Double Standards

[Freedom]

This thread is to discuss just what the title says - double standards that exist within the LC. Maybe this is old news to those here, but how about for a change, some current LC members come join in the discussion? Is that really too much to ask? Current members and DCP: I know you are out there and are reading these forums. I have listed things that I perceive to be double standards that exist in the LC. They represent concerns of mine related to the LC that have developed over time. If there had been the environment to address these concerns within the LC, then maybe I would have never come to these forums. This shouldn't be taken as any kind of "attack". If I'm wrong, then please come tell me why I'm wrong.

Since we know current members are reading these forums, and there almost a complete silence on that front, the silence can only be taken as an agreement with what is written and posted.

Some double standards I've noticed:
1) It's okay to direct criticism at other Christians, but the minute criticism is directed at the LC, it is perceived as an "attack".

2) I have heard it said quite often in the LC that they don't pay a pastor or pay to have anyone preach like other Christians do. The reality is that the LC has FTT trainees or "full-timers" who receive support (are paid) to engage in various activities including evangelizing and speaking at conferences.

3) There is a longstanding practice where an accusation or a narrative is received as fact, with no questions asked, as long as it comes from the mouths of leaders. If a "small potato" member were to make an accusation or bring up a problem, as sure as the sun, they would be expected to have substantiation proof (witnesses), or more than likely, be downright ignored.

4) The claim that meetings in the LC are always "mutual". Meetings usually adhere to an "each one has" format until the the big leaders are involved, then they get granted a soap box to say what they want.

5) The characterization of past history being forgotten and old news. If so, then there would be no need for current members to worry about contacting those who have been "quarantined" or ousted.

6) Official responses to criticism - In certain situations LC leaders are ready for a fight in order to dispel any criticism. In other situations, the silence is deafening. What gives?

7) The simultaneous expectations that no one would express any form of "ambition", yet they want members to be actively serving, and taking initiative (not being "lukewarm").

8) The presentation of a more "inclusive" version of the LC to the younger ones, only to eventually hold them to different standards which are stricter and represent a high level of control (such as what is evident from the FTTA rules).

9) Similar to the previous point, the withholding the more questionable teachings from newcomers until they are "ready", yet expecting existing members to have no reservations about such teachings.

10) Officially claiming that LSM doesn't control any churches, but requiring churches to utilize LSM materials to be recognized as local churches.

[TLFisher]

Based on personal experiences, I would add why are home meetings closed to Christians not in fellowship via Living Stream publications, but open to those who are?

[aron]

Why did Witness Lee get to be the final apostle? Why not someone else? Where did the idea of the "final apostle" come from? Is it based on Asian culture, filtered through religious sentiment and practice?

Lee said that China was "virgin soil" for the church. Why wasn't North America, circa 1635, the virgin soil? Why was China different than previous "soil"? I suspect that China was in fact corrupted, Satanic soil, just as Europe and North America also had been. Watchman Nee was trying to extricate himself and the flock from Western corruption, but they instead transposed Eastern corruption, or leaven, into the pure flour.

Why did Lee get God's final revelation, the revelation of the age? Why not someone else? Why can't Freedom get the revelation of the age? Or someone else? Why does God's revelation have to stop with one brother? Why can't it reach me, and go on?

Why could the Blendeds stand up on the podium and single out brothers and sisters in the audience and talk about their personal lives, but the rank-and-file couldn't do the same to the Blendeds? Is that how the church is supposed to be organized? Or is this Eastern culture superimposed upon the church organization model, with a hierarchy of "serving ones, responsible ones, and co-workers" leading up to the Maximum Brother, untouchable by all? Is this according to God, or according to "man's fallen concepts", as Lee put it?

On that note, why is it called "man's fallen concepts" if the OT writer pledges fealty to God, with Lee saying that no man could please God and meet His demands; but then in the HWFMR Lee says that "we must do this" and "we need to do that"? Isn't that also fallen, vain striving? Or, if it is rather the Spirit of life which now operates in us, then why wasn't the OT writer being a prefigure, shadow or type of the coming NT reality in the Holy Spirit of Christ? Why is Scripture called vain, while Lee's words are called the ministry of the Spirit? It seems that Lee judged Scripture on a different standard than his own words.

I guess that's because Lee was Acting God, and could essentially tell us which words were soulish and which were spiritual. He was the Seer of the Divine Revelation, after all. So we ended up with the strange world where Lee's words were received as the "lively oracles" of God, while Scripture itself was by-passed as vain and irrelevant, and void of revelation. Lee had the de facto revelation; the Bible was supplementary material, used to show that Lee was the Oracle, with the vision of the age.

[aron]

Why could Watchman Nee read all the Christian classics, balancing one against the other, and presenting a most orthodox reading of the faith, while we were supposed to just read Nee and Lee? Why can't we read Lee against others, comparing and removing parts which are unbalanced and impure?

Why did Nee have this special gift of sorting the wheat from the proverbial chaff, but nobody else did? Why can't we sort through the ministries of Lee and Nee just like any other Christian author? Why can't I go through the Christian corpus, just like Nee did, and find wisdom here and there, and put together a vision of my own? Where is the sound of "many waters" in the LC? It is gone.

How come Nee and then Lee was the One Trumpet? How come only they got to speak what was on God's heart in the Holy Scripture? The rest have to be Lee's "tape recorders"... what kind of a function is that? We're supposed to be Lee parrots for the rest of our lives? Where's the revelation, the anointing?

[aron]

Why are LC members called "saints" while others are not?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Why are LC members called "saints" while others are not?

I grew up with "saints" all around me, most of them made of plastic or stone.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Why could Watchman Nee read all the Christian classics, balancing one against the other, and presenting a most orthodox reading of the faith, while we were supposed to just read Nee and Lee? Why can't we read Lee against others, comparing and removing parts which are unbalanced and impure?

Why did Nee have this special gift of sorting the wheat from the proverbial chaff, but nobody else did? Why can't we sort through the ministries of Lee and Nee just like any other Christian author? Why can't I go through the Christian corpus, just like Nee did, and find wisdom here and there, and put together a vision of my own? Where is the sound of "many waters" in the LC? It is gone.

Good points. These things also became of greater concern to me over time. I guess that when I was younger, I never thought to question the whole narrative that only Nee and Lee had the ability to "put everything together". Because I had been told that reading anything else was a "waste of time", I presumed it actually would be a waste of time. It was an easy sell for leaders.

It is a double standard that should just scream out at people. Why did only Nee and Lee have the "discernment to read other authors? To me that idea contains the implication that rank and file members are just dumb dumb sheep with no real purpose.

It is quite ironic that Nee and Lee both thought they knew how to sort the wheat and the chaff, but why couldn't rank and file members can't do the same with Nee and Lee's ministries? And it's not just that, but knowing that those who have sought to significantly reduce the utilization of Nee/Lee have suffered all kinds of consequences including excommunication. A double standard of double standards.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I guess that when I was younger, I never thought to question the whole narrative that only Nee and Lee had the ability to "put everything together". Because I had been told that reading anything else was a "waste of time", I presumed it actually would be a waste of time. It was an easy sell for leaders.

It is quite ironic that Nee and Lee both thought they knew how to sort the wheat and the chaff, but why couldn't rank and file members can't do the same with Nee and Lee's ministries?

I was once told that, "we all can't go back and reinvent the wheel, we'll never get anywhere."

But what we got stuck with was a early 20th century Chinese wagon wheel.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

Based on personal experiences, I would add why are home meetings closed to Christians not in fellowship via Living Stream publications, but open to those who are?

Based on this experience, I consider I could be wrong.
It could be due to my receiving of a brother RK referred to as "the man of death", they did not want to receive anyone I may be associated with.
It could be as I indicated not wanting to be inclusive to believers not already receiving the ministry LSM publishes.
It could be merely coincidental...in once instance not open to non-LC Christians and in the next instance open to LC Christians
This was not always so....

[Freedom]

A few more double standards that I was thinking about:
Why is it that those in the LC go to such great lengths to differentiate between excommunication and quarantine? We know that for all intents and purposes, a LC quarantine is an excommunication.

Why are rank and file members told not to trust their feelings, yet leaders get to say things like "us brothers feel that everyone should..."?

Why could Lee simultaneous tell members to not "be in their minds", and also encourage everyone to go get the best college degrees possible? Was it that he didn't want members challenging his teachings, just their degrees so they could earn $$$ which would be donated to the LC?

[Intothewind]

I recall as a yp they mentioned one of the young brothers lee had written the genesis lifestudies to eventually turned atheist-the point being that everyone must really strive to have a genuine relationship with god. Everyone in the crowd balked in horror...as did I but without first wondering why they still use the life study if it was not particularly effective.

I also remember a deranged dude running into the conference and up onto stage...held at Alliance Redwoods in sonoma county. Whatever he was saying was delivered in such a vehement manner that the whole congregation began calling on the Lord until some leading brothers wrestled the man off the podium and pushed him out...whatever he was babbling about was apparently not ok. The fact that a whole hall of believers was duped into calling is in hindsight very telling.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

I recall as a yp they mentioned one of the young brothers lee had written the genesis lifestudies to eventually turned atheist-the point being that everyone must really strive to have a genuine relationship with god. Everyone in the crowd balked in horror...as did I but without first wondering why they still use the life study if it was not particularly effective.

I've been told by multiple FTTA graduates that when they get into trouble in the training, they get "assigned Life-Study messages", whatever that is supposed to mean. At any rate, I was told that everyone dreads it. Now if Lee's Life-Studies are so special, why would those running the training use it as a form of punishment? Just consider the irony in that.

Originally Posted by Intothewind

I also remember a deranged dude running into the conference and up onto stage...held at Alliance Redwoods in sonoma county. Whatever he was saying was delivered in such a vehement manner that the whole congregation began calling on the Lord until some leading brothers wrestled the man off the podium and pushed him out...whatever he was babbling about was apparently not ok. The fact that a whole hall of believers was duped into calling is in hindsight very telling.

It is very telling, indeed. I've seen similar situations. Someone becomes argumentative in a meeting, or someone starts talking about random stuff, then all the sudden everyone starts calling on the Lord. Is that really the right way to deal with the situation? Me thinks not. It's just groupthink at work.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

A few more double standards that I was thinking about:
Why is it that those in the LC go to such great lengths to differentiate between excommunication and quarantine? We know that for all intents and purposes, a LC quarantine is an excommunication.

I think the differentiation is for legal protection. To say excommunication where there was nothing scriptural warranting excommunication, there's the fear of lawsuit.
Ironically LSM published a book worthy of a lawsuit and those brothers affected never sued LSM. Just because a lawsuit or threat of a lawsuit is in the LSM backpocket doesn't mean any normal Christian will consider lawsuits as an option.

[TLFisher]

Another double-standard is the LC principle when brothers come to leave, to leave like gentlemen. Yet, when brothers do leave like gentlemen, the same is not reciprocated. Rather comes the generic reasoning why brother so and so left:

• unforgiven offenses
• unfulfilled ambitions
• negative
• opposing
• rebellious
• become cold to the ministry
• lost the vision
• attracted by the world

One of the symptoms is taking it personally when a brother or sister leaves. They're still a brother and sister. Just meeting with a different assembly.

[Intothewind]

This is an excellent thread.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

This is an excellent thread.

I find the double standards to be quite striking, but really, I'm just trying to evaluate the LC according to a reasonable set of standards. I extended an invitation in the initial post of this thread to current members so that they can come and respond to what I perceive to be double standards. Should we take the silence as an agreement to what has been posted?

This highlights the real problem with the LC. As we all know, those in the LC don't like certain material on the internet. If they don't like that, why don't they come respond to or refute various writings and posts on the internet? Ron even coined the term "lawless users of the internet" to describe those who post on the internet. Why is it that they can speak so combatively against us, yet not even respond to numerous open invitations to engage in dialogue?

The answer is, of course, that they have a lot to lose by doing so. I have no interest in proving anyone wrong, but rather, I just want to have the opportunity to address issues of concern to me. The LC isn't going away any time soon, and members have every right to remain if they feel that it is an atmosphere that they like. That being said, I would like to see certain admissions made by leadership: 1) The LC isn't for everyone, neither does it contains "truths" that can't be found anywhere else, 2) Those who leave are not "backsliders", neither are those who express concerns "negative", 3) Many concerns about the LC that have been expressed are 100% valid concerns.

Is it really too much to ask? Do they think that in the information age, they can engage in practicing various double standards and still get away with it? LC history is punctuated with double standards left and right and that information is freely available to all. The lid had been off for a long time now, how are they going to respond? The sooner they do, the better it will be for them.

[TLFisher]

Let's examine the matter of opinions. An elder or co-worker can have a certain opinion about a certain brother yet it is treated as fact regardless if there is any merit to his opinion.
A small potato may have a certain a opinion and it's just that, an opinion. If it's an opinion contrary to the LSM groupthink; specifically how brothers were misrepresented (quarantines, disfellowships, etc), those opinions will be minimized as "perceived wrongdoings", "imagined offenses", etc.
If it wasn't so grievous, it would be so funny the varying degrees two sets of rules that exists.

[aron]

1 Corinthians 12:25: "that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another."

Why do the college students get one level of attention and care, but the aged and infirm another, and the "working saints" and "community saints" another? Doesn't this make divisions, according to Paul's word?

Don't get me wrong, I love college students and am burdened for the young, but wouldn't you rather bring a college student into a church that cared for everybody, not just "good building material"? It's very unbalanced.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

1 Corinthians 12:25: "that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another."

It's more hypocrisy than double standard when in the local churches there is so much "against division", but in the next sentence putting down Christians meeting with other churches. (We have the full gospel and they have the low gospel). Such talk encourages divisive speaking when there is the absence of rebuke..

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

1 Corinthians 12:25: "that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another."

Why do the college students get one level of attention and care, but the aged and infirm another, and the "working saints" and "community saints" another? Doesn't this make divisions, according to Paul's word?

Don't get me wrong, I love college students and am burdened for the young, but wouldn't you rather bring a college student into a church that cared for everybody, not just "good building material"? It's very unbalanced.

Same can be said about brothers who get divorced. Say one is an elder and another is a non-elder, the elder will get significantly abundant care while the non-elder is left alone. James 2:2-3 comes to mind:

For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,”

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

1 Corinthians 12:25: "that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another."

Why do the college students get one level of attention and care, but the aged and infirm another, and the "working saints" and "community saints" another? Doesn't this make divisions, according to Paul's word?

Don't get me wrong, I love college students and am burdened for the young, but wouldn't you rather bring a college student into a church that cared for everybody, not just "good building material"? It's very unbalanced.

It is a terrible double standard. How dare they imply that God's free gift of salvation is only for "good material". How dare they imply that only part of the flock needs shepherding. It really disgusts me when I think about it.

[SAAggie]

Originally Posted by aron

1 Corinthians 12:25: "that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another."

Why do the college students get one level of attention and care, but the aged and infirm another, and the "working saints" and "community saints" another? Doesn't this make divisions, according to Paul's word?

Don't get me wrong, I love college students and am burdened for the young, but wouldn't you rather bring a college student into a church that cared for everybody, not just "good building material"? It's very unbalanced.

I'm new here but have searched the forum for this type of conversation.
1. I Love the Lord
2. I'm a community\working saint (I despise that label)
3. I have no burden for the campus work - not because of the students but because of the Full Time serving ones treating the "community saint" as 2nd class citizens , knowing these folks provide the money for them to do the campus work.
4. Full Timers are lazy and a burden - my opinion only.

[Intothewind]

Its all done based on the leading of the spirit. Therefore, right and wrong are out of question since thats obviously divisive and of the wrong tree (ha)...as is questioning.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Its all done based on the leading of the spirit. Therefore, right and wrong are out of question since thats obviously divisive and of the wrong tree (ha)...as is questioning.

They love to use the "leading of the spirit" line when a convenient excuse is needed, same with the saying something is the "wrong tree". LC Leaders get to criticize all they want, but the mine someone criticizes some aspect of the LC, they get all up in arms about it.

WL once said that "Christendom has become an organ of Satan". Imagine if I said "the local churches have become an organ of Satan" You can bet those in the LC would consider that as an "attack", even though it would only be speaking by the same standard as Lee did. When those in the LC discuss the perceived failings of Christianity, they get to say whatever they want. If we try to discuss what we consider to be failures of the LC, that automatically becomes the "wrong tree" to them.

[aron]

How come Lee loved Martin Luther but hated the Lutherans, Baptists, etc? If you read the definition of a 'sect' (sorry but no citation), they're an offshoot of an original group, who despise what the original became, and say they're persecuted for righteousness' sake, but - get this - they say that they're the 'real' and 'true' original group! They, the sect, supposedly fulfill the mandate of the 'original' original group! The one that was pure and good Everyone else became hopelessly corrupted. Thus the need for the sect to separate and isolate in judgment from everyone else.

So Lee et al were the 'true' followers of Luther, not the Lutherans. Lee was the 'true' follower of Zinzendorf, Wesley and so forth. So he could trumpet his 'goodly heritage' in the Baptists, where he was saved, while simultaneously despising them all as harlots, corrupt, Babylon, etc. The best of both worlds!

Lee could wave the 'orthodoxy' credentials of evangelical Protestantism, while denying the legitimacy of any evangelical Protestants except his sect. Because his sect was the true, real heirs of the original church. Why, if Luther were alive today he'd be in a LC locality, not with the corrupt Lutherans! Wesley would abandon the Methodists in a heartbeat to come to the LC, who recovered not only the ground of oneness, but the method of masticating the processed Triune God and becoming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead, consummating the New Jerusalem. So LC members could sing Wesley's hymns (both Charles and John), while having nothing to do with any of their spiritual progeny. Because Lee was the true heir of the Wesleys. Don't you know.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Lee could trumpet his 'goodly heritage' in the Baptists, where he was saved, while simultaneously despising them all as harlots, corrupt, Babylon, etc. The best of both worlds!

Lee could wave the 'orthodoxy' credentials of evangelical Protestantism, while denying the legitimacy of any evangelical Protestants except his sect. Because his sect was the true, real heirs of the original church..

In the LC they could sing, "O the love that sought me, O the blood that bought me, O the grace that brought me to the flock" (Hymns # 1086), written by Spencer Walton, a missionary in the South Africa General Mission, while despising Walton's South Africa Mission and every other mission as well! Because the LC is the true mission and the true flock, restored to God's original purpose, and they alone can sing it and know the 'true' wondrous grace, because they are the 'true' flock. Get it? The LC both claims the reality of Walton's hymn, and denies it to every other believer, including Walton himself.

The LC reply is, "Oh, we don't say that we're the only church, but that we are only the church". Yes, and you also say that everyone else isn't 'only the church', but are instead fallen, degraded, dark, impure, leavened, etc. Only we the LC "normal church life" saints know the true grace which brought us to the flock, because we're the true and original flock. Everyone else is, at best, partial, circumscribed, and a weak imitation. We alone possess the reality of God's hearts desire.

"You say that you are rich, but you have nothing: you are poor, wretched, blind, naked."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

"You say that you are rich, but you have nothing: you are poor, wretched, blind, naked."

That is the sad condition that the LC is in. You don't have to look very hard at the LC to realize that it's not all it's made out to be.

Any group claiming to have something such as a "vision of the age" is in grave danger of being blind to their true condition. While most Christians are content with being imperfect people living in an imperfect world, it seems some feel the need to view themselves as if they are a step above the rest.

[Intothewind]

How about the cloudy history of silencing dissent? Who was the guy who posted a bunch of "bad things" on the internet and then passed away...whereupon the LC somehow got control of the website and was able to take it down? It must have been in the late 90's to early 2000's...I remember even as a kid that kind of raised concerns.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

How about the cloudy history of silencing dissent? Who was the guy who posted a bunch of "bad things" on the internet and then passed away...whereupon the LC somehow got control of the website and was able to take it down? It must have been in the late 90's to early 2000's...I remember even as a kid that kind of raised concerns.

Moran. I remember it. Had some original stuff on there. Somebody must have made screen shots or cached a copy of the website. Anybody know where to find that stuff?

[Unsure]

Originally Posted by HERn

Moran. I remember it. Had some original stuff on there. Somebody must have made screen shots or cached a copy of the website. Anybody know where to find that stuff?

I found this using web.archive.com

http://web.archive.org/web/200212011....org/info.html

Is this what you were looking for?

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Unsure

I found this using web.archive.com

http://web.archive.org/web/200212011....org/info.html

Is this what you were looking for?

Thanks Unsure, that was it. But, remember something like some notes scribbled by WL for a talk that showed WL asking why he was being treated badly, does that ring a bell with anyone?

[Freedom]

Another double standard: why is it that Lee could teach that Satan indwells the body of the believer yet also teach that man becomes God in life and nature? How is it that man can become God in life and nature, yet also have Satan indwelling the body simultaneously? Is that not blasphemy? Don't forget that the phrase "god-man" is applied to LCers in the present tense.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by HERn

Moran. I remember it. Had some original stuff on there. Somebody must have made screen shots or cached a copy of the website. Anybody know where to find that stuff?

I have it scanned into digital format. It's a mess but it's pretty much all there.

[Intothewind]

https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2010...am-ministries/

I don't have the patience nor discernment to look into the word this way anymore. Do read the comments and note how easy it is to pick out lc members

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2010...am-ministries/

I don't have the patience nor discernment to look into the word this way anymore. Do read the comments and note how easy it is to pick out lc members

I read some of the comments. It seems fair to characterize the LCer comments as not being willing to address the issues being discussed. The way they operate is to label everything as an "attack", or to accuse people of purposely misrepresenting the LC.

The non-LC comments are quite reasonable. Here is one that caught my eye:

Witness Lee was a megalomaniac. Think about it, the name Lee gave to himself was “witness,” which in Greek means martyr. Martyr Lee? I think not.

Lee's own name was a double standard of double standards. Martyr Lee, the same man who once said "That Lee! Lee has to be famous! Lee! Lee! Lee must have the credit!" Did Lee ever think about anyone except himself? I don't think he even had the ability to concede to others at all. Did he think he could fool people? Outsiders certainly weren't fooled by him.

[Intothewind]

Then they bury the opposition under pages of lees writing. Surely they will see the light of this amazing revealation!

[Intothewind]

I wonder if the resemblance of witness to a well known cult is why he is usually calked bro. Lee

Not bro. Witness

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

I wonder if the resemblance of witness to a well known cult is why he is usually calked bro. Lee

Not bro. Witness

The LC does make an argument for the use of the name Jehovah in the Old Testament Recovery Version. There is a paragraph or so in the introduction devoted to that. If they want to appear to be "orthodox" they certainly don't do a good job at it.

[micah6v8]

I could add an 11th item to Freedom's list of 10 examples of "Double-Standards"

11) When a non-LSM church pastor gives a "sermon", it is frowned upon because "the congregation becomes non-functioning". Yet when a Blended Brother gives a one and a half hour "Message" in a conference, no one frowns upon the fact that the congregation is also passive/non-functioning during the one and a half hour.
Apart from the labels, a sermon and a message are the same thing. What may differ is simply the contents of the message/sermon.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I could add an 11th item to Freedom's list of 10 examples of "Double-Standards"

11) When a non-LSM church pastor gives a "sermon", it is frowned upon because "the congregation becomes non-functioning". Yet when a Blended Brother gives a one and a half hour "Message" in a conference, no one frowns upon the fact that the congregation is also passive/non-functioning during the one and a half hour.
Apart from the labels, a sermon and a message are the same thing. What may differ is simply the contents of the message/sermon.

This represents a huge double standard within the LC. If the BB’s make everyone sit through 1.5-2 hour training messages, it might be characterized as the “up-to-date speaking”. When Christians outside the LC have a single speaker, it’s considered “nullifying” the function of each member.

Come to think of it, some of the BB’s mostly travel around to whatever LC offers them a soapbox. Would these BB’s ever succumb themselves to the LC “prophesying” meetings that everyone else must participate in? Me thinks not.

[Intothewind]

I remember one of the BB's (he's very tall, thin, glasses, stern) who was so inspired by some point(I remember not) during a YP meeting during a conference in San Jose that he help all of us squirmy HS students for another 30mins-1 hr after we were supposed to be dismissed. Most of us were disappointed we didn't get to use the pool or whatever. That is an excellent double standard you just brought to light.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

I remember one of the BB's (he's very tall, thin, glasses, stern) who was so inspired by some point(I remember not) during a YP meeting during a conference in San Jose that he help all of us squirmy HS students for another 30mins-1 hr after we were supposed to be dismissed. Most of us were disappointed we didn't get to use the pool or whatever. That is an excellent double standard you just brought to light.

For some of these BB's, sermonizing is what they thrive by doing. If that opportunity was taken away from them, who knows if they would even stay in the LC. I think RK has been quoted as saying that he "won't step aside for anyone", in reference to his place at the podium.

What I always found a bit humorous was that in meetings where everyone was allocated a certain amount of time to speak, everyone would start moaning and groaning as soon as someone went over time. When a BB or elder goes 30 minutes too long, no one would give it a second thought. It just goes to show the kind of regard the BB's get as opposed to the average Joe.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

For some of these BB's, sermonizing is what they thrive by doing. If that opportunity was taken away from them, who knows if they would even stay in the LC. I think RK has been quoted as saying that he "won't step aside for anyone", in reference to his place at the podium.

What I always found a bit humorous was that in meetings where everyone was allocated a certain amount of time to speak, everyone would start moaning and groaning as soon as someone went over time. When a BB or elder goes 30 minutes too long, no one would give it a second thought. It just goes to show the kind of regard the BB's get as opposed to the average Joe.

In Christianity, you have pastors, reverends and preachers who give sermons at church service. In the LC, you have blendeds, serving ones, and co-workers who give messages at meetings. Now, which one is so superior, and normal, and which one is defective, distorted, and nullifying the function of the body members? Terminology aside, what's the difference?

I think one example of hypocrisy is, to say "If you do it, it's bad; but when I do it, it's okay." That is arguably textbook double standard, and subjectivism run amok. Welcome to the LC fantasy factory.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I could add an 11th item to Freedom's list of 10 examples of "Double-Standards"

11) When a non-LSM church pastor gives a "sermon", it is frowned upon because "the congregation becomes non-functioning". Yet when a Blended Brother gives a one and a half hour "Message" in a conference, no one frowns upon the fact that the congregation is also passive/non-functioning during the one and a half hour.
Apart from the labels, a sermon and a message are the same thing. What may differ is simply the contents of the message/sermon.

And this brings up a myth perpetrated by the double standards. That myth is that having the average/small potatoes "functioning in the meeting" is both scripturally prescribed, and spiritually superior to sitting and listening for the period of such a sermon.

In fact, other than the three-ring circus that Paul went to significant lengths to dismantle in Corinth, there is nothing else I recall seeing concerning anything material about the participation of the small potatoes in meetings.

And in the first mention of meetings after Pentecost, there is specific mention of gathering in the Temple to hear the teaching of the apostles. Sounds like a sermon to me.

[micah6v8]

If we look at the education sector, one would also note that lectures, tutorials and seminars have different roles to play. To deride lectures for being a passive experience is to misunderstand its intended role as giving an introduction of a topic to be discussed later on in tutorials.

We could have a church model where on Sundays, a sermon is given to explain a portion of scripture (for example a chapter of Galatians). Subsequently on a weekday, in the small group meetings, the believers can discuss/muse more on the said chapter of Galatians, with a focus on application to their daily lives. In the weekdays, the believers could also read a Bible Study guide on the said chapter. If you missed out on the sermon, you could catch up by hearing an audio recording on the church’s website.


In turn, the LSM’s model focuses on active participation by all members during both the weekly Sunday meetings and the weekday Small Group meetings (To a point where they would encourage you to stand up and just read out a portion of the Weekly Reading). And to supplement these they have these intensive periods of “Messages” (equivalent to sermons) which are conducted over 3-5 days in conferences. Each “Message” in turn supplements one Sunday’s worth of prophesying meeting. If you were not able to attend the conference or watch a recording of the conference, you could pick up a copy of the “Ministry of the Word” book which is a written version of the conference messages.

It reminds me of my university days where a rival university distinguished itself from my university and other universities by stating that its students would not attend lectures or seminars. Rather, their students would attend small group seminars with a focus on active participation by the students. The difference between LSM and this rival university, was that that this rival university had implemented this model to encourage its students to express their own opinions more.

[Freedom]

In response to both micah6v8 and OBW, I completely agree. Meetings have different purposes, and there is value in both small group meetings, and large "single speaker" meetings. Unfortunately, WL thought he could make all meetings conform to his cookie-cutter model.

At the heart of the issue, WL assigned a function (gift) of prophesying to every member. That was a big problem, because the Bible explicitly states that each member has a different function. So this caused two problems 1) If forced people to function outside of their individual gifts and 2) It devalued the gifts for those who really were prophets of God.

WL's misinterpretation of "all can prophecy" led to free-for-all meetings that offered little to no value. I've stated before on other threads, I've heard plenty of people speak in the LC who should have best kept quiet. Things like dumping personal problems on everyone are not acceptable in a large group setting, and this is exactly why virtually all churches have an assigned speaker for such gatherings. If LC elders ever wonder why their meetings constantly go over time, well it's because they try to give the floor to more people that it's logistically possible for the set amount of time.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Witness Lee

We all know that Christianity gathers a group of people for a church service. They hire a speaker who has theological knowledge, who is very eloquent and capable, and who is able to run an organization and bring people together. Such persons are rare in Taiwan but quite common in the United States. They are all well-known persons in Christianity, but the work of these well-known persons has "killed" every one of their church members. On the one hand, these church members have been brought to the Lord through them, but on the other hand, their speaking has "killed" these church members. Some may say that kill is too strong an expression, but at least we can say that the members have become accustomed to listening to messages; they have become drugged and become numb. They only know that a Christian should be a proper and good person and that he should attend the church service every Lord's Day; that is good enough. However, from the perspective of the spiritual supply of life, such a way completely annuls the members' function.

So according to Lee, the "service" in "Christianity" completely annuls the function of the members of the Body of Christ. I would argue the contrary: at least one person, the reverend or pastor or minister, gets to seek the Lord for His current speaking to the flock. Has any co-worker of Lee been able to seek the Lord for guidance for the "message" given in the LC "meeting"? No. They're expected to repeat the content this week's HWFMR. The footnotes in RecV (see e.g. Rev 2,3) make it explicit: each group, and meeting, is to be "absolutely identical".

Anyone working apart from the material delivered by the publishing house in Anaheim quickly got their chain yanked. My LC elder once tried to give a conference on a Witness Lee book that he appreciated. The blendeds got wind of this, and gave him "fellowship", and said, "No, we must re-speak the latest training messages." And they sent out a Blended Co-Worker to see that the speaking conformed.

Nobody can function in such an environment, because it would be a threat to "the ministry". The One Trumpet edict made that clear - only Lee could function. Everyone else had to parrot him, as God's oracle. "Be a tape recorder", we were told. Don't deviate from the pattern of Lee.

I stress the last line from the quote above, "Such a way completely annuls the members' function." The only individual leading, here, is how loudly to shout the words given to you by Lee's deputies, and how many shouted repetitions: 3, 4, or 5?

It's a clear double standard: LC dogma holds that the "service" of "Christianity" kills the church members, but the "meeting" of the "local church" restores their function. How? By repeating a couple lines from HWFMR, with a timer running so that if you go over 1 minute the piano bangs a note? That is our restored function?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

WL's misinterpretation of "all can prophecy" led to free-for-all meetings that offered little to no value. I've stated before on other threads, I've heard plenty of people speak in the LC who should have best kept quiet. Things like dumping personal problems on everyone are not acceptable in a large group setting, and this is exactly why virtually all churches have an assigned speaker for such gatherings. If LC elders ever wonder why their meetings constantly go over time, well it's because they try to give the floor to more people that it's logistically possible for the set amount of time.

In practice "All can prophesy" is restricted to SLM publications. Generally HWFMR or bringing a fresh word from a recent conference.

If elders ever wonder why there's a lack of increase, the model of which they employ "all can prophesy" could be part of the problem.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In response to both micah6v8 and OBW, I completely agree. Meetings have different purposes, and there is value in both small group meetings, and large "single speaker" meetings. Unfortunately, WL thought he could make all meetings conform to his cookie-cutter model.

At the heart of the issue, WL assigned a function (gift) of prophesying to every member. That was a big problem, because the Bible explicitly states that each member has a different function. So this caused two problems 1) If forced people to function outside of their individual gifts and 2) It devalued the gifts for those who really were prophets of God.

WL's misinterpretation of "all can prophecy" led to free-for-all meetings that offered little to no value. I've stated before on other threads, I've heard plenty of people speak in the LC who should have best kept quiet. Things like dumping personal problems on everyone are not acceptable in a large group setting, and this is exactly why virtually all churches have an assigned speaker for such gatherings. If LC elders ever wonder why their meetings constantly go over time, well it's because they try to give the floor to more people that it's logistically possible for the set amount of time.

WL’s application of the “all can prophesy” principle was wrong, and this was compounded by his erroneous narrow definition of “serving God” as “serving in the church.” Consider this excerpt from the book “The Practice of the Church Life according to the God-ordained Way"

"First Corinthians 12:22-25 tells us that every believer, every member of the Body, is needed. We have been greatly influenced by Christianity to think that among all the saints, only a few are useful and have some capacity to serve the Lord. I believe that this kind of psychology still remains among us. At times we might have considered the saints and concluded that most were not useful or capable. This is the reason that the majority in Christianity have accepted the concept that not all Christians can serve God. Thus, most Christian groups select only a small group of believers and send them to a seminary to become educated according to their theology. Then they build these up as a system, the so-called clerical system, which has become a hierarchy in Christianity. This kind of psychology, this kind of thought, is the very source of hierarchy."

In reality, many non- LSM Christians do not hold WL’s view that “not all Christians can serve God” Rather they hold a broader definition of serving God in which working in secular jobs (be it as an accountant or baker or zookeeper) would be serving God if the work was done out of love for God and men.

Now many Christians (whether in a LSM-church or non-LSM church) correctly understand the Parable of the Talents to teach that, “As God’s chosen ones, we are accountable to God for serving Him with what He has given us.” The application of this parable differs depending on whether you hold the narrow or broad definition of “serving God”. For those who hold the broad definition, they would have less qualms letting a full-time Christian pastor speak on Sunday mornings, seeing that it is the full-time Christian pastor’s gift and opportunity to serve God by explaining the bible to His people. For those who hold the narrow definition, it would be inevitable that they prophesy (in WL’s manner) in meetings as they would not want to incur God’s wrath for being slothful.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Christians who hold the broad-interpretation of “serving God” can and should still contribute to Church Meetings (as 1 Cor 14:26 makes clear), instead of completely not doing anything during the Church Meetings. Outside of church meetings, there are also areas they can contribute to complement the full-time church ministers’ work. Take for example the matter of shepherding:- While I believe that the Shepherds are mainly responsible for shepherding God’s flock (eg the shepherd fights the wolf; it is difficult for the sheep themselves to fight the wolf), a sheep can, to some extent, take care of its fellow sheep by warning its neighbouring sheep “Hey I see a wolf coming”.

This may be more an unfortunate 'contradiction' rather than a 'double standard' but...what about all the internal 'cognitive dissonance' discussed here experienced by some members....and the idea of oneness and no division. The person under oppression from all that leven becomes divided within themselves also, an even deeper, internal division. Tearing down their soul and sanity. So sad to me. (I am an outsider who has come to know and be concerned for the wellbeing of a member of the LC.)

By the way, I have found this site extremely helpful and I have deep regard and respect for many of you ex-LCers and the work of this forum, as I am working my way through every thread. I Will be posting more too.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This may be more an unfortunate 'contradiction' rather than a 'double standard' but...what about all the internal 'cognitive dissonance' discussed here experienced by some members

Unless you have zero gift for observation, or are in complete dreamland, there's no way to avoid cognitive dissonance in the local church. At least it was that way when I was in it.

The problem with cognitive dissonance in the LC is that it's something you must keep in the closet. So it's hidden division ; dissonance hidden behind a mask of harmony ... secrets that outward show of conviction conceals.

This is to be expected. In the churches around me here in the Bible belt I'll bet at least 60 percent of members don't buy into all that's being taught in their churches. But that not a problem, except to cults.

Mind control seems to work best at tamping down dissonance. But it's like continually resisting gravity. Cultic powers traffic in that resistance.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The person under oppression from all that leven becomes divided within themselves also, an even deeper, internal division. Tearing down their soul and sanity. So sad to me.

This is not just a supposition, or conjecture. This is existential. This is a real thing. And it is sad, and mentally destabilizing, or worse.

Thanks for your contribution. Looking forward to hearing more from you.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by SAAggie

Not sure if any of this make sense, but it boils down to the cast system - FT'rs are the higher cast - the working folks are the schlubs and who's purpose is to serve the FT'rs, because we can only be useful to the Lord in that way since we didn't go to the training(so says the FT'r edict).

This testimony rings true with my experience. I went to a few college conferences as a community saint. The recently graduated FT'r wanted me to be just the driver of the van so he could minister to the new college kids that went with us. I had over 30 years of experience walking with the Lord in work, family, and personal trials where i overcame by repentance, confession, prayer, counseling, and trusting and believing God. All the newbe FT'r had was a head full of WL teaching and LSM recruitment tactics. So, yes i believe there is a clergy in the Recovery.

[JB482]

I agree the clergy is very strong in the LC. And years ago when the Lord was blessing there it was because of the dear seeking saints,it was never because of the leadership of the one ministry,all that did was damage and scatter the saints and cause so much grief.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

..what about all the internal 'cognitive dissonance' discussed here experienced by some members....and the idea of oneness and no division. The person under oppression from all that leven becomes divided within themselves also, an even deeper, internal division. Tearing down their soul and sanity. So sad to me. .

Under the shiny happy faces in the LC there's a dilemma: to be shiny and happy, one can't think, but to "be in spirit". Thinking is supposedly of the soul, which is fallen, controlled by Satan.

Yet the Guru of the Flock, Witness Lee was allowed to think. He'sd continually look at scripture and say, "This shows us that..." and make his point. Many of them were based on teachings of other reputable ministers, but often he'd do a 'mix and match' and make up his own 'revelations'. In this he followed Watchman Nee, who had a collection of 3,000 'Christian classics', so we were told, and extracted all the 'truths' from each one.

So now, LC members hear that there's no need to read any other Christian ministries but this one. All the 'chaff' has been sorted from the 'wheat'; no need to bother. But my point has been, if WN got to read 3,000 different books, why can't we? To me it makes no sense. . one must then suppress the cognitive dissonance, in order to go on.

Or WN being trained, led and prominently supported by women, of which 8 or a dozen could be easily named, and are by the LSM, and yet 100 years later women should be silent in the church? It makes no sense. The only way to go on is, stop thinking and "enjoy Christ". But how can you enjoy Christ when you've suppressed such nonsense?

WL in his teachings could be capricious and ideosyncratic; he'd look at one section and say it showed thus-and-such, and in another similar, if not identical text, say that it showed something quite different. So you're supposed to ignore the discrepancy? The psalmist in one spot cursing the enemy is "Christ defeating Satan" and in another spot it's just the natural man David in his soul, violating the principles of love and forbearance taught in the NT? I kid you not, it's right there in black and white.

I could go on and on. The examples of this in the LC are nearly endless. Instead of being allowed to openly consider, and discuss, and come to resolution (or at least improvement), members must paper over contradictions and double standards and pretend to be living in an earthly utopia. And the greater the gap between appearance and reality, the worse the internal stress and incoherence becomes.

Thanks for your comment and validation on the thoughts I offered on my post. In my statement I meant to highlight, (tho I didn't do it very well) the contradiction that the LC goal is to remove division but it's reality is it is responsible for creating division, not only between: groups of believers, also between individuals ( It's beliefs causing unnecessary personal conflicts), but then also within a person, (cognitive dissonance). All to avoid WLs own personal responsibility for his guidance of the LC.

The way I see it, it goes back to the steps of Adam and eve at the fall. They: 1.disobeyed, 2. Hid, 3.lied, 4. Blame-shifted. (Adam blamed eve, eve blamed snake). My focus here on step 4.WL blamed the rest of christianity for having faults, and created a church system where his followers carry the cost (blame) to protect him from taking responsibility for his errors and faults.

And this is the outcome. The very division, at even more and damaging levels, that he thought he could so easily avoid. And the people go on paying the cost for his unreality so long after his death!

That is such a salutary lesson to us all. Don't get carried away with ourselves! As a humbled, Christ-confessing Sylvester Stallone recently confessed to the news media...for a while he believed his own hype! But not anymore.

How does it seem to think S Stallone is in a better standing with our Lord than WL, (as far as we can tell?)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

How does it seem to think S Stallone is in a better standing with our Lord than WL, (as far as we can tell?)

"Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. - Jesus

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The way I see it, it goes back to the steps of Adam and Eve at the fall. They: 1.disobeyed, 2. Hid, 3.lied, 4. Blame-shifted.. WL blamed the rest of christianity for having faults, and created a church system where his followers carry the cost (blame) to protect him from taking responsibility for his errors and faults.

I nominate this for quote of the day, especially the last sentence. The whole thing is just displaced anxiety and shame.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

I nominate this for quote of the day, especially the last sentence. The whole thing is just displaced anxiety and shame.

Didn't he come here from China, condemning all those invading imperialists Christian missionaries? I don't know. But he picked up hatred for all traditional Christians somewhere :

"Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless" - Witness Lee

[UntoHim]

Just a slight correction on this quote:

"Judaism is satanic, Catholicism is demonic, and Protestantism is Christless"

I believe this quote comes from the Recovery Version footnotes in Revelation 2.
-

[Kevin]

Today we bear the testimony of the Lord's recovery against Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, and Christianity. Judaism is satanic (Rev. 2:9), Catholicism is devilish (vv. 20, 24), Protestantism is lifeless (3:1b), and Christianity is Christless (v. 20v).

(The Governing and Controlling Vision in the Bible, Chapter 3, Section 4)

It is very common among Christians to have many things in place of Christ. Believers may have ethics, morality, culture, philosophy, doctrine, and tradition instead of Christ. In a very real sense, today's Christianity is Christless. Among Christians almost anything can become a substitute for Christ.

(Life-Study of 1 Corinthians, Chapter 17, Section 2)

They seem to be exempted or invulnerable themselves from being lifeless and Christless.