Training vs Seminary

[aron]

Originally Posted by Watchman Nee

If the return of the Lord should be delayed, it will be necessary to raise up a number of young people to continue the testimony and the work for the following generations. Many co-workers have already prayed concerning this matter with the hope of providing a suitable place for the purpose of training young people. My thought is not to establish a seminary or a Bible institute, but to have young people staying together to live the Body life and practice the spiritual life. In such a place they would receive training for the purpose of edification, by learning to read the Scripture, to pray, and to build up a good character. On the negative side, there would be training for the purpose of learning how to deal with sin, the world, the flesh, and the natural life. At a suitable time, the young people would return to their respective churches in various places to be tempered together with other saints to serve the Lord in the church. I have purchased over ten acres of land at Chenru, in the suburbs of Shanghai. Planning for building on that site is in progress, and before long, young people will be able to go there for training.

~Watchman Nee, Watchman Nee’s Testimony. Comp. K.H. Weigh. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1991: p. 41-43.

What is the difference between a training, versus a seminary or Bible institute? According to the paragraph above, it is to have a seminary or Bible institute but strenuously deny that it is so; rather call it a training, so as to distinguish it from the fallen and corrupt religious system. Other than that I can see little or no difference.

Just change the label, and all things are new! Who knew?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

~Watchman Nee, Watchman Nee’s Testimony. Comp. K.H. Weigh. Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1991: p. 41-43.

What is the difference between a training, versus a seminary or Bible institute? According to the paragraph above, it is to have a seminary or Bible institute but strenuously deny that it is so; rather call it a training, so as to distinguish it from the fallen and corrupt religious system. Other than that I can see little or no difference.

Just change the label, and all things are new! Who knew?

I have heard FTTA trainees refer to the training as a "Bible School" when explaining the training to outsiders. I've even heard them use this terminology when discussing it with newer LC members.

It's ironic though. If what they're attending isn't a seminary, then why can't they come clean and say that, especially to outsiders? I know very well that they want to lead outsiders to believe that they are attending a seminary, all the while, within the LC, there are denials of the training being such.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I have heard FTTA trainees refer to the training as a "Bible School" when explaining the training to outsiders. I've even heard them use this terminology when discussing it with newer LC members.

Unbridled subjectivism inevitably leads to self-delusion.

"When we do it, it's living, vital, and real; when others do it, it's dull formalism."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Unbridled subjectivism inevitably leads to self-delusion.

"When we do it, it's living, vital, and real; when others do it, it's dull formalism."

It's funny how this mindset works in the LC. At the same time, seeing the hypocrisy of it all is what I think can free people from the system. If only LCers began to realize that they criticize exactly what they are. That would really be the breaking point for the LC.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's funny how this mindset works in the LC. At the same time, seeing the hypocrisy of it all is what I think can free people from the system. If only LCers began to realize that they criticize exactly what they are. That would really be the breaking point for the LC.

It's been mentioned on the forum before about hierarchy. When other do it it's hierarchy, when we in the local churches do it, it's not hierarchy. It's fellowship.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

According to the paragraph above, it is to have a seminary or Bible institute but strenuously deny that it is so; rather call it a training, so as to distinguish it from the fallen and corrupt religious system. Other than that I can see little or no difference.

Just change the label, and all things are new! Who knew?

Seminary bad. Training good.

Pastor bad. Full-Timer good.

Church bad. Meeting hall good.

Communion bad. Breaking bread good.

Christian bad. Saint good.

Denomination bad. Local church good.

First Church in Cleveland bad. Church in Cleveland Meeting Hall #1 good.

One man speaking bad. One Lee speaking good.

I think we are on to something here!

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Seminary bad. Training good.

Pastor bad. Full-Timer good.

Church bad. Meeting hall good.

Communion bad. Breaking bread good.

Christian bad. Saint good.

Denomination bad. Local church good.

First Church in Cleveland bad. Church in Cleveland Meeting Hall #1 good.

One man speaking bad. One Lee speaking good.

I think we are on to something here!

Sermon bad. Message good.

[micah6v8]

The Full Time Training in Hamilton, New Zealand is registered with the government as the "Diploma of Biblical Studies."

http://www.nztc.ac.nz/ftth.html

(Perhaps this is to make it easier to obtain visas for foreigners to take part in the training?)

Do note that the website goes on to say "The Full-time Training is neither a theological seminary nor a divinity school but a place where young Christians come to pursue Christ and learn to live Him in a normal, daily way."

There is a saying, "The bible is not for information but for transformation". I think that is the argument the LSM-ers are putting forth:- That seminaries are too academic and do not necessarily improve one's relationship with God.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I think that is the argument the LSM-ers are putting forth:- That seminaries are too academic and do not necessarily improve one's relationship with God.

But the FTT is not academic enough. It survives on ignoring what the Bible actually says and instead substituting what they think improves their relationship with God. Things like speaking in religious clichés. Pumping fists.

[aron]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Do note that the website goes on to say "The Full-time Training is neither a theological seminary nor a divinity school but a place where young Christians come to pursue Christ and learn to live Him in a normal, daily way."

There is a saying, "The bible is not for information but for transformation". I think that is the argument the LSM-ers are putting forth:- That seminaries are too academic and do not necessarily improve one's relationship with God.

Even if seminaries and Bible schools lack this experiential aspect, it's still their mandate. Whether and how much they accomplish it is a different argument. I bet you could look at the statements put out by all the seminaries and Bible institutes, and most would include some variant of the FTT New Zealand statement, above, or Watchman Nee's original statement in the first post.

"We serve to equip young people with the truth, and to be constituted with the life of Christ such that they serve Him in their churches and neighborhoods." etc etc. Transformation of human lives is part and parcel of the process. And if you look around (I doubt the LC has; they specialize in not looking around) most of the schools make this explicit in their mission statements.

The only difference between the "training" of the LC and the seminaries and Bible institutes is that the first is affiliated with Witness Lee's teachings, and the others are not. Other than that, minimal difference. Sorry.

Originally Posted by OBW

But the FTT is not academic enough. It survives on ignoring what the Bible actually says and instead substituting what they think improves their relationship with God. Things like speaking in religious clichés. Pumping fists.

And they do try to be scholarly, today: I read one of the latest A & C position papers and it would qualify as an undergraduate-level paper, but certainly not graduate level. Nobody is going to take their supposed scholarship seriously. Just more merchandise to wave in front of the faithful remnant. They're so out of touch they don't even know what scholarly looks like; they're probably 80 years behind the times. Or more. Only an ignorant person, or the die-hard LC faithful, will actually receive what they put out, as if it were valid.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by aron

And they do try to be scholarly, today: I read one of the latest A & C position papers and it would qualify as an undergraduate-level paper, but certainly not graduate level. Nobody is going to take their supposed scholarship seriously. Just more merchandise to wave in front of the faithful remnant. They're so out of touch they don't even know what scholarly looks like; they're probably 80 years behind the times. Or more. Only an ignorant person, or the die-hard LC faithful, will actually receive what they put out, as if it were valid.

I think you should not conflate LSM with FTT. I get your point about LSM wanting to appear scholarly with its A&C. However in this thread, we are talking about the FTT, not LSM. FTT is not meant to be academic; one is not required to write a thesis/article in A&C before he can graduate from FTT.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by aron

Even if seminaries and Bible schools lack this experiential aspect, it's still their mandate.

I agree. Here is an analogy:-

A man immigrates to a foreign country. He identifies a problem in the country:- there are many obese people in the country. He explores the country and finds their universities offer studies in Nutrition. He thinks to himself, "You can't solve the country's obesity problems with courses in Nutrition." This man instead sets up a Fitness Boot-Camp. And in his boot-camp which he has instituted, after meals, but before the next workout session, he gives some informational lectures on nutrition:- what makes a healthy diet.

Now the only mistake that this man has made is to wrongly assume that the university's purpose in offering studies in Nutrition was to create healthy graduates. In practice, the school wouldn't mind if on graduation day, its graduating class students were obese. The school only intended to teach nutrition.

[Lisbon]

One very close to me went to the first FTT in Taipei. She stayed for only the one session, was very unhappy, and came home.

In just a few years in became obvious that the training was actually to be a two year deal. Minor flags went off in my head. My mother had been to a Christian and Missionary Alliance CMA in the mid twenties. Even WL spoke somewhat kindly at times of A B Simpson. He was at least involved with a Bible school at both Nyack NY and Toccoa GA. My mother was a real Christian and received good help there. The school at Toccoa Falls was a two year course. I was "born" in the AOG which was organized in 1914 and I believe in the early thirties began Central Bible Institute in Springfield, MO. Then later a very small sect known as the LC starts a bible school with a two year course just as the CMA and AOG. To me that was remarkable. The CMA school at Taccoa Falls and the AOG school now offer baccalaureate degrees so it follows the LC schools will do the same. I don't think it can be called Lee University but maybe Blended University and I'm sure there are plenty of other names available from the deep thinkers.

The FTT does have a unique aim as I heard from RK on more than one occasion, "we would like to have your young ones for two years, break them, and produce good material for the LC." Something quite upsetting, mean,wreckless, whatever about such talk. The daughter of an elder I know revealed she was so unhappy at the end of the two years had she not landed the husband of her dreams, she was out.

There is just so much wrong with the LC establishment. The bad, evil far outweighs any good.

Lisbon

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

The FTT does have a unique aim as I heard from RK on more than one occasion, "we would like to have your young ones for two years, break them, and produce good material for the LC." Something quite upsetting, mean,wreckless, whatever about such talk. The daughter of an elder I know revealed she was so unhappy at the end of the two years had she not landed the husband of her dreams, she was out.

There is just so much wrong with the LC establishment. The bad, evil far outweighs any good.

One of the things that really drove me to become concerned about the LC is the FTT. The amount of pressure for young people to attend is insane. In does not at all reflect a normal decision that some people make to attend a Bible school or seminary. I know so many who attended, and they returned as completely different people. This made me set my mind that I would not attend, and thankfully I never did.

I find it to be completely disgusting how those like RK would talk about needing to "break" young people, in order to make them good LC material. Frankly put, that is cult-talk. There is no way around it. The underlying message of this kind of talk is that individuality and uniqueness are not wanted nor are compatible with the LC.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I find it to be completely disgusting how those like RK would talk about needing to "break" young people, in order to make them good LC material. Frankly put, that is cult-talk. There is no way around it. The underlying message of this kind of talk is that individuality and uniqueness are not wanted nor are compatible with the LC.

It's not so much cult-talk as it is military-talk. That's one reason why the LC is more adaptable for the Chinese -- they have mandatory military service built into their culture, while the Americans do not.

Public shaming to subjugate the brothers was built into the program. Many have said that TC was Lee's best student. Interestingly, TC's father was a general in Chiang Kai-sheks’s Nationalist Army who fled the mainland during the Communist takeover.

[OBW]

I have noted that there is too often a push to use military themes when discussing the Christian life and calling. But from what I can tell, the uses of military analogies is really rather limited, and even then it is difficult to assert that the purpose of them was to infer that the Christian life should be like the military.

Rather that there are some aspects of military discipline that are worthy of our consideration. Just as there are some aspects of training for sporting events that are worthy of consideration.

Not that there are aspects of military discipline that should be forced onto anyone. Or severe, over-emphasized aspects of physical training for sports that should be.

These are just more of the tendency to over-apply analogies that Lee was famous for. "The transliteration of the word would by dynamo, therefore it is just like a power plant, wires, and electricity."

Yeah, right.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

These are just more of the tendency to over-apply analogies that Lee was famous for. "The transliteration of the word would by dynamo, therefore it is just like a power plant, wires, and electricity."

Yeah, right.

And, "We should learn from Mao's Red Guards." Remember that one?

No, dude; learn from Jesus. "Take My yoke upon thee and learn from Me, for My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have noted that there is too often a push to use military themes when discussing the Christian life and calling. But from what I can tell, the uses of military analogies is really rather limited, and even then it is difficult to assert that the purpose of them was to infer that the Christian life should be like the military.

I would agree with you on this. My takeaway from the military analogies found in the Bible (such as Eph 6), is that Christians should be aware what they're up against (the devil). I don't see how any of that would translate to there being a need to behaving as if in the army, renouncing opinions, etc. WL really went off the deep end in this respect. Analogies are only analogies, WL had the habit of taking analogies too far.

Originally Posted by Ohio

One of the most pathetic things in Lee's checkered history was to declare himself "commander-in-chief" of God's army, usurping the rightful place of the resurrected Christ. As such, he could hire and fire anyone he chose to, and institute martial law so that he suspend all the rules, which he clearly did when we consider his sons.

What I find to be the most troubling are the implications of WL's need to run the churches military-style. I'm not entirely convinced it was totally a Chinese/cultural thing. My impression of the early LC is that things were strict, there was a unspoken understanding of submission to WL, but none of it had to be forced, like things became later. Even the amount of control WL had from day one, there was really no pressing need to run a training or to assert authority in an overt manner. So what made him change?

It seems that the main problem he kept running into was that of those who were not afraid to call him out, or those not afraid to think for themselves. He had to find a way to put a stop to this, thus the advent of the FTT. I am inclined to think that the FTT was viewed as some sort of "insurance policy", namely to reduce the likelihood of 'damage' cause by any defectors. The more young people that they can 'break', the better.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's not so much cult-talk as it is military-talk. That's one reason why the LC is more adaptable for the Chinese -- they have mandatory military service built into their culture, while the Americans do not.

Public shaming to subjugate the brothers was built into the program. Many have said that TC was Lee's best student. Interestingly, TC's father was a general in Chiang Kai-sheks’s Nationalist Army who fled the mainland during the Communist takeover.

2 Tim 2:4 No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but rather tries to please his commanding officer.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen the idea expressed in the above verse used in ways to support the LC:
Serving as a soldier = attending the FTT
Civilian affairs = anything non-LC related
Commanding officer = WL or the blendeds

WL really did take advantage of the military analogies found in the Bible, and it wasn't hard for him to find ways to apply everything to the LC. All the characteristics of the military had parallels that he could apply to the LC. Things like not having an opinion, submitting oneself, doing everything as a collective group, etc. It is no wonder that he liked that analogy so much.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

2 Tim 2:4 No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but rather tries to please his commanding officer.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen the idea expressed in the above verse used in ways to support the LC:
Serving as a soldier = attending the FTT
Civilian affairs = anything non-LC related
Commanding officer = WL or the blendeds

WL really did take advantage of the military analogies found in the Bible, and it wasn't hard for him to find ways to apply everything to the LC. All the characteristics of the military had parallels that he could apply to the LC. Things like not having an opinion, submitting oneself, doing everything as a collective group, etc. It is no wonder that he liked that analogy so much.

One of the most pathetic things in Lee's checkered history was to declare himself "commander-in-chief" of God's army, usurping the rightful place of the resurrected Christ. As such, he could hire and fire anyone he chose to, and institute martial law so that he suspend all the rules, which he clearly did when we consider his sons.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

WL really did take advantage of the military analogies found in the Bible, and it wasn't hard for him to find ways to apply everything to the LC. All the characteristics of the military had parallels that he could apply to the LC. Things like not having an opinion, submitting oneself, doing everything as a collective group, etc. It is no wonder that he liked that analogy so much.

I think of two words to sum it up: conformity and uniformity. All local churches in the new 'military regime' had to be "absolutely identical" (his words). See e.g. the footnotes in Revelations 2 and 3.

That's where my "bricks in the wall" analogy came from. No more living stones, but featureless and bland bricks. See e.g. Genesis 11:3

Originally Posted by Freedom

Even the amount of control WL had from day one, there was really no pressing need to run a training or to assert authority in an overt manner. So what made him change?

It seems that the main problem he kept running into was that of those who were not afraid to call him out, or those not afraid to think for themselves. He had to find a way to put a stop to this, thus the advent of the FTT.

There was a stated change in stress from "life" to "truth", and the establishment of the FTT, and the Life-study trainings. Just meeting on the "local ground" and "enjoying Christ" was deemed insufficient to keep the sheep docile within the pen.

And yes, it was a firewall against the freedom which is in Christ Jesus to make an appearance in the Local Churches. Freedom, to Lee, meant loss of control, and instability. But conformity and uniformity, however dull and deadly, were safe, from his perspective.