Where Has All the Orthopraxy Gone?

[rayliotta]

I'd like to pose a simple and straightforward question to this forum:

Why do we seem to spend so little time discussing Recovery practice?

It's my personal belief that it's Recovery practice, more than Recovery doctrine, that has caused so much harm to so many people (and families) over the years.

Many of us have acknowledged this here on this forum (and on the old Bereans forum). When CRI said, "We Were Wrong," we discussed here that the most harmful aspects of the Lord's Recovery movement have little to do w/the doctrinal points (modalism, etc.) that CRI was focused on.

John Myer, in his book, A Future and a Hope, refers to "odd myths [that] floated around the LC Movement," such as "that Witness Lee had a 'golden finger'" (chapter 15). There were a lot of things that were (are) repeated a lot by members, that wouldn't necessarily make it into print. I believe it may be these things "just below the surface," that have left many people in a confused and emotionally scarred state, either while still in the LRC, or (especially) after exiting the group.

So, a simple, friendly question: Why don't we talk more about that stuff here?

[rayliotta]

( P.S. As an aside, here's a link to John Myer's book, "A Future and a Hope: Church Life beyond the Local Church Movement" --

http://assemblylife.com )

[aron]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

we discussed here that the most harmful aspects of the Lord's Recovery movement have little to do w/the doctrinal points

Why don't we talk more about that stuff here?

I remember reading an essay called "Two turmoils". It had a quote from a Chinese brother to John Ingalls. He told him, "ln my conscience I know that you are right according to the truth, but according to my culture I must be loyal to Witness Lee."

At the end of the day, it's not what you say but what you do. But the problem with Lord's Recovery is that they have hundreds of published books but they don't like to talk about what they actually do. So all you have is their carefully arranged official statements. It is very hard for you to get them to be frank and honest about practices, like that brother was to John Ingalls. So instead you argue endlessly about meanings of words.

Look at all the trouble that was stirred up by Witness Lee when he said, "We need to contact the people who don't meet here anymore and find out what went wrong." So Steve Isitt contacted them and they didn't want to hear what actually was wrong. Better to focus on words and meanings of words. It is safer. So to get the Lord's Recovery to discuss orthopraxy is going to be very hard.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I'd like to pose a simple and straightforward question to this forum:

Why do we seem to spend so little time discussing Recovery practice?

It's my personal belief that it's Recovery practice, more than Recovery doctrine, that has caused so much harm to so many people (and families) over the years.

I would agree. But it is so difficult to generalize the practices. Listen/read the accounts from the people who are from different cities and regions and the kind of experiences and practices are all over the map.

That could be because the underlying issues that bring certain practices to the surface are not uniformly occurring everywhere. So it would take a rather large body of people who actually see all of the practices to dig through the causes (if they are aware of them) and build cases for some common body of practice. Ohio has some amount of understanding of the things that TC did in the GLA. And that probably had a discernible effect on the other leaders in the region, although not necessarily in a uniform way (other than being submissive to improper punishment).

Someone just suggested that the whole idea of sending people out to different cities all the time was a way to take the "local" out of the core of almost any church. While the idea of "missionaries" or a preacher in a church plant is quite acceptable, it is somewhat out of sync with any claim of a special, local church. Unlike Paul who kept one from afar while otherwise identifying and keeping locals as the elders, the LRC seems to thrive on external influence.

Of course, some will then determine that every denomination is deficient because they often have their upper leadership elsewhere and send in the top local leadership. And they would be right if there was either some clearly defined "how to" in the area rather than just examples that are inconsistent. But it seems that to be the forte of the LRC. Find an example, declare it to be a principle, ignore the inconsistent examples, and beat on everyone who does not follow their determination. So the only problem with having leaders from outside the immediate assembly is that it violates a "principle" that is not clearly a principle.

I've been warned about saying things about the past, but we started into this kind of inquiry before and when every city didn't look like the proposed grand error, there were accusations going both ways — overextending an example to the whole or dismissing the example because it was not observed somewhere else. It was rather ugly. And it was almost like the thread was cursed. It would lie fallow for a while and then someone would come along and add a new thought, and the black and white thinking would reemerge.

Does that mean we can't do it? It does not. But we have to be prepared to either limit the kinds of things we talk about so that there is commonality between most to all cities, or we have to be careful about over-applying the things we see in any one place.

And it is so hard to generalize off of observations. Is Mel Porter the way he is because of the LRC, or are his natural inclinations well-suited for being in leadership in such a group? Do the two aggravate each other?

Or maybe we limit the discussions to some of the more mundane practices. I don't think that any city just dreamed-up the groaning thing as a means of passively shutting up those who don't speak according to "the ministry." Yet can anyone find its origin?

The problem with so many of the practices is that they are not the cause, but the result. Orthopraxy came to be because of the variant in Orthodoxy. The question is whether we/they practice what we preach. It starts with a skewed Orthodoxy and plays out in a skewed and dysfunctional Orthopraxy. But fixing any particular aspect of Orthopraxy does not cure all. It is only the symptoms of the underlying Orthodoxy. If you have "true religion" then you have good Orthodoxy. Otherwise, you don't.

There was a reason that Lee didn't want us looking at James in a positive way. It exposed the crappy Orthopraxy as crappy Orthodoxy rather than the yen and yang of life (or the two sides of every truth).

The practices caused real damage for some. And the instances of that are damnable. But even when understood as excessively numerous "isolated" cases, it is the underlying theology/Orthodoxy that permits it.

Yet it may be re realization that the Orthopraxy stinks that will cause some to open their eyes to the underlying Orthodoxy.

So what do we benefit from wasting time talking about other errant religions, like the United Theocracy of America? Not much other than to see the propensity of some to see the Bible as a book of hidden secrets that needs an expensive decoder ring to decipher. That was Lee. And that is Cahn (and many others). And some of us need to be special. To be part of something unique. And look what it gets us.

Well, we are all unique, just like everyone else.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

And it is so hard to generalize off of observations. Is Mel Porter the way he is because of the LRC, or are his natural inclinations well-suited for being in leadership in such a group? Do the two aggravate each other?

The problem with so many of the practices is that they are not the cause, but the result. Orthopraxy came to be because of the variant in Orthodoxy. The question is whether we/they practice what we preach. It starts with a skewed Orthodoxy and plays out in a skewed and dysfunctional Orthopraxy.

A few observations:

MP to awareness: "You will take my personality as your own"

Blended Brother to Bill Mallon: "We do as we are told"

Philip Lin to John Ingalls: "In my conscience I know that you are right according to the truth, but according to my culture I must follow Witness Lee".

RK: "Can we ever honor our brother Witness Lee too much?"

TC: "We owe Witness Lee our lives".

Anonymous: "Witness Lee - even when he's wrong, he's right"

All of these are kind of off the record observations, and not codified in official statements; yet a set of observations does allow some tentative hypotheses. Mine was that Asian culture in the LRC, both in teaching and practice, was far more pervasive than we had been led to imagine.

The "orthodoxy" idea is even skewed by this. What principles do we focus on, as we scan the text(s)? Is every church being "absolutely identical" an orthodox idea, or rather a cultural gloss superimposed on the text? How much of the LSM oevre is really orthodox, and how much human (historical reactivism, cultural, and personal) interpretation? Somehow Lee's incessant, frantic search for conformity, and uniformity, doesn't seem like "freedom of the Spirit" to me. But maybe that is my rough-tough American cowboy individualism surfacing here.

On that note: I know that I called Cahn's speech "sanctimonious drivel" on another thread. But how much of my own writing is similar? Posing behind a shield of anonymity, blowing clouds of smoke? I really don't know. The tree of knowledge blinds us from "self". How much love, faith, obedience do I display? How much "bearing one another in love", versus "bitter sniping"?

I think if we want orthopraxy, ultimately we just have to live it. Then those who have been damaged in the LRC (and there are indeed many) might be encouraged to speak, to come forth, and to heal. And sometimes the getting healed involves rolling around in the dust and shouting. Look at the spectacle involved, in the gospel record, when Jesus cast out unclean spirits! We should not be afraid, here. Just be honest, patient, and forbearing with one another. That is true orthopraxy.

[awareness]

What means Witness Lee had a 'golden finger'? 007, licence to kill?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The "orthodoxy" idea is even skewed by this. What principles do we focus on, as we scan the text(s)? Is every church being "absolutely identical" an orthodox idea, or rather a cultural gloss superimposed on the text? How much of the LSM oevre is really orthodox, and how much human (historical reactivism, cultural, and personal) interpretation? Somehow Lee's incessant, frantic search for conformity, and uniformity, doesn't seem like "freedom of the Spirit" to me. But maybe that is my rough-tough American cowboy individualism surfacing here.

Late 1984, as Lee was finishing the NT Life-Study, he repeatedly stated that, "we have recovered life, we have recovered the truth, and we now must recover the proper way." It all sounded so good! And Lee was then off to Taipei to work in his "laboratory" to recover the proper way.

Each of these stages deteriorated the LC's. Each of these stages brought new deceptions and controls from Anaheim. Each of those stages supposedly addressed inherent "problems" in the recovery. The 1st stage of "life," (~'65 to '77) took a genuine move of the Spirit during the 60's, where Lee was one of many ministers, and set him up in glory as the sole reason for all of God's blessing.

The 2nd stage, (~'77 to '84) in the aftermath of the so-called "Max rebellion," turned our attention from the experience of Christ as our life and center to an obsession with "truth," which was actually all of Lee's systematic theology. Lee became the sole arbitrator of all Christian doctrine. No one, neither within nor without, had any say in the recovery concerning the ministry of the NT. Lee's teachings, trainings, and books alone would be available to all the LC's for their daily consumption. His publications gradually replaced the scriptures themselves in the hearts of the faithful.

The 3rd stage (~'85 to '90) elevated Lee and LSM to dominance. Whether it was Lee or his profligate son Phillip, LSM was given complete liberty to lord it over the churches of God. He wielded more power than the Pope. Local elders were told to like it or leave ... quietly as a "gentleman." Every LC was now forced to follow every wind and wave of teaching from Lee, whether or not they needed it, wanted it, liked it, or believed it was even from the Lord or His word.

I have always said that Lee's orthopraxy was actually more damaging to the LC's, but it had to be preceded by a takeover by Leeite orthodoxy. The latter was the groundwork for the former. Bad teachings set the stage for destructive practices.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Late 1984, as Lee was finishing the NT Life-Study, he repeatedly stated that, "we have recovered life, we have recovered the truth, and we now must recover the proper way." It all sounded so good! And Lee was then off to Taipei to work in his "laboratory" to recover the proper way.

Each of these stages deteriorated the LC's. Each of these stages brought new deceptions and controls from Anaheim. Each of those stages supposedly addressed inherent "problems" in the recovery. The 1st stage of "life," (~'65 to '77) took a genuine move of the Spirit during the 60's, where Lee was one of many ministers, and set him up in glory as the sole reason for all of God's blessing.

The 2nd stage, (~'77 to '84) in the aftermath of the so-called "Max rebellion," turned our attention from the experience of Christ as our life and center to an obsession with "truth," which was actually all of Lee's systematic theology. Lee became the sole arbitrator of all Christian doctrine. No one, neither within nor without, had any say in the recovery concerning the ministry of the NT. Lee's teachings, trainings, and books alone would be available to all the LC's for their daily consumption. His publications gradually replaced the scriptures themselves in the hearts of the faithful.

The 3rd stage (~'85 to '90) elevated Lee and LSM to dominance. Whether it was Lee or his profligate son Phillip, LSM was given complete liberty to lord it over the churches of God. He wielded more power than the Pope. Local elders were told to like it or leave ... quietly as a "gentleman." Every LC was now forced to follow every wind and wave of teaching from Lee, whether or not they needed it, wanted it, liked it, or believed it was even from the Lord or His word.

I have always said that Lee's orthopraxy was actually more damaging to the LC's, but it had to be preceded by a takeover by Leeite orthodoxy. The latter was the groundwork for the former. Bad teachings set the stage for destructive practices.

One thing that was not 'recovered'.... was God's LOVE.

Does it not say.... of these things the greatest IS LOVE?

1 Corinthians 13- chapter on Love

Also.... in looking back, knowing what I know now, The Spirit of God departed right around 1977...Without the Holy Spirit's Anointing and God's Love, the LC became the church in Ephesus of Revelation 2...and then some...

That said, while all this is true, let us remember to pray for them.

Love Ya'll knuckleheads....and I include myself..

Carol

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I'd like to pose a simple and straightforward question to this forum:

Why do we seem to spend so little time discussing Recovery practice?

It's my personal belief that it's Recovery practice, more than Recovery doctrine, that has caused so much harm to so many people (and families) over the years.

So, a simple, friendly question: Why don't we talk more about that stuff here?

It's discussion on recovery orthopraxy, that drives me to participate on the forum. General Christian doctrines or discussions on other ministries and ministers, I am usually not interested in participation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

It's discussion on recovery orthopraxy, that drives me to participate on the forum. General Christian doctrines or discussions on other ministries and ministers, I am usually not interested in participation.

In the last ten years I have visited lots of diverse churches, and let me say that none of them got all their orthodoxy "perfect."

But neither did any NT church in the first century. The question is whether all their practices are sourced in the love of God and man, or do they only serve to build up some man's short-lived empire on earth.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Love Ya'll knuckleheads....and I include myself..

I resent er, ah, resemble that remark.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

A few observations:

MP to awareness: "You will take my personality as your own"

Blended Brother to Bill Mallon: "We do as we are told"

Philip Lin to John Ingalls: "In my conscience I know that you are right according to the truth, but according to my culture I must follow Witness Lee".

RK: "Can we ever honor our brother Witness Lee too much?"

TC: "We owe Witness Lee our lives".

Anonymous: "Witness Lee - even when he's wrong, he's right"

All of these are kind of off the record observations, and not codified in official statements; yet a set of observations does allow some tentative hypotheses. Mine was that Asian culture in the LRC, both in teaching and practice, was far more pervasive than we had been led to imagine.

All good observations. And in most cases they expose the core of the upper echelons of the LRC hierarchy. But every aspect of that is not seen and practiced in the same way in all places.

I will say that one leading one in Dallas could have been much like MP. I saw some of it. I also saw and heard reports about his living. He was moral in the big sins, but he was a cheater. And a bully. He did work for people then had them pay him by contributing to him through the offering box. He would simply go-off on people on occasion. Berate them unmercifully and accuse them of all kinds of nonsense. I'm sure that some of it was to create effect and some of it was to cow someone into submission. I almost told him off one time. But bit my tongue.

But the real Orthopraxy is what the local members are doing. What is their practice and why? Even how is the local group "managed." That is too often as varied as the nature of the leaders and the people there. Do they even see the effects of the practices of the BBs and the full-timers? Often not. But the Christianity that they practice is the result of the teachings they receive. Their practical oneness and love for all believers (as well as unbelievers) is affected by the nature of the doctrines they hold. And if they hold doctrines that are critical of other Christians, then their practice with respect to interaction with those other Christians is likely damaged. And you can't expect their interactions with the unsaved to be better than that.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I'd like to pose a simple and straightforward question to this forum:
Why do we seem to spend so little time discussing Recovery practice?
It's my personal belief that it's Recovery practice, more than Recovery doctrine, that has caused so much harm to so many people (and families) over the years.
So, a simple, friendly question: Why don't we talk more about that stuff here?

Yeah, why don't we talk more about that stuff here?

I think some people have brought up the point that many of the practices stem from the teachings....so I think they may be more tied together than we might think. Anyway, thank's ray for bringing this up!

LET'S DISCUSS!

[Freedom]

I do agree that it would be good to discuss this more. I think that in many respects, the bad experiences I have had in the LC are due mostly to their practices.

The hindrance to this type of discussion is what was mentioned already, everyone has had different experiences, and different LC's emphasize different practices.

My observation from being in the LC my whole life is that there are a lot of unwritten rules and practices. If there were to be a hard copy list of practices someone in the LC had to follow, it would be easy for people on the outside to immediately see the issues with the LC.

When someone is brought to an LC meeting for the first time, no one tells them that to be a respected member, they will be encouraged to stop celebrating holidays, attend meetings most nights of the week, spend 2 weeks a year attending semi-annual trainings, and adopt other practices they may not be comfortable with. Stuff like this would normally be a red flag for people.

Now and then I have seen saints attempt to take issue with a certain rule or practice. All the sudden the official stance is that no such rule or practice exists. The elders will say it's some "concept" that person has about the LC. They then tell us how we need to drop all our "concepts".

The problem is that with regards to LC leadership, it is next to impossible to pin anyone down regarding LC practices. Because so much goes unspoken, they can take any stance they want to fit the situation and then change positions as the next situation comes up.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In the last ten years I have visited lots of diverse churches, and let me say that none of them got all their orthodoxy "perfect."

But neither did any NT church in the first century. The question is whether all their practices are sourced in the love of God and man, or do they only serve to build up some man's short-lived empire on earth.

If I get what you are saying Ohio. I will take a fellowship that is poor in ministry, but rich in Christ over one that is rich in ministry and poor in Christ.

Meaning some assemblies may not claim to know so much, but they love, give grace, apologize, and humble.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would agree. But it is so difficult to generalize the practices. Listen/read the accounts from the people who are from different cities and regions and the kind of experiences and practices are all over the map.

That could be because the underlying issues that bring certain practices to the surface are not uniformly occurring everywhere. So it would take a rather large body of people who actually see all of the practices to dig through the causes (if they are aware of them) and build cases for some common body of practice. Ohio has some amount of understanding of the things that TC did in the GLA. And that probably had a discernible effect on the other leaders in the region, although not necessarily in a uniform way (other than being submissive to improper punishment).

I agree, OBW. So we tend more toward general observations that are applicable on a more global scale.

But this thought occurs to me, for folks who are just coming out of the Recovery -- which can be a traumatic experience -- as well as for those still in the Recovery, but who are having doubts: And that is, that people may benefit by hearing that their specific experiences were being mirrored elsewhere. Hearing tales of the bullying and "public shaming" experienced by others, may help to put in perspective our own experiences of being bullied or manipulated. (It helped me, at least a little!)

But as you point out, some of the specific practices or sayings were localized, which makes the conversation more challenging.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by aron

Look at all the trouble that was stirred up by Witness Lee when he said, "We need to contact the people who don't meet here anymore and find out what went wrong." So Steve Isitt contacted them and they didn't want to hear what actually was wrong. Better to focus on words and meanings of words. It is safer. So to get the Lord's Recovery to discuss orthopraxy is going to be very hard.

Aron, do you have a reference for this quote? I'm not familiar with it. Of course we are not the Lord's Recovery, we are people who were affected by it, most of us quite deeply affected.

Perhaps by being more candid about the specific words that were said to us, and the specific styles of bullying or manipulating that were employed, we can help some people who may be struggling.

Awareness' story about Mel Porter* telling him, "If you want to blow your nose, you have to ask me which side first," helped me a lot several years ago. And part of what I appreciated was the detail that awareness chose to share. A lot of the mystique in the Recovery centers around the particular utterances that are constantly repeated (even the term "proper utterance" is a proper utterance, as Ron Kangas likes to share about). Some of these are repeated over and over in meetings and printed messages. But not all of these utterances make it to print.

*scroll down to post #164 at the link, from 08-16-10, 23:40, near the end.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

But this thought occurs to me, for folks who are just coming out of the Recovery -- which can be a traumatic experience -- as well as for those still in the Recovery, but who are having doubts: And that is, that people may benefit by hearing that their specific experiences were being mirrored elsewhere. Hearing tales of the bullying and "public shaming" experienced by others, may help to put in perspective our own experiences of being bullied or manipulated. (It helped me, at least a little!)

But as you point out, some of the specific practices or sayings were localized, which makes the conversation more challenging.

As long as we can accept each experience as being true without insisting on it being universally true, then we have a place to go with this.

Yes, as someone (you?) pointed out, there are some specific things that we see in the leadership, such as always defending the ministry and saying overly-broad and spiritual-sounding things to ring-fence our actual freedom to be only within the bounds that they are willing to tolerate. These leave a little room for differences. And those differences will be influenced by the nature of the individuals in each place. Not all leaders are megalomaniacs. Some are simply true believers who have real jobs and think that it is really all true. And with the lowered temper of leadership, there will likely be a lowered tendency to buck it, therefore less observation of the kind of shaming that was seen in other places.

In Dallas there was really only one such person in the years I was there. And there were little eruptions around him because he wielded his "spiritual authority" like a sword, whacking off heads and arms on occasion. Asking questions that put you in an uneasy position. Even, on occasion, seeming to be at odds with the "flow from the throne," but since that was always in flux, who really knew what the latest flow was. One time, shortly after Lee made a comment about the supplement songs that were written to modern tunes being somehow worldly (Don't remember the specific way it was put after nearly 40 years), I lightly marked through the obvious targets with a pencil. At one point, this guy saw my supplement and asked what those were for. But the question wasn't really to elicit an answer. The demeanor was a sort of shaming. It was irrelevant that his implication was that my minor action (which was consistent with the spirit of Lee's latest word) was wrong. He was making demeaning it. And it was from leadership. It lowered my thoughts concerning my own assessment of things.

Over time I got over it. Partly because he moved off to another city, then word came back that he was evicted from leadership over money issues, left, and eventually returned to Dallas to live in the house ne never sold. He later led a small home church of other LRC castaways. By that time I would never had considered being part of anything he was involved in.

I am aware that he did much more overt verbal assaults on others. One of which I have some personal knowledge, though I was not present when it happened.

I have discussed the little I know of it with a former elder who was present at the time and his comment was that both he and another elder were quite taken aback, but that since this one had moved to Dallas from Anaheim, there was hesitancy to speak against it at the time.

I had at least one other run-in with this guy. Remember the badges for the training? Did your locality have extreme rules about wearing them? Had to be on before you entered the property (including the parking lot). One year I was part of the ushering team for the video training and on occasion I had to go early and turn on the air (don't remember which time of year at the present). I was there probably 30 minutes before anyone else would even begin to arrive early. Went in and turned on the air. In the couple of minutes I was inside, this guy arrived. He saw that I had not yet put on my badge and tore into me. I almost tore into him (verbally). Probably should have. It might have saved me from more of the LRC nonsense. But I just took it. (Very un-me.)

[OBW]

I also have learned that some of the things we all thought were elder-initiated were actually things we presumed and acted on without thought. There was a lot of thought that everyone had to have elder's permission to date/marry. Seems that while they might provide advice if asked, they had much less to do with it than we thought. (At least in Dallas.) Doesn't mean there was no involvement. And probably different leading ones were different in approach. But the young couple that suddenly got married back in '73 was not ordered to either marry or quit even seeming to date. They did it on their own. And many years later it ended poorly. Not the elder's fault.

May have been the fault of the environment though. An environment in which almost everyone assumed that the edict of leadership was to marry or get far apart. That assumed that every marriage was vetted and passed on by the leaders or it didn't happen. So the natural thing to do was to go ask for permission to sneeze, and to ask which side of the nose to blow first. And to ask for permission to even talk to sister so-and-so and possibly take her to the Dairy Queen for a shake. And in some cases, I heard that if a brother asked a sister about going on any kind of sort-of date, she would ask if he had gotten an OK from the "brothers."

We were really trained well without a word being said. And possibly well beyond what they wanted responsibility for.

But no one ever said anything about it. And it continued. And probably even the elders were somewhat afraid to change things because anything reported negatively back to Anaheim was bad. Most of us had little idea about that then. But we know it now.

Some years back, someone from another place told of the percentage of failed marriages from a period just about 10 years after that. He was counting well over 50% if I recall correctly. Yet that was not seen uniformly everywhere.

So let's try to know the connection to the practices of the LRC rather than just the errors of individuals. Even in the latter, there is probably some "help" from the LRC practices, although not so direct.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Remember the badges for the training? Did your locality have extreme rules about wearing them? ... I was there probably 30 minutes before anyone else would even begin to arrive early. Went in and turned on the air. In the couple of minutes I was inside, this guy arrived. He saw that I had not yet put on my badge and tore into me. I almost tore into him (verbally).

This is what happens to church people who LOVE THE LAW.

This is what happens because loving the law causes us to lose our first love for God, and our second love for our brothers.

Paul said to those who loved the law, "The whole law is fulfilled in one word -- you shall love your neighbor as yourself. But if you bite and devour each other, see that you are not consumed by one another." (Gal 5.14-15)

Thanks for the little snapshot into what has happened to the Recovery that helped to destroy it. Lee used his LSM to bring all the LC's under the law.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is what happens to church people who LOVE THE LAW.

This is what happens because loving the law causes us to lose our first love for God, and our second love for our brothers.

Paul said to those who loved the law, "The whole law is fulfilled in one word -- you shall love your neighbor as yourself. But if you bite and devour each other, see that you are not consumed by one another." (Gal 5.14-15)

Thanks for the little snapshot into what has happened to the Recovery that helped to destroy it. Lee used his LSM to bring all the LC's under the law.

Yes.

And I note that someone somewhere else complained that it seemed I thought so little of the people in the LRC and their ability to see through the spiritual fog. But just like these little stories, I find less examples of gross abuse (though there were a few) and more examples of how we, the sheeple, followed whatever was put in front of us. We were not faced with a Mel Porter kind of authoritarian (though GD in Dallas had his moments), but we still were admirers of the idea that we should ask "how high" when asked to jump.

I'm sure it looked different in Cleveburg and the surrounding environs. Yet even all of that might have been somewhat dismissed, or missed altogether by many of the regular rank-and-file. Of course you have a better idea on that.

But it is now obvious that the leadership at the LSM did not have control of the church in Anaheim — at least not enough to stop the outbreak of negative information that caused them to publish FOTPR to try to stop the damage. (Wow. That is really kind of scary when you think about it. FOTPR was to stop damage when it should have had every reader asking more questions and trying to get to the bottom of it all and creating more damage — to the system, not the people.)

Funny thing is that I do not know how I would have responded if I had heard about John I leaving when it happened rather than a couple of years later. It happened just about the time I left and while I was leaving, I would never have expected the firestorm that was around it. By the time I heard about it, I had no idea, but could find no reason to fault him. Then many years later when I learned more, I find him to have been among the few righteous ones. Sort of like Lot and his family. And he got out before the fire came down. Good for him.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

There was a lot of thought that everyone had to have elder's permission to date/marry. Seems that while they might provide advice if asked, they had much less to do with it than we thought. (At least in Dallas.) Doesn't mean there was no involvement. And probably different leading ones were different in approach.

To the best of my knowledge, this thought still exists in the LC today. I don't know how common it is, but in the LC I am in, I have heard something to this effect. I have also hear brothers from different LC's imply the same thing, that couples need to get some kind of permission to date/marry.

The problem is that there is really no official rule. If there was it would be easy to call out LC leadership and ask them why they think they have a say in people's personal lives. I know for a fact that some in the LC will say bad things behind the backs of couples who have broken this rule.

Originally Posted by OBW

May have been the fault of the environment though. An environment in which almost everyone assumed that the edict of leadership was to marry or get far apart. That assumed that every marriage was vetted and passed on by the leaders or it didn't happen. So the natural thing to do was to go ask for permission to sneeze, and to ask which side of the nose to blow first. And to ask for permission to even talk to sister so-and-so and possibly take her to the Dairy Queen for a shake. And in some cases, I heard that if a brother asked a sister about going on any kind of sort-of date, she would ask if he had gotten an OK from the "brothers."

This sounds about right. I don't think that everyone is aware of rules like these, however, most have some idea of what they are. I'm sure the assumption is made say if a couple is dating, then it has been "approved", regardless of if it actually has or not. No one wants to be the one to actually ask about these rules, or worse question the elders regarding the rules. It really leaves those in the LC in a bad situation.

[OBW]

The thing about discussing Orthopraxy to me is not only the gross practices that damaged people, or cowed them into submission, but also the tendency to make practice all about spirituality.

Of course the more correct understanding of Orthopraxy, or more simply, the Christian life, is that everything is spiritual. But in most Christian groups, and very specially in the LRC, only religious things are considered spiritual. So to them, Orthopraxy is about how you baptize or hold communion. It is whether you have a worship band, or a pipe organ, or sing a capella. It is about stained glass or plain glass or no glass. It is about a well-thought-out liturgy or a more contemporaneous one.

And it is about how we engage the world for Christ. In other words, how we entice them to let us preach the gospel to them.

It is only marginally about how you act in the store. For example, pick something up, then decide against it, and just put it down wherever or put it back where it came from. (Not talking about leaving clothes in the fitting room which is often what the store wants you to do.) Or how we respond to the realization that we just got one-too-many dollars back from the cashier. Or how we react to the guy who cut us off on the road (my hand is raised as sometimes guilty on both sides of this one).

Yet when I look at the teaching in both the NT and OT, it would appear that the daily living that had nothing to do with anything "spiritual" or religious is almost more important than the religious stuff. In fact, it seems that it is the obedience to righteousness that is the hallmark of the NT more than a call to act religious. Hunger and thirst for righteousness. Don't even think about that woman. Don't even curse at your brother. (And don't give that one-finger salute.) Forgive others when you ask God for forgiveness. Don't just forgive them in your heart (unless they don't know about the offense).

Live like that and people will eventually notice that you are not like everyone else. They will ask. And even if you don't have the words, your life will help invite them to where the words flow freely. And hopefully that place is full of similar people.

And, unfortunately, at some level, the quiet, humble, overly liturgical people who feel compelled to do their "works" actually portray this better than we evangelicals do. We have better theology, but are too dismissive of our sins. We just claim grace and move on. We do the religious rituals well, then try to get through the week so that we can get back to our sanctuary from the world.

I note that before Babylon, there were no synagogues. They only "got together" religiously when they went to Jerusalem. And not that often. At some level, I am not so sure that our constant efforts to get to another meeting, service, small group, bible study, etc., is as spiritual as we think. We are too worried about sacrifice and less about obedience. We are looking for that spiritual escape.

And then there are the healthy, wealthy, and wise gospels. Those are about getting their sugar daddy to fill their pockets and pantries. And if you don't want to be that overt about it, you can feel better about it by saying it is for the whole country and trying to shame people into joining in by saying it is about prayer. But even that is ultimately about the blessing we want to receive.

I read a post this morning that was talking about how communion used to be about the Lamb that was slain for the sin of the world, but has become the personal blessing we receive for doing it.

I think that Orthopraxy is too often about my personal relationship with God rather than about my living as an icon (image bearer) of God. And God doesn't need (want) image-bearers in the meetings. He can bear his own image there. He has made it so that his influence on the earth is heavily through his human image bearers.

There is your Orthopraxy.

That does not take away from the analysis that has been requested. But in my mind it makes the sense that the LRC's Orthopraxy is even further off than we might think. Even the seemingly good parts are missing the point, or the mark. The high calling is not to better meetings because of the alleged basis of division of your church from any other, but to living an entire life according to the righteousness of God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm sure it looked different in Cleveburg and the surrounding environs. Yet even all of that might have been somewhat dismissed, or missed altogether by many of the regular rank-and-file. Of course you have a better idea on that.

Titus Chu, to his credit, actually was not at all legalistic. We had to obey the training rules just so we could say we did, and not get in trouble with LSM. With every successive controversy, the GLA became more littered with "sleeper cells" ready to rise up and attack the regional leadership for "not being one with WL." Behind the scenes, however, we were quite lax with training regulations, doing our best to accommodate the saints' needs and schedules.

On the other hand TC was all about submission and glory. All leaders had to submit to him, and all the glory had to go to him. All good and successful ideas must be his, and when things failed, some underling must take the blame for it. In this regard, he was a duplicate of WL, using regular dress downs to maintain proper "order."

TC would say that any way could be a good or profitable way, but no way was "the way." This was a wise word which was quite helpful to the churches, especially during the constant chaos of the endless winds, waves, flows, and ways coming out of Anaheim. How can any practice be "the way," when Jesus Himself is our unique Way? I remember being scolded by a young sister during my first attempt at door-knocking for not "turning left," which was one of the training regulations. How in the world can we expect God to bless us for that nonsense? Actually God blessed us for my "cooperation" at the time, going along with the "program," and remaining focused on our "objective."

This obsession with finding the latest version of the "right way" brought continual conflict to the churchlife. It became a regular occurrence some young person to hear from the grapevine of the latest ministry rubric and use that to correct the older brothers. This created serious complications for the local leadership since LSM lackeys regularly solicited feedback concerning those who resisted the "Lord's up-to-date move."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The problem is that with regards to LC leadership, it is next to impossible to pin anyone down regarding LC practices. Because so much goes unspoken, they can take any stance they want to fit the situation and then change positions as the next situation comes up.

In other words double-standards exist as a LC practice for a reason. When the situation fits, apply the double-standard. One one scenario it may be considered a "local matter" (as Benson Phillips and Ray Graver pointed out to John Ingalls and the late Ken Unger in John Ingall's Speaking the Truth in Love ). In another scenario you have the book Ron Kangas and Kerry Robichaux did where it's considered an "extra-local matter". How convenient!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This sounds about right. I don't think that everyone is aware of rules like these, however, most have some idea of what they are. I'm sure the assumption is made say if a couple is dating, then it has been "approved", regardless of if it actually has or not. No one wants to be the one to actually ask about these rules, or worse question the elders regarding the rules. It really leaves those in the LC in a bad situation.

No, surely newer ones or people who were more at the margins might not take that all so much to heart. But what seemed to happen when someone had even the inkling of just doing what they wanted was that they also pretty much left the LRC. Probably the independence of mind to think for themself left them able to, well, think for themself.

The funny thing is that the one elder I have talked with since has indicated that they were much less involved in the process than most assumed. And they wanted even less involvement. He did indicate that they would advise couples to do their dating somewhere out of the sight of most of the members. So in Dallas, with a collection of people living mostly in the NE part of the city, go more central, or out to the suburbes. Not bad advice when the goal is to keep people's urges to what was simply their own.

[OBW]

Remember. I am speaking of a particular aspect of one locality. This is not an endorsement of the overall LRC system, or a suggestion that everything was hunky-dory. It was not.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

Remember. I am speaking of a particular aspect of one locality. This is not an endorsement of the overall LRC system, or a suggestion that everything was hunky-dory. It was not.

I agree and I realize what you were saying. I chose to comment on the LC dating practice that you brought up, because I have seen it in my locality and heard similar things happening in other localities. I'm sure there are also places where something like this is not an issue at all.

I guess it would be safe to go on the initial assumption that if a LC practice is not "official", it might just be limited to someone's experience in the locality they were/are at. The exception to that is if a practice is described that is presumably limited within the scope of the locality someone is associated with, then would it be just coincidence that I have seen something very similar in my locality?

For example, with the issue of dating, I am very curious as to whether WL ever said something to bring about the type of practice you brought up. I have not been around long enough to have heard WL speak in person. Those who were in the LC many years ago many have insight into how some of these different practices developed.

I suspect that if we were to list some non-official LC practices that we have experience, there would be a common set of non-official practices that we have all seen. Likewise there would be some that are limited just to a single locality.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I suspect that if we were to list some non-official LC practices that we have experience, there would be a common set of non-official practices that we have all seen. Likewise there would be some that are limited just to a single locality.

"It's a local matter"- practice of keeping hands clean from touching unrighteous matters

"It's an extra-local matter"- practice of dealing with whistleblowers who are living under the headship of Christ and not beholden to absolute submission of men.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

( P.S. As an aside, here's a link to John Myer's book, "A Future and a Hope: Church Life beyond the Local Church Movement" --
http://assemblylife.com )

Thank you for the link, Ray. Looks like in the end Titus Chu and company showed Myer the door over his conception of the local ground. My first impression on scanning the book, is that there doesn't seem to be any way to continue Local Church practice apart from accepting LSM whole cloth. Since I can't do that, I think it is wise to avoid the Local Church altogether. I have conversed with a few LC individuals over the years without any problems. But, I have avoided setting foot on their turf. This book seems to confirm my position that that is the right path for me.

[HERn]

Why is it that young women in the LSM associated local churches have such a hard time getting married? There are many dear single sisters in several localities that have wanted a husband for years. Is there a similar trend in other Christian denominations? Maybe in the "recovery" there aren't enough single brothers? But, I don't think that is the total explanation. Could this be a "sign" that the Lord's blessing is not on the "recovery"? You old-timers may have been out of the "recovery" loop for so long that you might not be aware of this demographic trend.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by HERn

Why is it that young women in the LSM associated local churches have such a hard time getting married? There are many dear single sisters in several localities that have wanted a husband for years. Is there a similar trend in other Christian denominations? Maybe in the "recovery" there aren't enough single brothers? But, I don't think that is the total explanation. Could this be a "sign" that the Lord's blessing is not on the "recovery"? You old-timers may have been out of the "recovery" loop for so long that you might not be aware of this demographic trend.

HERn, that's a great question. Not all of us here are old-timers.

Have you heard people say, in regards to this trend, something like, "It is Biblical"? This is what I was told by more than one brother. As I remember, it's based on the fact that at the end of some of the Epistles, Paul mentions more women than men (Dorcas, Phoebe, etc.). So this is the basis for saying that "it is Biblical!" that there would end up being this kind of imbalance in the local churches. (Is this taught specifically by Witness Lee, does anybody know? I believe it is, but I'm not certain.)

Another phrase I remember hearing a lot was that "marriages/relationships happen very quickly in the church life" (I'm paraphrasing). This was said as if it is a good thing, or somehow a normal thing for folks in their group to develop a romantic relationship and then tie the knot quickly. Not sure if there's anything "Biblical" about that?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

I also have learned that some of the things we all thought were elder-initiated were actually things we presumed and acted on without thought. There was a lot of thought that everyone had to have elder's permission to date/marry. Seems that while they might provide advice if asked, they had much less to do with it than we thought. (At least in Dallas.) Doesn't mean there was no involvement. And probably different leading ones were different in approach.

Originally Posted by Freedom

To the best of my knowledge, this thought still exists in the LC today. I don't know how common it is, but in the LC I am in, I have heard something to this effect. I have also heard brothers from different LC's imply the same thing, that couples need to get some kind of permission to date/marry.

The problem is that there is really no official rule. If there was it would be easy to call out LC leadership and ask them why they think they have a say in people's personal lives. I know for a fact that some in the LC will say bad things behind the backs of couples who have broken this rule.

Originally Posted by OBW

May have been the fault of the environment though. An environment in which almost everyone assumed that the edict of leadership was to marry or get far apart. That assumed that every marriage was vetted and passed on by the leaders or it didn't happen. So the natural thing to do was to go ask for permission to sneeze, and to ask which side of the nose to blow first. And to ask for permission to even talk to sister so-and-so and possibly take her to the Dairy Queen for a shake. And in some cases, I heard that if a brother asked a sister about going on any kind of sort-of date, she would ask if he had gotten an OK from the "brothers."

Originally Posted by Freedom

This sounds about right. I don't think that everyone is aware of rules like these, however, most have some idea of what they are. I'm sure the assumption is made say if a couple is dating, then it has been "approved", regardless of if it actually has or not. No one wants to be the one to actually ask about these rules, or worse question the elders regarding the rules. It really leaves those in the LC in a bad situation.

I find it very interesting that OBW is making these observations from all the way back to the 70's. This is all too familiar. The ambiguity, the sense that some of the elders may not even want to be involved in other people's "courtship decisions", etc. Yet the whole time, there remains a common belief among members that that's the only acceptable way to go about things.

I personally have encountered a similar dynamic outside of Texas, and 30 years later than the time period OBW is describing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Have you heard people say, in regards to this trend, something like, "It is Biblical"? This is what I was told by more than one brother. As I remember, it's based on the fact that at the end of some of the Epistles, Paul mentions more women than men (Dorcas, Phoebe, etc.). So this is the basis for saying that "it is Biblical!" that there would end up being this kind of imbalance in the local churches. (Is this taught specifically by Witness Lee, does anybody know? I believe it is, but I'm not certain.)

Both Nee and Lee taught that there should be twice as many sisters as brothers in a local church.

This was "based" upon the house in Bethany in John chapter 12, which supposedly was a true model or "miniature" of the healthy church life. Read about these ten distinguishing "characteristics" in the first footnote on John 12.1. The footnote item (5) says "having more sisters than brothers," but I heard elsewhere on a number of occasions that Nee prescribed a 2:1 ratio.

Even the footnote seems to contradict this "model" ratio by including Simon the leper. That would make 2 brothers and 2 sisters, perhaps a more "ideal" ratio.

This footnote is so typical of the ministries of both Nee and Lee. Both needed to maintain their "Seer" status by "seeing" truths and patterns in the Bible which no one else could "see." By "seeing" the proper sister:brother ratio in a "normal" local church they established a standard which no church could measure up to.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

Why is it that young women in the LSM associated local churches have such a hard time getting married? There are many dear single sisters in several localities that have wanted a husband for years. Is there a similar trend in other Christian denominations? Maybe in the "recovery" there aren't enough single brothers?

Here is a quote from Gene Gruhler's speaking on Sixth Grade gospel preaching to the children.

Originally Posted by GeneGruhler

During this time two always serve together. It does not matter if there are only two kids, two workers are always there. One is giving the lesson and the other is watching the faces. You can tell what point touches what kid. They have a long period of time in the mornings so when the lesson is over and they turn to other things, the worker that was watching the faces, takes the ones that were touched into another room and leads them to be definitely and personally saved if they are ready. But usually when they are touched their eyes tear or something. You can tell when they are ready.

The psychological manipulation in the local churches is more effectively used on the females, I believe. The Local Church workers present propositions to create an emotional response. Men usually are more clinical, more questioning. Female listeners usually will get emotional. They're impacted by psychological pressure, and emotional appeal, then they uncritically accept the propositions at face value, and are emotionally committed.

Notice the male-centric population of this web site; people who question, who think of alternatives. Typically men are more analytical. (Of course I have known very analytical women, and very emotional men. I am making a generalization). Likewise the population of LSM associated Local Churches has more docile, unquestioning females. I believe that this is also why the Local Churches focus on young college students: they're open, vulnerable, unable to critically examine the propositions put forth by the full time Local Church workers on campus. So the workers get them to buy into a proposition, then emotionally commit. This "buy in" and "commitment" is more easily done with the typically more fragile and pliable female psyche.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

Why is it that young women in the LSM associated local churches have such a hard time getting married? There are many dear single sisters in several localities that have wanted a husband for years. Is there a similar trend in other Christian denominations? Maybe in the "recovery" there aren't enough single brothers? But, I don't think that is the total explanation. Could this be a "sign" that the Lord's blessing is not on the "recovery"? You old-timers may have been out of the "recovery" loop for so long that you might not be aware of this demographic trend.

For me it's been roughly the last 10 or 15 years since I've been out. I would have thought it would be the other way around. From my observation many of the young sisters (and brothers too) who attend FTTA have no problem getting married. It's the ones that don't attend that takes longer time. In my situation, I decided to marry a sister outside the local churches.

[TLFisher]

Maybe someone can comment further on this, but is there a correlation on the deputy authority practice and pride?

[aron]

Re: females in the LSM Local Churches. I remember from the FTTA where we were told specifically to go after white males. This was in a "college training" there. We were being "trained" in the "gospel"; i.e. to go get more members. The trainer (Chinese) got some Caucasian males to stand up and said, "This is what we want. This is what we are after." I don't remember the trainer's name.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Another phrase I remember hearing a lot was that "marriages/relationships happen very quickly in the church life" (I'm paraphrasing). This was said as if it is a good thing, or somehow a normal thing for folks in their group to develop a romantic relationship and then tie the knot quickly. Not sure if there's anything "Biblical" about that?

When I was there I was approached several times by elders and "workers" about getting connected to some faithful sister who was pining away as the years rolled past. It didn't sound too romantic to me. So I managed to evade them.

I am so glad I left that group. They used a "faithful sister" to pin a male member. Once they had a female that they could manipulate, then they could control the male. They would give directives from Anaheim, and if the male started to question, then the "faithful sister" would get all hysterical that they have to be one, and love the Lord Jesus and the Church Life, and what can you do?

One day I just walked out. I had no job, no money, no nothing. I was completely dependent upon them for housing, food, direction, etc. My family was gone and the "I'll never go back any more. No, no, no..." song had been sung so many times... but I just walked out. I got into a homeless shelter, got a menial job through a temp agency, and kept going. I was tired of seeing the same people every day, all of them afraid to do anything without "fellowship". I wanted to follow the Spirit.

I bet today the trainers and workers are more sophisticated and don't say, "Go get us some more White males". Now they say, "The spread of the gospel" and so forth, but it is the same controlling, manipulating spirit. And if I don't sound sexist (forgive me) but it seems females are more susceptible to this kind of manipulation and control.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

One day I just walked out. I had no job, no money, no nothing. I was completely dependent upon them for housing, food, direction, etc. My family was gone and the "I'll never go back any more. No, no, no..." song had been sung so many times... but I just walked out. I got into a homeless shelter, got a menial job through a temp agency, and kept going. I was tired of seeing the same people every day, all of them afraid to do anything without "fellowship". I wanted to follow the Spirit.

I seem to remember a story about an old guy named Abram who did something similar.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by aron

When I was there I was approached several times by elders and "workers" about getting connected to some faithful sister who was pining away as the years rolled past. It didn't sound too romantic to me. So I managed to evade them.

I remember two different "serving brothers" suggesting the same young lady to me. To the first brother, I responded that I wasn't interested in her. He seemed irritated and persisted in recommending this particular sister to me, almost like he was giving me a second chance to open my eyes and realize that I was actually interested in her.

When the second brother mentioned the same lady to me, a couple months later, it made me uncomfortable. It struck me as rather odd that they both just "happened" be suggesting the same sister to me, specifically. And neither of them bothered to explain why they had her in mind for me anyway. It raised my eyebrows a little. In fact, my surprise was probably written all over my face. As for the serving brother, there was a smile on his face.

The sad thing is, in retrospect, it's possible that if I'd had the opportunity to get to know this sister, I might have been interested. She wasn't unattractive, I'd just really never talked to her before. So it felt like these guys were putting the cart before the horse, trying to get me to be interested when there had never been any real opportunity for mutual interest to develop in the first place.

Welcome to the Lord's Recovery. So, what else is new?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by aron

The psychological manipulation in the local churches is more effectively used on the females, I believe. The Local Church workers present propositions to create an emotional response. Men usually are more clinical, more questioning. Female listeners usually will get emotional. They're impacted by psychological pressure, and emotional appeal, then they uncritically accept the propositions at face value, and are emotionally committed.

I agree with aron that this seems like a kind of psychological manipulation. Aron, is there a link to this quote?

I think this has been a kind of trend in the LRC over the years, that it has come to attract people who enjoy influencing, even manipulating, other people -- especially younger people -- just a tiny little bit too much. Maybe the word "interloper" could be used to describe this?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Both Nee and Lee taught that there should be twice as many sisters as brothers in a local church.

This was "based" upon the house in Bethany in John chapter 12, which supposedly was a true model or "miniature" of the healthy church life. Read about these ten distinguishing "characteristics" in the first footnote on John 12.1. The footnote item (5) says "having more sisters than brothers," but I heard elsewhere on a number of occasions that Nee prescribed a 2:1 ratio.

Even the footnote seems to contradict this "model" ratio by including Simon the leper. That would make 2 brothers and 2 sisters, perhaps a more "ideal" ratio.

This footnote is so typical of the ministries of both Nee and Lee. Both needed to maintain their "Seer" status by "seeing" truths and patterns in the Bible which no one else could "see." By "seeing" the proper sister:brother ratio in a "normal" local church they established a standard which no church could measure up to.

So, I think this begs the question...and it may be a rather uncomfortable question...Why, really, would Watchman Nee and Witness Lee have wanted to believe that churches should have twice as many women as men?

It seems to me that this is a rather odd thing to think. Especially if you're going to preach that this actually should be characteristic of the churches under your ministry. So...is this a fair question to ask?

[aron]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I agree with aron that this seems like a kind of psychological manipulation. Aron, is there a link to this quote?

I think this has been a kind of trend in the LRC over the years, that it has come to attract people who enjoy influencing, even manipulating, other people -- especially younger people -- just a tiny little bit too much. Maybe the word "interloper" could be used to describe this?

Just Google "Gene Gruhler" and it is one of the first links. It is from an anti-Christian web site.

http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/Misc%2...ainwashing.htm

If Christians engage in overtly coercive and manipulative actions against their targets, the so-called "new ones", it really is kind of an anti-testimony. Instead of letting the love of God shine forth.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Just Google "Gene Gruhler" and it is one of the first links. It is from an anti-Christian web site.

http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/Misc%2...ainwashing.htm

Gene Gruhler had everybody excited about the "pipeline." In case you forgot, at the time it was LSM's latest program for our children. Started with singing to babies still in the womb, and ended with them becoming full-timers.

Shouldn't leave his quotes in the Xerox machine.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

The sad thing is, in retrospect, it's possible that if I'd had the opportunity to get to know this sister, I might have been interested. She wasn't unattractive, I'd just really never talked to her before. So it felt like these guys were putting the cart before the horse, trying to get me to be interested when there had never been any real opportunity for mutual interest to develop in the first place.

Welcome to the Lord's Recovery. So, what else is new?

Exactly! What else is new. Actually, it has been a blessing to marry a sister who is immune to the ministry and what "the brothers" think. All that matters is what the Bible says.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Gene Gruhler had everybody excited about the "pipeline." In case you forgot, at the time it was LSM's latest program for our children. Started with singing to babies still in the womb, and ended with them becoming full-timers.

Shouldn't leave his quotes in the Xerox machine.

I was in a meeting in which Don Looper discussed the pipeline concept. He referred to the fact that the term, "the pipeline", had been credited to him. While I don't remember exactly what he said, he did say something to the effect of, that he didn't think it had come from him, but that that's what people were saying. Almost as if he had resigned himself to taking credit for coining the phrase.

Does that make sense to anyone?

[aron]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I was in a meeting in which Don Looper discussed the pipeline concept. He referred to the fact that the term, "the pipeline", had been credited to him. While I don't remember exactly what he said, he did say something to the effect of, that he didn't think it had come from him, but that that's what people were saying. Almost as if he had resigned himself to taking credit for coining the phrase.

Does that make sense to anyone?

The pipeline concept was a formal attempt to stop the mass exodus of young people away from the Local Churches. It was organizational, and systematic, and was a reaction of man and not an action of God (along with about 45 other "moves" and "flows" that I can think of). I can understand why Don Looper was uneasy to be associated with it. His conscience was probably protesting.

And Gene Gruhler's spoken notes show the manipulation and control that lie very close to the surface. Yes it is "for the gospel to the young people", but look at the methods... they could be used effectively, and are, for any kind of mind-control cult. Isolate the vulnerable ones, browbeat them and wear them down, get them to uncritically commit to YOUR proposition, and then put them in a system in which they are constantly warned not to question anything. Just do what Big Brother says and everything will be fine.

The Local Churches have a veneer of orthodoxy, and that is one of their recruiting tools, but please understand that underneath they are a cancerous mass of heteropraxy stretching back through Watchman Nee and the Bretheren perhaps to the gospels, i.e. "And they were all arguing to see which one of them was the greatest". All of these weird practices were cooked up by people who had a deeply-rooted need to control the ecclesia and re-shape it in their image. Witness Lee duplication centers, anyone? Remember that one? Gene Gruhler's "gospel methods" and Don Looper's "pipeline" were just the initial steps in a pervasive, controlling system of error.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The pipeline concept was a formal attempt to stop the mass exodus of young people away from the Local Churches. It was organizational, and systematic, and was a reaction of man and not an action of God (along with about 45 other "moves" and "flows" that I can think of).

The pipeline was just the latest in a long series of false hopes presented to the unsuspecting masses in the LC's. Does anyone see the vicious cycle here? Why we're all the young pele leaving? Because of all the failed programs in the past emanating from LSM. Come far, come near, all ya all climb on the latest bandwagon from the traveling snake oil salesman, while all the ministry groupies were writing songs with catchy pipeline phrases.

Thus was life in the Recovery. An endless cycle of failed programs all Washed away by the latest "move of the Lord." Keep them all busy with the new, so no one has time to consider the results of the old. I still remember the whirlwind of the "new way" era. Yesterday's new way was today's old way -- stay up to date and close to Bruder Lee! He will lead us to the New Jerusalem!

Reminds me of that old Genesis classic "Supper's Ready." At least it was accompanied by fabulous music, though like Lee, most of the lyrics made no sense at all.

[OBW]

It was organizational, and systematic, and was a reaction of man and not an action of God (along with about 45 other "moves" and "flows" that I can think of).

I think it is difficult to say that what people do in response to perceived problems is simply a reaction of man. And even the fact of "45 moves and flows" does not make any one of them specifically problematic.

But the fact that the man who was behind the existence of the following (in other words, Lee) would not pass muster with Paul and his criteria for teacher, elder, or deacon (which would have pretty much eliminated anything resembling apostleship) dooms the following to that of seriously deficient. That means that no matter how much we like each other, and how much we may have brought our own joy along to make the early days seem special, the "reality" behind the whole thing was a lie. The glue that really keeps the thing together was Lee. Some think it is the camaraderie of the people. But that does not exist in a vacuum. It is too peppered with sayings from the "I Lee" preceded by "Brother Lee says that . . . ."

The fact that they were losing young people was not a sign to change moves of flows, but to change leaders. And that could only happen by leaving. Lee would not leave. And despite his death, the BBs will keep dead Lee at the helm. And that is deadly.

So instead of real change, they do their version of a Hail Mary, and convince the majority to stay. And they will continue to succeed with at least a core of followers as long as Toto does not pull the curtain back on the sins of the fathers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I was in a meeting in which Don Looper discussed the pipeline concept. He referred to the fact that the term, "the pipeline", had been credited to him. While I don't remember exactly what he said, he did say something to the effect of, that he didn't think it had come from him, but that that's what people were saying. Almost as if he had resigned himself to taking credit for coining the phrase.

Does that make sense to anyone?

Soon after, Looper died and Gruhler was dumped by the Blindeds.

Is there a connection?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

Maybe someone can comment further on this, but is there a correlation on the deputy authority practice and pride?

No one has commented, so I'll continue with my thoughts...John Ingalls said the following in 1988/1989

"There has been an over-stressing and distortion of the teaching concerning deputy authority, which has caused the saints to be fearful to follow their conscience, to be one with their spirit, and sometimes to speak their genuine concerns."

The same has held true since the time John spoke it. It is this over-stressing and distortion why so-called deputy and delegated authority has resulted in prideful brothers. Can never be wrong. Can never apologize. If you or I have an issue with a deputy or delegated authority, it's considered a "perceived wrongdoing"
It's this perverted distortion of deputy authority teaching that has callused the heart from any potential humility.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Soon after, Looper died and Gruhler was dumped by the Blindeds.

Is there a connection?

Not sure what you're asking as re Looper's passing.

As for Gruhler being "dumped", that had already happened by the time I heard Looper saying these things. So I wondered whether Looper was being credited for something that was actually Gruhler's brainchild, but of course had to be reassigned to a "faithful brother" after Gruhler got the out.

Also, I should point out that I know very little about what happened to Gene Gruhler. Though I do remember hearing people talk about him in these vague, general terms. Something along the lines of, "Last we heard, he was in Colorado somewhere, but no one really knows what he's doing." I heard people talk the same way about Bill Mallon, "Last we heard, he was in Florida somewhere, but as far as I know, he's really not doing anything there." (Whatever that means.)

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

So instead of real change, they do their version of a Hail Mary, and convince the majority to stay. And they will continue to succeed with at least a core of followers as long as Toto does not pull the curtain back on the sins of the fathers.

I've known people who remain in the Recovery, and remain quite loyal to the LSM/Anaheim leadership, despite being aware of the "skeletons in the closet". I wouldn't assume that just because Ham's dog Toto (so to speak) comes along and pulls back the curtain on Philip Lee, Daystar, and lackluster suit sales in Seattle -- that everyone who sees that is necessarily going to run for the hills.

Sometimes, these things cause people to become more entrenched.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I've known people who remain in the Recovery, and remain quite loyal to the LSM/Anaheim leadership, despite being aware of the "skeletons in the closet". I wouldn't assume that just because Ham's dog Toto (so to speak) comes along and pulls back the curtain on Philip Lee, Daystar, and lackluster suit sales in Seattle -- that everyone who sees that is necessarily going to run for the hills.

Sometimes, these things cause people to become more entrenched.

Yes, there are some true believers that will accept that the deputy authority doctrine is really true and therefore allow the sins without a second thought.

But I know someone who heard a little about that stuff probably 20 years after the fact and started digging around a little. The result was eventually an exit from their numbers.

You realize that while FOTPR was written to put such a negative spin on the righteous ones that the sins they exposed would be ignored, most who ever read any of it actually knew nothing of the sins and therefore had little reason to think any thing other than what was told in that little book of lies.

So Daystar and the illegal financial shenanigans there, Lee's son, Timothy, having his women in his office, then the other son, Phillip, with his women in the LSM office while ordering churches around like pawns on a chess board are needed to be refreshed periodically. Along with the reasons Lee came to America (chased out of Taiwan over money problems) and even the evident sins of his predecessor, Nee, who responded with the deputy authority teaching, probably to see to it that his propensity for gross sin could never be used against him again.

[HERn]

I was attracted to the LSM-associated local churches by their practices at the Lord's table and prophesying meetings. Simple spontaneous prayers and calling for hymns by "regular" believers and spontaneous testimonies with prophecies (micro-sermons) from anyone willing to stand up and speak seemed (at least to me) to be practices that could have occurred in the primitive church. It was because of these practices that I was willing to ignore some "red flags" regarding doctrinal issues. These practices were open, mostly harmless and easily observed. But, there are other practices that are not easily observed. It is (I think) these hidden practices that that reveal the true (at least to me) nature of the LSM-associated churches who self-designate themselves as "The Lord's Recovery". It became clear to me that some of the leaders who spoke much about following Christ and the New Testament were only following Witness Lee's interpretation of Christ and the New Testament. Another practice that seemed prevalent to me was that most of the brothers who became "leading ones" or elders were vetted and "approved" by other leaders outside of the locality who were more often than not associated with LSM. The LSM-associated local churches tout local control, but my observations convinced me everything is under the strong influence of LSM-loyal brothers often to the detriment of the feelings of the saints in the locality.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by OBW

But I know someone who heard a little about that stuff probably 20 years after the fact and started digging around a little. The result was eventually an exit from their numbers.

Of course, there are folks who become disenchanted and exit after becoming aware of all the goofy shenanigans and the ensuing cover-ups (and all the while "the ministry" shouting from the rooftops the shortcomings of "Christianity").

But there are some who become aware of the Philip Lees and the Daystars, and "double down" on their bet, so to speak. Their conviction and loyalty increase, rather than decrease. They may even feel that they have "passed the point of no return," and, like the train that is speeding toward 88 miles per hour in Back to the Future III, they may even be willing to "go off a cliff" in the process. (As an aside, I still remember the looks I got from saints in the Recovery, one time when I referred to Susan Sarandon, the actress. It was years later before I ever watched Thelma & Louise, and it was years after that before I read -- on the old Bereans forum -- that "even if we go off a cliff" had actually been a Recovery catchphrase. Strange...)

And there are others who leave and eventually return, even knowing what they know. And honestly, I think some of this stuff is kind of an open secret, at least in some localities. From what I remember, there were quite a few people who were aware of failed business ventures such as the yellow chairs and the recreational vehicles.

Just my couple o' pence.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by HERn

I was attracted to the LSM-associated local churches by their practices at the Lord's table and prophesying meetings. Simple spontaneous prayers and calling for hymns by "regular" believers and spontaneous testimonies with prophecies (micro-sermons) from anyone willing to stand up and speak seemed (at least to me) to be practices that could have occurred in the primitive church. It was because of these practices that I was willing to ignore some "red flags" regarding doctrinal issues. These practices were open, mostly harmless and easily observed. But, there are other practices that are not easily observed. It is (I think) these hidden practices that that reveal the true (at least to me) nature of the LSM-associated churches who self-designate themselves as "The Lord's Recovery". It became clear to me that some of the leaders who spoke much about following Christ and the New Testament were only following Witness Lee's interpretation of Christ and the New Testament. Another practice that seemed prevalent to me was that most of the brothers who became "leading ones" or elders were vetted and "approved" by other leaders outside of the locality who were more often than not associated with LSM. The LSM-associated local churches tout local control, but my observations convinced me everything is under the strong influence of LSM-loyal brothers often to the detriment of the feelings of the saints in the locality.

I agree, HERn. From what I've observed, both the FTTA and the Austin apprenticeship have been very effective conduits for "the ministry" to maintain a network of influence at the local level (at least here in the US). It is a franchise with some local expression, and plenty of centralized control. Even some folks within the local churches use the "franchise" term.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

But, there are other practices that are not easily observed. It is (I think) these hidden practices that that reveal the true (at least to me) nature of the LSM-associated churches who self-designate themselves as "The Lord's Recovery".

I think this is a big reason why the LC is still around despite all its peculiarities. In regards to different practices, the LC is highly esoteric, and I think they have to be that way in order for the LC to survive.

There is a lot to say about this. I have been in the LC my whole life. I have seen how the system works. They can present their picture of the LC for people like Hank Hanegraaff, but when it comes down to it, it's not the entire picture, nor is it an accurate picture.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

They can present their picture of the LC for people like Hank Hanegraaff, but when it comes down to it, it's not the entire picture, nor is it an accurate picture.

It is a diluted picture that is made palatable for those on the outside looking in. For example someone like a Hank Hanegraff will see the picture that is presented in the publications, but not the picture being in meetings or hearing audio tapes.
Brothers are careful to present Hank a pristine version of the Local churches minus the questionable orthopraxy.

[Freedom]

Since the idea of “hidden practices” was brought up yesterday, I wanted to take some time to add some of my thoughts. I mentioned that I think that esotericism enables the LC to survive. Since I have grown up in the LC (aka “church kid”), I have seen it change different ways throughout the years. It seems to me that in certain ways they are more relaxed about different practices than they used to be. On the flip side, however, the practices haven’t changed, because to reject any practices would be to reject what WL taught.

I think most who are in the LC realize that there are many practices that are not conducive to having an increase and gaining anyone. No one can admit this though. It seems that a current strategy employed by the LC is present a version of the LC that is watered down to those whom they are trying to gain. Since I have seen what goes on with the campus/college work, I am able to comment on that. College students are one of the main inlets for the LC anyways, so I think it is worth discussing.

What I saw with the campus work in the LC is that they attempt to gain people in very subtle ways. Many students starting college who are Christians will be looking for a Christian group or Bible study at their school. The LC campus work usually involve a campus Bible study of some. One of the first things newcomers might notice upon attending one of these LC Bible studies is that everyone uses the same version of the Bible (RV). No one, will tell them, however, that they have to use any particular version of the Bible. The catch is that it’s not a simple Bible study, it’s more like a WL footnote study. If someone doesn’t have a RV, they will be left out. So even though no one is telling them what version to use, they are subtly being forced to use a certain version of the Bible. I think a lot of the time LC practices aren’t forced upon people in an obvious way, LC practices are “suggested” in a way that makes someone feel like the odd one out if they don’t conform.

With students, the process goes on from there and they use baby steps to introduce aspects and practices of the LC. I think there is a lot of consideration as to what to introduce to each person at a particular point in time. On a more general level, I have heard it said many times to not bring a newcomer to a Lord’s Table meeting right off the bat. To me, this kind of thinking clearly demonstrates that there is something about the LC that they wish to “hide” from newcomers.

I could go on all day about this. This idea of hidden practices is also applicable to those on the “outskirts” of the LC as well as die hard members. I see many who are not really all that gung ho about the LC, but they are tolerated because having these people means bigger numbers. These kind of LC members aren’t pressured much to go to the trainings, skip holiday celebrations, etc.

One practice that comes to mind is that I have seen is the more involved members are pushed to dress a certain way (suit, tie, etc). Those who are heavily involved in the LC aren’t likely to object to being told how to dress. Those who aren’t as involved might object to that kind of pressure, so they are left alone. It is a double standard and it involves revealing certain aspects of LC practice to a select few, or those would will likely be willing to go along with it.

To me this kind of thinking is presented to everyone with the face of “we don’t tell anyone what to do”. I like I said earlier in this thread, a typical response when some reacts to a certain practice is tell them “that’s your concept” or “we don’t have any rule on that”. It is a subtle game they play in the LC. It’s hard to put a finger on it. It’s also difficult to discuss because all our experiences are different.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Freedom

With students, the process goes on from there and they use baby steps to introduce aspects and practices of the LC. I think there is a lot of consideration as to what to introduce to each person at a particular point in time. On a more general level, I have heard it said many times to not bring a newcomer to a Lord’s Table meeting right off the bat. To me, this kind of thinking clearly demonstrates that there is something about the LC that they wish to “hide” from newcomers.

I've also observed this type of thing. Full-timers and other local church members will go out of their way to coordinate the timing of when a particular "new one" from the campus will be introduced to the home meetings, the big meetings, the Holy Word for Morning Revival books, "calling on the Lord," etc. Even as I write this, I realize that this could be considered rather innocuous, or, it could certainly seem to some people like they have something to hide. And I think they do lose plenty of potential recruits on account of that.

But I think they're also willing to be content w/an overall retention rate, so to speak, that is much less than 50%.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I've also observed this type of thing. Full-timers and other local church members will go out of their way to coordinate the timing of when a particular "new one" from the campus will be introduced to the home meetings, the big meetings, the Holy Word for Morning Revival books, "calling on the Lord," etc. Even as I write this, I realize that this could be considered rather innocuous, or, it could certainly seem to some people like they have something to hide. And I think they do lose plenty of potential recruits on account of that.

But I think they're also willing to be content w/an overall retention rate, so to speak, that is much less than 50%.

I agree that no one is necessarily trying to hide anything. I think at a basic level, the consideration regarding when to introduce a "new one" to different aspects of the LC is primarily to keep them from being too shocked by things such as how loud LC meetings are. There are many obvious things about the LC that they make no effort to hide over the long run once someone joins.

The last line of what you said caught my attention. It is not always clear in regards to what kind of people they are looking to draw in and keep. I know that college students are a huge focus, but definitely not all college students. I'm not sure what exact personality profile they are looking for.

Even when a complete stranger walks into a LC meeting cold turkey, often they will not pay any attention to this type of person if he/she is not the type they are looking for. Having been in the LC my whole life, I have seen this happen a number of times, and I think that I have a general idea of what type of people they don't want.

Actually, from my perspective, the LC is very peculiar in the regards to trying to gain people. I know the 80's WL was saying stuff like if you do method X you will see such and such an increase within so many years. They have some interesting expectations regarding the increase. I hear it all the time even today.

Once LC leadership qualifies what they what, it turns out that they are mainly looking to gain college students and maybe even just a few that are willing to jump in the deep end. There are a few here and there who come in who are not college students, but they are the exception. Since college students typically come from their hometown to attend a school, once they finish their degree, they are gone. For a church to depend its increase on gaining students off a campus is not a viable strategy in the long run.

One area the LC has little focus on the community. It seems the community isn't worth their time. I know that they do have a "community" team in the FTTA. Last I heard, some of the trainees were talking about how the community team went door knocking in the area near the training center and happened to inadvertently visit the home of an ex-LC brother and talk to him. Of course we all know the LC's position on talking to "negative" ones, but trainees are not going to know the who's who of ex-members. Apparently there was some talk about keeping better track of where the community team is visiting. Sounds like they have more important things to worry about than contacting the community, such as censoring the trainees from ex-members.

In general, I don't see any real effort for to gain the average Joe. Either they already know their efforts will be futile or they are stuck relying on gaining college students. I've been a few LCs that were just a single home gathering in that city. Here's something that really bothered me about that: they say they are the church in X, but they have made no effort to contact any Christians or invite people to their meeting. In many cases it seems that increase is not a concern so much as establishing their LC franchise somewhere.

In summary, when I look at this whole issue of gaining people and increase, I think there is a lot of "fellowship" going on behind the scenes that most don't know about. It's really the only explanation as to why things are so peculiar. I think the average member such as myself is left to wonder what is really going on. We have learned to just accept things as they are and not ask questions.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

One area the LC has little focus on the community. It seems the community isn't worth their time. I know that they do have a "community" team in the FTTA. Last I heard, some of the trainees were talking about how the community team went door knocking in the area near the training center and happened to inadvertently visit the home of an ex-LC brother and talk to him. Of course we all know the LC's position on talking to "negative" ones, but trainees are not going to know the who's who of ex-members. Apparently there was some talk about keeping better track of where the community team is visiting. Sounds like they have more important things to worry about than contacting the community, such as censoring the trainees from ex-members.

Not only an ex-LC brother, but happened to be a former elder of the church in Anaheim. Of course the blendeds don't want to know how impressed John was with the trainees. Because the ministry portrays brothers like John anything but loving brothers in the Lord.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Not only an ex-LC brother, but happened to be a former elder of the church in Anaheim. Of course the blendeds don't want to know how impressed John was with the trainees. Because the ministry portrays brothers like John anything but loving brothers in the Lord.

I didn't know it was John that they talked to. It's ironic how no matter how hard the blendeds want to cover up history, it finds a way of revealing itself.

Before I ever read anything on the internet, I saw John's name in the hymnal introduction. I also saw it in the preface/forward to older copies of the classic LSM titles, and I saw it in some Life Sudy messages.

So there I was, a church kid who grew up after all these brothers had left. I never heard the names of any brothers like JI, it wasn't until I saw those names in print that I began to wonder who they were. I even asked someone about it and they said they didn't know. I thought to myself, hmmmmm this seems suspicious. Eventually I found out by reading these forums.

My point is that I think trainees would be shocked to learn just a basic lesson in LC history (60's-80's). The only reason I know anything about LC history is through the internet, otherwise it is an off limits topic. Trainees dedicate 2 years of their lives to the LC. They certainly deserve a basic history lesson.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Before I ever read anything on the internet, I saw John's name in the hymnal introduction. I also saw it in the preface/forward to older copies of the classic LSM titles, and I saw it in some Life Sudy messages.

So there I was, a church kid who grew up after all these brothers had left. I never heard the names of any brothers like JI, it wasn't until I saw those names in print that I began to wonder who they were. I even asked someone about it and they said they didn't know. I thought to myself, hmmmmm this seems suspicious. Eventually I found out by reading these forums.

Freedom, I have a similar memory. I had also seen John Ingalls' name in the old books, and I remember mentioning his name in a home meeting. I also knew nothing of the history, though I had heard of a "rebellion" or "storm" in the 80's, but how would I have known that he was "involved" in that? Anyway, the response I got? People just stared at me. Made me really uncomfortable. You'd think I'd grown alien antennae or something.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Freedom, I have a similar memory. I had also seen John Ingalls' name in the old books, and I remember mentioning his name in a home meeting. I also knew nothing of the history, though I had heard of a "rebellion" or "storm" in the 80's, but how would I have known that he was "involved" in that? Anyway, the response I got? People just stared at me. Made me really uncomfortable. You'd think I'd grown alien antennae or something.

That's why it's become called "The Hidden History of the Local Church." They cover their past like a cat covers their ........ well that ... it ... without sh.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's why it's become called "The Hidden History of the Local Church." They cover their past like a cat covers their ........ well that ... it ... without sh.

Consider the LC critic, Jim Moran, where his writings were wiped from the face of the earth after he died suddenly and members of the LC bought the website and copyrighted the material making it impossible for anyone to publish anything of his without their approval. What are they afraid of? I just don’t get it but then again I am sure Jim Moran has been covered on this forum.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

Consider the LC critic, Jim Moran, where his writings were wiped from the face of the earth after he died suddenly and members of the LC bought the website and copyrighted the material making it impossible for anyone to publish anything of his without their approval. What are they afraid of? I just don’t get it but then again I am sure Jim Moran has been covered on this forum.

Thanks to bro Ohio I got hard copies of Jim's website, and scanned them into digital ... it's a mess but can be put together. Just to defy LSM I'll send them to anyone that requests them in PM.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks to bro Ohio I got hard copies of Jim's website, and scanned them into digital ... it's a mess but can be put together. Just to defy LSM I'll send them to anyone that requests them in PM.

I have two documents from Jim Moran, "The Exclusivism of the Local Church" (18 pages) by Jim Moran and "A Brief History of the Local Church" (5 pages). Over the last 36 years I have periodically gone online (after about 1985 when the internet started to become available) and looked up material on the LC. These two articles are well footnoted but the last dates listed are 1990. Not sure when I printed them out.

It's interesting that Moran quotes Lee [Witness Lee, Christ versus Religion (LSM:1971)pp 109-110 and Witness Lee, Young People's Training, p. 24], "...Only the golden lampstands, the local churches, are the testimony of Jesus. You may love the Lord, be very spiritual, and know the Bible more than others, but if you are not in the local churches you are not the testimony of Jesus...When we were in the denominations, we were blind. I do not believe that any dear Christians who have really received sight from the Lord could still remain in the denominations....Consider all the denominations. They only have division and confusion." No wonder it has been so difficult to leave the LC...nothing is out there after hearing this stuff despite any level of spiritual life.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's why it's become called "The Hidden History of the Local Church." They cover their past like a cat covers their ........ well that ... it ... without sh.

Speaking of "covering", remember how WL was supposedly a "covering" for us? I used to hear that from his cheerleaders. Like somehow he was standing in the breach for us, and connecting us to the Head of the Body who was in heaven. When he died I remember several people saying that "we lost our covering".

But it was also a covering in another dimension, spiritually. It was a veil between us and Christ. We had filters in between us and the words in print before us. The words were "interpreted" by the Exclusive Bretheren, filtered through a 20th century Chinese merchant. It is not coincidental that WL marketed tennis rackets, men's suits, and stackable chairs. It is not coincidental that WL got run out of Taiwan for money issues. It is not coincidental that when someone got an inheritance that WL suddenly got the idea for a motor home business, run by his family members. It is not coincidental that WL used the pulpit to dress down his franchises, the local churches, for investments in his scheme, and when it collapsed he shrugged. He'd underwritten one of his sons for a couple of years - good enough.

Now we all filter the word. We all have bias. But WL told us that WN stood on the shoulders of all, and could see the truth, and he and WL were so transformed that the word that came to us was straight from the top - i.e. God's present burden for planet Earth today. WL told us that he'd searched high and low, and for 40 years he couldn't find anyone who could teach him anything.

And we bought it. We willingly put this veil over us. Instead of seeing the ignorance and arrogance of such "nobody can teach me anything" statements, we all congratulated ourselves on making it to the New Testament equivalent of the Good Land.

And when the problems came, we just "covered" them. We relabeled them as "Storms" and "turmoils" and "rebellions", instead of that unrighteousness was among us. So yes, we were covered. Our history was covered. The truth was covered. God's revelation was covered.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Freedom, I have a similar memory. I had also seen John Ingalls' name in the old books, and I remember mentioning his name in a home meeting. I also knew nothing of the history, though I had heard of a "rebellion" or "storm" in the 80's, but how would I have known that he was "involved" in that? Anyway, the response I got? People just stared at me. Made me really uncomfortable. You'd think I'd grown alien antennae or something.

It was ironic, but I did not want to pursue the matter. The summer before my uncle passed, my sons and I visited my uncle and aunt on our way back from California. (My wife and daughter were in Europe).
While at a restaurant, my uncle and aunt asked out of the blue about John Ingalls. Just wondered how he was. They had reminisced when they hosted John for hospitality when my uncle and aunt were living in South Africa (early 80's).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

And when the problems came, we just "covered" them. We relabeled them as "Storms" and "turmoils" and "rebellions", instead of that unrighteousness was among us. So yes, we were covered. Our history was covered. The truth was covered. God's revelation was covered.

If we have learned anything from Richard Nixon, it's that the cover-up is almost always worse than the crime.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If we have learned anything from Richard Nixon, it's that the cover-up is almost always worse than the crime.

When you tell the truth, sometimes it will hurt for a little while, but deception erodes trust.
The leading brothers had opportunity to tell the truth. Sure, there would have been hurt feelings for a little while and the recovery would have recovered from it.
Now the deception has gone on so long for many years, who knows if it's past the point of no return? At any rate, they feel to continue the deception.

[aron]

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.


... So eating, drinking, breathing Jesus became what Lee told us it was, no more or less. Lee's folk homilies replaced the Bible.

I wanted to move this from the "introductions" thread to here, because this really strikes at the heart of "orthodoxy" versus "orthopraxy".

After writing the above comments, I began singing the chorus of a little melody to myself: "Feed me Lord Jesus/Give me to drink/fill all my hunger/Quench all my thirst/Flood me with joy/Be the strength of my heart/Fill all my hunger/Quench all my thirst"

It all sounds so orthodox, doesn't it? Pleasnt little song, catchy melody. That is part of the "hook" to get the converts in. Make it seem so good, and proper, and "Biblical". Everything is seemingly by the book. But once you are in, and fully invested in the system, and you begin to see things that are not, in fact, Biblical, what can you do? Because the system's directives also say, "Maximum Brother is always right". They use, for example, the story of Moses and Miriam and Aaron, and the story of the drunken Noah, and they say this shows us God's plan of a normal church life.

So when Lee said to pan the Psalms, we all did. Even if Paul had written in his epistles to sing them, Lee said not to sing them. So in practice, we went with Lee, over the Bible. This is not heretical, per se, but rather deviant behavior. We paid lip service to the Bible, then went and did what the "God's oracle" told us to do. To me this looks unbalanced, and dangerous. Heteropraxy, if you will.

One day about 2 years ago I was getting interested in the Psalms and I went to LSM's website, on the "Music" section. At the top of one page they had the quote from Paul in his epistle, urging the saints to sing "Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs". And they had many, many music CDs for sale. But no Psalms! You could sing verses from Thessalonians, or Timothy, or even the outline of Lee's trainings ("Incarnation, inclusion, intensification!"). But no Psalms. Why? Because Lee had told us that they were "fallen concepts" and should be avoided. So Big Brother had spoken, and even if it made no sense we had to follow. Because, remember, Big Brother is always right. Even when he's wrong, he's right.

So they take great pains to appear orthodox, but when you start to hang around with them, you begin to realize that at best they are unbalanced and strange.

[aron]

Orthodoxy: "As also affirmed by Fuller Theological Seminary the teachings of Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and the local churches affirm the essential doctrinal positions of the historic Christian church regarding the nature of God, the doctrine of the Trinity, the nature, person, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the atonement, the nature of humans before and after the fall, the plan of salvation (redemption), the nature of the church, the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, and Christ's bodily, visible Second Coming for final judgment and the reconciliation of all things. Not only are these teachings fully within orthodoxy, they are more carefully explained and contrasted to heretical beliefs that they are in most American Christian churches. Most local church believers in America understand and can explain essential biblical doctrine better than most traditional American Christians."

(Gretchen Passantino, Answers in Action)

Heteropraxy: "all local churches must be exactly identical, without any differences" WL, footnote from Revelations RecV.

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

Orthodoxy: "Whenever you come together, each one of you has"... "In the local churches we don't use clergy/laity system. Each believer can minister the riches of Christ..."

Heteropraxy: "Whenever you speak in the meeting, don't use your own thoughts, reactions, concepts, or opinions. Just try to speak exactly what God's oracle has spoken to us... try to be a Witness Lee tape recorder"

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

I wanted to move this from the "introductions" thread to here, because this really strikes at the heart of "orthodoxy" versus "orthopraxy".

After writing the above comments, I began singing the chorus of a little melody to myself: "Feed me Lord Jesus/Give me to drink/fill all my hunger/Quench all my thirst/Flood me with joy/Be the strength of my heart/Fill all my hunger/Quench all my thirst"

It all sounds so orthodox, doesn't it? Pleasnt little song, catchy melody. That is part of the "hook" to get the converts in. Make it seem so good, and proper, and "Biblical". Everything is seemingly by the book. But once you are in, and fully invested in the system, and you begin to see things that are not, in fact, Biblical, what can you do? Because the system's directives also say, "Maximum Brother is always right". They use, for example, the story of Moses and Miriam and Aaron, and the story of the drunken Noah, and they say this shows us God's plan of a normal church life.

So when Lee said to pan the Psalms, we all did. Even if Paul had written in his epistles to sing them, Lee said not to sing them. So in practice, we went with Lee, over the Bible. This is not heretical, per se, but rather deviant behavior. We paid lip service to the Bible, then went and did what the "God's oracle" told us to do. To me this looks unbalanced, and dangerous. Heteropraxy, if you will.

One day about 2 years ago I was getting interested in the Psalms and I went to LSM's website, on the "Music" section. At the top of one page they had the quote from Paul in his epistle, urging the saints to sing "Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs". And they had many, many music CDs for sale. But no Psalms! You could sing verses from Thessalonians, or Timothy, or even the outline of Lee's trainings ("Incarnation, inclusion, intensification!"). But no Psalms. Why? Because Lee had told us that they were "fallen concepts" and should be avoided. So Big Brother had spoken, and even if it made no sense we had to follow. Because, remember, Big Brother is always right. Even when he's wrong, he's right.

So they take great pains to appear orthodox, but when you start to hang around with them, you begin to realize that at best they are unbalanced and strange.

It really seems like for LC leadership, there is a constant struggle to balance teaching and practice. For the Christian public they want to appear orthodox. I suppose that they have had some success at that in recent years, but I don't think just because Christian scholars state that the LC is orthodox is going to generate interest in the LC for outsiders.

In regards to doctrine, the LC has to maintain unique the unique teachings of WL. That is what makes it the LC. In regards to practice, they have to maintain their unique practices in order really unique in comparison with other "Christians".

To they outsider, they can create an image of having orthodox doctrines. That is relatively easy. I don't know how they can really do the same in regards to practice. About the best they can do is be very esoteric regarding what practices are revealed to whom.

It doesn't seem possible in the LC to gravitate towards normal Christian orthopraxy. Those who come in and do so don't seem to last very long. Those who stay quickly are drawn into the heteropraxy, and once that happens it is not easy to find a way out. I say that because I am still in the LC.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It really seems like for LC leadership, there is a constant struggle to balance teaching and practice. For the Christian public they want to appear orthodox. I suppose that they have had some success at that in recent years, but I don't think just because Christian scholars state that the LC is orthodox is going to generate interest in the LC for outsiders.

In regards to doctrine, the LC has to maintain unique the unique teachings of WL. That is what makes it the LC. In regards to practice, they have to maintain their unique practices in order really unique in comparison with other "Christians".

To they outsider, they can create an image of having orthodox doctrines. That is relatively easy. I don't know how they can really do the same in regards to practice. About the best they can do is be very esoteric regarding what practices are revealed to whom.

It doesn't seem possible in the LC to gravitate towards normal Christian orthopraxy. Those who come in and do so don't seem to last very long. Those who stay quickly are drawn into the heteropraxy, and once that happens it is not easy to find a way out. I say that because I am still in the LC.

As I sum up your post Freedom, appears you're saying:
1. LSM/LC leadership want to appear/maintain image of orthodox to Christian scholars and public (see CRI).
2. In practice maintain/promote the Lee's ministry as "unique".
3. Of new contacts visiting LC meetings will either be turned away by promotion of a ministry and few will be drawn into the vision.

As a current LC elder once said..."the recovery is not for everybody".

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

As I sum up your post Freedom, appears you're saying:
1. LSM/LC leadership want to appear/maintain image of orthodox to Christian scholars and public (see CRI).
2. In practice maintain/promote the Lee's ministry as "unique".
3. Of new contacts visiting LC meetings will either be turned away by promotion of a ministry and few will be drawn into the vision.

As a current LC elder once said..."the recovery is not for everybody".

I think the LC sees being accepted by mainstream Christianity as necessary for survival. The problem with that is if they were to adopt mainstream teachings and practices, there would be nothing "special" about it. For any ministry to claim it is the the ministry of the age means that there is going to be something wrong with it.

So the LC can create the illusion of being orthodox, but it will never succeed at being orthodox.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I think the LC sees being accepted by mainstream Christianity as necessary for survival. The problem with that is if they were to adopt mainstream teachings and practices, there would be nothing "special" about it. For any ministry to claim it is the the ministry of the age means that there is going to be something wrong with it.

So the LC can create the illusion of being orthodox, but it will never succeed at being orthodox.

Many like us who were raised in the local churches, don't know any differently. Meeting with other assemblies, I am quite fine with local churches being somewhat unorthodox. Unique? Not really. Speak with someone from the Exclusive Brethren and you'll realize the local churches are not so unique. Sure they might try to use high sounding words to appear unique, but not really.
Real issues for a former LC attendee such as myself are the practices (orthopraxy) that are sectarian and only produce division.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Terry

Many like us who were raised in the local churches, don't know any differently. Meeting with other assemblies, I am quite fine with local churches being somewhat unorthodox. Unique? Not really. Speak with someone from the Exclusive Brethren and you'll realize the local churches are not so unique. Sure they might try to use high sounding words to appear unique, but not really.
Real issues for a former LC attendee such as myself are the practices (orthopraxy) that are sectarian and only produce division.

When I was in Detroit I had two small children and I was watching what was going on..."oh Lord Jesus" repeatedly, the shouting in meetings, the constant pray-reading and that was the beginning of the end for me but not the deciding issue. I was concerned about raising my children in that environment. There were other issues and I was fully aware of the issues surrounding the Plymouth Brethren since we were similar.

The bottom line for me was when Ron K. and the other two elders in an open meeting berated another brother, Don O. and I for "not following brothers". Don and I had been involved in bringing in the young people and I had been working the University. We were doing some crazy stuff after going to Berkeley and seeing what they were doing. We were concerned that the elders were not willing to follow some things but we were certainly flexible. Rather than pull us aside and talk to us about it they decide to deride us openly in a meeting. We were just in our 20's and we were doing the best we could full tilt. Don O cried and I was just stunned. Using a basic right in our country there was no due process or fairness. In the end what they did was blow up the efforts of Don O and I and the pursuit of bringing in young people of which I had brought some into the LC from the University.

As we know, these were not unique responses from LC leaders because these are the practices of the LCs over the years!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Dave

I was concerned about raising my children in that environment.

My sentiment also. At the grade school level, not a problem. It was when my children reached junior high, (having witnessed bizarre and reactive behavior at YP Conferences I had attended as a teen), I wanted to shield my children from similar experiences.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

When I was in Detroit I had two small children and I was watching what was going on..."oh Lord Jesus" repeatedly, the shouting in meetings, the constant pray-reading and that was the beginning of the end for me but not the deciding issue. I was concerned about raising my children in that environment. There were other issues and I was fully aware of the issues surrounding the Plymouth Brethren since we were similar.

The bottom line for me was when Ron K. and the other two elders in an open meeting berated another brother, Don O. and I for "not following brothers". Don and I had been involved in bringing in the young people and I had been working the University. We were doing some crazy stuff after going to Berkeley and seeing what they were doing. We were concerned that the elders were not willing to follow some things but we were certainly flexible. Rather than pull us aside and talk to us about it they decide to deride us openly in a meeting. We were just in our 20's and we were doing the best we could full tilt. Don O cried and I was just stunned. Using a basic right in our country there was no due process or fairness. In the end what they did was blow up the efforts of Don O and I and the pursuit of bringing in young people of which I had brought some into the LC from the University.

As we know, these were not unique responses from LC leaders because these are the practices of the LCs over the years!

There are a number of cases where certain gifted brothers were berated publicly to the point that younger brothers lost all respect for them, and began to also mistreat them. In one situation, Titus became so abusive publicly towards one brother, that he faced physical confrontations from others thinking they were standing up for the Lord and protecting His church.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Terry

My sentiment also. At the grade school level, not a problem. It was when my children reached junior high, (having witnessed bizarre and reactive behavior at YP Conferences I had attended as a teen), I wanted to shield my children from similar experiences.

You have an interesting background since you grew up in that environment. An interesting story recognizing that maybe your children should not follow the same steps. It is courageous that you were willing to make that change for your children.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There are a number of cases where certain gifted brothers were berated publicly to the point that younger brothers lost all respect for them, and began to also mistreat them. In one situation, Titus became so abusive publicly towards one brother, that he faced physical confrontations from others thinking they were standing up for the Lord and protecting His church.

It is not every meeting that this type of verbal abuse in meetings happens. When it does happen to those who have concerns it becomes a deterrent to an expression of concerns. People become frozen. The LC is toast. They have crushed any expression of concern in their meetings so that everyone who has any concerns are holding back. It may not be apparent but it is underlying the entire LC movement.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There are a number of cases where certain gifted brothers were berated publicly to the point that younger brothers lost all respect for them, and began to also mistreat them. In one situation, Titus became so abusive publicly towards one brother, that he faced physical confrontations from others thinking they were standing up for the Lord and protecting His church.

Ohio, do you care to be a little more specific as to what you mean by "physical confrontations"? That could mean a lot of things...

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

My sentiment also. At the grade school level, not a problem. It was when my children reached junior high, (having witnessed bizarre and reactive behavior at YP Conferences I had attended as a teen), I wanted to shield my children from similar experiences.

In particular I know serving brothers and sisters mean well. Maybe there is a misplaced zeal concerning deputy/delegated authority and how to handle/interact with young people. Though teens may not respond, at least with my teen children they are observant.
What I witnessed at a Young People's Conference I was at, during a free time in the afternoon being with young brothers from my locality. One of them was talking to a young sister from another locality with her peers. A serving brother comes running over towards us speaking a rebuking word about brothers and sisters speaking to each other. I thought this was quite bizarre behavior reacting to the group of young people.
I want my children to be able to speak to peers of the opposite gender without feeling they're committing a gross sin.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Terry

In particular I know serving brothers and sisters mean well. Maybe there is a misplaced zeal concerning deputy/delegated authority and how to handle/interact with young people. Though teens may not respond, at least with my teen children they are observant.
What I witnessed at a Young People's Conference I was at, during a free time in the afternoon being with young brothers from my locality. One of them was talking to a young sister from another locality with her peers. A serving brother comes running over towards us speaking a rebuking word about brothers and sisters speaking to each other. I thought this was quite bizarre behavior reacting to the group of young people.
I want my children to be able to speak to peers of the opposite gender without feeling they're committing a gross sin.

This why there is a need for mature saints to be around to rebuke the FTT graduate serving ones who are rebuking our young ones. My fear is that the FTT graduates are taking over the churches.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Terry

In particular I know serving brothers and sisters mean well. Maybe there is a misplaced zeal concerning deputy/delegated authority and how to handle/interact with young people. Though teens may not respond, at least with my teen children they are observant.
What I witnessed at a Young People's Conference I was at, during a free time in the afternoon being with young brothers from my locality. One of them was talking to a young sister from another locality with her peers. A serving brother comes running over towards us speaking a rebuking word about brothers and sisters speaking to each other. I thought this was quite bizarre behavior reacting to the group of young people.
I want my children to be able to speak to peers of the opposite gender without feeling they're committing a gross sin.

May God Bless you and keep you!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Ohio, do you care to be a little more specific as to what you mean by "physical confrontations"? That could mean a lot of things...

He came quite close to getting punched out.

Twice it happened to me too. Once I escaped, and the other time I was branded with a shiner for weeks.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

This why there is a need for mature saints to be around to rebuke the FTT graduate serving ones who are rebuking our young ones. My fear is that the FTT graduates are taking over the churches.

My experience was in 1985/1986 before the full time training came into existence.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Terry

My experience was in 1985/1986 before the full time training came into existence.

Thanks for the clarification. I thought your testimony was from a recent experience. I think there is probably more interaction between the genders nowadays...at least from what I have observed at conferences.

[Freedom]

I have never seen physical confrontation in the LC, however, I know all too well that this practice of "berating" people takes place. Most of the berating I have seen has been subtle, with the intention to undermine respect for that person. I can think of a lot of examples, but this video I found a while back sums it up pretty well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUn9sGz8gPE

In the video Lee constantly corrects his translator (James Lee?) over the slightest mistranslations, none of which would change what WL was trying to say. Of course all this is done in the name of "perfecting". What is really going on is WL is sending the clear message that he is the top dog and this brother is his subordinate. Lee even goes as far to call him a "bad translator" and you can hear everyone laugh. I wonder if all meetings with WL were like this? WL certainly knew how to berate people in subtle ways. I'm sure no one sitting there was thinking that he was doing that. Rather they were probably thinking about how WL's translator needs more "perfecting".

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

He came quite close to getting punched out.

Twice it happened to me too. Once I escaped, and the other time I was branded with a shiner for weeks.

That sounds like quite a story. Maybe you'll share it with us sometime.

[TLFisher]

Another practice within the local churches, when a brother or sister leaves the local churches to receive actual care in a non-LC assembly, the attitude and speaking is "they've been lost to the world".

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Another practice within the local churches, when a brother or sister leaves the local churches to receive actual care in a non-LC assembly, the attitude and speaking is "they've been lost to the world".

I've heard that one before. It's interesting that they can get away with doing this. It seems that the impression is given that anyone who has left the LC has "backslidden". Here is what I find interesting: in Lee's "new way" fellowship, he talks explicitly about trying to shepherd/restore those who have backslidden. Within the last several years, I have heard at least one of the BB's encourage the saints to do this, to contact and shepherd those who are no longer meeting or whom have "backslidden".

At face value it seems like a reasonable request by the BB's, at least for someone in the LC who hears them say that. It is not until you start consider who those are that have been "lost" does everything come into perspective.

I can think of various profiles of people who have left the LC. Here are some scenarios that come to mind:
- Those whom have openly expressed concern about LC teachings/practices (AKA "negative ones").
- Those whom were frustrated/fed up with the LC, want nothing to do with it and quietly left
- Those whom have left the LC and aren't going to any other church.

In my mind only those who have left the LC, haven't moved on, and have not maintained their walk with the Lord could even be considered as "backslidden" or "lost to the world". I think this category of persons who have left the LC is a minority.

If the BB's are encouraging saints in the LC to contact ones who aren't meeting with the LC anymore, do they really know what they are asking? I don't think they realize this, because they themselves are blinded by following whatever WL said. If we were to take the BB's "fellowship", it would mean contacting those whom they consider to be "negative". I think this is essentially what Steve tried to do when he contacted the brothers who left in the late 80's.

Interestingly, whenever I hear anyone talk about contacting or trying to shepherd those who aren't meeting with the LC, no one, and I mean no one takes any initiative whatsoever. I think that everyone is aware of what this would really entail, they just can't admit it, because it would mean contradicting Lee.

[TLFisher]

Another practice I heard on my 2013 visit to the LC from my youth, is referring to non-LSM churches as "denominations". Everyone is meeting in division except the brothers and sisters meeting in the local churches. Time for a reality check.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Terry

Another practice I heard on my 2013 visit to the LC from my youth, is referring to non-LSM churches as "denominations". Everyone is meeting in division except the brothers and sisters meeting in the local churches. Time for a reality check.

If they desire oneness, why do they not gather together with churches in their own neighborhoods? Why do their campus clubs avoid fellowship or interaction with other Christian clubs on the campus?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

If they desire oneness, why do they not gather together with churches in their own neighborhoods? Why do their campus clubs avoid fellowship or interaction with other Christian clubs on the campus?

My experience has been that many times they will say things like "we are open to fellowship with all Christians" or something to that effect. In the LC such statements are meaningless. First of all if it were really true, there would be no need to say that. Why would they need to clarify that? They need to say that because of WL's various statements blasting Christianity, Denominations, Protestantism and Catholicism.

I think a realistic view of the LC's willingness to fellowship with other Christians is that they are willing to have other Christians attend LC meetings. They are not willing to attend other churches.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

My experience has been that many times they will say things like "we are open to fellowship with all Christians" or something to that effect. In the LC such statements are meaningless. First of all if it were really true, there would be no need to say that. Why would they need to clarify that? They need to say that because of WL's various statements blasting Christianity, Denominations, Protestantism and Catholicism.

I think a realistic view of the LC's willingness to fellowship with other Christians is that they are willing to have other Christians attend LC meetings. They are not willing to attend other churches.

True. Visiting last July, the morning revival being covered had some content on fellowship. Basically you've covered it Freedom. Ones in the local churches are open for fellowship as long as it's according to LSM publications.
I'm all for oneness and fellowship. How about dropping the LSM publications and fellowship according to the Bible?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

True. Visiting last July, the morning revival being covered had some content on fellowship. Basically you've covered it Freedom. Ones in the local churches are open for fellowship as long as it's according to LSM publications.
I'm all for oneness and fellowship. How about dropping the LSM publications and fellowship according to the Bible?

This is where I really get frustrated with the LC. The exclusive use of LSM publications is rationalized by saying that WL has put "everything together" in his works. They say that there is no need to go to any other books outside of LSM publications.

It always amazes me how uncomfortable everyone gets when a newcomer brings their own version of the Bible. These things should be red flags, even to those in the LC. And to think at one time I thought that exclusively using LSM publications was completely normal.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The exclusive use of LSM publications is rationalized by saying that WL has put "everything together" in his works. They say that there is no need to go to any other books outside of LSM publications.

The idea that WN & WL scooped up everything worthwhile from 2,000 years of Christian writing is arrogant and patently absurd. And the idea that once WN & WL started giving messages, and putting pen to paper, every other Christian ministry was rendered null and void, is equally arrogant and absurd.

Yes there is a lot of dreck out there. A lot of chaff. A lot of opinions, ignorantly based, masquerading as teachings, truth, and even revelation. But that is where a spirit of discernment comes in. WL told us that WN had that spirit, and did all the hard work of sorting and evaluating and putting "everything together" so that we don't need to bother our pretty little heads with all that. Just enjoy the ministry of the age. Chant outlines and hymn choruses, and you supposedly get it all.

The whole thing is a farce of the highest magnitude. And it is a theft of the Christian polity, removing their birthright. Those writings are our Christian birthright, but instead we get HWFMR.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

The idea that WN & WL scooped up everything worthwhile from 2,000 years of Christian writing is arrogant and patently absurd. And the idea that once WN & WL started giving messages, and putting pen to paper, every other Christian ministry was rendered null and void, is equally arrogant and absurd.

Whoa! I tend to think just as with the Bible, WL used from WN's ministry that which was expedient. Just as portions of the Bible that doesn't conform to Lee's ministry, similar with Nee's ministry, it gets ignored or passed over. WL's aligning to WN's ministry, is a type of riding on the coattails of WN's reputation.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Whoa! I tend to think just as with the Bible, WL used from WN's ministry that which was expedient. Just as portions of the Bible that doesn't conform to Lee's ministry, similar with Nee's ministry, it gets ignored or passed over. WL's aligning to WN's ministry, is a type of riding on the coattails of WN's reputation.

This is the impression I get. Actually, since I started reading Philip Lin's book, I am starting to realize this is more the case than I had previously realized. It seems that this is a portion of Nee's ministry that LSM has largely ignored. I think Lee was particularly interested in Nee's teachings that could help him push his "ground of the church" doctrine.

To my knowledge, LSM has never published "The Normal Christian Life", which is arguably Nee's best known work. I think that the LC mainly focuses on "The Normal Christian Church Life", which ironically doesn't espouse the current views in the LC.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is where I really get frustrated with the LC. The exclusive use of LSM publications is rationalized by saying that WL has put "everything together" in his works. They say that there is no need to go to any other books outside of LSM publications.

It always amazes me how uncomfortable everyone gets when a newcomer brings their own version of the Bible. These things should be red flags, even to those in the LC. And to think at one time I thought that exclusively using LSM publications was completely normal.

When it comes to LSM publications, "everything together" is with the view of God's economy. I seem to recall a brother once telling me Lee's The Economy of God were based on notes from a conference T.A. Sparks gave.

By the way Freedom, when I go to a LC home meeting I bring my New American Standard version.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

By the way Freedom, when I go to a LC home meeting I bring my New American Standard version.

They don't have a problem with that? In my experience LC home meetings mainly involve comprehensively reading all the footnotes to whatever chapter/verses we cover so if you don't have a RV, you're pretty much lost.

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Freedom

To my knowledge, LSM has never published "The Normal Christian Life", which is arguably Nee's best known work. I think that the LC mainly focuses on "The Normal Christian Church Life", which ironically doesn't espouse the current views in the LC.

They did publish it as a single volume. It is also Volume 33 of the Collected Works of Watchman Nee.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Friedel

They did publish it as a single volume. It is also Volume 33 of the Collected Works of Watchman Nee.

I did not know that. I don't really hear them encourage anyone to read Nee these days. What I have also not heard mentioned is that LSM doesn't have exclusive publishing rights to Nee's materials.

[Friedel]

Add

Originally Posted by Freedom

I don't really hear them encourage anyone to read Nee these days. What I have also not heard mentioned is that LSM doesn't have exclusive publishing rights to Nee's materials.

I do not think they ever had exclusive rights since all of Watchman Nee's books, with the exception of The Spiritual Man which he had in fact written, were transcripts of messages and therefore in the public domain. The language was polished and then published as books. Steven Kaung has been described as an excellent translator and that is how many of Nee's "books" were published in English in the US. (Regarding publishing rights of Watchman Nee's material Witness Lee possibly had another story.)

In England Angus Kinnear published a couple of books in hard cover, including The Normal Christian Life. He must have started in the 1960s and probably at the behest of his father-in-law, Theodore Austin-Sparks, who had probably received copies of messages from people he had met in Taiwan and elsewhere.

Witness Lee often put down Steven Kaung and effectively isolated him on the east coast.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Friedel

Add

I do not think they ever had exclusive rights since all of Watchman Nee's books, with the exception of The Spiritual Man which he had in fact written, were transcripts of messages and therefore in the public domain. The language was polished and then published as books. Steven Kaung has been described as an excellent translator and that is how many of Nee's "books" were published in English in the US. (Regarding publishing rights of Watchman Nee's material Witness Lee possibly had another story.)

In England Angus Kinnear published a couple of books in hard cover, including The Normal Christian Life. He must have started in the 1960s and probably at the behest of his father-in-law, Theodore Austin-Sparks, who had probably received copies of messages from people he had met in Taiwan and elsewhere.

Witness Lee often put down Steven Kaung and effectively isolated him on the east coast.

I think many in the LC have the impression that LSM is the only publisher of WN works, or at the very least LSM has published all of Nee's works. If I search for "Watchman Nee" on Amazon, many of the results are books from other publishers.

What I find interesting is that I have seen very few people in the LC who have any non-LSM Nee books. Is this just a coincidence? If many of Nee's works have been translated by Kaung then that would explain it. I don't know how things were back in the old days, but it seems that currently a lot of Nee's works are ignored in the LC. I am surprised how much is out there that I have never heard of before.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I think many in the LC have the impression that LSM is the only publisher of WN works, or at the very least LSM has published all of Nee's works. If I search for "Watchman Nee" on Amazon, many of the results are books from other publishers.

What I find interesting is that I have seen very few people in the LC who have any non-LSM Nee books. Is this just a coincidence? If many of Nee's works have been translated by Kaung then that would explain it. I don't know how things were back in the old days, but it seems that currently a lot of Nee's works are ignored in the LC. I am surprised how much is out there that I have never heard of before.

When I joined the LC around '75, they did carry the CLC (Normal Ch. Life, Sit Walk Stand) and CFP (Kaung) books. But then the word came down that those were "poor translations" and perpetrated by "rebels" or the "unclear" to boot. And that was the end of them in our bookroom.

Lee was nothing if not an information controller. He would have hated the internet.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I think many in the LC have the impression that LSM is the only publisher of WN works, or at the very least LSM has published all of Nee's works. If I search for "Watchman Nee" on Amazon, many of the results are books from other publishers.

What I find interesting is that I have seen very few people in the LC who have any non-LSM Nee books. Is this just a coincidence? If many of Nee's works have been translated by Kaung then that would explain it. I don't know how things were back in the old days, but it seems that currently a lot of Nee's works are ignored in the LC. I am surprised how much is out there that I have never heard of before.

Here's how I understand it.

Except for a few books which he actually wrote, most of Nee's books were written from the personal notes of atttendees, since no actual recordings existed. If you have ever been in a meeting or a lecture, then you know that one's notes can differ greatly from another. Secondarily, these hand-written notes needed to be translated into English. Hence, another layer of subjectivity is introduced.

This is why two or three books by various publishers may exist based on the same spoken messages by Nee. Lee, of course, claimed his were the best, and all others were subject to error. Since he claimed that he alone was "Nee's closest and most faithful co-worker," we complied by canning all other books and buying LSM's bound blue volumes.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

When I joined the LC around '75, they did carry the CLC (Normal Ch. Life, Sit Walk Stand) and CFP (Kaung) books. But then the word came down that those were "poor translations" and perpetrated by "rebels" or the "unclear" to boot. And that was the end of them in our bookroom.

Lee was nothing if not an information controller. He would have hated the internet.

He did. He said it was his greatest source of "persecution." Then he launched a program to buy up web names and instructed us to rack up hits on LC/LSM sites to influence those fledgling search engines.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here's how I understand it.

Except for a few books which he actually wrote, most of Nee's books were written from the personal notes of atttendees, since no actual recordings existed. If you have ever been in a meeting or a lecture, then you know that one's notes can differ greatly from another. Secondarily, these hand-written notes needed to be translated into English. Hence, another layer of subjectivity is introduced.

This is why two or three books by various publishers may exist based on the same spoken messages by Nee. Lee, of course, claimed his were the best, and all others were subject to error. Since he claimed that he alone was "Nee's closest and most faithful co-worker," we complied by canning all other books and buying LSM's bound blue volumes.

Since I started reading things on the internet, I was really surprised to learn how many others were involved in the Nee era. Like what was said, WL really controlled all the information. He had us all thinking that Nee was the initial MOTA, and of course he was Nee's direct successor. I now have to question how close Nee and Lee really were in comparison to Nee's other coworkers.

I suppose there is a lot that we will never know, however, what I do know is that Nee was happy to work with others, much more than Lee was. Also, after reading Steve's recent writing on Nee, it is clear that Nee was not the person that Lee portrayed him as.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I suppose there is a lot that we will never know, however, what I do know is that Nee was happy to work with others, much more than Lee was. Also, after reading Steve's recent writing on Nee, it is clear that Nee was not the person that Lee portrayed him as.

I'm not sure about that. Why would he develop a theological construct -- one church one city -- which in effect condemns all others, if he was "happy" to work with them?

Both Nee and Lee worked a system of public shamings and rebukes which automatically placed them on top -- they alone were above reproach.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not sure about that. Why would he develop a theological construct -- one church one city -- which in effect condemns all others, if he was "happy" to work with them?

Both Nee and Lee worked a system of public shamings and rebukes which automatically placed them on top -- they alone were above reproach.

Maybe he wasn't completely "happy" working with others, it's probably better to say he was at least willing to work with others. The contrast is that Lee only wanted other who would work for him(minions and yes men), although I'm sure that was also true of Nee, just to a lesser extent.

[Freedom]

I am not aware of any of Nee's coworkers whom Lee went on to work with. Lee had no peers, correct? I know that when Lee came to the US there were some Chinese saints like brother Samuel Chang who had already been following Nee/Lee, however, I would guess that they must have viewed Lee as a leader or father figure as opposed to one of their peers.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I am not aware of any of Nee's coworkers whom Lee went on to work with. Lee had no peers, correct? I know that when Lee came to the US there were some Chinese saints like brother Samuel Chang who had already been following Nee/Lee, however, I would guess that they must have viewed Lee as a leader or father figure as opposed to one of their peers.

As a frame of reference, Stephen Kaung is the only one I am familiar with. If other brothers such as Stephen Kaung who were discipled by Watchman Nee, did not share Lee's emphasis on localism. They were more influenced by Nee and Sparks. Due to the agree to disagree relationship, Lee considered himself as having no peers.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

What I find interesting is that I have seen very few people in the LC who have any non-LSM Nee books. Is this just a coincidence? If many of Nee's works have been translated by Kaung then that would explain it. I don't know how things were back in the old days, but it seems that currently a lot of Nee's works are ignored in the LC. I am surprised how much is out there that I have never heard of before.

I don't think it's unusual if it's Spiritual Man or Sit Walk Stand. What I consider interesting is not so much non-LSM Nee books, but books on marriage help. LC couples have to go outside LSM publications for Christian books on marriage. To find such a book on the bookshelf of the most ardent LSM advocates causes an eyebrow to raise.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Igzy

When I joined the LC around '75, they did carry the CLC (Normal Ch. Life, Sit Walk Stand) and CFP (Kaung) books. But then the word came down that those were "poor translations" and perpetrated by "rebels" or the "unclear" to boot. And that was the end of them in our bookroom.

Lee was nothing if not an information controller. He would have hated the internet.

As a kid I was told that CFP altered and/or added to Nee's messages to fit their own doctrinal agenda. That was the warning that only LSM's published versions of Nee should be trusted.

Troy Books, on the other hand, has claimed that LSM did the same thing. But I don't know if Troy Brooks is a particularly reliable source...

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

He did. He said it was his greatest source of "persecution." Then he launched a program to buy up web names and instructed us to rack up hits
on LC/LSM sites to influence those fledgling search engines.

Ohio, I didn't realize the push to buy up lots of domain names came directly from Lee? I remember the push for individual localities to sign up for their "own" websites starting later, maybe around 1999. But maybe it had already been a couple years in the works.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Terry

As a frame of reference, Stephen Kaung is the only one I am familiar with. If other brothers such as Stephen Kaung who were discipled by Watchman Nee, did not share Lee's emphasis on localism. They were more influenced by Nee and Sparks. Due to the agree to disagree relationship, Lee considered himself as having no peers.

Has anyone on this forum met Stephen Kaung?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Has anyone on this forum met Stephen Kaung?

I have and I am sure Indiana has and maybe others on this forum have too. Stephen Kaung's wife told me he (Stephen Kaung) is open to the local churches. I guess from that statement, it does not mean the feeling is mutual. Rather the LSM/LC elects to put up a wall when it comes to fellowship outside the LSM influence.
Say what you want about the LSM dealings with CRI, but I see that as a PAC brokering. That's more politics than it is fellowship.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

As a kid I was told that CFP altered and/or added to Nee's messages to fit their own doctrinal agenda. That was the warning that only LSM's published versions of Nee should be trusted.

Troy Books, on the other hand, has claimed that LSM did the same thing. But I don't know if Troy Brooks is a particularly reliable source...

Sounds like typical LSM propaganda to me. When those associated with a publication company tell you whose publications to read, it's highly suspect. People should be able to choose for themselves which version they want. It's insulting that they don't think the rank and file member has any "discernment" on what's what. On top of that Nee's ministry is just his ministry. If it weren't for the LC placing such a high emphasis on THE ministry, it wouldn't matter so much how "accurate" Nee's books are in regards to the LC doctrines.

So as Ohio pointed out, Nee's books have come from different sets of handwritten notes, obviously resulting in two different versions of the same book. It kind of brings to mind when I used to go to the semi-annual trainings. No recording devices allowed. No sharing notes. What ridiculous rules. Especially the no sharing notes rule. What do you think we ended up doing in the study sessions? At any rate, by keeping anyone from having the means to give their own account of what was covered in the trainings, LSM enabled itself to produce the official account of their "Crystallization Studies". I'm sure they wish they could have done that for Nee's materials.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Maybe he wasn't completely "happy" working with others, it's probably better to say he was at least willing to work with others. The contrast is that Lee only wanted others who would work for him (minions and yes men), although I'm sure that was also true of Nee, just to a lesser extent.

I can say the same thing about Titus Chu -- "only wanting others who would work for him (minions and yes men)"-- as you said about Witness Lee. In fact, that was the assessment of his lifelong companion in NYC, Benjamen Chen, at his Quarantine meeting in Whistler, BC, Canada.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Ohio, I didn't realize the push to buy up lots of domain names came directly from Lee? I remember the push for individual localities to sign up for their "own" websites starting later, maybe around 1999. But maybe it had already been a couple years in the works.

Obviously the elderly Lee was not the internet mastermind. LSM had staff who were directed to look into these matters.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obviously the elderly Lee was not the internet mastermind. LSM had staff who were directed to look into these matters.

Their staff don't seem to understand much about how the internet works either, even almost 20 year later here in 2014. Their most obvious misconception is the thought that by ignoring what is said on the internet that it will somehow just go away. Also having a disclaimer on their site along with their copyright that says "Your IP address is __" doesn't make me want to read their books. I can't think of any other site that has such a warning on it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Their staff don't seem to understand much about how the internet works either, even almost 20 year later here in 2014. Their most obvious misconception is the thought that by ignoring what is said on the internet that it will somehow just go away. Also having a disclaimer on their site along with their copyright that says "Your IP address is __" doesn't make me want to read their books. I can't think of any other site that has such a warning on it.

Yeah, what's with that?

Before i left 10 years ago, they were obsessed with search engines only finding them and not the "bad guys." Kind of like every business trying ti coverup all the bad reviews.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can say the same thing about Titus Chu -- "only wanting others who would work for him (minions and yes men)"-- as you said about Witness Lee. In fact, that was the assessment of his lifelong companion in NYC, Benjamen Chen, at his Quarantine meeting in Whistler, BC, Canada.

I noticed the great irony with Dong Yu Lan also; he was charged with being ambitious, manipulative, controlling, and paranoid. I thought, "Gee, he learned his lessons well - why is he being censored for 'closely following the apostle'?"

I think the blendeds were jealous that Dong "out-Lee'd" them and made them look bad. They were curators of the Lee Museum, and Dong was becoming the new Lee.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can say the same thing about Titus Chu -- "only wanting others who would work for him (minions and yes men)"-- as you said about Witness Lee. In fact, that was the assessment of his lifelong companion in NYC, Benjamen Chen, at his Quarantine meeting in Whistler, BC, Canada.

Actually, i should clarify this -- TC despised "yes-men," challenging others publicly to be creative and innovative, yet demanding absolute submission. TC also liked to take credit for all ideas proffered by subordinates.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Has anyone on this forum met Stephen Kaung?

Indiana, or Steve Isitt, told me recently that he met with a Kaung group. And there's videos of Stephen speakings.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Not sure what you're asking as re Looper's passing.

As for Gruhler being "dumped", that had already happened by the time I heard Looper saying these things. So I wondered whether Looper was being credited for something that was actually Gruhler's brainchild, but of course had to be reassigned to a "faithful brother" after Gruhler got the out.

Also, I should point out that I know very little about what happened to Gene Gruhler. Though I do remember hearing people talk about him in these vague, general terms. Something along the lines of, "Last we heard, he was in Colorado somewhere, but no one really knows what he's doing." I heard people talk the same way about Bill Mallon, "Last we heard, he was in Florida somewhere, but as far as I know, he's really not doing anything there." (Whatever that means.)

Re-reading Norm's posts from thebereans.net, I receive his speaking as saying Gene's moving to Colorado and Philip Lee's excommunication being lifted was no coincidence. The text in bold is what Norm posted.

"Here is how I understood what took place related to GG.

GG signed the letter of quarantine related to Philip. I have good reason to believe GG was the main promoter of that letter.

I believe it was late 1996 in Anaheim GG read a letter removing that quarantine and then one announcing his moving to Denver.

Here is something which I had posted earlier on another thread:

Another very interesting event transpired shortly before Br. Lee’s death. Two announcements were made after a meeting. First, a letter was read by Gene Gruhler which reinstated Phillip Lee into the church fellowship. Second, Gene announced his moving to Denver. To most this was coincidental.

After GG was gone you began to hear, behind the scenes, the joy from some of the blended speakers that he was finally gone. Ed Marks spoke some of the strongest words. There was no love lost.

Eventually after Br. Lee’s departure there was a reassigning of the regions of the work to brothers. GG had always taken care of the Mountain States. Now, even though he was living in Denver, Mel Porter was the new worker to oversee that region.

Four years ago, while in the Denver area doing research for a book, I visited Br. Gene, not related to the book. He did not speak about the things that transpired in Anaheim. He has very high standards for himself before the Lord. There was only one little sentence of three words spoken at the very end when I was leaving. I realized from them he had been maneuvered out of Anaheim with the view to purge him out."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Another very interesting event transpired shortly before Br. Lee’s death. Two announcements were made after a meeting. First, a letter was read by Gene Gruhler which reinstated Phillip Lee into the church fellowship. Second, Gene announced his moving to Denver. To most this was coincidental.

After GG was gone you began to hear, behind the scenes, the joy from some of the blended speakers that he was finally gone. Ed Marks spoke some of the strongest words. There was no love lost.

Eventually after Br. Lee’s departure there was a reassigning of the regions of the work to brothers. GG had always taken care of the Mountain States. Now, even though he was living in Denver, Mel Porter was the new worker to oversee that region.

Four years ago, while in the Denver area doing research for a book, I visited Br. Gene, not related to the book. He did not speak about the things that transpired in Anaheim. He has very high standards for himself before the Lord. There was only one little sentence of three words spoken at the very end when I was leaving. I realized from them he had been maneuvered out of Anaheim with the view to purge him out."

It sounds to me like GG was against the reinstatement of Philip Lee, however, maybe he read the letter to demonstrate loyalty to the ministry.

I don't know if this is fair to say, but I get the idea that maybe GG might realized he got the short end of the stick. He stayed loyal to Lee/LSM in the 80's, but nonetheless, eventually moved away from Anaheim which is the center of all things LSM.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It sounds to me like GG was against the reinstatement of Philip Lee, however, maybe he read the letter to demonstrate loyalty to the ministry.

I don't know if this is fair to say, but I get the idea that maybe GG might realized he got the short end of the stick. He stayed loyal to Lee/LSM in the 80's, but nonetheless, eventually moved away from Anaheim which is the center of all things LSM.

I was told by a co-worker (serving both the GLA and SoCal) that GG was "too legal" for the other blendeds, so they maneuvered him out.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I was told by a co-worker (serving both the GLA and SoCal) that GG was "too legal" for the other blendeds, so they maneuvered him out.

It sounds like he enjoyed the same fate as James Barber, getting sent away to some remote place. It's ironical really. The LC is not just a system that turns on those who speak against Lee/LSM, but it also turns on those who have supported it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It sounds like he enjoyed the same fate as James Barber, getting sent away to some remote place. It's ironical really. The LC is not just a system that turns on those who speak against Lee/LSM, but it also turns on those who have supported it.

LSM has a blended mentality. They operate out of group think. They pride themselves in this. Kind of like the good old boys club. Any independent thought is viewed with suspicion. Too much for Lee, or not enough, are both suspect.