My Testimony: Olvin

[Mephibosheth2]

I wonder if anyone remembers an issue of the Christian Research Institute journal with the headline "We Were Wrong" emblazoned across its December 2009 issue? In it there was an apology extended to the LC system for criticizing the teachings of Witness Lee without proper deployment of the essential principles of genuine apologetics. Previously, the very same publication had held up the same LC teachings to scathing attack and ridicule.

So, my question is, if now there is no or little tension between the LC and more conventional evangelical thought, is it wise, then, does it make any rational sense, to throw away everything that Witness Lee wrote and taught? That notwithstanding, there are some problems with a few of the pivotal teachings (pivotal for the LC) like the 'one church, one city', and 'calling' and 'the Jerusalem principle', and 'the deputy authority', etc, but isn't the majority of what came out of his ministry of any merit whatsoever? Is it not a classic case of 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' when you burn all his literature and dismiss him as a buffoon? Is it not possible that the Lord who 'works all things together' may have used our sojourn in the LC to bring about radical shifts in our thinking and approach to the Scriptures. I for one can attest that I was released from the first floor, and went on to the second floor, and even on to the third floor, though I saw that the fourth through to the eightieth floor were just a fiction and a staircase that led, instead, down to the basement. But I remain convinced that there have to be other more solid edifices out there and I am looking for them.

And is it truly wise to disregard as nonsense even his most basic insights into the 'inner life'? How can one possibly hope to understand -much less apply- the full ramifications of 'denying oneself' in complete isolation of some of the most basic underpinnings of the teaching on the inner life as I have witnessed on this thread and elsewhere? Is Witness Lee's teaching on the 'organic union' with Christ really totally rubbish? Does nobody here have this experience? Can no balance be struck? Doesn't such an attitude open one up to a return to 'dead works' and 'salvation by works' knowingly or unknowingly?

Somebody posted on this thread how it is impossible to accurately discern and dissect WL's writings and detect his cultural bias, or separate his high-flown personal and political opinions from sound biblical exegesis. I vehemently disagree. That has not been my experience. Quite the opposite.

...

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

Somebody posted on this thread how it is impossible to accurately discern and dissect WL's writings and detect his cultural bias, or separate his high-flown personal and political opinions from sound biblical exegesis. I vehemently disagree. That has not been my experience. Quite the opposite.

...

Hi Mephi,

Please clarify. What, exactly, do you disagree with? I want to be sure I understand before I put by foo... I mean, before I speak.

[Mephibosheth2]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hi Mephi,

Please clarify. What, exactly, do you disagree with? I want to be sure I understand before I put by foo... I mean, before I speak.

I disagree with the assertion (I can't remember who stated it) that when it comes to Lee's ministry, it is well nigh impossible to separate, generally speaking, the chaff from the wheat. I contend that it is possible. It all comes down to the kind of glasses you're wearing to use to read him. These glasses are now available. They were not available even ten years ago. The sanitized version of Witness Lee -and indeed, Watchman Nee- has now dissipated into the air. We now see WL as he truly is...or was...warts and all...and it is this knowledge that those who are astute enough to do so can use to unmask him and unravel his so-called high teachings.

We can use that information to properly discern his writings in much the same way a university professor would, say for example, study the US Constitution. Let's take the second amendment as a case in point. It is generally accepted that it is the inalienable right of all Americans to bear arms (provided they are not barred from doing so as provided by law, as in the case of mental incapacity, for example, or in the case of a criminal record). As such millions upon millions of Americans have taken full advantage of this provision in the constitution in order to arm themselves, sometimes just adequately enough to protect themselves and their families; but sometimes needlessly and to the teeth. There are some who cannot see the logic in letting assault weapons of the most frightful and lethal capabilities be bought and sold on every street corner like so many bags of potatos. The result has been clear for all to see. Sandy Hook and Columbine come to mind, not to mention the violent drug and gang cultures in the inner cities. Now, isn't it folly to think that the second amendment has not played at least a minor role in this? And that, some would say, is an understatement.

Then there are those to whom the second amendment makes perfect sense. It is logical. If I am threatened in my own home by a gun-toting thief, then surely I must have recourse to an equal and opposite means of defending myself. They argue. There are of course, other reasons, put forward in defense of gun ownership. These gun owners would appeal to the founding fathers as the enduring founts of wisdom who guaranteed them their right. And they would be correct. The 'founding fathers' did indeed establish it, and they did indeed guarantee it. And as such -and now I'm just beginning to make my point, Igzy- the second amendment has assumed proportions similar to those of the Scriptures, usurping them even. In effect, the second amendment, owing to a powerful gun lobby, is now almost absolute, unchallengeable, and indisputable.

But what happens when we whip out our 'glasses'? How does the second amendment fare when we adjust the tint of our lenses to allow for the glare? Let us read the second amendment as framed by the founding fathers and find out:

"a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [upon]"

I am reasonably confident that I don't need to teach you history, Igzy, but it is clear and evident that at the time that this document was worded, the founding fathers could not have imagined or envisioned the United States as it is today. The backdrop, as you must know, is the one of the war of independence against Britain which ended in 1776. Small bands of colonial settlers (farmers, blacksmiths, merchants, etc) organized into 'militias' and 'bearing arms' against his awful majesty, the king, were mainly to be given the credit for prevailing successfully against the formidable British Empire. They were applauded for this. It was only natural that a recognition of the pivotal role that the militias played in the fight for independence should be reflected in the constitution in order to safeguard the new state against future tyranny. To the minds of George Washington, et al, any possible future conflict would look very much like what they had just passed through. And who can blame them? But to us living in the present day, any idea of organizing into bands of armed militia to say, for example, defy and rise up against President Obama because of his 'tyrannical healthcare policies' and his 'wicked liberal views' appears simply ludicrous! In view, therefore, of the strict context in which the second amendment was conceived and penned down, one would have to unhappily conclude, that applied today, it is superfluous and unnecessary (Disclaimer: this may not be my own view, but it is certainly the view of many who stand opposed to the questionable right to bear arms).

That all said and done, my concern is not with guns and assault rifles, as you may have guessed. It is with Witness Lee and his ministry. We now have a context, -that has taken shape as never before- through which we can divine most of what motivated and drove him to write some of his teachings. There also seems to be now, possibly facilitated by the internet, a more frank and free discussion of who the man really was. This can serve to greatly inform anybody seeking to fathom his views. A quick look at Chinese culture, for example, especially as it stood in the first half of the 20th century -his formative years- not as it is today, can serve adequately to explain his dislike of confrontation, or his constant harping on about 'opinions', or even his unwillingness to deal with PL. We sometimes like to tear this man apart, but forget that after all he was Chinese. He was not an American. But this is all relatively common wisdom now. However, the principle I have outlined above can be used and applied universally, and especially in regard to taking apart his writings and spewing out the bones. I have noticed lately, when I'm perusing through his footnotes, how frequently -astonishingly so- he qualifies some interpretation of his of Scripture by phrases like 'this could mean' or 'this may signify' or 'surely this is'...etc...really..check it out. This had entirely escaped my notice before.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

I wonder if anyone remembers an issue of the Christian Research Institute journal with the headline "We Were Wrong" emblazoned across its December 2009 issue?

By the way Mephi & Dave, we covered the CRI issue back when all the LCers were proudly buying up all the copies of it. Can we say filthy lucre.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

By the way Mephi & Dave, we covered the CRI issue back when all the LCers were proudly buying up all the copies of it. Can we say filthy lucre.

In can recall being in home meetings during this time where the local elder would comment how Hank would tour China with several blended brothers or the CRI issues We Were Wrong would be prominently displayed on the living room coffee tables.
Come to think of it, would be timely for LSM/DCP to come up with their own publication "We Were Wrong".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

I disagree with the assertion (I can't remember who stated it) that when it comes to Lee's ministry ... Let's take the second amendment as a case in point ...

After the rant about guns, I'm not sure where I stand with Witness Lee.

Reminds me of a blog by one professor Tomes.

And another comes to mind.

[Mephibosheth2]

Originally Posted by Ohio

After the rant about guns, I'm not sure where I stand with Witness Lee.

Rant?...rant?...you do me an unkindness, good sir...recant...recant...

Rant = 'an angry outburst'; 'a rage'; 'an emotionally-fueled tirade'

..nothing could be further from the truth in saying that I was 'ranting'...

But admittedly, I do accept that my post was a little too long in the tooth, but when I start banging away on my keyboard...well...anyway, I desired to offer a vivid illustration of the crucial importance of considering 'context' when deciphering historical documents, or for that matter, expositions of scripture, whether those expositions be penned by Paul, Josephus, Luther, Wesley, Darby, or, indeed, Nee and Lee. And I did mention that my concern was not with 'guns', except by way of example, for I could have chosen any number of issues to serve to state my case e.g. Wade vs Roe, or the Jim Crow laws, or the history of universal adult suffrage, or...snap!..while we're at, why not Obamacare...et cetera, et cetera...

I find I am forced to repeat myself...please recall...that I wrote:

"That all said and done, my concern is not with guns and assault rifles, as you may have guessed. It is with Witness Lee and his ministry. We now have a context, -that has taken shape as never before- through which we can divine most of what motivated and drove him to write some of his teachings. There also seems to be now, possibly facilitated by the internet, a more frank and free discussion of who the man really was. This can serve to greatly inform anybody seeking to fathom his views"...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

Rant?...rant?...you do me an unkindness, good sir...recant...recant...

Rant = 'an angry outburst'; 'a rage'; 'an emotionally-fueled tirade'

..nothing could be further from the truth in saying that I was 'ranting'...

But admittedly, I do accept that my post was a little too long in the tooth, but when I start banging away on my keyboard...well...

Sorry ... So sorry ... I recant about your rant.

Your long tooth must have struck a nerve in my neck. ... I get a little antsy when people start taking away my right to own guns ... Even though I don't own any.

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

The sanitized version of Witness Lee -and indeed, Watchman Nee- has now dissipated into the air. We now see WL as he truly is...or was...warts and all...and it is this knowledge that those who are astute enough to do so can use to unmask him and unravel his so-called high teachings.

Why, o, why did Witness Lee always clear his throat with the mic on?

Originally Posted by Friedel

Why, o, why did Witness Lee always clear his throat with the mic on?

It is well known that 'clearing the throat' was a common and powerful intimidation tactic used widely during the Cultural Revolution. It was favored as an effective tool in prizing the truth from suspected Kuomintang sympathizers and other enemies of the state by Chinese Communist Party interrogators. It was usually employed just before particularly cruel and rigorous examinations of prisoners. Nee, believed to have been a major-general in Chang-kai-chek's army, must have been subjected to endless sessions of relentless 'throat-clearing' after his arrest and during his interrogations; and hence his famous admissions of guilt during his trial. Witness Lee's later widespread use of this method of 'clearing the throat' was deliberate and calculated, and served to completely subjugate the impressionable minds of those in the LC at the time...as history can firmly attest.



...and if you have believed everything I've just told you then that means when I cleared my throat earlier it must have had some kind of effect on you...

[aron]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

We now have a context, -that has taken shape as never before- through which we can divine most of what motivated and drove him to write some of his teachings. There also seems to be now, possibly facilitated by the internet, a more frank and free discussion of who the man really was. This can serve to greatly inform anybody seeking to fathom his views. A quick look at Chinese culture, for example, especially as it stood in the first half of the 20th century -his formative years- not as it is today, can serve adequately to explain his dislike of confrontation, or his constant harping on about 'opinions', or even his unwillingness to deal with PL. We sometimes like to tear this man apart, but forget that after all he was Chinese. He was not an American. But this is all relatively common wisdom now.

Agreed. The context of the original needs to be considered; what might it have meant to the writers, and readers, versus what we might want it to mean today? Don't asssume that the two are so closely aligned as you wish they were.

Case in point: Ecclesia. It seems to escape the "one church per city" folks that the word 'ecclesia' didn't originally mean 'church'. It was extant long before the gospels were spoken, and later written down. It was in the LXX OT, i.e. "in the ecclesia I [Jesus] will sing praises to You [the Father]". What did it mean, before the word 'church' came in to existence? Nee didn't seem to consider this much, perhaps because he had a theme to push and this analysis wouldn't help his cause. What if 'ecclesia' meant something like 'gathering', or 'assembly'? Then you could perforce have multiple meetings in one urban area. Why, wherever two or three were gathered, Christ promised to be there!

But, this wasn't helpful to break free of the Western yoke. Nee was operating in a cultural milieu just a few years removed from the Boxer Rebellion, remember. So the post-Protestant, Bretheren-influenced "church" notion drove the Little Flock to segregate itself. Naturally this was attractive, and was supposedly "blessed" by God in China in the 1920s and 30s; and later Taiwan in the 1950s. But it cannot be overstated that this 20th century meaning might have been quite different from what it meant in the first century CE. We ignored this possibility, to our peril. We got stuck in our current meanings, and were left to wonder why our current experience seemed so different from the scriptures, no matter how much the LSM cheerleaders tried to get us to look away from the obvious.

For a second example, look at the derivation of Lee's teachings, and the ideas he came up with and pushed from the dias. Again, notice how his interpretive focus would nicely align with whatever "move" in the churches he was trying to foster, or suppress. So when the saints were eagerly singing Psalm music that came from the dreaded "denominations" he began to strongly and repeatedly deride the singing of Psalms, saying that they were mostly "low" and "natural" and full of "fallen concepts". Instead, he recommended singing Ephesians and Philippians; you know, the so-called "heart of the divine revelation". No mention that in Ephesians, as elsewhere (i.e. Colossians) Paul had written to the saints to sing the Psalms! (Nor was this idea of a "low" or "natural" OT text alonside a supposedly "revelatory" one ever mentioned in NT exegeses). So you had a teaching that was arguably derived to meet a "current need" in the U.S. "Lord's Recovery" churches in the early 1970s, but to do this, the original word was stripped of all textual and/or comparative understanding. The word now meant whatever we wanted and needed it to mean at that moment. Which is understandable; we all do this. The problem was that it was sold to us as something entirely different. And therein lies the problem.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

I wonder if anyone remembers an issue of the Christian Research Institute journal with the headline "We Were Wrong" emblazoned across its December 2009 issue?

I remember that article but the CRI was wrong in the beginning and they were wrong then. I don't give much credence to their writings and neither did the LC if you recall, until the CRI changed their minds.

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

...

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

does it make any rational sense, to throw away everything that Witness Lee wrote and taught?

There was a book written in 1972, "The Ecclesiology of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee" by James Mo-Oi Cheung which provides a considerable amount of information of the history of the Little Flock under Nee and the transition to Lee. Certainly we would all disagree with some of the things written but what was clear...Witness Lee and company were heretical in transition...what I mean by that is they would propagate certain doctrines which were not scriptural and then change them as they were exposed. There were also a considerable number of problems with his teachings before he even stepped on US soil.

Cheung writes, "As Watchman Nee has become the symbol of unity in earlier days, Witness Lee has become the symbol of controversy and disunity." (p. 153) The Rev. Elisha Wu wrote, "The Little Flock Engages in the Struggle to Correct Heresy". Chan Tse Shin wrote, "An Open Letter to the Saints of the Assembly in Hong Kong....in the past decade Witness Lee and those who follow him have deviated substantially from the true light we saw and the spiritual path on which we walked....Their teachings have ...now become...heresies. They not only embrace these heretical ideas themselves but also effectively persuade the saints everywhere to accept them." (p. 156) There was a long list of "alleged" heresies of WL compared to what Nee taught as the true light in separate columns.

I have an old paper which was circulated, 1977, titled "The Response of Witness Lee & Local Churches To a Recent Meeting Held at Melodyland"
The articles included are as follows with the authors:
1. The Truth Concerning Witness Lee by Max Rapoport
2. The Truth Concerning the Local Church Not Being a Cult by John Rapp (Student at Melodyland School of Theology)
3. The Truth Concerning the Church by John Ingalls
4. The Truth Concerning Denominations by John H. Smith
5. The Truth Concerning the Historic Christian Church by Gene Ford
6. The Truth Concerning the Trinity by Bill Freeman
7. The Truth Concerning the Mingling by Bill Freeman
8. The Truth Concerning the Nature of Man by Ron Kangas
9. The Truth Concerning God Coming into Man by Ron Kangas
10. The Truth Concerning God Manifest in the Flesh by John Ingalls
11. The Truth Concerning the Study of the Bible by Bill Duane (Dallas Theological Seminary)
12. The Truth Concerning Pray-reading by David Matteson (Dallas Theological Seminary)
13. The Truth Concerning the Release of the Spirit by James A. Barber

Eugene C. Gruhler wrote an Introduction stating, "The teaching and person of Witness Lee were attacked and misrepresented..."

Francis Ball wrote the Conclusion ending with the statement, "Where today can one find a life and ministry so fruitful as this?

Guess what, many of these individuals were expunged from the LC and the problem with the doctrine of the Trinity and Mingling were nothing new among other issues.

This is just my opinion but I always thought that Angus Kinnear's translated books were far better of Nee than the ones translated from Hong Kong. It was WN NCL that got me hooked. I wonder if we didn't have Kinnear how the books would have looked and appealed to us or impacted the US.

My point in all of this is that you need to test whatever you have learned because WL and his cohorts have been like chameleons throughout the years and have changed their doctrines to meet rising criticism. Part of the problem for them is a result of WL's wide use of allegory to interpret scripture. "Spiritual" allegorism gives you the "feeling" that you have special "inner" knowledge that other Christians don't have and a feeling of being deeper and more spiritual than others. As far as I am concerned over time (not at once because I don't know if any of us could take it) dump all of it because I really don't know how you separate it out even though you said, "how it is impossible to accurately discern and dissect WL's writings..That has not been my experience. Quite the opposite. ". Blessed are the meek. Okay you are a better person than I. Peace be with you.. Just my opinion bro. pray about it!

[Mephibosheth2]

Originally Posted by Dave

There was a book written in 1972, "The Ecclesiology of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee" by James Mo-Oi Cheung which provides a considerable amount of information of the history of the Little Flock under Nee and the transition to Lee. Certainly we would all disagree with some of the things written but what was clear...Witness Lee and company were heretical in transition...what I mean by that is they would propagate certain doctrines which were not scriptural and then change them as they were exposed. There were also a considerable number of problems with his teachings before he even stepped on US soil.

Cheung writes, "As Watchman Nee has become the symbol of unity in earlier days, Witness Lee has become the symbol of controversy and disunity." (p. 153) The Rev. Elisha Wu wrote, "The Little Flock Engages in the Struggle to Correct Heresy". Chan Tse Shin wrote, "An Open Letter to the Saints of the Assembly in Hong Kong....in the past decade Witness Lee and those who follow him have deviated substantially from the true light we saw and the spiritual path on which we walked....Their teachings have ...now become...heresies. They not only embrace these heretical ideas themselves but also effectively persuade the saints everywhere to accept them." (p. 156) There was a long list of "alleged" heresies of WL compared to what Nee taught as the true light in separate columns.

This is the first time I've heard of a Chinese brother coming out openly and criticizing either Witness Lee or Watchman Nee, and that in 1972! Of course, there is the notable exception of Dr. Lily Hsu. I was of the view that the Chinese considered it bad form to point fingers at elders and notable people, and such. How can I get my hands on this book? What a good ole surprise...

...yes, and I will pray about it...I doubt that I am better than you, though, bro...I'm Mephibosheth, don't you know?...

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

This is the first time I've heard of a Chinese brother coming out openly and criticizing either Witness Lee or Watchman Nee, and that in 1972! Of course, there is the notable exception of Dr. Lily Hsu. I was of the view that the Chinese considered it bad form to point fingers at elders and notable people, and such. How can I get my hands on this book? What a good ole surprise...

...yes, and I will pray about it...I doubt that I am better than you, though, bro...I'm Mephibosheth, don't you know?...

This is a link to it online but it doesn't include the appendix which extends it from 153 pages to 175 pages. http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=Ak-NGQAACAAJ As you can see the Christian Literature Crusade published it but not sure why. It talks extensively about the practices which were going on then when they were in China and Taiwan and the differences between Nee and Lee after he was sent to Taiwan. I can't remember how I obtained the appendix which is a separate copy but whoever gave me the appendix wrote all kinds of sarcastic statements against it in pencil. Maybe that is why the Chinese brothers were reluctant to say anything out of fear of being rebuffed or worse.

I like your name...it's impressive. Honestly, you have nothing to fear from my name. If you can't attain a copy of the book and you want it maybe we can work something out. Take care bro.

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Dave

There was a book written in 1972, "The Ecclesiology of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee" by James Mo-Oi Cheung which provides a considerable amount of information of the history of the Little Flock under Nee and the transition to Lee. Certainly we would all disagree with some of the things written but what was clear...Witness Lee and company were heretical in transition...what I mean by that is they would propagate certain doctrines which were not scriptural and then change them as they were exposed. There were also a considerable number of problems with his teachings before he even stepped on US soil.

Cheung writes, "As Watchman Nee has become the symbol of unity in earlier days, Witness Lee has become the symbol of controversy and disunity." (p. 153) The Rev. Elisha Wu wrote, "The Little Flock Engages in the Struggle to Correct Heresy". Chan Tse Shin wrote, "An Open Letter to the Saints of the Assembly in Hong Kong....in the past decade Witness Lee and those who follow him have deviated substantially from the true light we saw and the spiritual path on which we walked....Their teachings have ...now become...heresies. They not only embrace these heretical ideas themselves but also effectively persuade the saints everywhere to accept them." (p. 156) There was a long list of "alleged" heresies of WL compared to what Nee taught as the true light in separate columns.

I thought you might find this interesting:

1973 - Christian Literature Crusade

Alleged inaccuracies in The Ecclesiology of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee by James Mo-Oi Cheung resulted in threats of legal action against Christian Literature Crusade by the Local Church. The book alleged that Witness Lee, among other things, taught heresy. Christian Literature Crusade recalled the book, apologized to Witness Lee, and agreed not to publish a revised edition.3 Interviews with the author and the publisher disclosed that the retraction was issued in the face of threatened legal action by Local Church officials and was not based solely upon the contents of the book. Their retraction, included as an appendix in the book, Understanding Watchman Nee by Dana Roberts (Logos), read as follows:

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Following publication of the book THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF WATCHMAN NEE AND WITNESS LEE by James Mo-Oi Cheung, we received personal visits and letters from associates of Witness Lee who asserted that he does not hold or teach some of the views that were attributed to him in the book. Accordingly, C.L.C. [Christian Literature Crusade] as publisher has taken the following actions:

1) Eight days after the book was first offered for sale, we removed the appendix in toto and rebound the remaining stock because of material in the appendix that we could not substantiate in light of the new information. 2) In mid-February we stopped all further sale of the book when it was brought to our attention that material which we could not substantiate was present in the body of the book as well. 3) We wrote a letter of apology to Mr. Witness Lee regarding imputations of heresy, etc., that the book contained. 4) We suspended publication of a revised and corrected edition of the book. 5) We issued a recall, for full credit, of all copies of the book sold. 6) We agreed that C.L.C. would not publish a revised edition of the book.

We feel that we owe all parties interested in this publication a fuller explanation of the reasons for the actions detailed above. The following statement is intended to be the vehicle by which the author and publisher acknowledge that items in the areas mentioned below should not, for lack of supporting evidence, have appeared in the book. At the same time we do not mean to suggest that all believers would agree to all the teachings of Witness Lee and his associates. Assertions by associates of Witness Lee that the book misrepresents him with respect to doctrine fall in these general areas:

1) Imputations of heresy to Witness Lee specifically in reference to his views on the blood of Jesus and the person and nature of Jesus Christ. 2) The claim that in matters of doctrine Witness Lee differs substantially from the views of Watchman Nee (differences are evidently much narrower than suggested by the book). 3) The inference that Witness Lee resorts to deliberate "twisting of Scripture" or "misuse of the Word." 4) The allegation that Witness Lee holds to a strict "baptismal regeneration" view of baptism.
In addition, the authorship of the book THE GLORIOUS CHURCH was incorrectly attributed to Witness Lee, whereas the author was in fact Watchman Nee. We want it to be known that it is not our policy to disseminate material concerning any person or persons that is known to be inaccurate. We sincerely regret feelings of offense created by the publication of this book, as well as any inconvenience caused by it subsequent recall and termination.

Sincerely in Christ, CHRISTIAN LITERATURE CRUSADE
A. Donald Fredlund Publications Secretary
James Mo-Oi Cheung Author
April 19, 1973

Source: Cult Awareness and Information Library. It is quite a treasure trove. This is page 2 of 15. Read it all.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Friedel

I thought you might find this interesting:

1973 - Christian Literature Crusade

Alleged inaccuracies in The Ecclesiology of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee by James Mo-Oi Cheung resulted in threats of legal action against Christian Literature Crusade by the Local Church..... Interviews with the author and the publisher disclosed that the retraction was issued in the face of threatened legal action by Local Church officials and was not based solely upon the contents of the book. Their retraction, included as an appendix in the book, Understanding Watchman Nee by Dana Roberts (Logos), ...:

Please note that the "retraction was NOT based solely upon the contents of the book" and as I noted, "Certainly we would all disagree with some of the things written" and there are some exaggerations, at least, from my perspective. Common sense would need to be used in reading any thing of this nature. However, because of the nature of the LC in threatening legal action every time someone writes something against them I'll refrain from sharing any more from the book. Anyway, it has some remarkable history that I couldn't find anywhere else about Nee, his family, churches in China etc.

I'm sure the CLC nor Cheung wanted to spend time in court over the book which was based on letters and documents from China and, thus, probably difficult to clarify especially back in 1973. The book is well footnoted with a bibliography and includes the quotes from various leaders from China and Taiwan who probably did not want to get into the middle of any legal action.

Note that Dana Roberts was involved in the Appendix and has written a couple of books which are on Amazon, "Secrets of Watchman Nee (A Spirit-Filled Classic)" and "Understanding Watchman Nee". He was also involved in the writing of Lily Hsu's book about Nee which is where I first heard of him. I don't know much about him but he has been attacked at not even being a Christian etc. by the followers of Nee. Maybe he has been discussed elsewhere on the forum.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

Maybe he [Dana Roberts] has been discussed elsewhere on the forum.

Yes, on the "My Unforgettable Memories: Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church - Dr. Hsu" thread.
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ead.php?t=3489

But UntoHim put a damper on discussing Dana .. for unknown reasons ... since the thread is on Lily's book and he's one of the credited authors.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

But UntoHim put a damper on discussing Dana .. for unknown reasons ... since the thread is on Lily's book and he's one of the credited authors.

Nah, I clearly gave the reasons and you know it Harold. The thread was about the testimony of Dr. Hsu - She is the author of the book, not Dana Roberts. Some people on the thread were using Roberts as a way to divert attention away from the main theme of the thread. It's that simple.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Nah, I clearly gave the reasons and you know it Harold. The thread was about the testimony of Dr. Hsu - She is the author of the book, not Dana Roberts. Some people on the thread were using Roberts as a way to divert attention away from the main theme of the thread. It's that simple.

Yes, it got crazy on that thread, thanks to Andrew Kelly. Thanks for not giving into Kelly ... still, Dana is on the cover of the book.

[Cal]

Mephi (I can call you Mephi, can't I?),

That a highly cognizant and experienced Christian like yourself can separate the wheat from the chaff in Witness Lee's teaching is not the only issue.

Another question is what about that Christian who finds one of Lee's titles like "The Mystery of Human Life" (one of Olvin's favs no doubt) or some other grandiose thing on Amazon.com and says to herself, "Oooh, he's going to tell me what life is all about!" So she orders it and reads it, and while Lee is telling her the mystery of her life he also injects "Oh, by the way, you need to join one of my churches and major in my ministry and submit yourself to the 'unique leadership' and reject 'Christianity' and burn your past or you won't be an overcomer and blah, blah, blah."

What about those people? Do they have the discernment? Thousands and thousands of people sidetracked by the LC say "no."

I'm not saying never read Lee. I'm saying you need to be careful when doing so. Reading Lee is like jumping off a cliff in a wingsuit. Lots of thrills but lots of risks.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Dave

My point in all of this is that you need to test whatever you have learned because WL and his cohorts have been like chameleons throughout the years and have changed their doctrines to meet rising criticism. Part of the problem for them is a result of WL's wide use of allegory to interpret scripture. "Spiritual" allegorism gives you the "feeling" that you have special "inner" knowledge that other Christians don't have and a feeling of being deeper and more spiritual than others.

Dave, let me give an example of the type of thing (I think) you're talking about. I grew up believing that gophers are a biblical metaphor for ambition. I believed this because Witness Lee taught it.

I just looked up "gopher" in the concordance at biblegateway.com. There is only one mention of the word "gopher" in the Bible. And it's not even about gophers. It's Genesis 6:14, where God commands Noah to make an ark of "gopher wood." Got the same result for several translations (including KJV, ASV, Darby, etc.). A few versions don't contain any mention of the word "gopher" at all (NIV, for instance, translates the verse as "cypress word," with a footnote on "cypress" indicating that the meaning of the Hebrew word is unclear.)

If I'm wrong, or if I'm missing something, someone please correct me. Because as far as I can tell, the teaching concerning "the gopher of ambition," that I learned from the ministry of Witness Lee, is not based on the Bible. Because gophers aren't in the Bible.

Should I be surprised? Does this even matter?

[Friedel]

Spell check

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Dave, let me give an example of the type of thing (I think) you're talking about. I grew up believing that gophers are a biblical metaphor for ambition. I believed this because Witness Lee taught it.

If I'm wrong, or if I'm missing something, someone please correct me. Because as far as I can tell, the teaching concerning "the gopher of ambition," that I learned from the ministry of Witness Lee, is not based on the Bible. Because gophers aren't in the Bible.

At times Witness Lee did have a mischievous sense of humor. Speaking of "gophers" (small burrowing rodents with pouches on the outside of their cheeks; also small sand tortoises) referred to some unseen destruction to your spiritual life caused by harboring something or some thought you might have considered innocent. He was speaking figuratively of these little fellas.

He also liked saying someone is "more holy than (Sister) Theresa". He was just being facetious.

None of this was doctrine, just a figure of speech. At least, I did not perceive it to be doctrinal teaching but just a lighthearted way of driving home a point … warning against ambition that could hurt others, not to think more highly of yourself than of others, etc. …

[Dave]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

If I'm wrong, or if I'm missing something, someone please correct me. Because as far as I can tell, the teaching concerning "the gopher of ambition," that I learned from the ministry of Witness Lee, is not based on the Bible. Because gophers aren't in the Bible.

Should I be surprised? Does this even matter?

The gopher illustration is rather humorous. I have no idea where WL obtained that phrase or illustration either. It is the hidden meaning in the Bible of words, phrases or stories that WL utilized to explain the Bible.

Originally Posted by Friedel

At times Witness Lee did have a mischievous sense of humor. He also liked saying someone is "more holy than (Sister) Theresa". He was just being facetious.

None of this was doctrine. At least, I did not perceive it to be doctrinal teaching but just a lighthearted way of driving home a point … warning against ambition that could hurt others, not to think more highly of yourself than of others, etc. …

It wasn’t necessarily about doctrine. Pray-reading wasn’t doctrine. Repeating over and over Oh Lord Jesus wasn’t doctrine. This was just eating, drinking and breathing Jesus (Allegorical/Spiritual). Was the concept of the “local church” ground doctrine? This is not a foundational doctrine but you might say that the ground of the city is doctrine and literal whereas I could say it is allegory and spiritual and would include all of the Christians in that city. Lee states, “Day by day he [the Christian] eats and drinks Christ. Christ is gradually digested by him and mingled with him so that he and Christ become one. (WL, The All-Inclusive Spirit of Christ p. 189) Doctrinal or Spiritual (Allegorical)? The Priesthood? Doctrinal or Spiritual (allegorical) The Tabernacle? Doctrinal or Spiritual (Allegorical).

Lee states, “…Matthew 28:19 says that we are to baptize people in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit. There are three persons, but only one name. It is not in the names of the Father, the Son and the Spirit but in the name. The father in the home, the professor in the university, and the doctor in the hospital are also three persons with one name.” (WL The Practical Expression of the Church, p.7) This illustration of the father, professor and the doctor to illustrate the Trinity is called “modalism” and it is what WL got into trouble with at one point but he denied it. Anyway, this is allegory and in this case it is doctrine, foundational Christian doctrine which is being upended.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Dave

The gopher illustration is rather humorous. I have no idea where WL obtained that phrase or illustration either. It is the hidden meaning in the Bible of words, phrases or stories that WL utilized to explain the Bible..

There is nothing wrong with using our own personal homilies to illustrate spiritual principles we see in the Bible. Preachers and pastors do it on Sunday morning from the pulpit: they use their own "parables" to illustrate themes and narratives found within the text.

But Lee's homilies became substitutes for scriptures, and common sense. Our thinking was reduced to WWBLS? What would Brother Lee say? If he talked about gophers, so did we.

Originally Posted by Dave

The It wasn’t necessarily about doctrine. Pray-reading wasn’t doctrine. Repeating over and over Oh Lord Jesus wasn’t doctrine. This was just eating, drinking and breathing Jesus (Allegorical/Spiritual).

Again, nothing wrong with that, per se. Is there a problem with praying? With declaring the name of Jesus? No. "Eating by reading, drinking by prayer" was in a song I remember. Nothing wrong with reading the Bible or praying.

But in the Local Churches Lee's homilies became our sole channel of reality, with no substitutes accepted. So if the apostle Paul recommended, twice, "eating and drinking by singing the Psalms", and Lee wasn't interested, then neither were we. Lee's homilies supervened the Bible itself. So eating, drinking, breathing Jesus became what Lee told us it was, no more or less. Lee's folk homilies replaced the Bible.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

There is nothing wrong with using our own personal homilies to illustrate spiritual principles we see in the Bible. Preachers and pastors do it on Sunday morning from the pulpit: they use their own "parables" to illustrate themes and narratives found within the text.

But Lee's homilies became substitutes for scriptures, and common sense. Our thinking was reduced to WWBLS? What would Brother Lee say? If he talked about gophers, so did we.



Again, nothing wrong with that, per se. Is there a problem with praying? With declaring the name of Jesus? No. "Eating by reading, drinking by prayer" was in a song I remember. Nothing wrong with reading the Bible or praying.

But in the Local Churches Lee's homilies became our sole channel of reality, with no substitutes accepted. So if the apostle Paul recommended, twice, "eating and drinking by singing the Psalms", and Lee wasn't interested, then neither were we. Lee's homilies supervened the Bible itself. So eating, drinking, breathing Jesus became what Lee told us it was, no more or less. Lee's folk homilies replaced the Bible.

And not only our sole channel of reality, it often replaced reality. (Sounds like and Adam Savage line from Mythbusters).

Pray-reading, while ostensibly spiritual and even scriptural, was a practice that too often divorced the words from their context. I so often gripe about the common practice (not even just in the LRC) of reading the Bible as a collection of disconnected fortune cookies arranged in such a way that there is a cover story that really doesn't mean anything. Instead, the meaning is in the context-less fortune cookies. Add pray-reading (the LRC version as described in that little booklet) to the mix and even the words of the verse get disconnected. They cease to be even the context-less sentence that is the fortune cookie. Now the whole thing is a blank. It is wrapped in emotional "spirituality" but has lost its solid meaning. Now the suggestion that it means something other than what the actual construct of words means can be made. And it is so divorced from the context that anything beyond the little fortune cookie will never be considered.

It is almost as if we had the words so thoroughly disjointed that we could put then into a boiling pot, and out would come something new and amazing. Like a golden calf.

I have no problem with praying over and with scripture. But "I. Oh, Lord. I am. oh Lord Jesus. I. Amen. I. I. Amen Amen, Oh Lord Jesus . . ." is too easily a variant on sitting in a yoga position humming "om." Your mind becomes disconnected from rational thoughts. Not always. But it becomes more about our experience of emotions than a meaningful prayer with the scripture as the base.

I know that it is difficult to think that anything can be said negatively about including the words "Lord Jesus" in something. But I honestly think that those can become no more meaningful words than the excited declaration "Jesus Christ" when some heathen gets startled or their toe stepped on. And in this particular case, it too easily becomes part of Lee's system of error. Use truth and a kind of prayer to disconnect the follower from their discernment. Anything that works.

And someone will complain that they have had such wonderful times with God through pray-reading. And I did not say that pray-reading was simply wrong or not Christian. I said that it is easily an emotional distraction from the truth and potentially a way to manipulate the mind by disconnecting more than verses from context, but the words of verses from each other.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by aron

There is nothing wrong with using our own personal homilies to illustrate spiritual principles we see in the Bible. Preachers and pastors do it on Sunday morning from the pulpit: they use their own "parables" to illustrate themes and narratives found within the text.

But Lee's homilies became substitutes for scriptures, and common sense. Our thinking was reduced to WWBLS? What would Brother Lee say? If he talked about gophers, so did we.

Again, nothing wrong with that, per se. Is there a problem with praying? With declaring the name of Jesus? No. "Eating by reading, drinking by prayer" was in a song I remember. Nothing wrong with reading the Bible or praying.

But in the Local Churches Lee's homilies became our sole channel of reality, with no substitutes accepted. So if the apostle Paul recommended, twice, "eating and drinking by singing the Psalms", and Lee wasn't interested, then neither were we. Lee's homilies supervened the Bible itself. So eating, drinking, breathing Jesus became what Lee told us it was, no more or less. Lee's folk homilies replaced the Bible.

You took what I said a step further for additional clarification. Good job!

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Dave

The gopher illustration is rather humorous. I have no idea where WL obtained that phrase or illustration either. It is the hidden meaning in the Bible of words, phrases or stories that WL utilized to explain the Bible.

It wasn’t necessarily about doctrine. Pray-reading wasn’t doctrine. Repeating over and over Oh Lord Jesus wasn’t doctrine. This was just eating, drinking and breathing Jesus (Allegorical/Spiritual). Was the concept of the “local church” ground doctrine? This is not a foundational doctrine but you might say that the ground of the city is doctrine and literal whereas I could say it is allegory and spiritual and would include all of the Christians in that city. Lee states, “Day by day he [the Christian] eats and drinks Christ. Christ is gradually digested by him and mingled with him so that he and Christ become one. (WL, The All-Inclusive Spirit of Christ p. 189) Doctrinal or Spiritual (Allegorical)? The Priesthood? Doctrinal or Spiritual (allegorical) The Tabernacle? Doctrinal or Spiritual (Allegorical).

Perhaps it's all doctrine, and none of it's doctrine, all at the same time.

As a junior high school kid, I heard that Witness Lee was the Minister of the Age. I heard that kind of a lot. And I read Life-Study messages in which Witness Lee allegorized the minute details of which parts of which animals were considered "clean" and "unclean" in the Old Testament, and the measurements of this type of wood, and that type of gold, in the tabernacle, et cetera, et cetera, with all the minutiae endowed with a particular, spiritual significance...

So then I learned about the gopher of ambition, and next thing you know, there's yet another "Biblical type" in my head. Er, I mean, my spirit. Yeah, in my spirit. That's right. (Remember the doctrine of concentric circles? Wait, what? I'm getting dizzy... )

But then, I think I know where Witness Lee got the gopher metaphor. I think he was on a plane. Watching Caddyshack. Without the audio. Because he didn't want to buy the headphones.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Perhaps it's all doctrine, and none of it's doctrine, all at the same time.

As a junior high school kid, I heard that Witness Lee was the Minister of the Age. I heard that kind of a lot. And I read Life-Study messages in which Witness Lee allegorized the minute details of which parts of which animals were considered "clean" and "unclean" in the Old Testament, and the measurements of this type of wood, and that type of gold, in the tabernacle, et cetera, et cetera, with all the minutiae endowed with a particular, spiritual significance...

So then I learned about the gopher of ambition, and next thing you know, there's yet another "Biblical type" in my head. Er, I mean, my spirit. Yeah, in my spirit. That's right. (Remember the doctrine of concentric circles? Wait, what? I'm getting dizzy... )

But then, I think I know where Witness Lee got the gopher metaphor. I think he was on a plane. Watching Caddyshack. Without the audio. Because he didn't want to buy the headphones.

You might be right about Caddyshack. I just don't know how he came up with the fact that the gopher was ambitious in that movie but without headphones he could have reached any conclusion.

3 circles. I drew that for many people and either brought them into the church or to Jesus esp in Santa Cruz. The details of the tabernacle...when I left the LC I started going to an AOG church and after a few months the pastor asked me if I would teach adult Sunday School. I said yes and went home and built a tabernacle in the wilderness out of felt and balsam wood. I used it to teach the adult sunday school class and it seemingly went quite well but in the end I couldn't go on simply because it didn't connect. I was talking allegorically trying to spiritualize it based on what we had learned from WL and other authors (F.W. Grant) to make it relevant and I am sure they may have been impressed but I didn't think it was connecting. I left. In a practical way I don't think in the environment of the LC it didn't connect either.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I grew up believing that gophers are a biblical metaphor for ambition. I believed this because Witness Lee taught it.

If I'm wrong, or if I'm missing something, someone please correct me. Because as far as I can tell, the teaching concerning "the gopher of ambition," that I learned from the ministry of Witness Lee, is not based on the Bible. Because gophers aren't in the Bible.

Should I be surprised? Does this even matter?

It does matter! Not whether metaphors are employed or gophers or used to make a point. Every minister has the liberty to do this.

But why did Lee do this. Was there some subtlety hidden from us? Was it all just wise advice from an elderly minister? Or was Lee actually "priming us" for the time when his little gopher story would be really needed to deflect the bright light from his own unrighteous doings. Lee was seasoned and well equipped to handle the storms created by his own undoing.

Thus Lee used ambition as one of the "seven deadly sins" in the recovery. Any brother who speaks his conscience, standing up for righteousness, and is anointed by God as a prophet to the Recovery, could be easily branded as "ambitious" by Lee and his cronies. Every brother was thus labeled "ambitious" before he was to be quarantined. How convenient!

How very expedient for Lee to judge a brother's heart for ambition! How could the brother defend himself? How could he say, "I never did that, I never said that," when he was being accused of some obscure "rottenness" in his heart. How could a brother prove what was in or not in his heart? But now the whole Recovery is looking at him with suspicious judging eyes -- "Brother so-n-so is ambitious! We could never have seen it, but Brother Lee can 'see things we cannot.'" Thus Lee was now our "god," since only he could know what's in man's heart and pronounce judgment.

To be a normal man, or a normal brother, is to be ambitious. Should we all be un-opinionated, robotic, couch potatoes, I mean "yellow-chair-potatoes." Obviously Lee excelled in ambition. So only he was entitled to such a virtue? Paul praised those who were ambitious to please the Lord, or to have oversight in the church of God. But Lee used this gopher to "shoot the messengers." Attack the accuser so that he is silenced, and the "light shining in a dark place" is now extinguished.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It does matter! Not whether metaphors are employed or gophers or used to make a point. Every minister has the liberty to do this.

But why did Lee do this. Was there some subtlety hidden from us? Was it all just wise advice from an elderly minister? Or was Lee actually "priming us" for the time when his little gopher story would be really needed to deflect the bright light from his own unrighteous doings. Lee was seasoned and well equipped to handle the storms created by his own undoing.

Thus Lee used ambition as one of the "seven deadly sins" in the recovery. Any brother who speaks his conscience, standing up for righteousness, and is anointed by God as a prophet to the Recovery, could be easily branded as "ambitious" by Lee and his cronies. Every brother was thus labeled "ambitious" before he was to be quarantined. How convenient!

How very expedient for Lee to judge a brother's heart for ambition! How could the brother defend himself? How could he say, "I never did that, I never said that," when he was being accused of some obscure "rottenness" in his heart. How could a brother prove what was in or not in his heart? But now the whole Recovery is looking at him with suspicious judging eyes -- "Brother so-n-so is ambitious! We could never have seen it, but Brother Lee can 'see things we cannot.'" Thus Lee was now our "god," since only he could know what's in man's heart and pronounce judgment.

To be a normal man, or a normal brother, is to be ambitious. Should we all be un-opinionated, robotic, couch potatoes, I mean "yellow-chair-potatoes." Obviously Lee excelled in ambition. So only he was entitled to such a virtue? Paul praised those who were ambitious to please the Lord, or to have oversight in the church of God. But Lee used this gopher to "shoot the messengers." Attack the accuser so that he is silenced, and the "light shining in a dark place" is now extinguished.

This word AMBITION is used to imply a brother is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Within the LC culture it's used as a wildcard whenever a whistleblower is to be silenced. Just use the word "ambitious" and it's expected to mean this brother or sister is seeking a following.
Within the context of society, nearly everyone has ambition for marriage and a family life.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

Just use the word "ambitious" and it's expected to mean this brother or sister is seeking a following.

And that's what Mel Porter opened with, on the infamous, to me anyway, day Mel told me I had to take his personality as my own.

He said: "There are 2 churches here in Ft. Lauderdale. I'm the leader of one and you're the leader of the other."

That blew my mind right at the start. All I could say was, "I'm not leading anyone." But Mel insisted that I was. I had to be ambitious. That's why I had to go. Cuz as Mel told me, from that point on if "I even needed to blow my nose I had to ask him which side first." That's how ambition is dealt with in the LRC; make everyone kowtow.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

And that's what Mel Porter opened with, on the infamous, to me anyway, day Mel told me I had to take his personality as my own.

He said: "There are 2 churches here in Ft. Lauderdale. I'm the leader of one and you're the leader of the other."

That blew my mind right at the start. All I could say was, "I'm not leading anyone." But Mel insisted that I was. I had to be ambitious. That's why I had to go. Cuz as Mel told me, from that point on if "I even needed to blow my nose I had to ask him which side first." That's how ambition is dealt with in the LRC; make everyone kowtow.

This experience of awareness strikes me as any disagreement with an elder/worker equates to ambition. The only way to go on is bite your tongue from express any opinion different from brothers maximum.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

This word AMBITION is used to imply a brother is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Within the LC culture it's used as a wildcard whenever a whistleblower is to be silenced. Just use the word "ambitious" and it's expected to mean this brother or sister is seeking a following.
Within the context of society, nearly everyone has ambition for marriage and a family life.

In Acts 20.28-30, the Apostle Paul laid out two supremely imminent dangers to the church -- the first was "fierce wolves in sheep's clothing," and the second was "men among yourselves rising up, speaking perverted things, and drawing the disciples after themselves."

When the saints hear Lee speaking of ambitious ones, they think "wolves in sheep's clothing," but even more insidious was what Lee did, "rising up, speaking perverted things, and drawing the disciples after themselves." This is exactly what happened to the Recovery way back in the 60's. What was a move of the Spirit of God, Lee took credit for, thus elevating himself as the "source of all blessing," and drew men to himself.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It does matter! Not whether metaphors are employed or gophers or used to make a point. Every minister has the liberty to do this.

But why did Lee do this. Was there some subtlety hidden from us? Was it all just wise advice from an elderly minister? Or was Lee actually "priming us" for the time when his little gopher story would be really needed to deflect the bright light from his own unrighteous doings. Lee was seasoned and well equipped to handle the storms created by his own undoing.

Thus Lee used ambition as one of the "seven deadly sins" in the recovery. Any brother who speaks his conscience, standing up for righteousness, and is anointed by God as a prophet to the Recovery, could be easily branded as "ambitious" by Lee and his cronies. Every brother was thus labeled "ambitious" before he was to be quarantined. How convenient!

How very expedient for Lee to judge a brother's heart for ambition! How could the brother defend himself? How could he say, "I never did that, I never said that," when he was being accused of some obscure "rottenness" in his heart. How could a brother prove what was in or not in his heart? But now the whole Recovery is looking at him with suspicious judging eyes -- "Brother so-n-so is ambitious! We could never have seen it, but Brother Lee can 'see things we cannot.'" Thus Lee was now our "god," since only he could know what's in man's heart and pronounce judgment.

To be a normal man, or a normal brother, is to be ambitious. Should we all be un-opinionated, robotic, couch potatoes, I mean "yellow-chair-potatoes." Obviously Lee excelled in ambition. So only he was entitled to such a virtue? Paul praised those who were ambitious to please the Lord, or to have oversight in the church of God. But Lee used this gopher to "shoot the messengers." Attack the accuser so that he is silenced, and the "light shining in a dark place" is now extinguished.

I always considered WL's metaphors to be very peculiar. Not because he didn't have the right to create his own metaphors, but how they are used. Gophers are synonymous with ambition. Why? No one knows. (A metaphor that is overused to the point where it makes me cringe is that of the "oyster" in regards to his teaching on transformation. )

Here is the thing: once WL spoke something, people were destined to repeat it. I guess he got us all thinking that we have the "gopher" of ambition in us. It sounds unsettling, and I think it keeps everyone from taking initiative.

These metaphors do stick and I think that helps everyone associate subjects in the Bible with his teachings.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I always considered WL's metaphors to be very peculiar. Not because he didn't have the right to create his own metaphors, but how they are used. Gophers are synonymous with ambition. Why? No one knows. (A metaphor that is overused to the point where it makes me cringe is that of the "oyster" in regards to his teaching on transformation. )

Here is the thing: once WL spoke something, people were destined to repeat it. I guess he got us all thinking that we have the "gopher" of ambition in us. It sounds unsettling, and I think it keeps everyone from taking initiative.

These metaphors do stick and I think that helps everyone associate subjects in the Bible with his teachings.

I seem to remember he had gophers tunneling in his yard, which were nearly impossible to get rid of.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I seem to remember he had gophers tunneling in his yard, which were nearly impossible to get rid of.

Ditto.....

[awareness]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Dave, let me give an example of the type of thing (I think) you're talking about. I grew up believing that gophers are a biblical metaphor for ambition. I believed this because Witness Lee taught it.

I just looked up "gopher" in the concordance at biblegateway.com. There is only one mention of the word "gopher" in the Bible. And it's not even about gophers. It's Genesis 6:14, where God commands Noah to make an ark of "gopher wood." Got the same result for several translations (including KJV, ASV, Darby, etc.). A few versions don't contain any mention of the word "gopher" at all (NIV, for instance, translates the verse as "cypress word," with a footnote on "cypress" indicating that the meaning of the Hebrew word is unclear.)

If I'm wrong, or if I'm missing something, someone please correct me. Because as far as I can tell, the teaching concerning "the gopher of ambition," that I learned from the ministry of Witness Lee, is not based on the Bible. Because gophers aren't in the Bible.

Should I be surprised? Does this even matter?

Methinks perchance you failed to look up gopher in the Urban Dictionary:

"n. A low-ranking employee who is made to do the bidding of their superiors. So-called because they are often running around doing various small tasks."

So Lee's speaking on the gopher was doublespeak ... cuz he really wanted all of us to be gophers.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Methinks perchance you failed to look up gopher in the Urban Dictionary:

So Lee's speaking on the gopher was doublespeak ... cuz he really wanted all of us to be gophers.

awareness, I see where you are going with this but exactly how does that tie into "ambition" if being a gopher (go for) means running around doing someone else's bidding. Wouldn't he be encouraging us to be gophers in your definition rather than using it as an example of "ambition" or something bad? Or are you suggesting that he wanted us to be ambitious? That's not the impression I received from rayliotta.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Methinks perchance you failed to look up gopher in the Urban Dictionary:

So Lee's speaking on the gopher was doublespeak ... cuz he really wanted all of us to be gophers.

I used to be a "gopher" in my Dad's construction business back in the late 60's.

It really meant "go-fer" this or "go-fer" that.

And when I moved too slowly, they would say to me, "Nickel holding up a Dollar."

Those were the days my friend ...