The Bait of Satan, by John Bevere

[Ohio]

This book has been highly recommended to me over the years by other Christians, some of whom are ex-LC. Since I am now slowly plodding thru the book, I am finding way too much application to pass on, so I felt best to post quotes and make comments on the way.

The premise of the book is simple -- God's enemy uses offenses and causes of stumbling to trap us as children of God. The Lord Jesus said, "it is impossible but that offenses will occur." (Luke 17.1) We all get inevitably offended, yet we never realize that it is God's enemy who caught us in a trap. We just assume that the is a problem between us and them, not realizing our reactions determine whether we are snared ... or not!

[Ohio]

David was firstly loved and then hated by King Saul because the women of Israel danced and sang of David's success in battle. Saul used the army of Israel to hunt David, yet when David had the opportunity to kill Saul he did not. Later he cried to Saul, "My father ... know and see there is neither evil nor rebellion in my hand, and I have not sinned against you. Yet you hunt me down to take my life." (I Sam. 24.11) David's heart cried out for fatherly and kingly mentoring from King Saul, yet was betrayed.

Bevere mourns the loss of real fathers today, saying many of our leaders, even in the church, are like Saul in their treatment of God's people. This following paragraph was so applicable to Witness Lee especially during the New Way and the end of his ministry --

"Because of this attitude, these leaders view God's people as resources to serve their vision, instead of seeing the vision as the vehicle to serve the people. The success of the vision justifies the cost of wounded lives and shattered people. Justice, mercy, integrity, and love are compromised for success. Decisions are based on money, numbers, and results." -- Bevere, p. 37

How incredibly concise and descriptive this is of the "New Way." Many of us committed our best years to the Recovery sincerely believing that Witness Lee was different from the world and the fallen ways of Christianity, only to learn that he was no different, and in some cases worse.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bevere mourns the loss of real fathers today, saying many of our leaders, even in the church, are like Saul in their treatment of God's people. .

I occasionally wonder why Nee never had a father (senior mentor/guide) figure. He only had one peer that I remember, a "brethren" member in England (Sparks?) whom he wrote to & said that no one in China was his equal.(*) What a danger! He had Leland Wang as co-pupil of Margaret Barber as a senior brother, but perhaps not coincidentally split with Wang over "he vision thing" and then he was free to pursue his own regime-building programme. And at whose expense? At the expense of the lives of countless thousands, even millions.

The reason we talk about Watchman Nee today, nearly 100 years after his actions, is not because what he did was right or good, but because it was so successfull and became so great and impacted so many people. And now we're trying to sort out how much of the impact was negative versus positive.

And it's probably both. Just as Western Christianity, arguably fallen, satanic, devilish, deformed and corrupted as Nee and Lee said it was, brought the Good News of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection to the East, so did Nee's writings help many in the USA in the 1960s and '70s to break free from unhelpful strictures and seek the freedom of the spirit. But there were tiny chains embedded in the works: "know who is in front of you and get in line" and "don't think or question, just obey" (from Church Affairs) &c. And those chains grew and became monstrous, and more devilish than anything they replaced.

(*)Not sure of the source. Maybe the letter was reproduced in Dave Roberts' biography? Or maybe I read it online? But Nee clearly said that he had no peers in China. And I attribute this at least somewhat to having no spiritual father (or guide, if you prefer less loaded terminology).

[JJ]

Nee's father figure was a sister.... Margaret E. Barber. She was very spiritual. But, unfortunately she provided discipline with little grace and love. Spirituality with a spirit of superiority versus grace and love was passed from generation to generation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

Nee's father figure was a sister.... Margaret E. Barber. She was very spiritual. But, unfortunately she provided discipline with little grace and love. Spirituality with a spirit of superiority versus grace and love was passed from generation to generation.

Both Nee and Lee often mentioned their mothers, and not to diminish their positive impact on our lives, but it does raise other issues. Without a positive and healthy father figure in our lives, strong alpha males often are simply unaware of the bully impact that others around them are confronted with.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by JJ

Nee's father figure was a sister.... Margaret E. Barber. She was very spiritual. But, unfortunately she provided discipline with little grace and love. Spirituality with a spirit of superiority versus grace and love was passed from generation to generation.

Yes, and Nee passed his profligate sexual waywardness down to Lee's boys.

[Ohio]

King Saul became extremely suspicious of David, and now viewed David as a threat to his own kingdom. To which John Bevere adds ...

How many leaders have cut men off under them because of suspicion? Why are those leaders suspicious? Because they are not serving God. They are serving a vision. Like Saul, they are insecure in their calling, and that breeds jealousy and pride. They recognize qualities in people that they know are godly, and are willing to use those people as long as it benefits them. Saul enjoyed the success of David until he saw it as a threat to him. He then demoted David and watched for a reason to destroy him.

Here is the result of pushing an agenda, a so-called vision, rather than serving God directly -- one becomes suspicious of others. For decades I wondered why there was so much suspicion in the LC's. Until I recognized this on a national, regional, and local level, I never knew the reason for this systemic disease. At one point, before the actual quarantines of GLA brothers, I felt there were "sleeper cells" ready to spring into action upon coded words from the podium. It has been said that the opposite of love is not just hate, but suspicion. Most leaders of the LC would be keen to recognize blatant hatred, but are clueless to the rampant suspicions they are subject to.

For decades WL sowed suspicions into his lieutenants concerning the most fruitful ministers. He even allowed his son Philip to record a phone conversation with TC to "catch" him for others to know. Who does things like this? The jealousy and pride within many LC leaders becomes readily apparent once one leaves the system and watches other men of God serve God. This spirit of Saul was sown into the Recovery, and is now fully manifested. LSM today is willing to use all possible means -- quarantines, lawsuits, politics, backbiting, whispering, you name it -- in order to protect their so-called "vision."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The premise of the book is simple -- God's enemy uses offenses and causes of stumbling to trap us as children of God. The Lord Jesus said, "it is impossible but that offenses will occur." (Luke 17.1) We all get inevitably offended, yet we never realize that it is God's enemy who caught us in a trap. We just assume that the is a problem between us and them, not realizing our reactions determine whether we are snared ... or not!

I am a bit curious – in a LC-specific context, what did you find to be helpful about the book? The reason that I ask is because in the LC, I always felt that there as a noticeable effort made to warn people about the perils of holding offenses towards one another. Even so much so that there was a fear of offenses.

Obviously, the LC holds a skewed notion of what offenses actually are. For example, if someone leaves the LC, it might be said that such a person was “harboring offenses.” Or when Joe Schmoe stands his ground when being pressured by an elder, instead of addressing the issue at hand the elder might play the “offense card” ask Joe Schmoe if he’s holding an offense due to the fact that he dared to confront the elder. I saw this kind of stuff happen time and time again, and the manipulation is clearly evident. What is interesting about the issue, however, is that among the rank and file, they are simply seeking to be diligent to not have offenses with one another – a completely earnest mindset. Little do they know that this innocence is exactly what leaders are looking to take advantage of.

It has been said that forgiveness does not mean excusing someone. In the LC especially, it seems people are unable to differentiate between the two, and it is presumed that one must involve the other. The higher-ups in the LC tend to get away with all kinds of nonsense, because they know very well that whatever they do can be easily excused. I think that many who have come out of the LC probably quickly come to the realization that being willing to ‘forgive’ (excuse) things was something that made them vulnerable to manipulation. In fact, much of the talk in the LC regarding offenses/forgiveness is manipulative. As such, I think that it might be a natural reaction to be more wary about forgiving others, as if forgiveness were some sort of action of letting up one’s defenses.

[Nell]

Ohio,

Which edition are you reading?

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

Ohio,

Which edition are you reading?

Nell

Not sure, but the copyright is 1997. My copy is well-worn. Every previous reader has his/her own set of marks and highlights, so my copy is like the rainbow.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I am a bit curious – in a LC-specific context, what did you find to be helpful about the book? The reason that I ask is because in the LC, I always felt that there as a noticeable effort made to warn people about the perils of holding offenses towards one another. Even so much so that there was a fear of offenses.

Obviously, the LC holds a skewed notion of what offenses actually are. For example, if someone leaves the LC, it might be said that such a person was “harboring offenses.” Or when Joe Schmoe stands his ground when being pressured by an elder, instead of addressing the issue at hand the elder might play the “offense card” ask Joe Schmoe if he’s holding an offense due to the fact that he dared to confront the elder. I saw this kind of stuff happen time and time again, and the manipulation is clearly evident. What is interesting about the issue, however, is that among the rank and file, they are simply seeking to be diligent to not have offenses with one another – a completely earnest mindset. Little do they know that this innocence is exactly what leaders are looking to take advantage of.

It has been said that forgiveness does not mean excusing someone. In the LC especially, it seems people are unable to differentiate between the two, and it is presumed that one must involve the other. The higher-ups in the LC tend to get away with all kinds of nonsense, because they know very well that whatever they do can be easily excused. I think that many who have come out of the LC probably quickly come to the realization that being willing to ‘forgive’ (excuse) things was something that made them vulnerable to manipulation. In fact, much of the talk in the LC regarding offenses/forgiveness is manipulative. As such, I think that it might be a natural reaction to be more wary about forgiving others, as if forgiveness were some sort of action of letting up one’s defenses.

Great points, Freedom.

For years I felt the LC teachings on forgiveness were a blessing to me. Years ago we practiced examining our hearts before the Table meeting to clear up any offense, and I definitely had a few last minute apologies to make before the meeting. So I treasure all of these times with the Lord reconciling with other members of the body. Colossians 3.13 was always my own personal guiding principle, and something I regularly taught in the meetings.

As others have said, "any truth taken to an extreme can become a falsehood." Since leaving the LC, I have learned that LSM uses these teachings on forgiveness for self-serving means, i.e. placing all the responsibility of forgiving on the members, and absolving its leadership of all accountability. Even to think about leadership failures and gross offenses was to "resurrect the tail of the buried dog," and that true forgiveness demanded total amnesia on our part. This helps to explain why the members are generally so loyal to such inscrutable leaders.