Deputy Authority and the Ground of Oneness

[Indiana]

http://www.twoturmoils.com/DeputyAut...dofOneness.pdf

This is a two-page condensed version of Deputy Authority and the Ground of Oneness.

The Defense and Confirmation Project (DCP) provided a statement meant to apply to others, but it actually applies to leadership in the local churches, present and past.

DCP. blending brothers, Living Stream Ministry (LSM) are all invited to this table of fellowship, as well as present and former members, and others too who might be interested.

Steve Isitt

[Indiana]

Currently Active Users of the forum: 26 (1 member and 25 guests) 11-15-2015

“Some transmute the basis of the oneness of the believers by the assertion of their own authority [I] - to the point where the actual ground of oneness becomes acceptance of and obedience to their authority”.

Brother Lee Not Open to Opinion or Fellowship from the Brothers

One Accord for the Lord’s New Move
Elders Training, Book 7

In the beginning of the era of the new way, Brother Lee made it clear who was the leader among the churches in the recovery. There was to be "no uncertain sounding of the trumpet" for an army of followers to follow him as its unique leader.

He gave the following analogy: "The citizens of the United States may say many things to criticize the government and the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. But when you get into the army and become a soldier, you lose the right to say anything."

He continued, "you may be a member of a local church and yet have nothing to do with the ministry to fight the battle for the Lord's interest on the earth. All of you are the elders, the co-workers, and the apprentice elders, the leading ones, in the recovery. I am speaking to you all as the soldiers in the recovery, not to the citizens. I am speaking to the soldiers of the army. Are you going to remain in the army? You have to realize what the army is and what the army would do. The army has no capacity to take your opinion…” (pp. 80-81, ET 7)


1. Atlanta Elders Conference

John Ingalls relates an elders’ meeting in which Brother Lee told the brothers how he felt about them and their ability to fellowship with him. He essentially informed them that they were not qualified to raise questions with him or to criticize anything he did.


John Ingalls
"In September Brother Lee had a conference in Atlanta with two elders’ meetings, one on Friday, September 16th, (1988) and the other on the Lord’s Day, September 18th. The second meeting was exceptional with brothers from all over the country attending. I would like to briefly describe it, noting a few significant things that were said, (I myself was not present but I received reports from a number of brothers concerning it.)

"Brother Lee strongly vindicated the way he had taken against all criticisms. He drew a line; any who would not take this way, he said, are “dropouts”, and the Lord will have no mercy. Addressing the brothers, he said that none of them understood what he was doing. None knew what he was doing in Taipei; hence there was no one that he could fellowship with. When I went to Taipei, he said, “I did not fellowship with one person concerning what I was going to do.” He continued: “None of you is perfected. Who can say that he is perfected? So you are not qualified to criticize what I am doing. I didn’t include you in my fellowship – how can I? So let there be no more talk about anything I do. You criticize my young trainers in Taipei, telling me their mistakes, but I was doing everything; what they did was to carry out my burden.

" Don Rutledge, an elder in Dallas before moving to North Carolina, told me, 'That meeting was the most devastating and discouraging experience of all my time in the church.” What particularly bothered him was Brother Lee’s attitude toward the brothers. The atmosphere, he said, was heavy, oppressive, and abusive. (Reports came to my ears from a number of brothers who attended that meeting; all indicated something similar.) Brother Lee had wanted to have a time of fellowship `with Don immediately following the session, but Don was so troubled and depressed that he told Brother Lee he had to go home. As he walked out the door, Titus Chu came up and said to Don, "I’m afraid this will make our situation worse. I hope not”. (From Deviating from the Path in the Lord's Recovery, p. 94, S.I.)

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Indiana

In the beginning of the era of the new way, Brother Lee made it clear who was the leader among the churches in the recovery. There was to be "no uncertain sounding of the trumpet" for an army of followers to follow him as its unique leader.

He gave the following analogy: "The citizens of the United States may say many things to criticize the government and the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. But when you get into the army and become a soldier, you lose the right to say anything."

This was the way of Witness Lee. If there was an analogy that supported a teaching he needed help on, it was treated as if equivalent to scripture.

Once or twice analogies of military were used, primarily by Paul. That did not make everything military applicable to the Christian life or to the church. It just happens that the specific analogies used fit with the spiritual truth that was being underscored. It did not make broad facts concerning the military into proof of scriptural mandates not actually found in scripture.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Once or twice analogies of military were used, primarily by Paul. That did not make everything military applicable to the Christian life or to the church. It just happens that the specific analogies used fit with the spiritual truth that was being underscored. It did not make broad facts concerning the military into proof of scriptural mandates not actually found in scripture.

As I've mentioned before and am happy to repeat: which military? In the U.S military, the leaders are also subject to rule of law; uniform codes of conduct are universally applied; plans of action may be subject to group deliberation. The inputs of subordinate leaders are deemed crucial to the success of the battle plan.

In an Asian military, by contrast, it is said of the leader that "even when he's wrong, he's right." What the Jefe Maximus declares as the plan must be obeyed reflexively, without thought or question. Give-and-take is tantamount to insubordination.

Which 'military' culture were we under in the LC? You may decide for yourself - I'm pretty clear what it was.

BTW, one of the LC stalwarts on this forum admitted that "God blew on" WL's plans for Daystar, among other money-making schemes. Yet no one else was allowed to question, or to "be negative". The collateral damage, as God corrected His humble bondslave, was simply factored into the equation - if you got crushed or bankrupted or cast aside as God judged one of WL's "moves" or "flows", too bad for you. You're in the army, now.

[TLFisher]

In principle the Blended brothers are carrying on the tradition of Witness Lee. If they're wrong, there will be no admission only a change of minds and a change of plans. Just shows pride is a characteristic of deputy authority and not humility.

[Freedom]

I previously posted the following quote on a different thread. I am re-posting it here, because I think it offers a view the mindset of WL. It is hard to not notice the cultural connotations in relation to WL's view of authority that aron has already referred to.

It is easy for anyone to be humble, admit the failure, and confess it. But if Noah had been like that, what would have become of God’s government on this earth? What about his descendants? What about God’s economy, God’s administration? It would have been all right for Noah to make such a confession, but it would have meant the ruin of God’s government on earth.

Witness Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Message 33, pg. 443

It goes without saying that the notion that WL puts forth here is extremely dangerous and can have severe implications for members of the LC. Notice how WL claims that humility is easy, and he even infers that humility and repentance can "ruin God's government". There are a few big problems I have with what WL says. First of all, humility isn't easy, not by a long-shot. Secondly, the idea that repentance by a leader can ruin their image is more reminiscent of totalitarian regimes than anything found in the Bible. I am reminded of 2 Samuel 12 when the Lord sent Nathan to David, and it ultimately resulted in David saying “I have sinned against the Lord.” Here is a perfect example of a leader fessing up to wrongdoing

When I consider the authority abuses that I have seen and witnessed in the LC, it quite often has been related to the matter of leaders not being able to admit to being wrong. Interestingly, that boils down to an issue of humility, the one thing that WL said was easy. In my experience, LC leaders may not have the appearance of being dictators, but much of the problem seems to be simply not being able to admit to being wrong. Once a leader can't to admit to being wrong, the abuses can happen simply because there is an attempt at a cover-up. If a leader is blind to their failures (as was David initially), they could very well set out on a witch-hunt to attack the very thing that they are.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by aron

In 35 years of public ministry in the U.S., did anyone see Witness Lee accept such loss of face? If not, then what assurance is there that he was.... a mature and transformed Christian?... In other words, how much (if at all) had he freed himself from his native Chinese culture? reference to post #43

I believe that conscientious brethren should study the principle of Aron's word and the effects of what "saving face" and the Chinese culture has had on the church, even with Watchman Nee in China. In Lily Hsu's book on her Unforgettable Memories of Watchman Nee and the Shanghai Local Church, its weighty content is immediately felt 1) in the endorsements, 2) Joshua Yu's Preface and 3) in the introduction.

One of the Ten Endorsements
"Thank the Lord for granting the author the wisdom and courage. My heart is extremely painful with feelings beyond words. This book has filled the blanks in history and solved some unsettled questions." _Rev. Thomas Wang, Emeritus

www.TwoTurmoils.com/LilyHsuBook.pdf

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Indiana

The Hijacking of the Local Churches

In the days when the “local churches” were essentially hijacked by unrestrained men in a world-wide movement, things happened fast and furiously in the name of being in one accord for “the Lord’s new move”. When the dust settled, a federation of churches had been established under the direction and control of an administrator and a headquarters in Anaheim.

Along with the hijacking was the attacking of conscientious leaders in a cyclone of events that issued in their quarantines and their public annihilation, with disdain of a magnitude unimaginable; except when considering the source and the inroads given the Accuser of the brethren to have full sway in brutal and false portrayal of men and events; and their motives and intentions in a movement designed to turn leaders and churches upside down.

A Book of Distortion

In a concluding word by Witness Lee in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion(FPR), he says, “Since the dissenting ones have made their rebellion so obvious, so public, even by their publications, I feel obliged to present to you all the fermenting events of the present rebellion in the Lord’s recovery that you may be clear about the intrinsic reasons and causes of all the fermentations. In the church as a corporate Body composed of many different persons with their different realizations and views, problems are sometimes unavoidable in the long run. According to the New Testament, such problems should be properly taken care of in the divine love by genuine and thorough fellowship in the Spirit, with constant forgiveness, all-caring forbearance, self-depreciating humility, merciful sympathy, and gracious help in mutuality”.

“Instead of these excellent Christian virtues, what we see in the present rebellion are exaggerated criticisms, cruel backbitings, unreasonable opposings, subtle underminings, wicked defamations, vicious slanders, unethical anonymous letters, bitter attacks, ill-intentioned conspiracies, crafty innuendos, double-tongued pretenses, fabricated falsehood, flagrant lies, reckless devastations, and unbridled destructions, with unimaginable hatred, fleshly jealousies, and unchristian avengings. These are not the fruit of enjoying Christ, nor are they good for the building up of the saints and the building of the churches. Even to make such a presentation of the facts is not pleasant to me. For quite a long time I have been hesitating before the Lord as to whether I should do this or not, and I have consulted with the brothers about this.

“They all encouraged me to do it for the preservation of the uninformed ones, for the recovery of the deceived ones, for the establishing of the wavering and bothered ones, and for history. Thus, I feel obligated to do so, after considering what Paul eventually did in 2 Timothy 2:17-18 and 4:14-15 concerning this kind of thing, and even the more that Moses kept a full record of the rebellions in the book of Numbers. I do look to the Lord that He would have mercy on all of us and grant us His sufficient grace that we would endeavor to keep the oneness of His Body at any cost. And I also expect that the brothers who caused the present turmoil and those who are involved in such an illogical and unjustifiable action would reconsider this matter before the Lord to answer this question, which is the question of so many saints who are concerned for the oneness of the Body of Christ: “Is not what you are engaging in divisive, or already a division?” (W. Lee, 1990, p. 74, FPR)

The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion is a distortion of truth instigated by by our common enemy, Satan, throughout its pages. Deviating from the Path in the Lords Recovery supplies information not given in FPR, bringing truth to light in providing important details of the other side of the story.
http://www.TwoTurmoils.com/deviating...dsrecovery.pdf

Even if those denunciations had been true, the rhetoric could be said to be inappropriate and void of love. But our brothers could not even tell the truth in an atmosphere pervaded by the Deceiver, the Accuser of many brothers in church meetings and official [I]publications], especially in FPR.

Steve Isitt

Following the letter below to brother Lee, was a response by him that he felt was necessary to quell the concerns of those who might think the letter exalted him. Whoever had such concerns, however, found them amplified much more, as time passed.

Appendix

A Letter of Assurance from 419 Leading Brothers Attending the February 1986 Elders’ Training -- February 21, 1986

“Dear Brother Lee,

After hearing your fellowship in this elders’ training, we all agree to have a new start in the Lord’s recovery. For this, we all agree to be in one accord and to carry out this new move of the Lord solely through prayer, the Spirit, and the Word. We further agree to practice the recovery one in: teaching, practice, thinking, speaking, essence, appearance, and expression. We repudiate all differences among the churches, and all indifference toward the ministry office, and the other churches. We agree that the church in our place be identical with all the local churches throughout the earth.

We also agree to follow your leading as the one who has brought us God’s New Testament economy and has led us into its practice. We agree that this leading is indispensable to our oneness and acknowledge the one trumpet in the Lord’s ministry and the one wise master builder among us.

We further agree to practice the church life in our locality absolutely in a new way: to build the church in, through, and based upon home meetings; to lead every member to get used to functioning without any idea to depend on any giant speakers; to teach all the saints to know the basic truths in an educational way that they may teach others for the spreading of the truth; to build up the saints in the growth in life that they may minister life to others, shepherd each other, and take care of the backsliding ones; to lead all the saints to preach the gospel in every possible way; to avoid leadership as much as possible; and to have home gatherings for nurturing the saints in life; and big meetings for educating the saints in truths.

We agree that all the preceding points are the clear and definite teaching of the Bible according to God’s New Testament economy. Finally, we agree that the success of this new move is our responsibility and will rise up to labor and endeavor with our whole being, looking to the Lord for His mercy and grace that we would be faithful to the end”

Your brothers for the Lord’s recovery,
******************


Brother Lee’s Remarks in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

"Out of 419 signers, as far as I know thus far, only approximately six would revoke their signatures. One of these six, John Ingalls, said that I “treated this letter like an oath” and I took it “as a pledge,” John Ingalls or Bill Mallon said that I was “holding it up to the brothers, reminding them of what they signed.” In one elders’ meeting in December 1987 in Irving I did say, in the way of warning to the rebellious ones who were present, especially John Ingalls and Bill Mallon, that that letter, which had been signed by them one year and ten months prior to that time, could be considered as a pledge according to the way it was written. In that warning I spoke loudly at least twice to them, saying that they should “treasure [their] golden history in the Lord’s recovery,” with the expectation that they would receive the mercy and grace of the Lord to turn from their rebellious situation.

But I never considered that letter as an oath. Both John Ingalls and Bill Mallon were men over fifty years of age, highly educated, with a sober mind and a strong will. As such persons they participated with agreement in the drafting of this letter, and then signed such a crucial paper solemnly before God. I did not consider that as the playing of little, naughty boys; rather, I did count on it and trust in it for the Lord’s recovery in a very reverent way. How sad it is that after 22 months, fewer than one thousand days, they are like a bow turning its arrow at the shooter. This is far beyond my anticipation. They swallowed their own words; ignored the truth they had received and acknowledged; did not care for the Lord’s recovery, which they had treasured, uplifted, and propagated, not merely for two and a half days, but for a quarter of a century; behaved themselves not as gentlemen but as dishonest ones who conspired in secrecy to destroy my ministry; did not regard their faithfulness before the faithful Lord; and fluctuated to carry out their plot by inducing others to join their rebellion in darkness.

When the letter was presented to me and gained my attention, I was somewhat concerned that the signing brothers probably did not fully realize the significance of some of the expressions of their letter, so I acknowledged it with a reply that expressed to them my sincere, honest, and faithful in this matter, as printed below:

April 11, 1986

The Brothers attending the February 1986
Elders’ Training

Dear Brothers:

Thank you for your letter dated February 21, 1986 with the list of signatures. I feel very sorry that I could not have time to acknowledge, with appreciation, what you have expressed in your letter and through your signatures until now.

Being one with the ministry is a crucial matter, and its effects are exceedingly serious. Its proper definition is not to follow any man, any doctrine or any movement, but is to be one with the Lord’s move today according to the Lord’s vision, without any intrinsic element of exalting any person or promoting any work. May the Lord be merciful and gracious to us, that this action would not be misunderstood or misapplied by anyone in a way that would give the enemy Satan ground for utilization, thus frustrating the Lord’s move today, but rather that this action could be properly used by the Lord to swallow up all the germs of discord which have been existing, even among us, for quite a time in the past. May the Lord remember your kind wishes for me and bless your labors in Him.

Your brother in Christ,
Witness Lee”


"This reply was written in the way of fellowship with a strong intention to impress the signing brothers with the proper definition of being one with the ministry. According to its expression, my reply indicated to the brothers that to be one with the ministry in the way that was expressed in their letter might be misunderstood and misapplied by some and might cause trouble. I said that the misunderstanding and misapplication could quite possibly be centered around the thinking of exalting a person. In anticipation of this, in my reply I reminded the signing brothers that the proper definition of being one with the ministry is to be one with the Lord’s move “without any intrinsic element of exalting any person.” Thus, what was expressed in my reply might be considered a warning. This was given probably because of the intuition I had within me at that time. At any rate, the present rebellious situation has become a real fulfillment of my warning. Our sovereign Lord knows everything and is sovereign over all things. Praise Him!

"The total significance of the letter signed by the 419 brothers is to assure me of their willingness and loyalty in keeping the one accord for the Lord’s recovery. Now the six mentioned above have fluctuated in their unstable understanding. Regardless of what their understanding might be, no one can deny that, according to the holy word, to be in one accord is not only right but also indispensable to work together for the Lord’s interest on this earth. No one among us should justify or promote discord or differences in the Lord’s move." (The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, W. L., 1990)

[Freedom]

There is nothing wrong with a group of Christians having a purposeful attitude towards a particular ministry. That is not uncommon at all. I think that WL's intention was to lead everyone to believe that the same kind of 'safe' association existed between the local churches and his ministry. All the while, he subtly stressed the need for everyone to align themselves to his ministry and follow him completely.

In his letter, WL states the following:
"Being one with the ministry is a crucial matter, and its effects are exceedingly serious. Its proper definition is not to follow any man, any doctrine or any movement, but is to be one with the Lord’s move today according to the Lord’s vision, without any intrinsic element of exalting any person or promoting any work"

In Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age, WL says this about his following Nee:
"I feel no shame whatsoever in saying that I followed a man..."

In the first quote, WL can be quoted as saying that no one should be following a man. In the second, he is basically bragging about his following of Nee. Which statement are we to believe? He said one thing, and insisted that everyone practice something different. It is no wonder JI and others retracted their signatures.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Freedom

There is nothing wrong with a group of Christians having a purposeful attitude towards a particular ministry. That is not uncommon at all. I think that WL's intention was to lead everyone to believe that the same kind of 'safe' association existed between the local churches and his ministry. All the while, he subtly stressed the need for everyone to align themselves to his ministry and follow him completely.

In his letter, WL states the following:
"Being one with the ministry is a crucial matter, and its effects are exceedingly serious. Its proper definition is not to follow any man, any doctrine or any movement, but is to be one with the Lord’s move today according to the Lord’s vision, without any intrinsic element of exalting any person or promoting any work"

In Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age, WL says this about his following Nee:

"I feel no shame whatsoever in saying that I followed a man..."

In the first quote, WL can be quoted as saying that no one should be following a man. In the second, he is basically bragging about his following of Nee. Which statement are we to believe? He said one thing, and insisted that everyone practice something different. It is no wonder JI and others retracted their signatures.

The apostle Paul was a man and did encourage others to take him as a pattern - in his conduct and pursuit of Christ, but not in the way of following him in a world-wide movement that would uplift him, promote his work, and produce a system of cookie-cutter churches.

But there has been such a movement in the Local Churches, which began in 1984 in Taiwan and became accelerated in the U. S. in 1986, with the help of the future blending brothers - who maintain the system today.

Senior Co-Workers Express their Concerns

Co-workers from Taiwan were among those with grave concerns about the movement.

John Ingalls shares,

"Brother Chu Shun Min then told me how that on April 1, 1988, he had a conversation with Brother Lee in the Bay Area. He presented a number of serious concerns to Brother Lee and asked him to bring all these things to the Lord. Brother Chu told me that Brother Lee listened quietly and passively to all his points (with one exception), making no comment, neither admitting nor denying. The exception was a point he made concerning Brother Lee’s son, Philip Lee. In conclusion, Brother Chu told Brother Lee, “All the sweet feeling we had in the past is lost. All the rest in our spirit is over.

“I will mention just a few more comments made by Brother Chu Shun Min. He said that he feels very sorry for the present state of things -- he gave his whole life to this. He has received letters from elderly ones in Taipei that are full of blood and tears. There are very few elderly ones there who are not discouraged or withdrawn. The warfare now is fiercer than in Watchman Nee’s day when the issue was that of leaving the denominations. We are at a critical juncture. We cannot be silent regarding the change of nature in the Lord’s recovery. We should have no part in it. This is a day for further recovery. We need a new beginning to recover us back from the change of nature to the Lord’s original intention. We must discard all the changes of nature. The main direction is to come out of the system; it cannot change." _Speaking the Truth in Love, John Ingalls

Phil. 3:17 Be imitators together of me, brothers, and observe those who thus walk even as you have us as a pattern.

vv leading to that verse
12 Not that I have already obtained or am already perfected, but I pursue, if even I may lay hold of that for which I also have been laid hold of by Christ Jesus.

13 Brothers, I do not account of myself to have laid hold; but one thing I do: Forgetting the things which are behind and stretching forward to the things which are before,

14 I pursue toward the goal for the prize to which God in Christ Jesus has called me upward.

15 Let us therefore, as many as are full-grown, have this mind; and if in anything you are otherwise minded, this also God will reveal to you.

16 Nevertheless whereunto we have attained, by the same rule let us walk.

17 Be imitators together of me, brothers, and observe those who thus walk even as you have us as a pattern.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Paul was a man who did encourage taking him as a pattern in his conduct and pursuit of Christ - but not that others would take him in a way of following him in a world-wide movement that would lift him up, promote his work, and produce a system of cookie-cutter churches, featuring him and his ministry.

It seems that WL might have viewed his own following of Nee as being anecdotal for how the churches should follow him and his ministry.

I would go so far as to say that there were a few junctures where WL's following of WN was particularly unwise, such as after the pharmaceutical company failure.

It seems that the little flock churches in China were able to function in Nee's absence, so to me, that implies that WL was a bit confused in the matter of following Nee. It seems WL's whole goal in China after Nee was excommunicated was to help "recover" the churches to Nee's ministry.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Indiana

The apostle Paul was a man and did encourage others to take him as a pattern - in his conduct and pursuit of Christ, but not in the way of following him in a world-wide movement that would uplift him, promote his work, and produce a system of cookie-cutter churches.
But there has been such a movement in the Local Churches, which began in 1984 in Taiwan and became accelerated in the U. S. in 1986, with the help of the future blending brothers - who maintain the system today.

Steve, your right about the first part (about uplifting a man, promoting his work and producing a system of cookie-cutter churches, and you're certainly correct about the blending brothers maintaining this system today. However, you're off about 30 years on your assessment of when this all began. By the Mid 1950s, with Watchman Nee secured away in a Communist prison, Witness Lee had FULL CONTROL within the Local Church Movement, and ruled with an iron fist.

Lee was already hiring and firing elders and coworkers at his personal whim. He was already using quarantining and shunning as a method of taking and maintaining full control of the Movement. He was also already engaged in financial malfeasance, selling church property to pay off personal business debts. More than one major division in the Far East took place over Lee's behavior, and all this took place LONG BEFORE Lee decided to grace our fair shores with his so-called Lord's Recovery movement. And as a matter of fact, we now know the real reason(s) Witness Lee came to North America - it was to escape responsibility for all the financial and spiritual malfeasance committed by his sons and him in the Far East.

Of course, with only a handful of followers in America, Lee was forced to play his hand a little slow at first. He had to build up trust among the Americans before he could pull out the iron fist. But make no mistake, the iron fist was there all along in his pocket, just waiting for the right time. Some of the brothers got a small taste of the fist in the 60s (mostly Taiwan followers again), then in the 70s with the Max Rapoport debacle, and then Lee brought out the iron fist in full force in the mid to late 1980s. By then he could shamelessly declare "Lee, Lee, Lee! Lee has to get the credit! Lee has to be famous!" (paraph) "I invented this term 'enjoying Christ'!" By the time most longtime followers like John Ingalls, Bill Malon and John So were snapped out of their stupor, it was far, far too late. They even consulted some older brothers in Taiwan and found out that this was NOT Lee's first time at using his iron fist. (Shame on these brothers for not doing their due diligence, for with just the most basic of inquires to those who knew Lee's sordid past, much heartache and spiritual damage could have been avoided)

But here we are, decades later, and the Blended Brothers are trying to pretend like they can simply erase history, or better yet just twist and edit it to make Witness Lee out to be "the one minister with the one ministry for the age". Just an innocent little Chinese man that was misunderstood by Christian apologists and attacked and betrayed by some evil, ambitious, jealous followers.

"For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light. Take care then how you hear, for to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away.” Luke 8:17,18

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Following the letter below to brother Lee, was a response by him that he felt was necessary to quell the concerns of those who might think the letter exalted him. Whoever had such concerns, however, found them amplified much more, as time passed.

Appendix

A Letter of Assurance from 419 Leading Brothers Attending the February 1986 Elders’ Training -- February 21, 1986

“Dear Brother Lee,

After hearing your fellowship in this elders’ training, we all agree to have a new start in the Lord’s recovery. For this, we all agree to be in one accord and to carry out this new move of the Lord solely through prayer, the Spirit, and the Word. We further agree to practice the recovery one in: teaching, practice, thinking, speaking, essence, appearance, and expression. We repudiate all differences among the churches, and all indifference toward the ministry office, and the other churches. We agree that the church in our place be identical with all the local churches throughout the earth.

We also agree to follow your leading as the one who has brought us God’s New Testament economy and has led us into its practice. We agree that this leading is indispensable to our oneness and acknowledge the one trumpet in the Lord’s ministry and the one wise master builder among us.

We further agree to practice the church life in our locality absolutely in a new way: to build the church in, through, and based upon home meetings; to lead every member to get used to functioning without any idea to depend on any giant speakers; to teach all the saints to know the basic truths in an educational way that they may teach others for the spreading of the truth; to build up the saints in the growth in life that they may minister life to others, shepherd each other, and take care of the backsliding ones; to lead all the saints to preach the gospel in every possible way; to avoid leadership as much as possible; and to have home gatherings for nurturing the saints in life; and big meetings for educating the saints in truths.

We agree that all the preceding points are the clear and definite teaching of the Bible according to God’s New Testament economy. Finally, we agree that the success of this new move is our responsibility and will rise up to labor and endeavor with our whole being, looking to the Lord for His mercy and grace that we would be faithful to the end”

Your brothers for the Lord’s recovery,
******************


Brother Lee’s Remarks in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

"Out of 419 signers, as far as I know thus far, only approximately six would revoke their signatures. One of these six, John Ingalls, said that I “treated this letter like an oath” and I took it “as a pledge,” John Ingalls or Bill Mallon said that I was “holding it up to the brothers, reminding them of what they signed.” In one elders’ meeting in December 1987 in Irving I did say, in the way of warning to the rebellious ones who were present, especially John Ingalls and Bill Mallon, that that letter, which had been signed by them one year and ten months prior to that time, could be considered as a pledge according to the way it was written. In that warning I spoke loudly at least twice to them, saying that they should “treasure [their] golden history in the Lord’s recovery,” with the expectation that they would receive the mercy and grace of the Lord to turn from their rebellious situation.

But I never considered that letter as an oath. Both John Ingalls and Bill Mallon were men over fifty years of age, highly educated, with a sober mind and a strong will. As such persons they participated with agreement in the drafting of this letter, and then signed such a crucial paper solemnly before God. I did not consider that as the playing of little, naughty boys; rather, I did count on it and trust in it for the Lord’s recovery in a very reverent way. How sad it is that after 22 months, fewer than one thousand days, they are like a bow turning its arrow at the shooter. This is far beyond my anticipation. They swallowed their own words; ignored the truth they had received and acknowledged; did not care for the Lord’s recovery, which they had treasured, uplifted, and propagated, not merely for two and a half days, but for a quarter of a century; behaved themselves not as gentlemen but as dishonest ones who conspired in secrecy to destroy my ministry; did not regard their faithfulness before the faithful Lord; and fluctuated to carry out their plot by inducing others to join their rebellion in darkness.

When the letter was presented to me and gained my attention, I was somewhat concerned that the signing brothers probably did not fully realize the significance of some of the expressions of their letter, so I acknowledged it with a reply that expressed to them my sincere, honest, and faithful in this matter, as printed below:

April 11, 1986

The Brothers attending the February 1986
Elders’ Training

Dear Brothers:

Thank you for your letter dated February 21, 1986 with the list of signatures. I feel very sorry that I could not have time to acknowledge, with appreciation, what you have expressed in your letter and through your signatures until now.

Being one with the ministry is a crucial matter, and its effects are exceedingly serious. Its proper definition is not to follow any man, any doctrine or any movement, but is to be one with the Lord’s move today according to the Lord’s vision, without any intrinsic element of exalting any person or promoting any work. May the Lord be merciful and gracious to us, that this action would not be misunderstood or misapplied by anyone in a way that would give the enemy Satan ground for utilization, thus frustrating the Lord’s move today, but rather that this action could be properly used by the Lord to swallow up all the germs of discord which have been existing, even among us, for quite a time in the past. May the Lord remember your kind wishes for me and bless your labors in Him.

Your brother in Christ,
Witness Lee”


"This reply was written in the way of fellowship with a strong intention to impress the signing brothers with the proper definition of being one with the ministry. According to its expression, my reply indicated to the brothers that to be one with the ministry in the way that was expressed in their letter might be misunderstood and misapplied by some and might cause trouble. I said that the misunderstanding and misapplication could quite possibly be centered around the thinking of exalting a person. In anticipation of this, in my reply I reminded the signing brothers that the proper definition of being one with the ministry is to be one with the Lord’s move “without any intrinsic element of exalting any person.” Thus, what was expressed in my reply might be considered a warning. This was given probably because of the intuition I had within me at that time. At any rate, the present rebellious situation has become a real fulfillment of my warning. Our sovereign Lord knows everything and is sovereign over all things. Praise Him!

"The total significance of the letter signed by the 419 brothers is to assure me of their willingness and loyalty in keeping the one accord for the Lord’s recovery. Now the six mentioned above have fluctuated in their unstable understanding. Regardless of what their understanding might be, no one can deny that, according to the holy word, to be in one accord is not only right but also indispensable to work together for the Lord’s interest on this earth. No one among us should justify or promote discord or differences in the Lord’s move." (The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, W. L., 1990)

This post gives the details.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This post gives the details.

This letter very much reveals Lee's strange and warped thinking in several ways.

First, and this is a characteristic I noticed several times about him, which I don't think we ever discussed. He would consider that a brother who changed his mind was either weak and wishy-washy, or that the brother disobeyed the Lord at some time--either when he first made the decision or later when he changed his mind. Lee considers that Ingalls must have had the Lord's leading to sign the loyalty pact when he did, and so should not go back on it, otherwise he never should have signed it.

That is completely unreasonable thinking! We all make decisions with imperfect knowledge, and who knows what new knowledge in the future might alter our perception of things. Lee seemed to think if you "had the Lord's leading" to do something a year ago, and if you don't have it now, then you shouldn't have had it then. That is just plain silly!

But it would help explain Lee's hard-headedness.

Also, again, Lee acts as if it's a given that "the Lord's Recovery" is some real and specially commissioned thing of God. But it is far from a given. Presuming this and expecting other to believe "the Recovery" is something Christians should be sold out for is non-scriptural and just off the reservation. "The Recovery" as something God will build or organize with man's cooperation is a non-biblical idea from start to finish. The Bible says God will build only one thing: the Church. Period.

Then there is Lee's equating "the ministry" (meaning his) as God's unique speaking to his people. God's unique speaking to his people is Christ, the Word of God, through the power of the Holy Spirit. That's it. It has never been, nor will it ever be, nor even can it be, summed up in the one ministry of one person or group of persons claiming special status.

The confusion running rampant in Lee's mind in this letter is astounding. But it does demonstrate why the movement went so far off the rails.

[aron]

Also read Samuel Chang's comments in Post #54, as well as what happened in the 1950s in the Orient, before Lee came to USA. The "Allegiance Document" of 1986 has to paper over the cracks caused by such patterns of behaviour, and it then allows it to get bigger. The cracks became a chasm, threatening to swallow everything in sight.