"Heavenly Language"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Language is the primary concern of Witness Lee and the Anaheim Politburo (and I would also say with Titus Chu/Cleveland.) They decide what words can and cannot be used.

Titus Chu in Cleveland really did not promote this kind of thing, in fact it was regularly exposed as foolishness, especially after WL passed. Titus, in fact, much preferred creative and inspirational thoughts about the Bible and our Christian walk rather than mere vocabularies.

He would regularly walk the fine line by never saying anything against WL, who was the source of this "Heavenly Language," yet continually berate the Blendeds for latching on to it and promoting it.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Titus Chu in Cleveland really did not promote this kind of thing, in fact it was regularly exposed as foolishness, especially after WL passed. Titus, in fact, much preferred creative and inspirational thoughts about the Bible and our Christian walk rather than mere vocabularies.

He would regularly walk the fine line by never saying anything against WL, who was the source of this "Heavenly Language," yet continually berate the Blendeds for latching on to it and promoting it.

Titus Chu was a master at being 2 faced when it came to Witness Lee. His way of handling it probably confused a lot of people. IMHO to be "against" the Anaheim Politburo is to be against Witness Lee because in fact they pride themselves in following him in word and deed and do it quite well - including ousting Titus Chu for flimsy reasons with no biblical basis. They admitted that they asked each other WWWLD and they did it to Titus.

But anyway I'm glad to hear he is not a proponent of the "Heavenly Language" theory! I was mostly thinking of him not liking the use of the word "pastor" and other such language violations.

(BTW how much do you think Titus' clinging to Witness Lee, ground of locality, certain music styles, etc. is to pander to a certain constituency within the LCs in the GLA who are supportive of him? I.e. would he be less LCish if his most supportive constituency was as well?)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

But anyway I'm glad to hear he is not a proponent of the "Heavenly Language" theory! I was mostly thinking of him not liking the use of the word "pastor" and other such language violations.

(BTW how much do you think Titus' clinging to Witness Lee, ground of locality, certain music styles, etc. is to pander to a certain constituency within the LCs in the GLA who are supportive of him? I.e. would he be less LCish if his most supportive constituency was as well?)

You are right about that. The brothers with Titus hate the word "pastor" as being anathema to Christian service. The word rapidly spread that John Myer wanted to be a "pastor," and thus he received little sympathy from the staunchest of TC's supporters.

Not sure how much Titus Chu clings to the local ground. In his last meeting with John Myer, apparently he posed a question to John about the local ground, and he was not satisfied with John's response. The local ground is part of the "spiritual identity" of all the old Recovery people. How could Titus begin to question that? Even the Cleveland elders might quarantine him if he did that!

Titus loves the classics. He put together a symphony of quality musicians who traveled about playing some of WN's songs. A few times he asked some sister to sing a hymn and she had a beautiful opera voice. Titus himself had a beautiful voice. But he was also pragmatic. He knew that the LC's would die off if they only sang classics. He promoted the young people churches with contemporary music, whether he liked it himself or not. He definitely was concerned about the future increase, and knew that changes were needed to reach Caucasians.

Titus encouraged the most gifted brothers to work with the young people on the campuses. Some of whom, like Myer and Debelek, were quite fruitful too. Yet Titus would continually "shoot himself in the foot" by the way he treated those he worked with. Many felt they were treated like "dogs," and have since left. And that's the irony with Titus, he is so gifted, and at the same time he can be so abusive, just like his mentor Witness Lee. Currently there is one "young people" church in Cleveland Heights. Since the leader there is his son-in-law, they might have a chance for long-term survival, since Titus' daughter would never tolerate her husband being abused by daddy. The other "young people" churches have either collapsed or sided with LSM.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not sure how much Titus Chu clings to the local ground. In his last meeting with John Myer, apparently he posed a question to John about the local ground, and he was not satisfied with John's response. The local ground is part of the "spiritual identity" of all the old Recovery people. How could Titus begin to question that? Even the Cleveland elders might quarantine him if he did that!

I especially think the older generation transplanted from the Far East cling tightly to the local ground. They have a lot of behind the scenes influence in the LC system which I think is either unknown or underestimated by Americans.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Titus encouraged the most gifted brothers to work with the young people on the campuses. Some of whom, like Myer and Debelek, were quite fruitful too. Yet Titus would continually "shoot himself in the foot" by the way he treated those he worked with. Many felt they were treated like "dogs," and have since left. And that's the irony with Titus, he is so gifted, and at the same time he can be so abusive, just like his mentor Witness Lee.

I agree there are a lot of similarities between Witness Lee and Titus Chu. I'm not sure if it's because of their culture or personalities or family backgrounds or a combination. Or if Titus was different at one time but learned how to behave this way from Witness Lee.

Indeed as you point out they are both very gifted but they don't know how to work on a team of coworkers with equal standing. They have to be the boss with subordinates taking their direction. Those who refuse will be set aside or worse publicly humiliated.

IMHO the LCs have suffered a big loss because of this way of operating. Over the years they could have benefited tremendously from the ministries of TAS, Stephen Kaung, Devern Fromke and others. Today they could benefit from the ministries of John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, Phil Comfort and others left by the wayside for no good reason. And as you mention John Myer and Chuck Debelek - both gifts to the Body with manifest fruits of ministry. IF Witness Lee and Titus Chu didn't have to be the boss and were willing to work well with others I believe the LCs today would not have the sordid history that they have and neither would they be Witness Lee focused (or in the GLA Titus Chu focused.) I think the situation would be much healthier and balanced. Just my opinion.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

IMHO the LCs have suffered a big loss because of this way of operating. Over the years they could have benefited tremendously from the ministries of TAS, Stephen Kaung, Devern Fromke and others. Today they could benefit from the ministries of John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, Phil Comfort and others left by the wayside for no good reason. And as you mention John Myer and Chuck Debelek - both gifts to the Body with manifest fruits of ministry. IF Witness Lee and Titus Chu didn't have to be the boss and were willing to work well with others I believe the LCs today would not have the sordid history that they have and neither would they be Witness Lee focused (or in the GLA Titus Chu focused.) I think the situation would be much healthier and balanced. Just my opinion.

I agree. There have been so many gifted members given to the LCs by the Lord. This is scriptural per Ephesians 4. However, all these gifts were "thrown out" because they didn't follow a man (either WL or TC). What a tragedy! I grew up in the GLA. As a young person, I tremendously enjoyed the speaking and ministry from various brothers, such as John Myers, Chuck Debelak, Craig Riesen, Rick Acosta, and even Titus Chiu. Unfortunately Titus Chiu's ministry had to dominate everyone else's ministry. He always seem to be at the top of the chain. Why couldn't he be just a brother with a ministry. Why did he have to be THE BROTHER with THE MINISTRY? Just like his mentor WL. Sad situation indeed.

[Peter Debelak]

(

BTW how much do you think Titus' clinging to Witness Lee, ground of locality, certain music styles, etc. is to pander to a certain constituency within the LCs in the GLA who are supportive of him? I.e. would he be less LCish if his most supportive constituency was as well?

growing up in Cleveland in 80s and early 90s, our YP meetings were almost entirely Bible-only. In junior/senior year, Craig Riesen was the serving one and we had an intense Bible study that pointedly did not use footnotes. I presume this was Titus influenced, tho Craig was pretty independent.

This was also around the time that Titus dubbed the Summer School Of Death because it had been too "doctrine" focused. I recall in one of these summer schools the very talented Esther Chung wrote a
Song that almost made fun of the "high peak" language (like, "what's that all mean anyhow - where did Christ as life go?").

Anyhow, just some recollections...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

growing up in Cleveland in 80s and early 90s, our YP meetings were almost entirely Bible-only. In junior/senior year, Craig Riesen was the serving one and we had an intense Bible study that pointedly did not use footnotes. I presume this was Titus influenced, tho Craig was pretty independent.

This was also around the time that Titus dubbed the Summer School Of Death because it had been too "doctrine" focused.

Just another couple examples of what tipped the scales and opened the door for me to leave. Why is it that dear brothers like Craig, whose heart was focused on the Lord and His people, found it impossible to stay? Why is it that the tough, abrasive ones like Titus, who place the program and "the work" first, never seem to leave?

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

growing up in Cleveland in 80s and early 90s, our YP meetings were almost entirely Bible-only. In junior/senior year, Craig Riesen was the serving one and we had an intense Bible study that pointedly did not use footnotes. I presume this was Titus influenced, tho Craig was pretty independent.

This was also around the time that Titus dubbed the Summer School Of Death because it had been too "doctrine" focused. I recall in one of these summer schools the very talented Esther Chung wrote a
Song that almost made fun of the "high peak" language (like, "what's that all mean anyhow - where did Christ as life go?").

Anyhow, just some recollections...

IMHO by the time kids are in HS they don't need to hear more about their "parent's religion". So I think high school ministry should be a minimum of doctrine and even general bible teaching and instead should focus on addressing practical issues from a biblical perspective: human sexuality, relationships, life skills, career choices, etc. Plus music with the genres they are accustomed to and many outings and activities e.g. trips, sports, etc. And social justice (which in my observation is a concern among young people today) i.e. actively helping the poor, disadvantaged.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

IMHO by the time kids are in HS they don't need to hear more about their "parent's religion". So I think high school ministry should be a minimum of doctrine and even general bible teaching and instead should focus on addressing practical issues from a biblical perspective: human sexuality, relationships, life skills, career choices, etc. Plus music with the genres they are accustomed to and many outings and activities e.g. trips, sports, etc. And social justice (which in my observation is a concern among young people today) i.e. actively helping the poor, disadvantaged.

According to my best recollection, TC was critical of every brother who ever served with the young people, no matter how fruitful or effective they were, that is until his son-in-law starting working with them.

I mentioned this story before. Three brothers I knew from three cities were coordinating for summer activities (derisively tagged by Titus as the "Summer School of Slaughter.") They prayed together and felt fervently that they had to ask Titus to stop with his criticisms. The young people themselves were mocking the summer camp, and the morale was low. Titus said in response, "you want me to stop, then I will do it 10x more!"

How does one serve under a leader such as that? None of these three brothers still meets or serves. When one considers how many gifted brothers have come and gone over the years, John Myer's hypothetical exhortation from his final chapter should have long ago been implemented --

... accountability is a key factor here. What would happen if a number of influential elders set a policy for leaders: “You will not be given free pass for rude, abrasive remarks and public shaming. Insults from the podium will no longer be treated as the Lord’s Word from an angry prophet. Instead, it will be seen as sinful human weakness and will be met with censure. Outbursts of anger are works of the flesh. It is simply childish to insist on something and then make snide remarks (especially from the pulpit!) when you don’t get your way. If you continue to act out in unchristian ways, regardless of your elevated status and past history, you will be asked to step down.” -- A Future and a Hope, Chap 15, page 28

Step down indeed! And how many brothers would have remained! And what a different scenery might we see today!

[OBW]

Going back to Peter's opening post in this thread, I note that Lee seemed so concerned with "firstborn" v "only begotten" and needed to reconcile these (or use it to make some point not really found anywhere). This seems so trivial to me. While it might be technically true that an "only" cannot truly be a "first," we actually say things like this all the time.

We have the "first annual" whatever. Yes, there is a presumption of repetitions in the future. But at the time there is only the one.

I am now a grandfather. My grandson, now only a little over 6 weeks old, has been referred to as our "first" grandson many times. Yet, at this point, he is the only grandson, therefore no one against which a ranking can be made. But the acknowledgment of "first grandson" is not considered weird or meaningless because there is not a second.

I think that this is just exactly the kind of problem with so much of Lee's (and the LRC's) lexicon. It is treated as being special in and of itself. The actual truth that is the same no matter how it is described is not really in question. Instead, the way you say it becomes important.

"Two notes of the chord, that's our fluoroscope.
But to reach the chord is our life's hope.
And to name the chord is important to some.
So they give a word, and the word is [fill in the blank]."

The final word in this particular poem is irrelevant. The point is that this mantra is repeated over and over in the LRC concerning one peculiar word after another. I must refer to the Spirit as the "all-inclusive sevenfold intensified Spirit" or I have become degraded.

Hogwash.

That's decidedly NOT a heavenly language.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How does one serve under a leader such as that? None of these three brothers still meets or serves. When one considers how many gifted brothers have come and gone over the years, John Myer's hypothetical exhortation from his final chapter should have long ago been implemented

I completely agree. Both Witness Lee and Titus Chu did this in public meetings - they put down and shamed elders and coworkers thus undermining them to the local flocks where they served. Essentially what this allowed them to do is erode respect and move loyalty away from those at the point-of-service to themselves and their ministries as the center. (Not to mention the men being derided had their wives and children sitting there listening to abuse being heaped upon their husbands and fathers.)

As John suggests a clear policy and practice to counter this kind of behavior should have been put in place. It would have curbed a lot of abusive and disrespectful behavior and created a more healthy atmosphere in which to work together.

Of course I doubt Witness Lee or Titus Chu would accept such "rules of conduct" because it is contrary to their personalities and their need for control. Witness Lee did not consider that he had any equals and now neither does Titus Chu. He has had 40ish years in the GLA to cultivate and develop a team of peers to counterbalance him and each other but he has not done so. Like Witness Lee his "model" for the work is Paul as "the boss" and all his coworkers (Timothy, Titus etc.) taking their directions from Paul and doing whatever he says to do. And it just so happens that their interpretation of how Paul operated exactly matches their personalities. They like this "model" but not the fact that along with Paul was Apollos, John, Peter, etc. all within the context of "the work". In the LC system there is no room for the expanded version of "the work" as actually found in the NT.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

I completely agree. Both Witness Lee and Titus Chu did this in public meetings - they put down and shamed elders and coworkers thus undermining them to the local flocks where they served. Essentially what this allowed them to do is erode respect and move loyalty away from those at the point-of-service to themselves and their ministries as the center. (Not to mention the men being derided had their wives and children sitting there listening to abuse being heaped upon their husbands and fathers.)

As John suggests a clear policy and practice to counter this kind of behavior should have been put in place. It would have curbed a lot of abusive and disrespectful behavior and created a more healthy atmosphere in which to work together.

Of course I doubt Witness Lee or Titus Chu would accept such "rules of conduct" because it is contrary to their personalities and their need for control. Witness Lee did not consider that he had any equals and now neither does Titus Chu. He has had 40ish years in the GLA to cultivate and develop a team of peers to counterbalance him and each other but he has not done so. Like Witness Lee his "model" for the work is Paul as "the boss" and all his coworkers (Timothy, Titus etc.) taking their directions from Paul and doing whatever he says to do. And it just so happens that their interpretation of how Paul operated exactly matches their personalities. They like this "model" but not the fact that along with Paul was Apollos, John, Peter, etc. all within the context of "the work". In the LC system there is no room for the expanded version of "the work" as actually found in the NT.

Even though I disagree with the BB and their behavior on many fronts, I have to commend them on this point. At least they are able to work with each other as co-workers. TC and WL both had no equals. Very dangerous for an organization. And sickening to me.