Time Frame in the LSM/LC

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey bro Ohio, will you please source Nee's book ... pretty please with a cherry on top.

And maybe both aren't holding the head.

If we hold the Head, we cannot have different interpretations of Scripture. Differences arise when someone is not holding the Head, because He cannot possibly say one thing to one member and something else to another.... (The Collected Works of Watchman Nee, vol. 44, pp. 812-813)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If we hold the Head, we cannot have different interpretations of Scripture. Differences arise when someone is not holding the Head, because He cannot possibly say one thing to one member and something else to another.... (The Collected Works of Watchman Nee, vol. 44, pp. 812-813)

Thanks. Found it:
http://www.concernedbrothers.com/Wor...rOnceAgain.pdf

Fired it off to Andrew Kelly ..

[awareness]

This "holding to the head" for the one and only true "inspired" interpretation of scripture, to me, smacks of arrogance. Was Nee speaking in the abstract, only? If so why? Why make the statement unless you want to give the impression that your (Nee's) interpretation comes from holding to the head, and all other interpretations, if they differ, must therefore come from not holding to the head.

And consider:
There are over 33,000 Christian sects. All with various and sundry interpretations of scripture.

So does only one of them get their interpretation of scripture from holding to the head, and the rest, all 32,999, get their interpretation of scripture wrong because they are not holding to the head?

How do we know who is holding to the head? In Nee's paradigm only one holds to the head. And everyone else, all other Christians, most other Christians, are not under the head. That's a lot of born again Christians that are headless of Christ. Can you see the arrogance? And the absurdity? Even Paul saw thru a glass darkly. It's not like holding to the head is a light switch, that turns on Jesus to reveal all true interpretation of scripture. If we are truly humble, and honest, we will admit that our interpretation of scripture could be wrong.

And I think we all know who Nee thought to be the one and only that was holding to the head, and who held the only true interpretation of scripture.

And there's no doubt when considering Witness Lee.

Where in the scripture is such a doctrine taught?

I was in the Church in Anaheim in the mid-seventies (74-76?). Initially, we met in a building on Ball Road. I cannot remember the years as well as well as I remember events. I joined the Church right after the Church in Anaheim was spun off of the Church in LA. During those years Ron Kangas, who I knew pretty well, John Ingalls and Max Rappaport were the functional leaders under Witness Lee. They were Lee's favorites. His son, who later became a subject of controversy, had no spiritual leadership role in the Church. I never heard Lee's son speak once during a Church meeting. Those were interesting years. Almost immediately after I left, Max Rappaport left which was a shock to everyone in the Church. Max was a fiery speaker, and Lee loved him. Then the great rupture when John Ingalls left. John had a great deal of prestige in the Church. He was #2 to Witness Lee and EVERYONE deferred to John as the one who stood in for Brother Lee. When he left the Church, it was a real shock. For me it was vindication, as Ingalls reasons for leaving were the same as mine, and nobody ever questioned John's integrity.

My last run-in with the Church was when a publisher contacted me asking me to defend him in a libel action that the Church had filed in Anaheim against the writer and the publisher of a book that accused the Local Church of being a cult, among other things. I declined that case as I had had enough of the Church in Anaheim or Living Stream Ministeries by then.

There were other characters: one individual who did the books for the Church and the tax returns for a number of elders was charged with securities fraud and spent three years in a federal penitentiary. I saw him on television recently on Jim Bakker's television show (actually nothing more than a two hour advertisement for the products that Bakker sells).

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I was in the Church in Anaheim in the mid-seventies (74-76?). Initially, we met in a building on Ball Road. I cannot remember the years as well as well as I remember events. I joined the Church right after the Church in Anaheim was spun off of the Church in LA. During those years Ron Kangas, who I knew pretty well, John Ingalls and Max Rappaport were the functional leaders under Witness Lee. They were Lee's favorites. His son, who later became a subject of controversy, had no spiritual leadership role in the Church. I never heard Lee's son speak once during a Church meeting. Those were interesting years.

Almost immediately after I left, Max Rappaport left which was a shock to everyone in the Church. Max was a fiery speaker, and Lee loved him. Then the great rupture when John Ingalls left. John had a great deal of prestige in the Church. He was #2 to Witness Lee and EVERYONE deferred to John as the one who stood in for Brother Lee. When he left the Church, it was a real shock. For me it was vindication, as Ingalls reasons for leaving were the same as mine, and nobody ever questioned John's integrity.

My parents moved our family to Anaheim January 1976 and were there until June 1979. Never knew Ron Kangas was in Anaheim during the mid-late 70's. I knew many families from the church in Anaheim and I was not familiar with the Kangas family. I never heard of Ron's name until the mid-90's. The leaders I was familiar with were Ingalls, Rappaport, Al Knoch, and Francis Ball.
As far as John's integrity, it was questioned after Witness Lee/LSM besmirched it. One could say this happened over twenty years ago, the current LSM leadership have yet to retract what was printed.