Early vs Modern Local Church Traditions/Rule

[Truth]

The Local Church has a lot of traditions and rules. Most of the rules are unsaid (ie. you will not find them written anywhere, but are practiced). Here are my observations. I have only listed a few to get us started. Feel free to add more to this list. This is just for fun to see how much LRC has changed to adapt to the world and Christianity. We can also build another list of what hasn't changed. That would interesting too! I also understand some of this may or may not apply depending on what locality you are from.

Early Traditions/Rules
1) No celebration of any holidays (Christmas, New Year, Mother's Day, Independence Day, birthdays, etc...), no matter what
2) No dating until you finish the Full-time Training
3) No going to the movie theaters or any kind of art theater
4) Strongly encouraged and pressured to go to every church meeting of the week, including services, such as cleaning, children, etc...
5) Strongly encouraged and pressured to go to every conference and semi-annual training
6) No building a bridge with Christianity
7) No getting involved with media - too worldly

Modern (Today's) Traditions/Rules
1) You can celebrate with your family (especially if they are not in the church life). You are still not encouraged to celebrate among members, though today's younger generations do celebrate each other's birthdays.
2) Dating is allowed under proper fellowship and supervision; however lots of young people date without serving ones knowing.
3) From what I know, most young people go to the movies today, even though it is not encouraged (but neither is it strongly discouraged in the meeting as in the old days)
4) if you miss a meeting, not as much pressure as before. The older ones are discouraged to pressure the young people too much due to so many leaving the church life previously. Services are dead (not many volunteers), and prayer meetings have barely anyone in them
5) They no longer come after you with an ax if you don't sign up for training and conference, but they still emphasize.
6) lots of communication with certain Christian Organizations (ie. CRI's Hank Hanegraaff, Fuller Seminary) in order to be accepted by them, so to get to them write apologetics on LSM's behalf.
7) LSM is on the air (often prime time) and on the web (everywhere)

[Sarah]

Very interesting. Now I can see why they have a weird attitude towards mostly normal things. I also notice most of the parents in the LC I went have no control over their children at all. I know it's generalization.....But I did see lot of very misbehave children from this church....

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Sarah

I also notice most of the parents in the LC I went have no control over their children at all. I know it's generalization.....But I did see lot of very misbehave children from this church....

I don't know what the circumstances of your observations were. All I can say is over the last 10-15 years, no longer is there a burden for the Children's Ministry. That may differ from locality to locality. There still is where I spent my teen years. However where I had met as an adult, there is not. Parents are expected to keep their children occupied and entertained. It could be what you witnessed was a result of children's bordedom.
In the past there have been gifted brothers and sisters for the Children's ministry. Perhaps they have become older with no younger generations to pick up the burden?
Particularly in the meetings; local church or non-local church, you can't expect children to sit still for such an extended period of time. The local Community Church where I've met for the past 3-4 years, the Children's ministry is up to 5th grade with 6th grade on sitting with the adults for the duration of the worship, message, and Lord's Table.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Truth

Early Traditions/Rules
1) No celebration of any holidays (Christmas, New Year, Mother's Day, Independence Day, birthdays, etc...), no matter what
2) No dating until you finish the Full-time Training
3) No going to the movie theaters or any kind of art theater
4) Strongly encouraged and pressured to go to every church meeting of the week, including services, such as cleaning, children, etc...
5) Strongly encouraged and pressured to go to every conference and semi-annual training
6) No building a bridge with Christianity
7) No getting involved with media - too worldly

Early traditions I am oriented with was prior to FTTA.
1) No celebration of any holidays except Chinese New Year.
2) No dating until you're ready for marriage. Proper term is courting. Although in my generation depending who you were, dating was permitted.
3) Going to movies discouraged, but not a rule.
4) When it came to area of study at a university, it was strongly encouraged to choose a field of study suitable for the churchlife.
5) Discouraged listening to Christian music. It's too wordly.
6) Encouraged inviting friends to Young Peoples meetings and Lovefeasts.
7. If you attend all the meetings, the churchlife will take care of your family life.

[Freedom]

Most of the "rules" that have been mentioned sound about right as far as what I've heard and seen. Having grown up in the LC, it does seem like things have "relaxed" a little bit, but I know that the official stance on these rules has and always will be the same. Like I mentioned in the other thread, if WL says something then that's the way it is, no one can contradict what he said. The most that will happen is that rules get silently broken. That is what I see all the time. That is why I see the hypocrisy in it all.

I have seen brothers on both ends on the spectrum, some are very quick to reprehend anyone who steps out of line. Other brothers could care less what someone is doing and wouldn't even thing about making an issue of someone missing the training to celebrate Christmas. That is part of what make it such a difficult issue to deal with. There is always the fear of being put on the spot for stepping out of line, yet I think most of us realize that it's happening left and right.

An interesting question that has come to my mind is where did these type of traditions and rules originate? My understanding is that the Brethren also had the same kind of strict rules about things like holidays. Are these something that WL carried over from the Brethren and WN, or did he make this stuff up as he went along?

[awareness]

What happened to : "We don't adjust brothers (and sisters). We turn them to their spirit and allow Jesus to adjust them."

I was really impressed with that platitude; because it made it up to the living Jesus. Plus, it sounded all warm and fuzzy. It tickled me so much I spread it like a meme.

But considering man made rules, that have come along since those earlier days in the LC, of not adjusting, I guess it didn't work ... to Lee's satisfaction.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Freedom

An interesting question that has come to my mind is where did these type of traditions and rules originate? My understanding is that the Brethren also had the same kind of strict rules about things like holidays. Are these something that WL carried over from the Brethren and WN, or did he make this stuff up as he went along?

Another "interesting question" by our friend Freedom!

The answer is YES! Yes many of the strict rules originated from the Brethren and Watchman Nee, and yes many of the rules originated from Witness Lee, and yes much of the rules (especially the unspoken ones) were made up by Witness Lee as he went along. The more influence and the more power Lee garnered to himself, the more stricter (and more bizarre) the rules became. Eventually it all developed into a kind of cultic atmosphere where intelligent, otherwise reasonable men would shout out that "Even if Witness Lee is wrong he is right!" and "We're Witness Lee's company!" and many other bizarre slogans. It is a fact that Lee himself heard of these kind of cultic declarations and did NOTHING to stop them... in fact we know that he actually encouraged this kind of hero worship.

Sorry for all you dear brothers and sisters out there who live in the Local Church bubble...them are the facts.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Another "interesting question" by our friend Freedom!

The answer is YES! Yes many of the strict rules originated from the Brethren and Watchman Nee, and yes many of the rules originated from Witness Lee, and yes much of the rules (especially the unspoken ones) were made up by Witness Lee as he went along. The more influence and the more power Lee garnered to himself, the more stricter (and more bizarre) the rules became. Eventually it all developed into a kind of cultic atmosphere where intelligent, otherwise reasonable men would shout out that "Even if Witness Lee is wrong he is right!" and "We're Witness Lee's company!" and many other bizarre slogans. It is a fact that Lee himself heard of these kind of cultic declarations and did NOTHING to stop them... in fact we know that he actually encouraged this kind of hero worship.

Sorry for all you dear brothers and sisters out there who live in the Local Church bubble...them are the facts.

Well put. And I consider you qualified to articulate those facts.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

It is a fact that Lee himself heard of these kind of cultic declarations and did NOTHING to stop them... in fact we know that he actually encouraged this kind of hero worship.

This has always been for me the most troubling of events.

For a bunch of kids to shout gibberish nonsense is unfortunate, but excusable. For W. Lee himself to remain silent about it, to condone it as somehow proper, and to even promote it among the young people, is absolutely unconscionable as a minister of the gospel.

For an overseer must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not quickly angered, not given to wine, not a striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. -- Titus 1. 7-11

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

It is a fact that Lee himself heard of these kind of cultic declarations and did NOTHING to stop them... in fact we know that he actually encouraged this kind of hero worship.

Of course, until the God-Men & Mindbenders lawsuits were over, he was busy declaring under oath that he would always insist that such things never be said.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Eventually it all developed into a kind of cultic atmosphere where intelligent, otherwise reasonable men would shout out that "Even if Witness Lee is wrong he is right!" and "We're Witness Lee's company!" and many other bizarre slogans. It is a fact that Lee himself heard of these kind of cultic declarations and did NOTHING to stop them... in fact we know that he actually encouraged this kind of hero worship.

Even now there has been no statements of admonition to stop the hero worship. In recent years although there has been no statement to discourage "hero worship" there has been a subtle trend against it. For example in regional conferences brother Ron is speaking, he'll mention brother Lee made mistakes.

However 15 years ago it would be no surprise to hear an elder say something to the effect of "mistakes other brothers have made, brother Lee would not make." The elder could say that because publcly an image has been marketed very well. My comment to a brother in light of financial improprieties such as Daystar, mistakes brother Lee made, I feel many brothers would not make.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Terry

For example in regional conferences brother Ron is speaking, he'll mention brother Lee made mistakes.

Yeah, maybe that he didn't have his tie on straight! Seriously though, Ron Kangas believes to his core that Witness Lee was virtually infallible, at least in teaching and in practice, and this can be easily verified by his many public statements over the years ("one minister with the one ministry for the age, acting god, deputy authority for the Lord", etc). Just to say "he made mistakes" is a hollow, worthless statement. Lee made such an ambiguous, deathbed type statement and there are people out there who actually think this could make up for all the decades of abuse, deception, false teachings and divisive words and actions...it's a big insult to anybody who was affected by Lee and those whom he sent out to abuse and deceive God's people.

Originally Posted by aron

Once they get you to unquestioningly accept as true (i.e. logical) their false premise then you are done. Your walk with the Lord, your ability to hear Him and obey Him, is marred. You will eventually accept things that are unscriptural, unbiblical, illogical, and that bother your conscience. And as long as they get you to unquestioningly repeat the mantra, they have you firmly in their net.

Wow aron, you really said it all here. As one who was "firmly in their net" for about 20 years, I can tell you that what you have written here is absolutely right on, dead accurate. The first false premise is no doubt to swallow the premise that the person and work of Witness Lee hold some special place in the grand scheme of church history (and not just in their tiny, little insignificant sect). Once this false premise is accepted (and it must be accepted if one is to continue on in the Movement) then the rest of the dominos will fall one by one. Let's face it, just look at the blended brothers, and for that matter, any and all who are the most avid followers of Lee - they are constantly showing themselves as people whose walk with the Lord and ability to hear and obey Him have been severely marred. May God have mercy.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Yeah, maybe that he didn't have his tie on straight! Seriously though, Ron Kangas believes to his core that Witness Lee was virtually infallible, at least in teaching and in practice, and this can be easily verified by his many public statements over the years ("one minister with the one ministry for the age, acting god, deputy authority for the Lord", etc). Just to say "he made mistakes" is a hollow, worthless statement. Lee made such an ambiguous, deathbed type statement and there are people out there who actually think this could make up for all the decades of abuse, deception, false teachings and divisive words and actions...it's a big insult to anybody who was affected by Lee and those whom he sent out to abuse and deceive God's people.

This is true. When broad statements like "he made mistakes" are used, what it really is doing is attempting to turn such mistakes into a non-issue. If everyone makes mistakes and someone says WL made mistakes, it doesn't sound that bad if they don't know what's at the heart of the issue.

That being said, I personally haven't heard anyone ever admit that WL made mistakes. I have heard brothers now and then admit that something shouldn't have happened or something was a mistake, but the whole attitude behind those kind of statements is that whatever happened wasn't a big deal and it's hardly worth talking about.

Terry, from what I've experienced, the hero worship is just as strong as ever. I don't see anyone resisting it. For example, every week we review the HWMR and that is all anyone shares from in the meeting. The home meetings either consist of reading lots of RV footnotes (and a few verses) or some WL book. It's boring, and I don't go to home meetings anymore. I don't share at the Lord's table meeting because I don't feel like repeating WL's words and the same thing that everyone else has already shared.

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The first false premise is no doubt to swallow the premise that the person and work of Witness Lee hold some special place in the grand scheme of church history (and not just in their tiny, little insignificant sect). Once this false premise is accepted (and it must be accepted if one is to continue on in the Movement) then the rest of the dominos will fall one by one.

Originally Posted by OBW

Something came to my memory a few days ago that I think captures this idea. In the early to mid 70s there was movement to set a lot of scripture to music. And most of it was Psalms, although there was some Isaiah, Jeremiah, Romans, and even a little from the gospels (and probably others). But the Psalms were prevalent. In Dallas, we set out to record several of the songs. Besides psalms that we got from elsewhere, there were 4 or so talented ones in the Metroplex that wrote new songs, including my brother. We recorded a lot of them. I played my 12-string in most of it, and possibly bass in a little.

Then a little bit later, we discover what Lee thinks about all of that. He starts belittling the Psalms. He mocks, saying, "His mercy endureth, forever, and ever, and ever, and ever . . . ." and we stopped singing them. And some of the joy went away. We may have thought that he was theologically right to say it. But it changed us.

Think about how these groups operate. They'll start with a commonly accepted premise, like the Bible revealing a God who loved us and sent His Son Jesus to save us from our sins and to bring us, through repentance and faith, into eternal life. Now, how do they get from there to their strange little sect?

I think what they do is to get you to agree with their definition of a word or words, and then how it was used, and what meaning it had, and therefore should have for us. From there they get you to accept the validity of their argument. And usually that argument simultaneously legitimizes their movement, leadership structure, and work, and de-legitimizes every other one. Once you agree with the logical force of their mental construction, that agreement creates and impetus which conveys you away from the rest of the flock and into their group. Your acquiescence leverages you: your mental world is now "in" theirs, and you feel that everyone who cannot see this revelation is "out". And now your revelation is not from the Spirit or the Word but from within the group and its leadership.

The effect was that we didn't think we were accepting Watchman Nee's and Witness Lee's interpretations but rather were "closely following the teachings and fellowship of the apostles", even when they clearly contravened the apostles! When Paul repeatedly (Col. 3 & Eph. 5) wrote to sing the Psalms, Lee could say, "No, they are too low... no pure revelation of Christ there, but rather a mixture of fallen human sentiments and aspirations." And we would follow Lee rather than Paul, and still tell ourselves we were closely following the apostle Paul. Why? Because we were closely following Lee!

We rejected much of the Bible as dead letters, all the while receiving all of the teachings of Nee and Lee as living oracles, and yet we'd still tell ourselves that we possessed the Lord Jesus' recovery of truth in the present age, and that being in our group made us the true and legitimate heirs of the gospel of life. And when some couldn't take the contradictions and fled, in the various "turmoils" and and "rebellions", we'd repeat the Nee and Lee mantras and be preserved -- the still, small voice in our conscience might be bothered, but we would effectively stop up our ears and chant the magic formula.

I think that once you see the formula for what it is, it loses its power over you. At some point you realize that you are not in God's special remnant, but rather residing within an outlflow of Watchman Nee's ideational structure, and that this ideational structure has created a long line of intrigues, schisms, spin-offs and dispirited saints.

I know that I'm repeating myself, but it's key: once I saw the inherent contradictions within Nee's argument, then it lost its force over my mind. Now, for example, when I look at the Bible I can read that the greatest commandment is to love God with my whole heart, and likewise to love my neighbor as myself. Nee had me convinced that it was the "proper church life" with its special "ground" and "deputy authority". Just like the Jehovahs Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists, Nee took something in the Bible, re-cast it in his own ideational image, and convinced me it was essential to my walk with the Lord. And in so doing, he distorted my journey.

[Lisbon]

Wasn't it "Arsenic and old Lace" where the women ate small amounts of arsenic over a long period of time and when they fed the same amount to the man they wanted to kill, they got him. The analogy is not so good since WL was not desiring to kill us but rather to enslave us. If in 1972 I had received the whole dose, I would have smiled and gone back to the Assemblies of God. Had WL been called an apostle then, again I would have smiled and gone back. My business was near an area where there were many bishops, apostles, and other high sounding titles. Some people like titles. I don't

In 1972 essentially no MOTA, no apostle. WL was just highly admired. I admre Chuck Swendoll. I dont have the thought he is a MOTA.

We got it all very gradually and it did us in. He could even ruthlessly hatchet the Bible and we, I, would just laugh.

Again we were the real ones who drank the kool aid.

Lisbon

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

We got it all very gradually and it did us in.

It's the classic frog in the kettle routine. Get them in the door and hope they don't smell the funny odor of the poisonous gas as they slowly turn it up.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

Wasn't it "Arsenic and old Lace" where the women ate small amounts of arsenic over a long period of time and when they fed the same amount to the man they wanted to kill, they got him....

We got it all very gradually and it did us in. He could even ruthlessly hatchet the Bible and we, I, would just laugh.

Again we were the real ones who drank the kool aid.

Once Lee got us to unquestioningly accept a false premise, then we were positioned in his spider's web and he could slowly and carefully administer his drug and tighten the strings. I believe that the whole enterprise hinged upon our not seeing the illogic of Nee's premise of "one church" as it was defined.

In the NT you can see multiple assemblies in one geographic area, e.g. a city. For example, see Paul's epistle to the church in Rome, telling them to greet the "church" in someone's house (16:5). The NT convention of the Greek word actually meant meeting, gathering, or assembly. There are numerous instances of this and I won't belabor the point. But at least there we should notice that Paul didn't need to provide any additional commentary to explain "two churches" in Rome. Paul didn't because he knew his readers understood his meaning of "ekklesia" as he was using it.

But for Nee to preserve the logic of his argument, he needed the word to mean one thing (i.e. church) in one place, and another thing (i.e. meeting, or gathering) elsewhere if it wasn't helpful to his "one church" idea.

And if Watchman Nee could neatly slip that by us (and yes he got me, too), then he and then Lee could control the flock. Once we unquestioningly accepted their presentation as logical (i.e. true, real, or valid), then they had us in their grips. I remember when some nonsense came out of Anaheim as the latest "move of the Lord", and a silence fell on the assembly. Then one of the "faithful sisters" piped up: "But it's the church!"

Once they got us to unquestioningly accept as true (i.e. logical) their premise, then they had us. Our walk with the Lord, our ability to hear Him and obey Him, was now compromised. We would accept things that we knew were unscriptural, illogical, and that bothered our conscience. As long as they could get us to unquestioningly repeat the Nee mantra, we remained firmly in their net.

Nee's contradictory application of the "one church" idea was probably the linchpin that held, and still holds it all together. Once you see the inherent contradiction within his argument then it will lose its controlling force in your mind, and you'll be free to walk away. Your thoughts will become yours once again. When Paul wrote of "strongholds" and "taking every thought captive" in 2 Corinthians 10, boy oh boy did he know whereof he wrote!