Early Lee: The church in Los Angeles 1963

[aron]

A PUBLIC STATEMENT
made on May 19, 1963

As we realized the need of a proper expression of the Body of Christ, we started to meet together to fulfill this purpose in the Spring of 1962. For an enlarged realization of our vision of the oneness of Christ’s Body, more of us came to meet together on the Church ground in Los Angeles in the beginning of March, 1963. We do not intend to be any kind of new “movement,” but to practice the unity of the Spirit, a unity with variety, and the variety versus uniformity, in the way of a local church.

We are not centered around certain truths, but make Christ, the all-inclusive Head, Himself to be life and everything to us. We are willing and ready to take in all the good, sound, scriptural, and spiritual things which the Lord has given through all generations and is still giving today to His Body through whatever channel of different types of His saints; but we would not practice them in the improper way taken by certain groups, nor would we identify ourselves with any denomination, sect, or any sort of Christian movement. We are not exclusive. We receive all of God’s children as fellow-members of Christ’s Body, regardless of their Christian background; however, we have no organizational connections with any of their particular associations, works, activities, etc.

May the Lord’s way be prosperous among His people in His increase that His testimony through the local expressions of His Church may be established and strengthened throughout the whole world in these last days to the full extent of His recovery in the building up of His Body to the measure of the stature of His fullness by more and more brothers and sisters being brought into the stream of His life in the fellowship of the Spirit while He is moving on toward His coming back by having a remnant as a response to His call for the fulfilling of God’s eternal purpose.

The Responsible Brothers of the Church in Los Angeles,
Jim Reetzke, John Ingalls, Samuel Chang (brother-in-law of W. Nee)

[aron]

We do not intend to be any kind of new "movement,” but to practice the unity of the Spirit, a unity with variety, and the variety versus uniformity, in the way of a local church.

The Early Lee would put up with variety, not because he was magnanimous, or long-suffering, but because his position was weak. Had he imposed uniformity, he would have lost out. But over time the inexorable trend was toward uniformity and conformity. Uniformity both reflected his growing power, and consolidated it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The Early Lee would put up with variety, not because he was magnanimous, or long-suffering, but because his position was weak. Had he imposed uniformity, he would have lost out. But over time the inexorable trend was toward uniformity and conformity. Uniformity both reflected his growing power, and consolidated it.

"Early-Lee" and "Early-Nee" were much closer to the original Brethren ideals spear-headed by Groves, Muller, Chapman, and recorded by Lang in his landmark book, Churches of God.

"Later-Lee" and "Later-Nee" were much closer to the Exclusive Brethren, like Darby, Wigram, etc., who altered their ways during their first ugly division.

Early-Lee also permitted multiple publications, which were much blessed by the Lord, as the many gifts to the body of Christ were operating according to their measure of life. Later-Lee, however, became paranoid over this, seeing various publications as a loss of power and control over the LC's.

[UntoHim]

The problem with the "Early Lee" - "Later Lee" proposition is that we now know for a fact that the Witness Lee of the 50's through mid-60's in Taiwan was very much like the "Later Lee" of 1970s-1990's in LA/Anaheim.

For example, the "early" Witness Lee of Taiwan was hiring and firing elders/co-workers at his personal whim, usually based upon the particular brother's personal loyalty to Lee himself. Elders/co-workers were rarely (if ever) dismissed/fired because of any biblically based disqualification. If they did not display absolute loyalty to the person and work of Witness, they became expendable, and a convenient excuse was quickly conjured up (usually some bogus thing such as being "old" or "out of the flow") No explanation would ever be giving to the rank-and-file members. The guy just simply disappeared out of leadership.

The "early" Witness Lee of Taiwan was also constantly defrauding the Local Church members out of their hard-earned money with various business schemes, including one which involved the forced sell of some valuable land set apart for the building of a new meeting hall/training center. Apparently Lee thought little of committing criminal acts, including hiding a gold bar on his person so as to avoid customs. Witness Lee's sordid activities actually cost him an entire church - The Church in Manila Philippines got so disillusioned and disgusted with The One Minister with The One Ministry for The Age that they totally disassociated with Lee and his ministry. We now know there were many divisions, contentious splits and so-called "rebellions" in the Church in Taipei, and to a number of other churches in Taiwan. All of this, and more, happened during the so-called "early Lee" era.

So what then are we to think about the "glorious" days of Elden Hall? Had Witness Lee actually repented, made restitution and turned over a new leaf? Or did he have to simply swallow his enormous pride for a number of years until until he had amassed enough power and leverage to turn back into the "early Lee". I think there is lot's of evidence to suggest it was the latter. Was all the blessings and unity of the early days just an illusion? No, all the blessing and unity was from God himself, and probably in spite of Witness Lee, not because of Witness Lee. To be honest and frank, I believe to credit Witness Lee for the blessings of the Elden Hall/early Local Church days is to steal the glory which belongs to God himself. "My glory I give to no other" declares the Lord in Isaiah 42:8.

If Witness Lee is due honor, praise and reward it should come from God himself. Lee is now gone. There will be a day when the righteous Judge will do the ultimate assessment and judging of every man and every work of man. "The Day will make it known". All the works of man, including any and all so called "ministries" will be tested and tried in the crucible of the holy fire on The Day. Everything not of God will be consumed by the unrestricted flames, and the only things left will be what was wholly ordained by God. For many of us, our works will be consumed and we will be left naked to stand before God, with only the grace, mercy and love of Jesus Christ the Righteous as our defense. May God have mercy.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The problem with the "Early Lee" - "Later Lee" proposition is that we now know for a fact that the Witness Lee of the 50's through mid-60's in Taiwan was very much like the "Later Lee" of 1970s-1990's in LA/Anaheim.

My "Early Lee" - "Later Lee" paradigm has been very helpful to current and former members of the LC in the US as a way to understand conflicts and changes. It was John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon, and others who finally concluded in the mid 80's that "the nature of the Recovery had changed." For that, they were smeared, beat up, and expelled.

These brothers had been with Lee since the early days in the US, and knew what he preached then was different. Whether Witness Lee was hiding his "true colors" then, or had passed thru a time of serious repentance to have a fresh start in the US, as some have claimed, is another matter.

UntoHim, what you are saying is like the man who has gone thru a few marriages. His last wife believes that he started out all kind and nice, only to watch him slowly become abusive over time, thinking somehow he had changed for the worse. Then she meets his former wives . . .

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It was John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon, and others who finally concluded in the mid 80's that "the nature of the Recovery had changed." For that, they were smeared, beat up, and expelled.

Actually for "the nature of the Recovery" to change the nature of Witness Lee would have had to change. And this is my contention - Witness Lee had not really changed at all, he just had to keep his real intentions and motivation under raps...until he had amassed enough power and leverage to put his ultimate game plan into place. Thanks to the Internet, we now know that even while "our dear Brother Lee" was giving all those wonderful and spiritual messages to us Americans in the early years, all the while he was still wielding an iron fist, micromanaging and controlling the local churches in Taiwan and other places. It would not be long before the early Lee of Asia would catch up to the early Lee of America.

These brothers had been with Lee since the early days in the US, and knew what he preached then was different.

Actually the teaching/preaching of the early days was not different, it was just incomplete. Witness Lee had no need to declare himself as the One Oracle - The only person speaking as God's Oracle on earth. It was only when his absolute authority was questioned (and for good reason) that the "real Lee" come out. The brothers and sisters in Asia had already known for many years about this Lee, but due to cultural and language differences, the LC members/leaders in the know would not warn the gullible Americans about the REAL "Recovery" Lee was bringing to our fair land. By the time some of these Taiwanese brothers decided to give the whole story about the early Lee in Taiwan/Asia, it was far, far too late.

Whether Witness Lee was hiding his "true colors" then, or had passed thru a time of serious repentance to have a fresh start in the US, as some have claimed, is another matter.

Only God can see the heart...as mortal men we can only know if someone has really and truly repented by seeing their actions, and to a lesser extent by their words. If Witness had truly repented from his sordid offences towards so many of his followers and co-workers in Taiwan/Asia, I think we would have seen him demonstrate his repentance by making restitution. Instead of making restitution Lee fled to America, and left the remaining elders/co-workers (the ones he hadn't fired or who had not left the LC) to pick up the pieces.

UntoHim, what you are saying is like the man who has gone thru a few marriages. His last wife believes that he started out all kind and nice, only to watch him slowly become abusive over time, thinking somehow he had changed for the worse. Then she meets his former wives..

Interesting analogy! Of course the big difference would be that the husband probably didn't tell the wives that if they left him they would have to spend a thousand years in purgatory, where they would be gnashing their teeth in outer darkness....or at least until they admitted that their husband was the One Husband with the One Marriage of the Age.
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The problem with the "Early Lee" - "Later Lee" proposition is that we now know for a fact that the Witness Lee of the 50's through mid-60's in Taiwan was very much like the "Later Lee" of 1970s-1990's in LA/Anaheim.
-

Methinks prolly Early Lee was a Nee wannabe. And Later Lee appeared after Nee was gone. And Later Lee, after learning how it was done in Shanghai, brought it to the USA, knowing full well what he was doing.

As a result, Later Lee wasn't following the Lord, but was following the pattern from Shanghai ... a Chinese cultic system.