son or the Spirit. In fact, is there anything in the NT that suggests that we should pray to the Son or the Spirit? Prayer seems to be designated in a particular way. Now I'm not suggesting that our less formal praying that we start with something like "Oh, Lord . . ." are simply wrong. I still do it. But I am beginning to understand that there really is something to the fact that prayer is to God the Father. And if you "ask in my name" it seems quite wrong to ask Jesus in his name. It is ask the Father in my name.

There is reason that we are given specific statements about the Father, about the Son, and about the Spirit. It was not to devise a doctrine of their relationship. Each was/is specific and pointed. Teaching that it is all just One is to ignore what scripture takes many words to put in place.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Emphasis on God trying to build the Church on the earth as testimony and a Bride prepared before he returns. I rarely hear this taught anywhere else.

The number of references to the subject (not that many) and the relative quantity of words on the subject makes me think that getting so wrapped-up in the topic, even to the point of creating the kind of thing that is the LRC, seems way out of sync. And the references to "Bride" are metaphorical. Not demeaning the importance of that. If we were once truly the image of God, but lost that position, then we are not of similar "species." Once we collectively regain the true position as God's image bearers, then we have become of a similar species. Don't go overboard with the "same species" part of the metaphor because that will lead you to becoming God in everything but the Godhead. The point is that in the new creation, we are destined to be "like him," therefore (at least metaphorically) matching Christ and therefore ready to join Him in the New J.

I am not saying that that is "the way" to understand it. But I would suggest that the emphasis of bride in the LRC is way out of balance to its emphasis in scripture. There's a verse here, and a verse there, then the short bit in the end of Revelation. It is not something so profound that it should become preeminent.

But I have heard this outside the LRC. And it seemed consistent with what the scripture actually says. And in keeping with the balance of things taught in scripture.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Emphasis on the indwelling Christ and union with Christ, being crucified with Christ. These ideas are very rudimentary in Christian teaching today.

Yes, they are imprtant. And they are true whether you dwell on them or not.

And they are part of that inner-life thing that Nee brought into his teaching. You may have heard it first from Nee/Lee, but it did not start with them. No need to keep them protected to make that one work.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think many of the teachings on the human spirit are still very helpful. Many Christians I meet though they know Jesus lives in them are vague about it. But again, Nee and Lee went a little overboard with it, trying to turn it into a science. That doesn't negate the importance.

I'll ignore the tripartite man stuff (which you are also doing).

I would agree that there is a difference in how the LRC views Christ being in us compared to how many others view it. But I'm not convinced that the difference is important. Or that either view is superior. There is a significant sense of God speaking within us in many ways. Some even more than we might actually think is happening. But what I seem to be finding is that the more people tend toward seeking God within v seeking him without (in the scripture, writings, sermons, etc.) the more they tend toward fanciful thoughts and even error. The old joke about the effects of a bad taco on the spiritual life of someone that is too inward-looking is, well, too real. The more we are driven from something inside that does not have a grounding in what is solid and verifiable, the more we are at risk of being driven into error. Or at least distracted from what is important.

And I'm talking about people outside the LRC that aren't even in charismatic groups. Good ol' evangelicals who are happy to nearly go it alone in their search for truth. Just me, my Bible, and God. And if we are not careful, we will become like Nee and Lee who somewhat dismissed the Bible when it did not go along with what they were "feeling" or "seeing" inside (that they claimed was a word from God).

----

And last, earlier I said "No need to keep them protected to make that one work." Since your question was about why we need Nee and Lee (or the LRC does even if we don't), I believe that the things I have said, both in the first post and in this one, are strong points about why there is not reason to protect their image. We — specific people who were once in the LRC — may have heard certain things that were "true" that we had never heard before. But we don't need Nee or Lee for them because they were simply messengers of things already out there that we just had not heard.

I think that your perspective of including things that you suspect were not unique with them is stabbing your own question in the heart. If I have to respect my own first source, then Nee was right in Spritual Authority and we are all in rebellion because we ditched Nee and Lee.

[Cal]

OBW, I never said these things were new or unique to Nee and Lee, or that we had to respect Nee and Lee as the first source or best source of anything.

I said some of them were things I believe God was and still is trying to emphasize. Not all, but some. And many churches and ministries still have not picked up on them, at least as much as I think they should. I said one of the reasons the LC was so compelling (and why we are still talking about it 30 years later) was because there were some essential things that were seen in the LC that were largely neglected at the time, and in many cases still are.

Here's a real simple, basic example. The whole idea of "going to heaven" is I still think, a mis-aiming. It's not a big deal. But it subtly changes your focus from exercising God's authority on earth to looking forward to getting out of here. More ministers in the last 30 year have seen this matter, Randy Alcorn being one. I think this is a good thing. Now my point is not that we need to acknowledge Nee as the founder of this idea, but we should at least say he was ahead of the mainstream with it, and so with some other things he taught.

The fact that I believe Nee and Lee had a few compelling things to say should not bother you, however. Because that was not even my main point, and my point doesn't depend on it. My point was that, even giving them the benefit of the doubt, IT'S STILL NOT ABOUT THEM. It is always about the message. And the message should be strong enough to endure the failures and shortcomings of the messengers. So why bother to, tooth and nail, defend the reputations of Nee and Lee? I'm speaking to those in the LC movement, not to you.

My point is that focusing on the message allows us to examine it objectively. Focusing on men, especially those we feel we need to cowtow to, pushes us to become subjective and accommodating about the message. This reaches it's extreme with Lee. His message is not questioned among LCers because of his reputation, not because the message itself is airtight.

Do you have anything to say about that? Because that's what the thread is really about.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

My point is that focusing on the message allows us to examine it objectively. Focusing on men, especially those we feel we need to cowtow to, pushes us to become subjective and accommodating about the message. This reaches it's extreme with Lee. His message is not questioned among LCers because of his reputation, not because the message itself is airtight.

Great points, Igzy.

If we want to impact current members, we must be objective, and we must address the facts. Bitterness always turns off the loyalists. It was the facts of eyewitness accounts that first caught my attention.

[james73]

Originally Posted by Igzy

My point is that focusing on the message allows us to examine it objectively. Focusing on men, especially those we feel we need to cowtow to, pushes us to become subjective and accommodating about the message. This reaches it's extreme with Lee. His message is not questioned among LCers because of his reputation, not because the message itself is airtight.

Do you have anything to say about that? Because that's what the thread is really about.

The problem is, it's not a church. You might as well go through the messages and manuals of Amway or Nuskin or Philip Morris and point out how unbiblical they are. By arguing their half-baked theology we are simply accepting the premise that they are Christians, that they are a church. But really, the only evidence they are a church is that they say they are.

The whole LSM/local church thing is a scam to support Lee book sales. People pay HK$100 per head to watch a crappy DVD of a conference. They line up to buy the weekly books. Each member must recruit two more members every year and they do it with pride, spiritual pride. LSM's onto a good thing. It even gets tax breaks by calling its sales promotions "missionary work". But don't confuse it with a church, however, just because it calls itself a church and bases its "product" around the bible. Would you bother trying to discredit Peter Popoff's miracle spring water using biblical arguments?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

He was the encourager of the people of the 60s. He was not revered as the MOTA, but some began to suggest "apostle" by the early 70s. I heard it in early 73. The rest is history. Daystar. Max. Run Max off. Lawsuits. Like being exalted. Run off Ingalls, Mallons, and others. Insist that your sexual predator son be the head of your ministry and direct how churches run their affairs.

In the initial post Igzy said, "Yet, clearly from their behavior they feel they cannot carry out their mission of preserving the principles unique to their movement without also preserving as pristine the reputations of their founders. "

Part of the preservation is minimizing of "brothers who were ran off". In recent messages I have heard them disingenously referred to as "heroes".

Character of former elders were bismirched in order to preserve reputations of the founders.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Part of the preservation is minimizing of "brothers who were ran off". In recent messages I have heard them disingenuously referred to as "heroes".

Character of former elders were besmirched in order to preserve reputations of the founders.

Can you say more when these "recent messages" were spoken, and who referred to who as heroes.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can you say more when these "recent messages" were spoken, and who referred to who as heroes.

The messages I am referring to were given in 2013 by Ron Kangas at regional blending conferences. Did not say explicitly who the "heroes" are. An implication towards brothers who rose up in the past.
With the exception of Steve Isitt, brother Ron doesn't mention names. He refers to brothers in form of innuendo (Bill Mallon, Bill Freeman,etc). It's up to the listener to connect the dots.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

In other words, the movement thinks beyond any doubt that many of the spiritual principles they uphold, which they see as neglected in other Christian groups, are absolutely crucial to God achieving what he desires to achieve. Thus they see themselves as stewards of these things.

The problem is, the LC for some reason also feels that the defense of Nee and Lee is essential to carrying out their mission. Probably if pressed they would not want to admit that protecting Nee's and Lee's reputations is part of their mission. Yet, clearly from their behavior they feel they cannot carry out their mission of preserving the principles unique to their movement without also preserving as pristine the reputations of their founders.

The question I have is, Why do they feel this way?

The failures of all these great men of God in the Bible also points us to the fact that God the Father is jealous over His Son. He alone is perfect, holy, and righteous. He will not allow His Son to have any rivals in His household. That glory will not be shared with fallen man. For eternity it will be known that His Son is the Redeeming Lamb, and we all are the redeemed sinners.

The apostles understood this all too clearly after the resurrection of the Christ. When men attempted to uplift them, they quickly said, "we too are men." (Peter in Acts 10.26; Paul in Acts 14.15) The church in Corinth, though not revering the apostles as "gods," still uplifted them beyond what was pleasing to God, saying "I am of such-and-such man." Paul hammered home the point that we boast in no man but the Lord, (I Cor. 1.30, 3.21-23) and that the apostles are as nothing compared to Him. (I Cor. 1.13; 3.6-7)

Nee and Lee taught these same things, yet did not practice what they preached. Within their little circle of Christians, they were absolutely preeminent. Their handlers presented them alone as flawless spokesmen for God on earth. Within their local churches, their ministries rose above the word of God. All other ministers were flawed, substandard, and degraded -- and worthy of censure. Theirs alone must be revered as God's speaking in the present day.

Thus they must be perfect, and without failure. It is inconceivable that the morals of these men could be on the same level as their contemporaries. Without being elevated beyond all Christian coevals, lavished with such titles as the MOTA, the acting God, deputy authority, today's Paul, etc., everything they have ministered would be held up to examination, and much of it would collapse like a house of cards.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nee and Lee taught these same things, yet did not practice what they preached. Within their little circle of Christians, they were absolutely preeminent. Their handlers presented them alone as flawless spokesmen for God on earth. Within their local churches, their ministries rose above the word of God. All other ministers were flawed, substandard, and degraded -- and worthy of censure. Theirs alone must be revered as God's speaking in the present day.

Thus they must be perfect, and without failure. It is inconceivable that the morals of these men could be on the same level as their contemporaries. Without being elevated beyond all Christian coevals, lavished with such titles as the MOTA, the acting God, deputy authority, today's Paul, etc., everything they have ministered would be held up to examination, and much of it would collapse like a house of cards.

Well summarized, Ohio. The LC feels the reputations of Nee and Lee must be kept pristine because they alone are the spokesmen for God for this "age."

So the LC mission is not just to uphold the message, because it should stand on its own. Their mission is to diminish every other messenger than Nee and Lee. They must have no rivals, period.

[Cal]

So, to my point, the question is, what is the Local Church movement trying to achieve?

If indeed they want to spread their message, it would seem that the way to do so would be to package it for consumption for the audience they wish to reach. To get the message out in reader-friendly and viewer-friendly form, in a way that is as attractive and non-threatening as possible and then let it assimilate into the mainstream as it may. If their message is as good at they seem to think, then it will, eventually, have a definite impact on the Church at large. This cannot, assuming the message is good, be a bad thing.

(Honestly, this ship probably already sailed. The LC's reputation is so suspect, that any attempt to package for the masses would be met with extreme suspicion, especially if they included some of their more suspect and self-serving teachings. Even so, if they really wished to help the Church at large, and they should, this is what they would be focusing on, rather than lawsuits and chest-thumping and singing their own praises.)

But, unfortunately, it seems the LC is really not that interested in influencing the Church at large. Or in being happy with having some influence. Rather, they seem bent on maintaining the status quo and protecting the reputations of Nee and Lee as the unique spokesmen of God, to the goal of maintaining the distinction between themselves and everyone else. That is, their goal is to maintain their little kingdom.

Again, I think God had some things to tell the Church through Nee, and even Lee. But they became power-hungry and self-serving. Now their whole movement is that way. The LC feels the need to be top dog, and everything is about them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So, to my point, the question is, what is the Local Church movement trying to achieve?

If indeed they want to spread their message, it would seem that the way to do so would be to package it for consumption for the audience they wish to reach. To get the message out in reader-friendly and viewer-friendly form, in a way that is as attractive and non-threatening as possible and then let it assimilate into the mainstream as it may. If their message is as good at they seem to think, then it will, eventually, have a definite impact on the Church at large. This cannot, assuming the message is good, be a bad thing.

Here, I think the ministry of W. Nee had been "packaged for consumption," by CLC, CFP, and LSM. Many have been helped by Nee's ministry, and in certain circles, he is still widely respected.

Lee also has been heavily edited and "packaged for consumption," via the radio broadcasts, as just another gifted minister. Apparently the Spanish-speaking and Chinese-speaking world has been more receptive than us "moo-cow" Americans.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here, I think the ministry of W. Nee had been "packaged for consumption," by CLC, CFP, and LSM. Many have been helped by Nee's ministry, and in certain circles, he is still widely respected.

Lee also has been heavily edited and "packaged for consumption," via the radio broadcasts, as just another gifted minister. Apparently the Spanish-speaking and Chinese-speaking world has been more receptive than us "moo-cow" Americans.

It may have been packaged for those over the age of 50, or who still speak and think in the cadences of the 1950s. But the fact is, the writings of Nee and Lee read strange to most modern Christians. They expect things to be written in the common vernacular using familiar terms, and with references to modern life. They expect to be able to relate to teachers as people.

Nee and Lee's stuff reads like it was written in a vacuum. It's too "holy." There is no point of reference, no sense they are real people, no sense of humor. Even Paul and Jesus occasionally expressed senses of humor. In short, it's stuffy. The Bible was actually written in a more common language than we think. Which is why the tone of "The Message" might be more accurate than the tone of the NASB. So in that sense the good stuff of their ministries has not really been processed for mainstream consumption.

Of course, LSM is clueless in this regard, because it's all about preserving things that are really not important. Like wearing grey suits with grey ties. Does anyone really think doing that accomplishes anything for God? But Lee did it so to them it must be correct to dress like an 80-year-old Chinese man did 30 years ago.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yet, clearly from their behavior they feel they cannot carry out their mission of preserving the principles unique to their movement without also preserving as pristine the reputations of their founders.

The question I have is, Why do they feel this way?

These two sentences are what I understand as the question you have asked. For all that I wrote about, then responded to you concerning, I believe that I have been answering this question.

But I will try a different approach, but the same thought behind it.

The reason they need to protect and defend Nee and Lee is that the things they think are truly important in their beliefs are not simply common things that do not required Nee or Lee. It is something that is unique in each thing that is important. It requires that they remain important so that their novel reading of scripture is supportable. If Nee and Lee are not accepted as viable interpreters of the Bible, then their strange misreadings don't just fall under the label of "controversial." They become panned because their credentials as Bible commentators would be revoked.

And even if the rest of Christianity has problems with Nee and Lee, the LRC must keep seeing things their way. If they allow Nee and Lee to go, then the Son did not become the Holy Spirit. The principle of covering the errors of your leaders ceases to be a principle (and all the skeletons come out of the closet).

There is surely something more important than "going to heaven." But was the LRC version really it either? You were right in a more recent post to mention it is how we live here and now more than what is to come. It is evident from reading Paul's words on the future that he saw it as a reason to be more fervent to do what is required today. So the LRC sort of got that one right.

Or did they? Were they really about how we live today? Seems that today was unimportant as long as I was in my spirit. It is as if they picked on a fault of evangelical Christianity then simply moved to a different fault. And a lot of people in the lead among evangelicals are arguing that this is a missed area. That today is ultimately important because without it there is no tomorrow. (Not talking about salvation.)

So I return to the idea that the LRC desperately needs to keep Nee and Lee intact, at least as far as the insiders are concerned. They are too dependent on beliefs and practices that could not be supported if you removed the reason for saying James was just a Judaizer (among other things). That keep the entire upper structure of their hierarchy in place despite gross sin being covered up and even allowed to continue. (Remember, they were fighting against John Ingalls before PL was excommunicated. They did not want him removed.)

[OBW]

Another way to put it is that it is the message, but without the men, the message is suspect or fails. So it also must be the men.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

Another way to put it is that it is the message, but without the men, the message is suspect or fails. So it also must be the men.

The example I'd like to bring forth is when brother Ron spoke on Mark 11:25 in November 2012.

"Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions."

By itself, the verse is a positive verse. yet in the context of the person speaking it I have had this thought, "does that mean Ron had forgiven John Ingalls for John's perceived wrongdoings by which Ron co-wrote A Response to Recent Accusations or had Ron forgiven Steve Isitt for his perceived wrongdoings through which Ron called Steve "a man of death" and the most evil speaker on the internet?"
If there is forgiveness, you would think there would be some form of communication to those brothers indicating forgiveness. Ron could easily visit John at his home in Anaheim. In his visits to the NW, Ron could easily check with the brothers how to get right with Steve. I don't forsee either happening which is why just like Barrack Obama, all I hear is lip service from the man giving the message. For the record, I would dearly love to be proven wrong and for reconciliation between Ron and John and between Ron and Steve.

By comparison when the Living Waters publication existed in which Bill Mallon, Stephen Kaung, John Ingalls, Max Rapoport, Vern DeFromke, and Paul Kerr were contributors. In which of what happened in Anaheim 1977/78, for Max to work with these brothers, I deduced there must have been forgiveness on Max's behalf.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

The example I'd like to bring forth is when brother Ron spoke on Mark 11:25 in November 2012.

"Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions."

By itself, the verse is a positive verse. yet in the context of the person speaking it I have had this thought, "does that mean Ron had forgiven John Ingalls for John's perceived wrongdoings by which Ron co-wrote A Response to Recent Accusations or had Ron forgiven Steve Isitt for his perceived wrongdoings through which Ron called Steve "a man of death" and the most evil speaker on the internet?"
If there is forgiveness, you would think there would be some form of communication to those brothers indicating forgiveness. Ron could easily visit John at his home in Anaheim. In his visits to the NW, Ron could easily check with the brothers how to get right with Steve. I don't forsee either happening which is why just like Barrack Obama, all I hear is lip service from the man giving the message. For the record, I would dearly love to be proven wrong and for reconciliation between Ron and John and between Ron and Steve.

By comparison when the Living Waters publication existed in which Bill Mallon, Stephen Kaung, John Ingalls, Max Rapoport, Vern DeFromke, and Paul Kerr were contributors. In which of what happened in Anaheim 1977/78, for Max to work with these brothers, I deduced there must have been forgiveness on Max's behalf.

Forgiveness is a funny thing. Its primary purpose seems to be freeing the forgiver from the bondage of ill-will, angst, bitterness, etc. But in this life, our forgiveness does note necessarily remove the consequences of the actions of the person forgiven. There is a different requirement upon them. That requirement is much like what the 12-step programs call "making amends." The one who is forgiven can e relived of his debt if he makes amends. And in some cases, making amends can be costly. Some have gone to jail because of it.

I know that, like in the Lord's prayer, we are to forgive the debts or transgressions of others, so it is easy to ask "what is there to have to do on the part of the one who has wronged the other?" The answer is that in my forgiveness, I release the debt. But before God, and sometimes before man (government, etc.) there is still a debt that is not so easily removed.

And in some cases, you must forgive someone, but that does not mean that you are required to allow them the opportunity to transgress on you again. You forgive that weird uncle that molested you. But you don't ever be alone with him again. (not a personal experience, just an example)

I go through all of that to say that it is impossible to absolutely say that someone like Ron or Benson have not forgiven others who are no longer "in fellowship" with them.

But maybe the real question is what is it that Benson or Ron have to forgive? Is it that someone was sitting in the way and they got run over by BP or RK? That is a serious offense to be in the way of a delegated authority. You need to repent for having your foot there for me to step on.

So, in a backhanded kind of way, I grant that they may have actually forgiven people like John and Steve. But that is almost irrelevant. Was there ever anything that John or Steve had to repent of other than not simply saying "Yess massah!!" when told what to do? I'm not demeaning those who were the slaves in early America. I'm insulting the people who would be worse than those who were the slave owners.

The LRC's idea of wrongs is warped. And it comes from their leaders. When it is considered a wrong to pick up some papers from the floor without being specifically told to but not considered a wrong to think that way, then there is a serious problem.

And people who think this way are just warped enough to be incapable of discerning good from evil. From hearing God. Because if they could actually hear God, they would change their ways. But they did not, so their claim of getting a word from God is seriously suspect.

And, as someone has coined the phrase, birds of a feather flock together.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

Th
So I return to the idea that the LRC desperately needs to keep Nee and Lee intact, at least as far as the insiders are concerned. They are too dependent on beliefs and practices that could not be supported if you removed the reason for saying James was just a Judaizer (among other things). That keep the entire upper structure of their hierarchy in place despite gross sin being covered up and even allowed to continue. (Remember, they were fighting against John Ingalls before PL was excommunicated. They did not want him removed.)

Something to keep in mind is there's two sides to a coin. When John ultimately ceased meeting with the Church in Anaheim, I'm sure many would think why. Not many would ask why until years later. At the time the LC concept was God's move on the earth was through the local churches. Why would one of the principal leaders step aside. To give grace to John would leave question unanswered so Witness Lee and LSM had to create their own spin for consumption among the local churches.
Lee's ministry had to be kept intact. To expose he did not want to hear about his son running the LSM office. Same with LSM co-workers who were intimately aware of Phillip Lee's immoral behavior. Better to keep the system intact and throw brothers under the bus who had left the recovery movement by making his son a non-issue and making the brothers who left the issue.

Speaking about the Book of James, this book (along with Psalms and Proverbs) needs to be diminished in order to support the "upper structure of their hierarchy".

‘Now if a person sins after he hears a public adjuration to testify when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt. Or if a person touches any unclean thing, whether a carcass of an unclean beast or the carcass of unclean cattle or a carcass of unclean swarming things, though it is hidden from him and he is unclean, then he will be guilty. Or if he touches human uncleanness, of whatever sort his uncleanness may be with which he becomes unclean, and it is hidden from him, and then he comes to know it, he will be guilty. Or if a person swears thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or to do good, in whatever matter a man may speak thoughtlessly with an oath, and it is hidden from him, and then he comes to know it, he will be guilty in one of these.
Leviticus 5:1-4

Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.
James 4:17

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

The reason they need to protect and defend Nee and Lee is that the things they think are truly important in their beliefs are not simply common things that do not required Nee or Lee. It is something that is unique in each thing that is important. It requires that they remain important so that their novel reading of scripture is supportable. If Nee and Lee are not accepted as viable interpreters of the Bible, then their strange misreadings don't just fall under the label of "controversial." They become panned because their credentials as Bible commentators would be revoked.

And even if the rest of Christianity has problems with Nee and Lee, the LRC must keep seeing things their way.

Well, this works as a cold-eyed analysis from outside. But it doesn't work as an explanation of how they really think. I mean, do you really believe the LCers, even the leadership, sit around and say, "Well, we know our doctrines are crap, see? So let's keep the focus on Nee and Lee as ministers of the age so the members don't analyze our crappy doctrines too closely."

Really?

You may be explaining how things work, but you still are not explaining fundamental motivations.

The question is, why do LCers think Lee was the MOTA? Rather than try to figure it out, just think back to why you believed it at one time. You believed it, I would think, because:

• Lee was outwardly impressive.
• The teachings were innovative and seemingly powerful.
• Your experience in the LC seemed to confirm that the group was a cut above the rest.
• You were made to fear believing otherwise.

Now the question is, is there a star chamber somewhere where LC leaders cynically try to keep the focus on Lee to maintain their myths? I doubt it. I think they believe that reverence for the MOTA is not only appropriate, it's necessary to be faithful to God. However, and this goes back to my original point, THIS IS NOT THE WAY THE BIBLE PRESENTS ANYONE WHO MIGHT BE CONSIDERED A MOTA. The Bible exposes them warts and all. The Bible does not support reverence for leaders and founders as practiced by the LC. Not even close.

I'm writing this in the hope some LCer somewhere might say, "Hey, he's right."

The next step is what you said, once the MOTA myth crashes, and the message becomes the most important thing, the message can be scrutinized and the crap can be thrown out with the cat litter. Praise the Lord!

So you are absolutely right about what's going on. Except the part that the LCers are actually thinking it.

[james73]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The question is, why do LCers think Lee was the MOTA? Rather than try to figure it out, just think back to why you believed it at one time. You believed it, I would think, because:

• Lee was outwardly impressive.
• The teachings were innovative and seemingly powerful.
• Your experience in the LC seemed to confirm that the group was a cut above the rest.
• You were made to fear believing otherwise.

Now the question is, is there a star chamber somewhere where LC leaders cynically try to keep the focus on Lee to maintain their myths? I doubt it.

Add to the list, the teachings themselves were seeped in promoting "the recovery" as God's exclusive move on earth.

Well, first, the leaders don't need to sit in a star chamber and try to keep the focus on Lee, it has a life of its own now. Those list items do the work. So long as nothing changes, it will continue to work and multiply, just like a good pyramid always will (until it runs out of people to scam). That's why boat rockers are swiftly removed. You say there is no star chamber, I say to some extent there HAS to be some coordination and manipulation to ensure the troublemakers don't start opening the eyes of the others. Lee set it up like this, the star chamber merely has to ensure nothing changes. They don't need to be evil conspirators to do that, just maintain the status quo. And not ask too many questions.

You can't reform a Ponzi, the best you can do is shut it down. Almost everyone will lose their money but at least nobody new will be added to the list of victims.

By the way, I never suggested insulting anyone or firing torpedos when I said LC wasn't a church. It's just my opinion. I keep it to this forum (which is supposed to be a safe place etc) - I don't go around telling LC people they are wrong. So hold off on the sanctimonious "for me, I prefer to respect people" blah, thanks!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by james73

By the way, I never suggested insulting anyone or firing torpedos when I said LC wasn't a church. It's just my opinion. I keep it to this forum (which is supposed to be a safe place etc) - I don't go around telling LC people they are wrong.

LCers read this forum.

[Cal]

By the way, how many of you guys participating in this thread have supported the board financially? Please consider doing so if you haven't yet. Thanks.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Igzy

By the way, how many of you guys participating in this thread have supported the board financially? Please consider doing so if you haven't yet. Thanks.

The forum has always been helpful to me. And I am sorry; I haven't supported the board yet. I'm not in the US, so it's a bit difficult for me. Anyway, I'd not like to describe and explain my circumstances or give an empty promise. I just want to say sorry if I am not able to help financially.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, this works as a cold-eyed analysis from outside. But it doesn't work as an explanation of how they really think. I mean, do you really believe the LCers, even the leadership, sit around and say, "Well, we know our doctrines are crap, see? So let's keep the focus on Nee and Lee as ministers of the age so the members don't analyze our crappy doctrines too closely."

Really?

You may be explaining how things work, but you still are not explaining fundamental motivations.

You may not think they consider this. But if you are among the theological leaders of the group and you can't start from zero — no magic overlay to use to redefine what it all means, etc. — and you want to get to some of those teachings, you need to have an authority that you can point to that makes it real. The whole Spiritual Authority teaching is circular. You need someone to walk cavalierly through the Bible and devise a hierarchy that is far beyond anything intended by the passages being used (abused?) so that you can have a teaching that allows someone to walk cavalierly through the Bible devising teachings (including the hierarchy) that no one else can come up with.

If it is just about "God's purpose is more than Heaven," you don't need Nee or Lee. That is a rather commonly-held teaching that is right there in plain sight.

If it is just about "Christ lives in me," you don't need Nee or Lee.

If you need Babylon to become Christianity so that the LRC can return to "Jerusalem" and be the remnant, then you need someone to stroll cavalierly through the Bible disregarding many things actually written, along with the obvious metaphorical error of aligning Babylon with being God's people. Of course, Nee and Lee aren't the first ones to use that erroneous metaphor. There are a handful of small, marginal sects (now and back through the years) that have created "remnant" theologies. And they all need to misread the Bible.

I don't think the current brass has the guts to stand up and simply declare that whatever they are saying is true on its own.

But that does not mean that I think they are just frauds that don't believe what they are saying. I've seen the look in BP's eyes as he speaks (many years ago). He is a believer. He buys it. You can talk about RK's theological training. But I think he buys it. But they both realize that if there is not truth in a hierarchy of man under God in which someone rises to the level of speaking new things for God that don't completely square-up with the existing scripture, then they are thin ice. They do not see the way for them to simply say that these things are so.

They need Nee to have been that pinnacle person years ago. (And since Nee has been heavily respected by much of Christianity, his word might carry at least a little weight with some.) They need someone with a history that puts them in line to speak new things that have not been heard before. If Nee makes the cut, then Lee might just be the rational next-in-line. That keeps "God's economy" on track, along with several other newer things. (I can't remember, but is the "Jesus became the Spirit" thing originally Lee's . . . or Nee's . . . or someone else's?).

But if you do not like that reason. Then the motivation can only be that they really do think that he is/was the MOTA, God's deputy authority, the Oracle of God, the one who writes new scripture (effectively, though never spoken out loud as such).

They really are the personality cult that awareness has been so fond of pointing out . . . . And it might be true.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

They really are the personality cult that awareness has been so fond of pointing out . . . . And it might be true.

That would be "personalities cult," as in two : Nee and Lee.

I read other authors while in the local church, that were mentioned by Lee.

But many times I got the cross made out of fingers by some brothers, dispelling the devil in them (tree of knowledge).

But I never got the finger cross while reading Nee and Lee.

So the local church is a personalities cult : of Nee, & mini-Nee ; and now the personalities of the Blended Bros ; that are possessed by the personalities of both Nee & Lee.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

But if you do not like that reason. Then the motivation can only be that they really do think that he is/was the MOTA, God's deputy authority, the Oracle of God, the one who writes new scripture (effectively, though never spoken out loud as such).

They really are the personality cult that awareness has been so fond of pointing out . . . . And it might be true.

I think it's a combination of the two. And the two support the weakness of each other. When Lee's theology seems compelling and unique, they think, "See? He is clearly special." When the theology seems weak, they think, "Doesn't matter, because he's the MOTA."

It's circular. Why is he the MOTA? Because of his esoteric theology. Why is his theology so special, even to the point you swallow things that make no sense? Because he's the MOTA.

But, as I said, no decent theology requires the imprimatur of a special minister. The theology should stand on its own. Lee's really doesn't. So when it sags they say, "How can you question the MOTA?" I don't think they necessarily do this cynically. It's just the self-perpetuating mindset of these types of groups.

But, to my main point again, if LCers were really honest they would admit that all the MOTA claptrap is a crutch. If they want their ideas to prevail in the arena of ideas, they should force themselves to see if they can stand on their own. Normal people aren't going to buy this MOTA crap, only the Kool-Aid drinkers. Well, swaying the Kool-Aid drinkers is easy, it's the other 98% that are a problem.

That's basically what LSM offers. A theology for Kool-Aid drinkers. I think Lee was onto some things. I said that. But all Lee, all the time, as a main course? No, thank you very much.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think it's a combination of the two. And the two support the weakness of each other. When Lee's theology seems compelling and unique, they think, "See? He is clearly special." When the theology seems weak, they think, "Doesn't matter, because he's the MOTA."

It's circular. Why is he the MOTA? Because of his esoteric theology. Why is his theology so special, even to the point you swallow things that make no sense? Because he's the MOTA.

But, as I said, no decent theology requires the imprimatur of a special minister. The theology should stand on its own. Lee's really doesn't. So when it sags they say, "How can you question the MOTA?" I don't think they necessarily do this cynically. It's just the self-perpetuating mindset of these types of groups.

In a vacuum, Lee's reputation as the Recovery MOTA was certainly adequate for him to introduce all sorts of esoteric theology.

When the rebellion of the late 80's exploded on the scene, not even Lee's special MOTA status in the Recovery was adequate for survival. He needed numerous well-respected leaders to prop him up, close their eyes to criminal unrighteousness, and be willing to fabricate lies for him.

It was basically the Texas contingency who came to his rescue. Had more fair-minded leaders been willing to examine the statements made by Ingalls, Mallon, and others, the Recovery would have come crashing down under the weight of unrighteousness.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Normal people aren't going to buy this MOTA crap, only the Kool-Aid drinkers.

This is tangential but I thought I'd remark. Y'all know that I'm not shy about using the word cult or the term Kool-Aid, even tho I've gotten blow-back for doing so, cuz of the risk of turning people off and away.

While I was looking into Sarah Palin's new web TV channel called Rogue TV I saw an interview with former CNN president Jon Klein and former NBC entertainment chairman Jeff Gaspin, who are starting this new form of TV. They mentioned that they were looking for contributors like Palin who had Super Fans.

So maybe to make it more palatable to the LCers, that might visit us, we should use the term Super Fans, for Leeites. Since they are Kool-Aid drinkers they'll prolly take it as a compliment.

Now I need to work on a palatable word for the word cult. So far I'm stumped. Thanks to Mel Porter I saw "cult," and I can't unsee it.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by OBW

The reason they need to protect and defend Nee and Lee is that the things they think are truly important in their beliefs are not simply common things that do not required Nee or Lee. It is something that is unique in each thing that is important. It requires that they remain important so that their novel reading of scripture is supportable. If Nee and Lee are not accepted as viable interpreters of the Bible, then their strange misreadings don't just fall under the label of "controversial." They become panned because their credentials as Bible commentators would be revoked.

In other words, if their idols and “high-peak truth” heralds, Nee and Lee, made mistakes, then their “high-peak truth” doesn’t look like “high-peak truth.” To keep the organization working, the LRC’s Sun must not have spots, i.e. Nee’s and Lee’s reputation must be indisputable.

It’s a very common thing with sects and certain teachings. Take communism, in the USSR, Lenin was always right. If people knew his mistakes, then the same people would start questioning Lenin’s teaching.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

It’s a very common thing with sects and certain teachings. Take communism, in the USSR, Lenin was always right. If people knew his mistakes, then the same people would start questioning Lenin’s teaching.

Right. The difference is that the communists probably cynically knew this and still exploited it.

Do you seriously think the LC leadership cynically manipulates their members? Or you think they really think that Lee was the MOTA and that reverence to him is part of their duty?

I still think it's the latter. I could be wrong, but when I was there people really, really believed this stuff.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Right. The difference is that the communists probably cynically knew this and still exploited it.

Do you seriously think the LC leadership cynically manipulates their members? Or you think they really think that Lee was the MOTA and that reverence to him is part of their duty?

I still think it's the latter. I could be wrong, but when I was there people really, really believed this stuff.

As for communists and their leaders, there were two types of them: those who were sincerely mistaken. And those who used the teaching to gain personal power.

I can't say for the LC leadership since I do not know their hearts. But I believe that most of them became leaders not because they were real spiritual shepherds but because they could listen to the Big Boss, speak in one accord, and OBEY. (That really reminds me of communist leaders). When these people get there, on the top, and become leaders, they do not belong to themselves anymore. They don't serve common people, or brothers and sisters. They serve the idea, the organization, and the teaching. If they realize mistakes in the ideology, they have three ways:

1) keep quiet to keep their position;

2) speak up and become a black sheep;

3) persuade themselves that there are no mistakes because the big boss (Nee, Lee, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc) is always right.

Everyone chooses his own way, according to his spiritual growth, character, consciousness, and motivation.

PS I don't know about the elite in Anaheim (bro RK & Co), but as for responsible brothers in my locality, they seem to believe the stuff they preach. On the other hand, they do not look like people who ever question their teachings. And maybe that's why they are responsible brothers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

In other words, if their idols and “high-peak truth” heralds, Nee and Lee, made mistakes, then their “high-peak truth” doesn’t look like “high-peak truth.” To keep the organization working, the LRC’s Sun must not have spots, i.e. Nee’s and Lee’s reputation must be indisputable.

It’s a very common thing with sects and certain teachings. Take communism, in the USSR, Lenin was always right. If people knew his mistakes, then the same people would start questioning Lenin’s teaching.

There are similarities between exclusive systems and totalitarian regimes. Both held their people in intense fear, to the point where they would dare not express an opinion. Both elevated their founders to the status of demigods, while negating the contributions of others. Both boasted in the unity or oneness of their system.

Commies would regularly disparage the results of democratic elections, boasting that theirs were always unanimous decisions.

[Lisbon]

Re In Christ alone no 36

I was speaking with a significant leader in my area within the last two years. He told me of a suggestion of a young brother to speak at some meeting. BP asked him if he thought he would speak what he was told to and my friend replied in the affirmative. I told the event to a friend and he was agreeable. They wouldn't want anything spoken especially to the young people that wasn't
along party lines. There is no hope for the LRC.

With no repentance in fifty years, there can be no repentance. It appears that Darby never repented. It could be WN did. He had that long prison term unknown to us. Apparrently WL didn't. The BBs won't. The die is cast. We had better make sure we don't follow in their footsteps.

Lisbon

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

Re In Christ alone no 36

I was speaking with a significant leader in my area within the last two years. He told me of a suggestion of a young brother to speak at some meeting. BP asked him if he thought he would speak what he was told to and my friend replied in the affirmative. I told the event to a friend and he was agreeable. They wouldn't want anything spoken especially to the young people that wasn't
along party lines. There is no hope for the LRC.

With no repentance in fifty years, there can be no repentance. It appears that Darby never repented. It could be WN did. He had that long prison term unknown to us. Apparrently WL didn't. The BBs won't. The die is cast. We had better make sure we don't follow in their footsteps.

Lisbon

Amen Lisbon ... Amen!