In the Wake of the New Way

Indiana · 01-28-2020, 10:50 AM

It was on this date 19 years ago I wrote to LSM’s Dan Towle.

January 28, 2001

Dear Dan,

I have written a little book for the sake of fellowship, mainly with leading ones, concerning our past sixteen-year history of the new way. I think this period of time in the Lord’s recovery warrants our careful study of both the benefits and the costs to the church in what was such a highly controversial move among us in those beginning years.

“I wanted to come to you because I feel it is safe to do so. If I am inaccurate or unfair in some way, perhaps you are the most qualified one to catch me that I could either make an adjustment or terminate the proposed fellowship.”

“I hope we can have a good, thorough, and upright fellowship over this booklet called In the Wake of the New Way, while remembering the Lord’s prayer ‘that they all may be one’ and the repeated petitions from our brother Lee, not only to heed the trumpet call for the Lord’s new move, but also to respond to the call for the rendering of care to every member for the building up of the Body in love…”

I would welcome your phone call or e-mail message at …………] and ………….. I don’t intend for this booklet to be widespread; rather, I hope that ones who do receive it could do so in the Lord, with a holy regard and respect given to those who left the recovery, and a godly consideration rendered to those who remain, but who are in need of more significant care.

Www.IntheWakeoftheNewWay.com

I DID NOT HEAR BACK FROM HIM, BUT DID GET MARKED AS ONE WHO CAUSES DIVISION, AND THAT DISTINCTION AND IMPRESSION REMAINS.

aron · 01-28-2020, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

I DID NOT HEAR BACK FROM HIM, BUT DID GET MARKED AS ONE WHO CAUSES DIVISION, AND THAT DISTINCTION AND IMPRESSION REMAINS.

18 years later, Jo Casteel posted an open letter on FB, to which the DCP said that she didn't follow proper NT due process, i.e. 'private fellowship'. But she did. She followed Steve Isitt, Bill Mallon, John Ingalls, and others who for decades have tried to use private communication.

Matthew 18 principles have been repeatedly used with this group's leadership by their fellow Christians, and they were consistently ignored and rebuffed. The time for frank and open dialog on public format has long since passed.

Sons to Glory! · 01-28-2020, 04:20 PM

One thing that stood out to me in that paper was your observation that love was completely lacking in the official statements and otherwise. And that love was not a needed characteristic because the intention was to build an army. This lack of love has been the observation of many regarding the LC in America (after its initial period), including mine. Yet, the Lord told us this is how others would know we are of Him.

May we allow the Lord show His love through us to others!

Indiana · 01-28-2020, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

One thing that stood out to me in that paper was your observation that love was completely lacking in the official statements and otherwise. And that love was not a needed characteristic because the intention was to build an army. This lack of love has been the observation of many regarding the LC in America (after its initial period), including mine. Yet, the Lord told us this is how others would know we are of Him.

May we allow the Lord show His love through us to others!

Amen to every word!

Ohio · 01-29-2020, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

One thing that stood out to me in that paper was your observation that love was completely lacking in the official statements and otherwise. And that love was not a needed characteristic because the intention was to build an army. This lack of love has been the observation of many regarding the LC in America (after its initial period), including mine.

Prolly ten years ago I ran into an old LCer friend from out of town in the aftermath of the Midwest quarantines. He told me plainly that the Lord revealed to him that, "there is no love in Laodicea."

Sons to Glory! · 01-29-2020, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Prolly ten years ago I ran into an old LCer friend from out of town in the aftermath of the Midwest quarantines. He told me plainly that the Lord revealed to him that, "there is no love in Laodicea."

And unfortunately Laodicea is a natural (spelled A-D-A-M) tendency after having a real experience of Christ. We think we have something and try to hold onto that instead of Him --> Who IS love. When love exits, religious pride and lukewarmness comes in. May the Lord have mercy!

Curious · 02-11-2020, 06:36 PM

Hi. I know it’s not really my place to have lots of opinions here though I have helped myself to them anyway. I’m trying not to overstep my place too much but I really want to draw a connection here. My apologies in advance if this is too presumptuous.

Reading briefly through the document on ‘The New Way’ something stands out clearly to me. ‘The New Way’ represents WL’s raw ambition. He had had wonderful success in establishing and growing the work in North America, as a continuation of what had been begun by Watchman Nee. This move of ‘the new way’, plus the litigations issued against anything in his way, speaks of ambitious risk taking. He thought he could overtake all of Christianity and make it his domain. He saw what looked like such an opportunity, and notably, cared nothing for what he had already established. He was willing to both exploit the people he had, to do the grunt work, and then to let the stability of what had been established, be tossed into the pot, if necessary, in the effort to satisfy his unbridled ambition. How far could he take his 'new ministry'? He wouldn’t know till he tried, right?

It’s therefore also worthy to bring this alongside his assigning all ‘opposers and dissenters’ as being ‘full of ambition!!’ What blatant and direct hypocrisy!! To a maneuverer this would serve two purposes. One, it would deflect attention away from his own audacious ambition. As people tend to believe that if someone is horrified by a negative trait in another, then certainly they would keep that same tendency under control in themselves. This is a false connection, and a strategy often employed by those who are cunning. They may also deceive themselves in this way. ‘If I’m horrified by the thought of them exercising ambition, then surely I can’t be guilty of that myself!’ It doesn’t work that way. Being very irked by someone else’s perceived character flaw is actually a tip-off that it is one’s own flaw, projected onto another in order to be punished there, alleviating one’s own guilt. So the duel purpose is, it shifts focus from self, and satisfies self of own guiltless position, which is self-deception. You can also enjoy punishing that trait as perceived in another, and by doing so, feed your self-righteousness, and feel even better about yourself! "Judge not lest you judge yourself"...God knows this about us.

I notice that he only ever had one motivation to assign to any source of questioning or criticism. As far as I can see, it is always ‘ambition’. A ‘dissenter' may be leprous and all sorts of things, but when describing actual motivation, only the one word seems to be used. Like creating an ugly, 2-D caricature of any source of challenge to the perfection of the ministry. Its very simplistic and of course directly avoids having to deal with it or take questions or corrections seriously.

No wonder he did not like the science of psychology. Imagine what a psychological evaluation of himself might have produced!! Perhaps the very thing he probably needed, in fact. That's an afterthought.

01-28-2020, 10:50 AM	#1
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 713	In the Wake of the New Way It was on this date 19 years ago I wrote to LSM’s Dan Towle. January 28, 2001 Dear Dan, I have written a little book for the sake of fellowship, mainly with leading ones, concerning our past sixteen-year history of the new way. I think this period of time in the Lord’s recovery warrants our careful study of both the benefits and the costs to the church in what was such a highly controversial move among us in those beginning years. “I wanted to come to you because I feel it is safe to do so. If I am inaccurate or unfair in some way, perhaps you are the most qualified one to catch me that I could either make an adjustment or terminate the proposed fellowship.” “I hope we can have a good, thorough, and upright fellowship over this booklet called In the Wake of the New Way, while remembering the Lord’s prayer ‘that they all may be one’ and the repeated petitions from our brother Lee, not only to heed the trumpet call for the Lord’s new move, but also to respond to the call for the rendering of care to every member for the building up of the Body in love…” I would welcome your phone call or e-mail message at …………] and ………….. I don’t intend for this booklet to be widespread; rather, I hope that ones who do receive it could do so in the Lord, with a holy regard and respect given to those who left the recovery, and a godly consideration rendered to those who remain, but who are in need of more significant care. Www.IntheWakeoftheNewWay.com I DID NOT HEAR BACK FROM HIM, BUT DID GET MARKED AS ONE WHO CAUSES DIVISION, AND THAT DISTINCTION AND IMPRESSION REMAINS.

01-28-2020, 04:20 PM	#3
Sons to Glory! Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Scottsdale, AZ Posts: 2,617	Re: In the Wake of the New Way One thing that stood out to me in that paper was your observation that love was completely lacking in the official statements and otherwise. And that love was not a needed characteristic because the intention was to build an army. This lack of love has been the observation of many regarding the LC in America (after its initial period), including mine. Yet, the Lord told us this is how others would know we are of Him. May we allow the Lord show His love through us to others! __________________ LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now Praise the Lord - HE'S GOT THIS!

02-11-2020, 06:36 PM	#7
Curious Member Join Date: Jan 2019 Posts: 186	Re: In the Wake of the New Way Hi. I know it’s not really my place to have lots of opinions here though I have helped myself to them anyway. I’m trying not to overstep my place too much but I really want to draw a connection here. My apologies in advance if this is too presumptuous. Reading briefly through the document on ‘The New Way’ something stands out clearly to me. ‘The New Way’ represents WL’s raw ambition. He had had wonderful success in establishing and growing the work in North America, as a continuation of what had been begun by Watchman Nee. This move of ‘the new way’, plus the litigations issued against anything in his way, speaks of ambitious risk taking. He thought he could overtake all of Christianity and make it his domain. He saw what looked like such an opportunity, and notably, cared nothing for what he had already established. He was willing to both exploit the people he had, to do the grunt work, and then to let the stability of what had been established, be tossed into the pot, if necessary, in the effort to satisfy his unbridled ambition. How far could he take his 'new ministry'? He wouldn’t know till he tried, right? It’s therefore also worthy to bring this alongside his assigning all ‘opposers and dissenters’ as being ‘full of ambition!!’ What blatant and direct hypocrisy!! To a maneuverer this would serve two purposes. One, it would deflect attention away from his own audacious ambition. As people tend to believe that if someone is horrified by a negative trait in another, then certainly they would keep that same tendency under control in themselves. This is a false connection, and a strategy often employed by those who are cunning. They may also deceive themselves in this way. ‘If I’m horrified by the thought of them exercising ambition, then surely I can’t be guilty of that myself!’ It doesn’t work that way. Being very irked by someone else’s perceived character flaw is actually a tip-off that it is one’s own flaw, projected onto another in order to be punished there, alleviating one’s own guilt. So the duel purpose is, it shifts focus from self, and satisfies self of own guiltless position, which is self-deception. You can also enjoy punishing that trait as perceived in another, and by doing so, feed your self-righteousness, and feel even better about yourself! "Judge not lest you judge yourself"...God knows this about us. I notice that he only ever had one motivation to assign to any source of questioning or criticism. As far as I can see, it is always ‘ambition’. A ‘dissenter' may be leprous and all sorts of things, but when describing actual motivation, only the one word seems to be used. Like creating an ugly, 2-D caricature of any source of challenge to the perfection of the ministry. Its very simplistic and of course directly avoids having to deal with it or take questions or corrections seriously. No wonder he did not like the science of psychology. Imagine what a psychological evaluation of himself might have produced!! Perhaps the very thing he probably needed, in fact. That's an afterthought.