Witness Lee and AW Tozer

[Freedom]

In 1963, Brother Lee visited Toronto again. Besides visiting Oswald Smith, he also took time to visit A. W. Tozer, a famous minister in the Christian and Missionary Alliance. Brother Lee asked A. W. Tozer if he was aware of any Christians in Toronto who were practicing the church life according to the New Testament. Tozer responded by saying that he had looked into this very much, but had no knowledge of any such Christians or groups who knew the way of practicing the church life based on the New Testament revelation. Brother Lee asked further if Tozer himself knew the New Testament way of practicing the church life. Tozer replied that he understood. Brother Lee asked again - since Brother Tozer had seen this light, then why did he remain in the Christian and Missionary Alliance? In the same year, Brother Tozer passed away in Toronto.

http://lordsmoveincanada.org/witness-lee-visits.html

When I first saw this a few months back I was surprised to learn that WL interacted with Tozer in person (I just knew he mentioned Tozer here and there). I have listened to a few recordings of Tozer's sermons on youtube and as might be expected, his ministry and Lee's bore some similarities. There seem to be a lot of common themes.

Given their commonality, Tozer (and his group) were those that Lee hypothetically could have worked with. It's interesting though, according to this website Lee didn't feel Tozer was practicing the New Testament church life and made a point about it to Tozer. This is the same thing that Lee did with T. Austin Sparks. Frankly speaking, I think Lee missed out of great opportunities to work with like-minded individuals, by making such and issue out of his view of the church. He obviously thought his view was worth dividing over.

Something that's interesting to consider is that as Lee was ministering in this country, others were also ministering with ministries that were very similar to his. If you take "the ground of the church" out of the equation, there were other ministries covering the same themes as Lee was during that time. There may have even been commonalities on ideas related to the New Testament church minus "the ground". The conclusion that leads to is that Lee's ministry wasn't so "unique" after all.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When I first saw this a few months back I was surprised to learn that WL interacted with Tozer in person (I just knew he mentioned Tozer here and there). I have listened to a few recordings of Tozer's sermons on youtube and as might be expected, his ministry and Lee's bore some similarities. There seem to be a lot of common themes.

Given their commonality, Tozer (and his group) were those that Lee hypothetically could have worked with. It's interesting though, according to this website Lee didn't feel Tozer was practicing the New Testament church life and made a point about it to Tozer. This is the same thing that Lee did with T. Austin Sparks. Frankly speaking, I think Lee missed out of great opportunities to work with like-minded individuals, by making such and issue out of his view of the church. He obviously thought his view was worth dividing over.

Something that's interesting to consider is that as Lee was ministering in this country, others were also ministering with ministries that were very similar to his. If you take "the ground of the church" out of the equation, there were other ministries covering the same themes as Lee was during that time. There may have even been commonalities on ideas related to the New Testament church minus "the ground". The conclusion that leads to is that Lee's ministry wasn't so "unique" after all.

By visiting other notable ministers, and then providing his audience with a "bad" report, Lee "proved" to his adherents that his ministry alone was absolutely unique in this age. All other ministries were thus deficient by his standards, whether or not his standards were Biblical or not (e.g. the ground of locality.)

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

By visiting other notable ministers, and then providing his audience with a "bad" report, Lee "proved" to his adherents that his ministry alone was absolutely unique in this age. All other ministries were thus deficient by his standards, whether or not his standards were Biblical or not (e.g. the ground of locality.)

I'm sure Lee may have had some amount of interest in meeting those like Tozer. Actually, that seems to be unique to his earlier days. He was actually willing to go meet other ministers instead of blast them from the pulpit. At the same time, it wouldn't surprise me if he also intended to "prove" that only he saw what he thought he saw.

I noticed the site is called "Lord's move in Canada". Imagine how convenient it was for Lee and now the BB's to label anything they do as "the Lord's move in X". That's not to mention the fact that there were ministers doing works in places long before Lee showed up in town. I guess that's not considered as part of the "Lord's move".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I'm sure Lee may have had some amount of interest in meeting those like Tozer. Actually, that seems to be unique to his earlier days. He was actually willing to go meet other ministers instead of blast them from the pulpit. At the same time, it wouldn't surprise me if he also intended to "prove" that only he saw what he thought he saw.

I noticed the site is called "Lord's move in Canada". Imagine how convenient it was for Lee and now the BB's to label anything they do as "the Lord's move in X". That's not to mention the fact that there were ministers doing works in places long before Lee showed up in town. I guess that's not considered as part of the "Lord's move".

I can still picture a disturbed Witness Lee proclaiming wildly to the elders, "my ministry is not another piece of Christian work ... this is the Lord's recovery ... this is God's move on earth to bring the Lord back."

How dare any of them think there was anything "common" about Lee, his work, or his ministry!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I noticed the site is called "Lord's move in Canada". Imagine how convenient it was for Lee and now the BB's to label anything they do as "the Lord's move in X". That's not to mention the fact that there were ministers doing works in places long before Lee showed up in town. I guess that's not considered as part of the "Lord's move".

It's not.

There isn't even a lampstand in a city unless the LCM is meeting there.

It's worse than their use of "saints" only with respect to LCM members.

A few years ago, back when I was looking at facebook more than once every month or so, someone posted how the first Lord's table in Rome had just occurred. Really? Doesn't matter what you think about the RCC. It and many other churches throughout that city have had the Lord's table monthly, weekly, and even daily.

But without having a LCM present with their specially-prepared, bleached flour chalupa (minus the beans and lettuce, etc.) and goblet of wine, sitting in their circle, singing a collection of songs that always follows a specific pattern (only noteworthy because of their disdain for tradition), they believe that the church is not present.

And if the church is not present, then the Lord can't be moving there.

Funny how in their view the Lord seems to only work in a very few who essentially interact with no one but themselves. While numbers are not evidence of the Lord's work, if the Lord was really working only through them, I would expect something that resembled meaningful increase.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

But without having a LCM present with their specially-prepared, bleached flour chalupa (minus the beans and lettuce, etc.) and goblet of wine, sitting in their circle, singing a collection of songs that always follows a specific pattern (only noteworthy because of their disdain for tradition), they believe that the church is not present.

For a group which prides itself in "true" church, I found the insistence on "bleached" flour a little disconcerting, since it was not "invented" until the late 19th century. Imagine that, almost 2 millennia of believers breaking bread to remember the Lord, and then Nee comes along in China to tell us that we never did it right until we stopped using whole wheat flour. Thank God for the Recovery, now we can remember the Lord properly.

For me, this all got exposed just prior to our departure. The sisters had an awful time making a bread that wouldn't crack prior to the official "cracking" by the brothers. One young sister, assigned to make the bread that week, mistakenly used whole wheat flour. For shame, for shame! Oh how we loved our traditions, making void the word of God. The leading sister saw it and broke it up so that it could not be used in the meeting, and then demanded that a "proper" bread be made.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For a group which prides itself in "true" church, I found the insistence on "bleached" flour a little disconcerting, since it was not "invented" until the late 19th century. Imagine that, almost 2 millennia of believers breaking bread to remember the Lord, and then Nee comes along in China to tell us that we never did it right until we stopped using whole wheat flour. Thank God for the Recovery, now we can remember the Lord properly.

For me, this all got exposed just prior to our departure. The sisters had an awful time making a bread that wouldn't crack prior to the official "cracking" by the brothers. One young sister, assigned to make the bread that week, mistakenly used whole wheat flour. For shame, for shame! Oh how we loved our traditions, making void the word of God. The leading sister saw it and broke it up so that it could not be used in the meeting, and then demanded that a "proper" bread be made.

It's interesting that you mention this. I have noticed that the LC has a lot of peculiarities in regards to what they think is the "proper" way to do certain things. In reality, so many LC practices are just religious traditions they've developed over the years, the same thing that they criticized other groups of.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

A few years ago, back when I was looking at facebook more than once every month or so, someone posted how the first Lord's table in Rome had just occurred. Really? Doesn't matter what you think about the RCC. It and many other churches throughout that city have had the Lord's table monthly, weekly, and even daily.

That's the big problem. The LC is so exclusive that they can't accept anything that does not originate from them as being anything significant. That is partly why I started this thread. The fact is that there are plenty of ministries that were somewhat "similar" to Nee and Lee. Do they mention these ministries? Sometimes. Do they consider them to be especially significant? Nope. These ministries are not considered as being part of "the Recovery". Even the ones that are considered as part of the "Recovery lineage" are superseded by Nee and Lee and have been rendered irrelevant to LCers.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

That's the big problem. The LC is so exclusive that they can't accept anything that does not originate from them as being anything significant. That is partly why I started this thread. The fact is that there are plenty of ministries that were somewhat "similar" to Nee and Lee. Do they mention these ministries? Sometimes. Do they consider them to be especially significant? Nope. These ministries are not considered as being part of "the Recovery". Even the ones that are considered as part of the "Recovery lineage" are superseded by Nee and Lee and have been rendered irrelevant to LCers.

Example Stephen Kaung. Who was a co-worker with Nee. But not accepted as part of the recovery. Our brother Steve Isitt meets with a Kaung group today.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

It's not.

There isn't even a lampstand in a city unless the LCM is meeting there.

Let's take where I live Renton, Washington as an example. A city that was first incorporated 1901. You mean to suggest from 1901 to the time the LCM took the ground as the Church in Renton (2008/2009), there was no lampstand?
I think that's a clear indication the LCM are not about local churches, but about ministry churches.
Even the high school the ground taking meeting was held in, has been in existence since 1911.
What can be held as true, when a church calls itself the church in Renton, it's just a name....even for those who claim, "we don't take a name".