Morris Fred on W. Lee and T. A. Sparks

[Nell]

This thread is a condensed version of a portion of a discussion from an old Topic on this forum.

This section is interesting because of the author, Morris Fred. In a post by Matt Anderson:

"Please note that this paper was funded by a grant of the US Government. The National Institute of Health issued a training grant (NIGMS-1224) to fund this research. Yes, our God is a sovereign God. This paper was not written by someone who was either “pro” or “anti” LC. It was written by someone who was scholarly interested in Philosophy. This does not make it more or less valid. It just makes God sovereign in all things.

Please note the timeframe here.

From 1958?/59? -1960 Lee began traveling to the US some. By 1960, Lee stayed in the US. It has been assert that Lee remained in the US starting in 1960 because he was not welcome to return to Taiwan. From 1960-1966 there was turmoil in Taiwan until the split was finalized in 1966. To my knowledge, this breach has never been healed."

I'm working on getting a copy of this dissertation. The link in the LC Factor topic is broken...another reason I'm condensing. I hope to clean up the broken links, etc.

Morris Fred Dissertation - Page 42-44 (Keep in mind that this was written in the early 70's)

Sparks' first visit to Taiwan ran fairly smoothly with the topics of discussion revolving around spiritual revelation and living of the spiritual life. Two years later, Sparks returned to Taiwan and a house was rented for him and his wife and a cook was provided for them.

This time Sparks dealt with the nature of serving within the church, an aspect directly related to church organization. He argued the need for greater communication among all Christians and that remaining only within the bounds of the Local Church is against the idea of the universality of Christ. Lee replied that if one doesn't have a glass, how can one put water into a receptacle, alluding to the need for strict boundaries in order for spiritual growth to take place. Sparks' answer was that Jesus (the water) should not be placed in a receptacle as small as a local church for Jesus is too big.

After various meetings, Lee attacked Sparks' position in meetings with elders and co-workers. He said he had made a mistake in inviting Sparks to Taiwan and that as a guest, Sparks had no right to criticize or suggest changes in the organization of the Assembly Hall Church in Taiwan. One informant present during a small meeting in which Lee criticized Sparks said that he had been shocked by the harsh language used--that Lee had said that Sparks had a superiority complex and was unwilling to listen to others' viewpoints.

The disagreement can be viewed on two levels. In the first place, many of the younger co-workers, who previously had been skeptical of the level of spirituality of foreign Christians, were very impressed with Sparks and his scriptural knowledge. This engendered an interest on their part in reading Sparks' writings and discussing them amongst themselves. Implied in the statements of these informants regarding Lee's reactions is that Lee felt his position as sole head of the church threatened by Sparks. Thus, at one level, the clash was a personal one. At the second level, the important aspect of the "foundation" of the church was at stake. Lee felt that the only scripturally prescribed basis for church organization was the locality and that all church workers should remain within the bounds of the Local Church.

Sparks, however, felt that this doctrine was too dogmatic and had the effect of turning the principle of locality (which had been discussed by Nee) into a doctrine one which another sect or denomination was being formed, hindering the desired goal of universal fellowship among all Christians. Thus, he encouraged the co-workers within the various local churches to establish contact with other church groups and to preach the gospel in meetings other than their own. Lee correctly saw this as a potential subversion of the organization of the Local Church as it existed in Taiwan. The result was that some of the co-workers and elders were sympathetic with Sparks' position and others maintained allegiance to Lee. The publication of Sparks' sermons in the "Ministry of the Word" in 1955 was halted (Note by Matt: I believe the halt came in 1957) and the stage was set for a struggle between the two factions which led to the formal split in 1966.

Please note the timeframe here.

From 1958?/59? -1960 Lee began traveling to the US some. By 1960, Lee stayed in the US. It has been assert that Lee remained in the US starting in 1960 because he was not welcome to return to Taiwan. From 1960-1966 there was turmoil in Taiwan until the split was finalized in 1966. To my knowledge, this breach has never been healed.

It has been asserted by some from the US side of the LC that Lee was a little more “repentant” or “subdued” during his initial years in the US. This claim is made to support the idea that he was “under the blessing” during some of the 60’s. I want to say plainly that I do not believe this is true. Lee was in jeopardy of losing the product of his efforts in Taiwan. He had opportunity in the US and being less welcome in Taiwan he took advantage of the opportunity.

It is entirely possible Lee was “toned down” in the early 60’s, but his behavior patterns did not change. In fact, he was working stealthily to re-exert control in Taiwan. He remained in contact with his “top lieutenants” in Taiwan during the years of 1960-1966 while he was supposedly “under the blessing” in the US.

I believe the truth is more like this. God was pouring out His Spirit in a big way in the US and throughout the world in the 60’s and 70’s. Given Lee’s advanced knowledge of the Word and his claim to a “genealogy” linking him to Watchman Nee, he was able to take control of a system of worship and shape it. Behind him, Satan was subtly working to ensure that this system was one that would actually be a destroyer of God’s faithful. He (the Enemy) did this by exercising particular strength/weaknesses in Lee that had not been fully dealt with by the Lord and were not in full submission to the Lord.

(To be continued)
Matt

The attach transcript was a message given by Sparks and translated into Chinese by Lee. Sparks was critical of Lee's "ministry" regarding One Church One City, and Lee was forced to translate this message to his assembly.
Nell

[Nell]

LCS Factor Post #683

Next Point…

Originally Posted by Matt Anderson

I believe it is important to further solidify the actions of T. Austin Sparks in relationship to Witness Lee and the "ground of locality" disagreement.

Morris Fred has noted the following which he gleaned from both sides of the split in Taiwan.

Morris Fred Quote:
Sparks, however, felt that this doctrine was too dogmatic and had the effect of turning the principle of locality (which had been discussed by Nee) into a doctrine one which another sect or denomination was being formed, hindering the desired goal of universal fellowship among all Christians. Thus, he encouraged the co-workers within the various local churches to establish contact with other church groups and to preach the gospel in meetings other than their own. Lee correctly saw this as a potential subversion of the organization of the Local Church as it existed in Taiwan. The result was that some of the co-workers and elders were sympathetic with Sparks' position and others maintained allegiance to Lee.

Originally Posted by Matt Anderson

It is posited Sparks' was concerned that Lee was taking what was Nee's "principle of locality" and turning it into a "doctrine of locality".

If you listen to Sparks' message you will hear him specifically address his concerns in front of the whole church there in Taiwan with Lee translating his message.

Why did Sparks' tell it to the church? Because Sparks' was being a faithful brother to Witness Lee.

It is documented that Lee and Sparks had already:

a) Discussed this matter privately.
b) Discussed this matter with witnesses to establish the matter

(If you want references to these facts, please respond and I will get them).

Remember Matthew 18 --> (go privately, go with witnesses, tell it to the church). Well, Sparks' was faithful and did it. He did not stop at telling just a few witnesses. He told the whole church. Lee was furious. Sparks had planted a seed (which was based on the truth in the Word of God) that would cost Lee dearly in his pre-eminence in the Taiwan churches.


Fact: Lee was being confronted because he was in error and leading entire congregations away from the Word of God. His error was a false teaching. The false teaching of the ground of locality as a core doctrine. The fruit of this teaching has borne out it's falseness over the past 50 years. It is false.

Lee needed this false teaching or he could (or would) lose control. This forms a central lynch pin by which to measure Lee's and the BB's deeds throughout his time in the US and across many different situations in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and even into the 2000's by his well-trained successors.

T. Austin Sparks argued that the idea of locality was too small for the Lord. Too small for Christ! Lee responded that you had to have a glass in which to put the water! Lee needed a means of control of God's people. Lee needed to be between God and each man for Lee's own purposes.

I'm not lifting up T. Austin Sparks. I am establishing his true witness which given many years ago in faithfulness to the Lord.

Final Reminder: T. Austin Sparks confronted Lee to the whole church in Taiwan before Witness Lee ever entered the United States. This is important. I will come back to this point later.

If you don't think I am heading towards the extremely broad level of idolatry, I will get there soon enough.

(To be continued)

Matt

P.S. Is there a principle of locality which is non-essential? Yes, but it can be lifted too high in your mind. Does it form the basis for a doctrine? No. We meet with those who are geographically convenient, but it is not a doctrine and should not be taught prescriptively or with any emphasis. It's an implicit fact and this is why it is presented descriptively in the Word of God. Furthermore, it surely should not be used to interlink many congregations together across many continents under a single minister/ministry.

In the case of the LC, the 'ground of locality' doctrine has really just a back door to re-introducing the Babylonian system of worship (of hierarchical authority under one demi-god (aka oracle of God/minister of the age) with improper submit & obey principles making "lords" of mere men.) We can see from a distance the results of that kind of system in the Roman Catholic Church. If we are willing to look, we can see the results up close in the Local Churches of Witness Lee.

Nell

[Nell]

The LCS Factor Post #696

Originally Posted by Matt Anderson

I'm introducing some additional source material for review (and yes, I am still going somewhere on topic with all of this! This is still about the LCS factor ). This is another excerpt from the Morris Fred paper. In case anyone is not aware, I am using this paper to establish a key fact. Witness Lee was the same before coming to the US. His temporary lull in bad behavior may not have been at all about repentance but rather about re-exerting control in Taiwan. The good report about Lee in America was one of the tools used to re-establish his pre-eminence among the Taiwanese by the late 60's/early 70's. Lee needed leverage in Taiwan in order to re-establish his pre-eminence among as many of the Taiwanese churches as possible.

It should also be noted that the same tools Lee used in Taiwan to construct a system of worship that was not wholly focused on the Lord, he also used in the United States. There were no differences.

Please note that Morris Fred has rightly detected three of the major ills that we have spoken about on these forums.

1) "Church Ground" (i.e. ground of locality) as the organizational base of the church.

The "ground of locality" was among Lee's first topics in the US. I will find and quote Jim Reetzke on this issue who has written a pro-LC version of LC history. He notes that Lee introduced these concepts of the "ground of locality" from the very beginning of his time in the US. The So. Cal brothers were anxious for Lee to stay in the US so that they could establish a church on the "proper" ground and Lee finally did stay. They had already been meeting in LA, but they were desirous of being on the "proper ground of locality". Hmm...??? Do we see a problem here?

Important Note: I will return to this fact in another post, but note for now that Lee had just been admonished by T. Austin Sparks on this issue and this didn't sway Lee. It strengthened his choice on this doctrine.

See Titus 3:10 - the work "heretick", "factious", or "sectarian" comes from the Greek word:

hairetikos - 1 fitted or able to take or choose a thing. 2 schismatic, factious, a follower of a false doctrine. 3 heretic

and hairetikos comse from hairetizo - 1 to choose. 2 to belong to a sect.

Yes. Lee made a strong choice in regards to this teaching. This forms the basis of heresy if the chosen doctrine turns out to be false. As a doctrine, I believe it has proven to be false.

2) "Positional Authority" (i.e. deputy authority)

We know that he introduced the concepts of "Deputy Authority" in seed form in the mid-sixties to a future inner circle of men who could potentially form one of the layers of hierarchy in this system of worship. This information was not given out freely, because if it were it could fall into the hands of those who would recognize it's source (the Enemy).

We know that where the Local Churches ended up was under a system of hierarchical control that verbally denies hierarchy, but behaviorally exhibits it to a tremendous degree.

3) "Preaching" (i.e. God's oracle, Minister of the Age)

I don't think I have to say much about this one.

----------------------------------------------------------------

The above facts (which will be repeated below) are highlighted because there is a tendency among LCer's and ex-LCer's to discount outside voices. In this excerpt you will read about the methods that Morris Fred used to identify these three items.

In addition, 40+ years of additional evidence from other case examples of problematic situations have proven Mr. Fred to be true.

After this post, I will present additional anecdotal evidence from Mr. Fred's paper that he shares as reports from those involved in the Taiwan split.

Keep in mind: This was written in 1972-75

(To be continued)

Matt

via Nell

[Nell]

Morris Fred Quote:
Page 198-206

Examination of the 1966 split in the Local Church illustrates the relationship between changes in the church's organization and ritual. As noted in Chapter II, Sparks' visit had undermined the ongoing dialectic between world view and experience by challenging the boundaries defining the organization. Once the dissidents left, it was up to Witness Lee to rebuild the church organization on which this world-building dialectic is based. How he did this comprises the subject matter of this chapter.

As stated before, in referring to the history of the bitter split which occurred in the Local Church, individuals on either side supplied information when tended to justify their respective positions. An analysis of the types of information recalled provides insight into the fundamental causes of the disagreement. In general, those who left attacked Lee's manipulation of power within the church as well as other personal behavior. In addition, much attention was paid to what were considered heretical ideas and strange developments in the church ritual after the split. On the other hand, supporters of Lee concentrated on many of the dissidents' desire for personal status that led them to forsake the only true church. To them the proof of God's support for their position lies in the reality of their own successful growth when compared with that of the other group whose Taipei membership is merely several hundred. This may be the reason for the Local Church brethren's general silence regarding the details of the split--discussion could only injure their position by introducing the issue to the more than half the members who have been baptized since the split. Thus, revelation of such events is carefully controlled, as by Witness Lee in a sermon to young brethren at a special meeting (2/12/72). This sermon, as well as three articles written with respect to the split in Hong Kong, is my main source for the pro-Lee position. For the opposite side, I have depended on interviews, a public letter (Shr, 1970), and the Hong Kong magazine article referred to in Chapter II (Lu, 1973)

<< Note from Matt: Does anyone have this public letter (Shr, 1970)? >>

Despite the different information supplied by each group, there are certain points of agreement regarding the dispute. All parties noted that it was tragic and upsetting and had an adverse effect, during its duration, on church growth and unity. Many of the individuals who left the church ranked high in the leadership hiearchy of the church. Because of this, there was much confusion among the brethren regarding the reasons for the conflict. One informant remembered that immediately after the split, attendance at church meetings floundered and many brethren not directly involved wandered about to other church services. Moreover, while the dispute in Taiwan has been finalized and the situation among the various parties is somewhat stable, its effects still linger in Hong Kong. There it has taken on even more drastic aspects, with groups opposing Witness Lee "occupying" church buildings and forcing Lee to turn to the courts for resolution. Given the world view of the brethren, one can imagine the effect of taking spiritual disagreements to secular courts for resolution.

Those interviewed, to whichever group they belonged, agreed that Sparks' visit marked the point in which disagreement began within the Local Church. For those who broke with Lee, however, this visit served merely as a catalyst for quarrels in which underlying tensions became manifest. One informant noted that even before Sparks' visit, he had become concerned with Lee's overemphasis on Nee's concept of the principle of locality. He said that when he questioned Lee, Lee responded by stating that the worker was very young and "what could he know about things such as this." This picture substantiated the overall one of the early years in the church development in Taiwan in which Witness Lee maintained close scrutiny and control over all the co-workers, viewing the relationship as one similar to that between father and children. Time and again various informants recalled the strictness with which Lee directed them in their early training.

This strictness was maintained over the years and as the various co-workers and elders grew within the church organization, they matured and began to question absolute parental authority. One informant has suggested the great importance placed in Chinese churches on authority and discipline (Yu, p.I, 1974); thus, Sparks' prestige and background as a spiritual leader made him a logical alternative to Lee as a source of inspiration without the direct control involved. In stating the three reasons for his own leaving the church, one ex-worker in the Local Church was able to summarize the basic points of disagreement between Lee and the dissidents. They were: church ground, preaching, and positional authority. As will be shown in the ensuing discussion these three elements are not only closely related but also were mentioned with different emphasis by the opposing factions.

"Church ground" (Jyau Hwei Li Chang): is the literal translation for a church's organizational base; in the case of the Local Church that ground is the principle of locality. The nature of church organization has been previously mentioned as the focal point of disagreement between Lee and T. Austin-Sparks. On Taiwan the brethren within the Local Church had been discouraged from the close contact with Christians of other denominations. Lee argued that the ground for building the church was prescribed in scriptures as being that of locality. Any other basis for church organization was considered non-scriptural and thus damaging to the unity of the body of Christ. Universal church unity could only be achieved by restoring the church on the basis of independent local churches maintaining contact and fellowship through the offices of apostle and workers, much like the situation during Paul's time. On the other side of the argument, it was maintained that Lee carried the doctrine of locality to its extreme and was using it to create a denomination such as those that already exist. As such it was not furthering the cause of Christian unity but rather disrupting it. One individual mentioned that while working with Nee on the mainland, he had many friends in other Christian denominations, but while in Taiwan, his contacts were exclusively with Christians within the Local Church. The Local Church shunned (and does to this day) any participation in ecumenical organizations, and this was seen as being in direct contradiction of the spiritual unity of all Christians. Many of these younger co-workers were in agreement with Sparks' statement that the Local Church had been working on too narrow a ground for the growth and spiritual development of Christianity in Taiwan. In effect the dissidents saw Lee as creating an exclusive church on a doctrinal basis of rejecting people with different spiritual feelings.

"Preaching": Immediately following Sparks' departure, Lee expressed his displeasure with the latter's ideas in meetings with his co-workers in Taipei. Nevertheless, several of the co-workers and elders had been impressed with Sparks and began meeting together to read the latter's works. The core of this group was at the Third Assembly Hall. When Lee discovered that such meetings were taking place, he was very angry with the culprits. He felt that they had been meeting behind his back and in doing so were challenging his authority as church apostle.

In addition several of the co-workers heeded Sparks' advice to begin preaching among Christians of other denominations. They were either reprimanded or relieved of their positions as co-workers. Moreover, to insure that those sympathetic to Sparks' ideas would not be able to disseminate them among other church brethren, Lee began to demand that all speakers for the church follow an outline distributed by Lee instead of using their own ideas. To many of them this contradicted the notion that preaching should be spontaneous, according to direction by the Spirit.

"Positional Authority": While the first area of disagreement was discussed in theoretical terms, the problem of authority within the Local Church was revealed in terms of information specific to personalities within the church. The first group of arguments which we will examine regard the person of Witness Lee himself. Several instances were noted in which the integrity of Lee was questioned. One dealt with the finances within the church; the other with Lee's personal moral standards. It should be noted here that this information comes exclusively from those who left the church and there is little information regarding this aspect on the other side. Nonetheless, it was reiterated by several sources (without coaching or leading questions by me). After Sparks left Taiwan, Lee used church funds to go to the United States and England where he visited the church group of Sparks, who according to my informants was not aware of the great hostility Lee felt toward him. Later Lee discovered that his wife had cancer. After returning to Taiwan, he decided to go to the United States to seek medical assistance. At this point, the rather blurred boundaries between church and personal wealth first caused friction. Some members wondered if the church would provide funds for their wives should the need arise for them to go to the United States. It was decided that Lee's wife's contributions to the church warranted making such an exception. The treatments, however, were not successful and she soon died. Within a year, Lee's reputation was not enhanced by his marriage to a sister whose previous simple appearance soon changed to one affected by jewelry, make-up, and a fancy coiffeur. The remarriage within one year of the death of his first wife was considered in bad tasted and some members began to complain that Lee, who often expounded on the need to de-emphasize the matters of the flesh, had perhaps lost his spirituality. A church sister noted that this opposition had been countered by reference to the consequences of Aaron's and Miriam's criticism of Moses' marriage, the former was stricken with a skin disease. The analogy suggested that like Moses, Lee was only responsible to the Lord and no one had the right to interfere with his personal decision. This argument reflected the view that Lee as modern day apostle of Christ held a position above the rest of the members and was thus responsible only to God for his actions.

In the area of finance, a second problem arose when large sums of money were given to Lee's son for investment purposes in the United States, whether for personal or church gain is disputed. When challenged for using church funds for private gains, Lee allegedly replied that the money had been given to him personally by overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia and that nothing illegal or immoral had occurred.

Other complaints regarding the authority of Lee were also mentioned.

(To be continued)

Matt


 

[Nell]

The LCS Factor Post #723

Originally Posted by Matt Anderson

At the end of my last post, I mentioned that there were other complaints regarding the authority of Lee that were also mentioned from the Taiwan church split.

I am going to share some of them now. These anecdotal examples will go to further solidify the fact that Lee's behavior was not appropriate back in Taiwan. Currently, I am specifically bringing forward information to shine light on one important issue:

Many have indicated that they felt that everything was good in the "glory days" of the US version of the LC. They believe that over time it became corrupted. Much of the credit for the "goodness" of the early days of the LC were the great teachings and depth of knowledge of Witness Lee.

Before Lee was solidified in writing by the LSM as the "Minister of the Age" and "God's Oracle" he was spoken about by many members as "Moses" and "a modern or current day Paul". These statements and others like them were not necessarily codified, but they were shared around by many individual participants. I've heard these references to Lee from multiple corners of the US.

Now, let's compare these lift a man up comments which go all the way back into the 60's against Lee's behavior before he entered into the US. Why is this so important. It goes to the fact that many were willing participants in lifting a man up on high. Why did they do it? Because he had so much lofty (aka high-peak) knowledge? Because his ministry was so rich?

In response it's quite easy to say, "everyone has problems", but the real question is why does anyone feel any need to defend Witness Lee's bad behavior? What is it that we appreciate that causes us to defend him?

I am not denying the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the past. I continue to point to the fact that the mixture was present from the beginning. This is important.

From Morris Fred Paper: The exact text has been preserved, but the Example titles have been added by me.

Example #1: Medical Clinic (aka church involved in business venture)

In the early 1950s, a clinic was established by the church, headed by a Chinese within the church with the assistance of two Western doctors who belonged to the Local Church in Taipei. Disagreement arose regarding the participation of one of the latter. The ultimate result was that the clinic was closed and the structure built for its use became a living quarters for young brethren attending university in Taipei.

Example #2: Unauthorized Marriage

Another case metnioned was that of a marriage between two church co-workers. Without seeking Lee's approval these two individuals were married. This apparently angered Lee. Whether he opposed the marriage or was merely angry because they did not first consult him is unclear. The result was that although the two initially remained within the church, their stipend as co-workers was cut in half and this caused them great difficulty. The brother who had introduced the couple was sent to Hwalien (on the east coast of Taiwan) as punishment; later, after helping Lee with a manuscript, he was recalled to Taipei. Here it was noted that one of the methods used by Lee in maintaining the loyalty of his co-workers was his control over their residence and other rewards. His closest followers were given the more prestigious positions in Taipei. Moreover, in the training meetings led by Lee, everyone had a set place according to how well they had performed the previous year. It was noted Lee would sometimes move someone from the first to last row in one year, causing the individual to lose face in the eyes of his fellow workers. If an individual had done exceedingly well, he would be moved to the editorial room and placed in charge of church publications.

Example #3: Distribution of Money to Co-workers

Moreover, while the church claimed that stipends to co-workers were distributed according to anonymous contributions by the membership, these often were not enough to maintain the co-workers' livelihood. Therefore, unspecified funds were distributed among the workers. One informant noted that Lee himself would decide the amount, place it in an envelope to be given to the elder at the First Assembly Hall who serves as the church's accountant. The result is that Lee used his economic stranglehold over the co-workers to assure their loyalty.

Example #4: Decision Making

One of the prime targets of those who disagreed with Lee was the reality of decision-making within the church. It was repeatedly pointed out that the ideal picture painted was one in which the elders of a local church met to discuss problems, prayed together, and reached a consensus on action. However, it was maintained by these individuals that in actuality Lee and several elders and co-workers closest to him made the decisions and presented them to a group of elders who were expected to offer their "Amens." The effect was that one could not clearly perceive Lee's direct role in the process of decision-making for the announcements and innovations were made only by his representatives among the elders.

Example #5: The BIG MAMA

In 1960, Lee had gone to the United States where he began establishing churches with the main headquarters in Los Angeles. It was during this period of 1960-1966 that much of the rebellion against his authority was taking place in Taiwan. His means of maintaining control over the development of the church in Taiwan was through close correspondence with top lieutenants who as elders could control the meetings (Shr, 1970, 8). These men also informed Lee regarding activities deemed rebellious.

Bibliographic Reference: Shr, Bai Cheng, et al. - 1970 - A Public Letter for God's Children Regarding the Basic Mistakes of Li Chang Shou (aka Witness Lee) - A Leaflet

Example #6a & #6b Preface:

The final aspect of church organization discussed by those who left the church was the ideal of independence of each local church under the authority of its elders. While the co-workers are considered to be under the authority of the apostle, the elders are in charge of the management of local church finances and activities. The spheres of responsibility were confused, however, by the fact that several individuals held positions both as co-workers and elders in various local churches. Two cases relate the nature of this contradiction.

Example #6a: Local Autonomy

Once the dispute began among members in the Taipei Church, the church in Tainan was confused and desired to maintain independence. In letters sent to church headquarters, they requested that no one be sent from Taipei. Nevertheless, one of Lee's lieutenants was sent to Tainan which led to dissension among the brethren there. This also tended to point out to the elders in Tainan that their independence from control by Lee was merely nominal.

Example #6b:

A further example involved a brother who before the split was considered by many to be second in command to Witness Lee. He described the situation in Taiwan and noted that he was bothered by the fact that he no longer felt he could follow Lee. I heard a tape made by this brother in 1970. In it he said that he had a premonition that Lee might kick them out of the church:

(To be continued)

Do you hear these stories echoing into the US through the last 4-5 decades? I do.

Matt

[Nell]

The LCS Factor #766

Originally Posted by Matt Anderson

Here is what I have thought since the beginning of this thread.

A. The LC system was too big for any one person to believe that they would not be succumbed by it. The only way not to be overcome by it is to leave it.

B. All who remained bear some measure of responsibility. The only real distinction between leadership and laity is that leadership may bear more responsibility. The laity still bears responsibility, because we are all members of one body. We are all just brothers/sisters in Christ and we must love one another even when that means taking tough actions that may cost us reputation, standing, etcetera among our brothers and sisters.

I do not speak out of turn on this point (B). I face this now where I meet right now. I'm faced with one or more elders who are 'lording it over' the flock and blindly acting in a manner that may finalize the destruction of a marriage. I see it and I am there. Therefore, I will bear some measure of responsibility if my lips remain sealed (Lev 19:17-18).

C. There are some who feel that they have somehow escaped the strong influence of the LC system. This is not true. Once you willingly enter into an idolatrous type of system (whether you know it is idolatrous or not) you will be affected to some extent. No exceptions. The only preservation is to remain focused on the Lord. The truth is that there is almost no setting that doesn't have some idolatry. As such, the presence of it does not preclude someone from going where the Lord leads. However, when it is done at a systematic level and becomes pervasive to an entire grouping of christians then the call is probably to "come out of her my people", for this grouping has gone the way of Babylon.

E. God is not judging us unto condemnation, but unto mercy. He is full of lovingkindness and full of mercy for us. None of what I have said comes from a spirit of meanness towards anyone. Part of what I have said has come from a resistance against one who feels that somehow they were a leader in the LC system and yet was not affected the same way everyone else was. I believe this is not true and the willingness to reconfront the facts with the appropriate person(s) would prove this out. In attempting to carve out a particular locality as being somewhat better, I felt it was necessary to resist this strongly. I know differently. I know the system that was established by the Enemy of God compromised everyone. I know the locality in question was not better. There may have been some attempts to be better, but they did not take and those left to endure the environment experienced the same oppressiveness and 'lording it over' the flock as other localities. Even this person has admitted to this on a point by point basis. (Note: We can review the record if needed) The Midwest has had an object lesson in the past several years in just how forceful the Enemy will be through "men of God" in attempting to maintain control over the souls of the saints through an environment like the LC. This cannot be minimized.

I do not speak out of turn on this point (E) either. I face this kind of environment where I work right now. Work is not church, but the principles of hierarchy under bad leadership which only cares for itself are the same. Nothing I can do will change my work environment. I'm very good at producing change in a work environment and I've already tried everything I know (plus some). This includes risking my job by standing up against the 'powers that be' and confronting the situation. They cannot fire me, because the customer may fire them. I cannot leave until the Lord grants me release, but in the meantime I have to be faithful to resist the evil that is here even at the risk of my income and livelihood. It's not fun at all. This is what I have been doing while I have been moderating the other forum. I've been trying to survive the worst job I have ever had. God is faithful and is using this for my highest good.

F. Was there anything good in the LC? Yes. Christ among the believers. Nothing of Him is lost. Nothing. The outworking of the Holy Spirit in the lives of many of the Lord's little ones happened, but they were as sheep set for the slaughter and in many cases the slaughter came at the hands of other brothers who thought they acted on behalf of the Lord. The Enemy established a mixture from the very beginning. This influence cannot be ignored. There are no "glory days" in which the Enemy was not working and had already planted the elements (certain wolves among the sheep) that have gone undetected for many, many years.

G. In the words and spirit of Joseph, "God meant it for good". Remembering the words of Amos, let us not forget the "affliction of Joseph". Many whose pasts are tied to the LC and have suffered at the hands of the LC have come to know the affliction of Joseph. (Note: Some may not get my reference to these verses... Sorry.)



G. My personal point of view: Do not be deceived by any person, leader or ex-leader who comes to you with enticing words. The Lord is your God. Listen to Him. Follow Him only as He will never lead you astray. Study the scripture and be convinced in your own mind. Consider the fact that the tasty delights that come from men's ministries can be leavened and you don't even know it until you have enough of your own grounding in the Word to challenge their ministry. Eat what the Lord feeds you because the meals He prepares for you are what you need to do all the good works He has prepared for you.

I'm going to add Ezekiel 34 to the record in my next post. I believe it fits.

Final Note: Although I have referenced one particular individual in my post, I must be clear. I am very grateful for this person. His willingness to dialogue as an ex-leader demonstrates his humility. This cannot be properly appreciated. I acknowledge my open resistance to some of what he has shared. I do not resist him because I dislike or disrespect him. I do it for the very opposite reason. I like him and I respect him. In addition, there are some other ex-leaders (and even some current Midwest leaders) who have been willing to dialogue. I am personally grateful because the dialogue is much needed for the healing that the Lord wants for each of us. He is restoring our soul(s). He is the true Shepherd that can do it properly.

If you consider that I have gone too far in what I have said about idolatry, then I am sorry. I'm not beating anyone over the head with it, but in the face of any attempts to recover the unrecoverable I feel responsible to establish on the table in front of everyone some important and grave facts about the history of the LC and Witness Lee. The deeds speak loudly of problems from even before Lee and the "system of the LC" entered the United States. Many were caught unaware.

Matt

Nell

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by Nell

Lee began to demand that all speakers for the church follow an outline distributed by Lee instead of using their own ideas. To many of them this contradicted the notion that preaching should be spontaneous, according to direction by the Spirit.

Do we not see way back there in seed form the future blossoming of a steady income stream for LSM while simultaneously restricting the authorized conversation within LCs world wide?

Simply chilling.

It appears obvious now that the Nee/Lee Enterprise was from the very beginning (corrupt) turtles all the way down....

P.S.

[newman263]

Sparks comments on WL’s “Water contained in a glass (a vessel)” metaphor for “Christ contained in the church” were prophetic. Believers are earthen vessels made by God the potter (Roman 9:21-23). The church would be a collection of such vessels, forming a corporate vessel of honor. Therefore, the metaphor would be a reasonable conclusion from scripture, and (to me) could be applied to any church group over the twenty centuries,
EXCEPT…----->>> This metaphor camouflaged WL’s intention (which was already being implemented, and was evident in 1952, at least to Sparks) to wall off his congregations from any sort of communications with the rest of Christianity.

I now surmise: He was imitating J. N. Darby, who (in 1848) led the Exclusive Brethren assemblies to unite as one, in order to separate or be separated from (exclude or be excluded from, cut off or be cut off from) the rest of the Brethren assemblies. Darby did this mainly for fear of outside contamination of his own ministry and work (arguably by that time already very prevailing and widely respected) by any source that was (Christian, but) non-Darby, including anti-Darby. I now conclude: That Sparks was predicting that a church group would remain, or become, too small, IF / WHEN the leadership decided to intentionally wall off its members from the rest of Christianity.

From what I heard or read online of the hurt and complaints from ex-Exclusive-Brethren members, I recognized many similarities to those from ex-LC members. So, the policy’s side effects are similar. The hurt and complaints may differ very much in degree from locality to locality: The degree to which the leadership in any one locality interprets this policy (of exclusivity) determines the extent of the local limiting of liberties on the non-essential items (truths/ doctrines/ practices/ experiences) (i.e., treating many non-essential items as though they were essential). (Remember the old Christian axiom?: “In essentials, Unity; in non-essentials, Liberty; in all things, Charity (love)”)

The concern for the congregation, under a policy of severe exclusivity, is that no one is really ever free from the risk of one day being “excluded” (individually or en-masse) due to holding to an unfavored non-essential item (no one, including those who earnestly pursue Christ, in the way the Bereans did in Acts 17).

(Disclaimer:The opinions are my own; I have colluded with nobody; and I hope I am man-pleasing nobody).

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by Nell

The attach[ed] transcript was a message given by Sparks and translated into Chinese by Lee. Sparks was critical of Lee's "ministry" regarding One Church One City, and Lee was forced to translate this message to his assembly.
Nell

I would propose that there may have been an additional factor of offense which arose between WL and TAS during that 1957 visit.

Aside from the humanly understandable reaction when an outsider, someone deemed important by many, had just dismantled Lee's OCOC doctrine, it's noteworthy that in the final session #14 of that visit by Sparks, at 18 minutes, in answer to a woman's question, Sparks suggested that sin in the lives of leaders could likely be the factor behind a stagnant situation in the church there. How offensive those words must have been to the ears of a prideful WL who had no choice but to translate them into Chinese?

And since the main subject matter for that 1957 gathering was the book of Ezekiel, I would also like to point out that in Witness Lee's own Life Study of the Bible, he conveniently side-stepped any mention of the vision of leadership corruption that is revealed in Ezekiel chapters 8 and 9.

Sin by omission is just as deadly as the more obvious flavor. But to my recollection this matter of sin-by-omission was something I never heard talked about in the Lords Recovery. The closest thing to that may have been "don't be guilty of failing to celebrate the ministry of WL"...

P.S.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

(Imbedded in the post from Matt that Nell quoted)

"Given Lee’s advanced knowledge of the Word and his claim to a “genealogy” linking him to Watchman Nee, he was able to take control of a system of worship and shape it."

Really? I would suggest that Nee (and likewise Nee) had significant textual knowledge of the written Bible, but limited spiritual knowledge of the Word. Instead, he/they wowed us all with "unique" perspectives wrapped in speciality — a word eventually showered onto us all when Lee "established" the LC as in line with the "speciality of the Church."

And everyone in "Christendom" is left standing outside awaiting outer darkness. Some of us still think this is somewhat the case even if we have taken a stand outside of the LC. "Christendom." A perfectly good word. One that should not be the moniker for those that we don't have to be very (if at all) one with. (This is not from this thread, but still a little on point.)