Pledge of Allegiance to Witness Lee

[diakonos]

Hi all,
This is my first post here. I appreciate all of the different perspectives and finding out the history and reasons behind much of what is done in the "church life".

I would like to ask for anyone that may have the original signed copy of the Pledge of Allegiance Letter of 1986; if you could send to me I would be grateful. I am pretty sure the elders in my locality signed that letter and I would like to have it, if I ever engage them in a discussion of the "Lord's recovery".

Thank you,

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Hi all,
This is my first post here. I appreciate all of the different perspectives and finding out the history and reasons behind much of what is done in the "church life".

I would like to ask for anyone that may have the original signed copy of the Pledge of Allegiance Letter of 1986; if you could send to me I would be grateful. I am pretty sure the elders in my locality signed that letter and I would like to have it, if I ever engage them in a discussion of the "Lord's recovery".

Thank you,

diakonos, I have also looked for that original letter with signatories, and never found it. It has never been posted here.

Here is a letter from an elder in Toronto who initially signed that Pledge, and then retracted his signature. Many others have regretted that they allowed themselves to be coerced into signing that Pledge.

[diakonos]

Thank you Ohio for your help.
To be more clear to anyone else visiting this page, I am posting the entire text of the Pledge of allegiance letter below:

Agreement to follow Witness Lee in the New Way
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, (signature of elders)

[aron]

There are so many things wrong with this letter. Start with the fact that it even exists.

But let's delineate.

1. "all differences", as in "We repudiate all differences" - what does that mean? That we all have to dye our hair the same color? What differences fall under "all" and what do not? Last time I checked, "all" was a pretty comprehensive word.

Does the angel Michael have any difference whatsoever from Gabriel? If none, how then are they called by different names? Do we really think that no one could tell them apart? Do we really think the angels are all "absolutely identical, with no differences whatsoever", per the RecV footnotes? John doesn't give us this us this impression in his revelation from Patmos. He clearly sees differences.

As in heaven, so on earth - if the citizens of heaven have differences, then how can we not have them? "Star differs from star in glory". Shouldn't we be able to differ? Paul was minister to the uncircumcision, Peter to the circumcision - who gets to say if this is a difference that makes a difference, or not? Or is it just "differences in purpose"? Again, who defines purpose? Or differences in language used? Who then defines terminology?

It's all about control. The so-called wise master builder (WMB) gets to determine who is "different" and who is not. It's entirely based on the subjective whims of the Deputy God. The WMB gets to decide if your differences are noteworthy or not. Good luck. Hopefully he doesn't notice you. Try to blend in, okay? Don't stick out. You might be called "different".

What if the 12 foundation stones of the New Jerusalem repudiated all differences? They might as well be cinder blocks.

2. "Identical", as in "be identical". See above. Completely absurd. Do you think the Peruvians are identical with the Turks? Are they supposed to be? Why then does scripture speak of "every tribe and tongue and nation" if they are all amalgamated into some homogenous, bland ministry smoothie? Who wants to live thus? Nobody but WL and his deluded few. Did Jesus die for our redemption, then rise for us to live, merely for us to act like unwitted robots? Identical? Really? This is so clearly not divine!

3. "Giants". Doesn't WL realize how awful this word is, spiritually and biblically? Did he not read the Bible? Then why use it thus?

A. The Giants devoured people. Awful.

B. If you presume to be "great", however you use your terms, you are the "least". This is Spirituality 101 as taught by Jesus and repeated and clearly practiced in the NT and after. Those who are "great" in this age are not so great on the other side. Whether they call themselves "giants" or some other term is beside the presumption of the self-anointing - but that they call themselves "giants" is just obtuse.

WL often used clunky terminology. "Spiritual giants" is one of his worst. And the signees used it, because he used it. Did nobody stir uneasily when such terms were tossed about so loosely, and such presumptions were made so blandly? I would.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

It's all about control. The so-called wise master builder (WMB) gets to determine who is "different" and who is not. It's entirely based on the subjective whims of the Deputy God. The WMB gets to decide if your differences are noteworthy or not. Good luck. Hopefully he doesn't notice you. Try to blend in, okay? Don't stick out. You might be called "different".

What if the 12 foundation stones of the New Jerusalem repudiated all differences? They might as well be cinder blocks.

Too Funny

You hit it when you said that "differences" were based on the "subjective whims of the Deputy God." Exactly!

This Pledge is all about bringing every worker, every member, and every church under LSM's control. Yeah but Lee said, "we are so free." And Lee said that he can't even "control a mosquito."

Lee wanted control because he was a real glory seeker. He loved the glory of men. That's why he put all others down. I remember this one story years ago. Brother LC was the Cleveland young people's leader at some Anaheim training, and he coordinated the saints for the testing time to review the previous message. Great test, great review. It was exciting, glorious, the whole place was rocking. Thousands of saints. Everyone ought to be happy right? Wrong! After the meeting TC took LC over to the corner and reamed him out. Why would he do that? Because TC knew that he would get it from WL the next day. Why wasn't WL happy about that great test? Because Anaheim got stood up by Cleveland. It was a competition. Cleveland, unknowingly, was supposed to let Anaheim win, so that WL's perfecting skills would not be shamed by TC's. It was all about who got the glory.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Anaheim got stood up by Cleveland. It was a competition. Cleveland, unknowingly, was supposed to let Anaheim win, so that WL's perfecting skills would not be shamed by TC's. It was all about who got the glory.

Right - who got earthly glory & who got earthly shame. Jesus taught that those who sought the glory of men would not get it from God.

WL's defenders may say I'm picking on his terms, and that he wasn't a native English speaker - so what if he used the word "giant" to indicate relative size or stature or advancement or capacity? I mean, really! Right?

First of all, those who are "giants" in this age will be "dwarves" in the next, whatever your terminology. That's basic Christian teaching.

And some native English speakers should have pulled him aside and discreetly counseled him on his unfortunate choice of words, and the particular biblical associations with the word "giant". The "spiritual giants" in the OT were aka "Nephilim". Any fundamentalist would know this. And we were nothing if not that, in the LC... Earths Earliest Ages and all that.

Oh, but I forget, mustn't let The Apostle lose face. He gets the glory, we get the shame. Rule #1: WL is always right. So, "giants" it was.

Then when WL passed, his closest acolytes told us from the dias that now "the age of spiritual giants is over". And not a minute too soon, I'd add.

[Nell]

Agreement to follow Witness Lee in the New Way
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, (signature of elders)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

At this moment in time (1986), for the Lee Empire to successfully take power and to spread unhindered across the globe, it would require the development of a broad & loyal consensus among most church leaders. This is where the LC's powerhouse "Community Organizing Duo" - Ray Graver and Benson Phillips jumped in & began to wave their magic wand of influence. Similar to Aaron's goldsmith operation at the Mount Horeb base camp - into the LSM printing press went some holy paper & ink and then...surprise, surprise surprise - out popped a nice letter of loyalty to Lee & Co. with ample room for signatures....and this happened well before any leaders had a chance to fly back home unmolested.
P.S.

I think Don Rutledge has written about how much arm-twisting was done behind the scenes to make sure that this "Lee Loyalty Letter" was signed by all elders "voluntarily."

The secondary purpose of the letter was to identify all "non-compliants." Lee, Philips, and Graver ramped up their manipulative shaming apparatus in order to obtain 100% compliance, which sent a strong message to the "faithful" around the globe. Those who initially resisted, got "worked on" day by day.

Remember how Lee mischaracterized Barnabas for not submitting to Paul over taking Mark on their 2nd missionary journey? (Acts 15.35-41) Never in church history was Barnabas treated so unfavorably. Clearly the motive behind the letter was unquestioned submission to WL,BP, RG, and the other Blindeds.

Those who held out, eventually were branded "opposers" and worse. Eventually these men of God were expelled as "leprous conspirators." Fortunately for us, and the sake of the truth, ones like John Ingalls wrote his honest account of events, Speaking The Truth In Love.

[ACuriousFellow]

A copy of the letter's text and Lee’s response (included below) can be found in one of the “Elders’ Training” books published by Living Stream Ministry.

...

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

...

(Elders’ Training Book 8: The Life Pulse of the Lord’s Present Move, from the Collected Works of Witness Lee, 1986, Volume 1, Chapter 10: Spreading the Gospel, pp. 299-301, published by Living Stream Ministry)

[OBW]

These snippets jumped out at me. I don't think I need to say much about them.

. . . carry out this new move of the Lord . . .

. . . agree to practice the recovery one in: teaching, practice, thinking, speaking, essence, appearance, and expression . . .

. . . repudiate 1) all differences among the churches, 2) 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 . . . this leading is indispensable to our oneness and . . . the one trumpet in the Lord’s ministry and the one wise master builder among us.

. . . function[ing] without any idea to depend on any giant speakers . . .

. . . we agree that the success of this new move is our responsibility . . .

But this last one is quite the definition of misaiming. If it is of God, we are not responsible for it. We are called to participate with God in whatever he is doing, but its success is entirely of God, not of any man, no matter how high they think is their commitment or calling.

Originally Posted by OBW

These snippets jumped out at me. I don't think I need to say much about them.But this last one is quite the definition of misaiming. If it is of God, we are not responsible for it. We are called to participate with God in whatever he is doing, but its success is entirely of God, not of any man, no matter how high they think is their commitment or calling.

..Hear, hear!

"Who then is Paul (present day or not), and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither is he that watereth; BUT GOD THAT GIVETH THE INCREASE..." (1 Corinthians 3: 5-8)

Seems to me that the "responsibility for success" lies in God's hands (or his watering-can).

But hey...

If a bunch of guys are gonna 'swear an oath (for what else is it?) to follow Apollos and to follow Paul, et cetera.." ...then let them have at it.

[This message has been translated into human language that you earthlings may understand it]

...beep..tweet...beep..