"Heavenly Language"

[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.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Yet I personally think the notion of "person" when it comes to the Trinity is too "nice and tidy" - not capturing all of what the Bible has to say about the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit.

Actually I don't believe the term person, or persons is addressing the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit, it is only a very biblical way of describing the self-existence (self existing identity) of each of the three of the Godhead. I think the term Trinity could be thought of as addressing the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit, and I believe this to be a biblical term as well. “The Triune God” could also be thought of addressing the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit. I believe the term “The Triune God” is biblical as well, but Witness Lee sulleyed it greatly by adding on, and coming up with “The processed Triune God”. (probably an argument for another day)

The earliest church fathers, scholars and teachers did not arrive at the use of the term “person” lightly. There was much contentious debate among them. We know from biblical accounts, as well as from outside witness, that there were many false teachers and apostle wannabes polluting the churches with all manner of “destructive heresies”(2 Peter 2:1) Most of these heresies involved the nature of the Trinity, as well as the person and work of Jesus Christ. Many of the early councils addressed these heresies, and ended up producing a number of creeds, which in turn ended up becoming a major element in the “Statement of Faith” in much of what we know today as orthodox Christianity. I believe that the term person or persons is used in many (most) of these creeds, and the reason is that they were combating many of the early heresies, some of which denied the "personhood" of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit or both.

On the one hand, Witness Lee lays out a compelling argument that the traditional "language" about the Trinity is inadequate.

I don’t think the traditional language about the Trinity is inadequate in the least, and even if it was, Witness Lee was hardly qualified to single handedly change and/or add on to this traditional language. Of course this simple fact didn’t stop him, nor has it stopped his followers from trying to pass his unorthodox teachings off as “heavenly language”.

Thus, he attempted - from a well-intentioned place - to try to capture the more nuanced Biblical record. There may still be room for disagreement, but this impulse to use extra-biblical language specifically in an effort to more closely capture what the Bible says, is notable.

The problem is that when numerous other Christians (including Dr. Walter Martin, the original bible answer man) pointed out the flaws and weaknesses in Lee’s extra-biblical language, instead of challenging his critics to come and reason together, he took out full-page newspaper ads claiming they were tritheists and heretics. There was simply no disagreeing with Lee and his followers, or even "agreeing to disagree". Everyone was to swallow his every word wholesale, or be considered as evil opposers. This mindset is still very much alive in the Local Church to this day, and until this mindset goes away the LC will remain nothing but a tiny and uninfluential fringe group.

There is something amiss when a Word-based faith finds a separate pride in its own language which are "proxies" for what the Word itself says.

Very well said! As I noted before, many Local Churchers, and certainly most of the leadership, treat Witness Lee’s teachings as a proxy for the Word of God. In some cases, they even elevate Lee’s words to a position above the Word of God. This is a very serious error with very serious consequences. Unfortunately we are seeing the consequences born out in real time right before our eyes in the words and actions of many of the blended brothers. Their consciences are so compromised that they cannot tell the truth from fiction. This is what happens after decades of imbibing in the words of a man at the expence of the Word of God.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Truth

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.

I'm not sure the BB are really able to work together as co-workers as it would normally be understood. They are essentially cheerleaders and repeaters of Witness Lee's ministry. Their organizing principle is their interpretation of Witness Lee and his ministry. It is relatively easy to work together within such a context. They are basically just representatives of LSM.

IMHO a team of coworkers who work well together may have different ministries based on their giftedness, books published, events, etc. When making decisions they are able to challenge and balance one another, etc.

For example, let's suppose Titus Chu didn't have to be the "boss" and let's say Phil Comfort, Chuck Debelak, John Myer and Keith Miller were on the same team as Titus working in the GLA. Titus is a good teacher and strategist. Phil Comfort is a scholar and teacher. Chuck Debelak is a good counselor and pastor esp with young people. John Myer is an evangelist and pastor. Keith Miller is a missionary. (I'm probably missing many of their gifts.) Titus might write a few books. Phil is also an author so he writes some too. John might hold an evangelistic event while at the same time Chuck is doing a weekend HS retreat. Meanwhile Keith is starting another church in Uganda. And John then starts writing a book too. There is a diversity of ministries and various activities going on at the same time. And Titus doesn't get to decide and dictate what everyone is doing and neither do they need "his blessing" to do anything. He is just another member on the team of equal standing with the others. And if while meeting together to discuss their work he has done something or suggests something the others disagree with they say so - they counter it openly. There's a mutual respect and admiration between the members but there is also a healthy tension with checks and balances i.e. it's not one man running the show while the rest are subordinate to him. This to me is what working together looks like in application.

[Truth]

I understand what you are saying. But even as cheerleaders, they still have to work together. They still have to decide who gets to speak in the 7-feasts, who is responsible for which regions, who gets to edit WL's material, etc... So far it looks like they have been able to move forward without ripping each other apart. At least outwardly, they don't look like they are in competition with each other. It isn't easy considering that there are at least 50 of them. So I have to give them credit for that.