God-men or Con-men in the Lord's Recovery

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Saying things like "everyone makes mistakes" and "no one is perfect" merely creates a ruse to keep members from looking further. It is strictly deception to categorize Lee and Sons' checkered history as "mistakes" or such. This explains why active and positive members, such as myself, would get instantly "poisoned" upon learning the truth of past "storms." Not only was our sordid past covered over and "sanitized" with the halo of persecution, but the record was whitewashed with alternative and supposedly "believable" versions of history, e.g. "global conspiracies concocted overnight by ambitious men to destroy God's testimony."

Over the years, there were several times where I made a passing reference to a concern that I had. The typical response was along the lines of "well, the brothers aren't perfect you know." It's as if that was the one size fits all excuse for questionable behavior or practices.

At a very basic level, it's insulting that merely expressing a concern would be immediately equated with us expecting leaders to be perfect. LC leaders like to characterize us as purposely trying to nitpick at WL or as trying to expose his faults. That's a complete mis-characterization of the issue. It's understandable why they do avoid talking about imperfections. Is not that imperfections would normally be a big deal, but because of the amount of things that have been swept under the rug, addressing even simple concerns could quickly lead to discussion of problems that are fundamental to the LC.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Over the years, there were several times where I made a passing reference to a concern that I had. The typical response was along the lines of "well, the brothers aren't perfect you know." It's as if that was the one size fits all excuse for questionable behavior or practices.

The brothers aren't perfect is a default answer for any questioning of personal behavior, ethical behavior, or party to any decision making that could warrant civil or criminal litigation. (That includes obstruction of justice.) The bottom line is ANY AND ALL scrutiny is equal to nitpicking.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

The brothers aren't perfect is a default answer for any questioning of personal behavior, ethical behavior, or party to any decision making that could warrant civil or criminal litigation. (That includes obstruction of justice.) The bottom line is ANY AND ALL scrutiny is equal to nitpicking.

Then why does Lee et. al. get a free pass to recklessly and indiscriminately condemn the rest of the body of Christ as hopeless and helpless, "poor, poor ... " Don't they know that "nobody is perfect," and "we all make mistakes."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then why does Lee et. al. get a free pass to recklessly and indiscriminately condemn the rest of the body of Christ as hopeless and helpless, "poor, poor ... " Don't they know that "nobody is perfect," and "we all make mistakes."

It is inconsistencies like these that prompted me to start that double standards thread awhile back. I suppose those in the LC are reluctantly willing to acknowlege their own imperfections, but I think that because they feel themselves to be the pinnacle of the past 2000 years, that the imperfections don't matter.

LC members are obsessed with criticizing others, because a supposed ill state of all other Christians is what is taken to define the notion of 'recovery'. Because they believe themselves to be so much better, it's easy for them to dismiss the "bones and feathers" as being mere "growing pains." After all, thats what Lee did.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then why does Lee et. al. get a free pass to recklessly and indiscriminately condemn the rest of the body of Christ as hopeless and helpless, "poor, poor ... " Don't they know that "nobody is perfect," and "we all make mistakes."

The hypocrisy is strong. Watching Lee continually beg our indulgence in what he referred to as the "messy kitchen" of LC life, while obsessively nit-picking all ills, both real and imagined, of "Christianity", reminds one of the man Jesus told us about in Matthew 18:21-35. The man demanded forgiveness, but refused to give it.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by aron

The hypocrisy is strong. Watching Lee continually beg our indulgence in what he referred to as the "messy kitchen" of LC life, while obsessively nit-picking all ills, both real and imagined, of "Christianity", reminds one of the man Jesus told us about in Matthew 18:21-35. The man demanded forgiveness, but refused to give it.

Andrew Yu covering of Witness Lee
“There has never been a case, either in the Scriptures or in church history, where a servant of God has been found to be perfect. A perfect person does not exist. None of us can claim to be perfect.” (p. 5 An Affirmation of the Proper Authority in the Body of Christ)

Witness Lee covering of Philip Lee
John Ingalls reports, “after the board meeting was adjourned, Sister Lee and Philip Lee left the room, and Brother Lee continued to talk at length with Francis Ball and myself about the current situation. I just listened, saying very little. He said how much he and Philip Lee and their families had suffered through all the talk about them. He then stated, “Philip, of course, is not perfect; nobody is perfect!” It shocked me that he would make such an inappropriate statement as that after all that had been said and done.

John Ingalls on Philip Lee - Philip Lee’s name is mentioned 51 times with grave concern about him revealed throughout John Ingalls’ book, Speaking the Truth in Love, related to events and concerns of the late eighties turmoil.

Bill Mallon on Philip Lee – 50 times in an 8-page letter to Witness Lee, Philip or the office is referred to with great consternation over interferences from Philip, Benson, and Ray Graver in the Southeastern churches.

John So on Philip Lee – 49 times in his address in Manila, John So referred to Philip Lee or the office, as the source of major grief and despair for the brothers in Europe.

The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion on Witness Lee - Not a contrary word said about him.

The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion on Philip Lee - No mention of his name in the book. He is referred to as “the office” or “the Living Stream manager”, and only in a positive sense, as if he was a non-factor in the late 80s turmoil, and not a major cause of it and division, as he surely was.

Yet, voices of truth do speak. John So sums up the difficulties of conscience in dealing with the problem of Brother Lee and his son during their tandem leadership reign in the churches.

http://www.unfaithfulwitness.org/Eur...Depart1989.pdf

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Andrew Yu covering of Witness Lee
“There has never been a case, either in the Scriptures or in church history, where a servant of God has been found to be perfect. A perfect person does not exist. None of us can claim to be perfect.” (p. 5 An Affirmation of the Proper Authority in the Body of Christ)

Witness Lee covering of Philip Lee
John Ingalls reports, “after the board meeting was adjourned, Sister Lee and Philip Lee left the room, and Brother Lee continued to talk at length with Francis Ball and myself about the current situation. I just listened, saying very little. He said how much he and Philip Lee and their families had suffered through all the talk about them. He then stated, “Philip, of course, is not perfect; nobody is perfect!” It shocked me that he would make such an inappropriate statement as that after all that had been said and done.

John Ingalls on Philip Lee - Philip Lee’s name is mentioned 51 times with grave concern about him revealed throughout John Ingalls’ book, Speaking the Truth in Love, related to events and concerns of the late eighties turmoil.

Bill Mallon on Philip Lee – 50 times in an 8-page letter to Witness Lee, Philip or the office is referred to with great consternation over interferences from Philip, Benson, and Ray Graver in the Southeastern churches.

John So on Philip Lee – 49 times in his address in Manila, John So referred to Philip Lee or the office, as the source of major grief and despair for the brothers in Europe.

The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion on Witness Lee - Not a contrary word said about him.

The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion on Philip Lee - No mention of his name in the book. He is referred to as “the office” or “the Living Stream manager”, and only in a positive sense, as if he was a non-factor in the late 80s turmoil, and not a major cause of it and division, as he surely was.

Yet, voices of truth do speak. John So sums up the difficulties of conscience in dealing with the problem of Brother Lee and his son during their tandem leadership reign in the churches.

http://www.unfaithfulwitness.org/Eur...Depart1989.pdf

The European brothers had some 'nads! The movement of WL as propagated by the being-blended-brothers is a sect barely connected to Christ. There is no Christ outside that revealed by the sect of WL. They are so narrow that I doubt WN would claim them today.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Witness Lee covering of Philip Lee
John Ingalls reports, “after the board meeting was adjourned, Sister Lee and Philip Lee left the room, and Brother Lee continued to talk at length with Francis Ball and myself about the current situation. I just listened, saying very little. He said how much he and Philip Lee and their families had suffered through all the talk about them. He then stated, “Philip, of course, is not perfect; nobody is perfect!” It shocked me that he would make such an inappropriate statement as that after all that had been said and done.

It troubles me to no end that Witness Lee, a seasoned minister of the scriptures, could behave this way. First of all, how could his wife and reprobate son sit on the ministry board? Talk about unbridled cronyism! All N.T. leaders were "well attested" by the saints and approved by the Holy Spirit (Acts 6.3; 20.28; I Cor 12.28, 2 Cor 10.18; I Tim 3.7)

When reports and letters from around the globe, all from trusted and accomplished leaders, poured onto Lee's lap concerning his and his son Philip's abusive ways, Witness Lee has the audacity to inform John Ingalls in private how Philip's family has also suffered through these trying times. Is he delusional?

And then the clincher, as if to white-wash years of depravity in his own son -- so aptly described in detail by Paul in his final days on earth ...

But understand this, that in the last days perilous times will come. For some will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, abusive, disobedient, ungrateful, wicked, heartless, uncooperative, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.

Paul told Timothy: Avoid such people!

So what did Witness Lee do? Excused all of this, by saying, "Philip, of course, is not perfect."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It troubles me to no end that Witness Lee, a seasoned minister of the scriptures, could behave this way. First of all, how could his wife and reprobate son sit on the ministry board? Talk about unbridled cronyism! All N.T. leaders were "well attested" by the saints and approved by the Holy Spirit (Acts 6.3; 20.28; I Cor 12.28, 2 Cor 10.18; I Tim 3.7)

When reports and letters from around the globe, all from trusted and accomplished leaders, poured onto Lee's lap concerning his and his son Philip's abusive ways, Witness Lee has the audacity to inform John Ingalls in private how Philip's family has also suffered through these trying times. Is he delusional?

And then the clincher, as if to white-wash years of depravity in his own son -- so aptly described in detail by Paul in his final days on earth ...

Paul told Timothy: Avoid such people!

So what did Witness Lee do? Excused all of this, by saying, "Philip, of course, is not perfect."

These tactics that were employed by WL are none other than psychological manipulation. When someone brings a concern of theirs to attention only to be met with a comment like "Joe Schmoe isn't perfect," it is none other than a red herring meant to conveniently put a stop to the conversation. In a normal conversation, how are you supposed to respond to that? I have yet to find a way that doesn't involve amping up the conversation. Of course, maybe doing just that is necessary at times, but it usually makes the person holding concerns look like the bad guy.

It is abundantly clear to me that even from the beginning, WL only chose to hear out those like John Ingalls in hopes that they would express their concerns and then that would be the end of it. John spoke to this very fact, he knew exactly how Lee intended to 'deal' with any concerns:
We had already met with Brother Lee a good number of times, opening to him and expressing our concerns to him, and made very little progress. Moreover, we feared, from past experience, that if we had such a meeting Brother Lee would dominate it, overwhelm us, and eventually whitewash the issues.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Paul told Timothy: Avoid such people!

So what did Witness Lee do? Excused all of this, by saying, "Philip, of course, is not perfect."

In Witness Lee's hands, "abusive, disobedient, boasters" became "nobody's perfect." Rebranding par excellence, which of course is part of the marketing scheme, for those who merchandise the gospel. And while I see no evidence that Witness Lee enriched himself at the saints' expense, the same can't be said for his immediate family, who evidently got free rein at the till, and even at the saints themselves.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great point!

Look at the results:

Proud leader becomes like megalomaniac, accountable to no one.

I'd argue that there are two big themes behind the megalomania of Lee, which allowed it to flourish and grow in the "recovery" and the "local churches".

The first theme is the social setting of the initiation of Lee setting up shop in the USA, circa 1964-69. And I'll pose it by asking a question: what prompted some 900,000 young people to convene on a farm in upstate New York in the summer of '69? Clever marketing? Superior organization?

No, I'd say that they all went because that was where everyone was going. As soon as the word hit the street that 'everyone' was going to Max Yasgur's farm, they all hopped in their Impalas, Mustangs and Darts and headed East.

Here's a testimony of what it was like to be a young person in the '60s, getting sucked into Lee's maelstrom:

Originally Posted by Arthur M. Casci

Zealous and Misled: I Once Lost My Way

Our Lord Jesus said, "If you continue in My Word, you are truly My disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." This verse still rings in my mind when I think of my experience more than 10 years ago.

It all began when a friend shared the Gospel with me. Though raised in a church-going family, I had rejected Christianity at age 18. When Jeff told me about the forgiveness of sins, I said, "Flake off." But a few weeks later I attended a Bible study and the Holy Spirit put faith into my heart. I repented and believed the Gospel; after 21 years of living, my new life began.

The "Jesus People" movement was at its peak, and I enjoyed the informal atmosphere of sitting on the floor, singing, and studying the Bible. I attended different churches but felt that they were dead and had abandoned Jesus. Like many my age, I was rebellious and distrusted any organization run by comfortable, middle-class adults. Zealous for Jesus, I could not understand why others were not as enthusiastic. This attitude, combined with my lack of a Biblical foundation, left me wide open to false doctrine.*

One evening I stopped to visit a Christian friend who had some unusual visitors. They were young, "on fire," roving evangelists from an organization called "The Children of God." They did not believe that a Christian should hold a normal job, but rather should leave job, home, family, and goods to preach on the streets.

The next thing I knew, I had quit my job and prepared to leave with these young street preachers for Dallas, Tex., one of their outposts. Fortunately, some dear Christian friends I visited stopped me from going, thus preventing me from joining a cult (at least for the moment). But I was still plagued with a burning desire to serve Jesus wholeheartedly-and now I had no job.

Another friend, Randy, invited me to go with him to Akron, Ohio, to introduce me to another zealous organization. So, once again, I packed my few belongings and left. This time no one stopped me.

I will never forget my first encounter with this organization. In a meeting, they sang loudly, shouted out verses of Scripture, danced, and one by one gave strong testimony about what Jesus meant to them. I saw young and old, black, white, and Oriental people.

I immediately joined in the singing and shouting. Mentally I maintained a few reservations, but emotionally I was caught. The love, unity and volume of the service overwhelmed me. I thought to myself: Here are people who truly love Jesus and are not afraid to show it.

That night after the meeting, Randy introduced me to many of them. They immediately welcomed me and showed great concern. I asked to stay for a week or two as a trial period, and was housed in a large duplex with about 10 members, who said I could stay until I decided whether to join the group.

Nobody forced me to join. Nobody needed to. I was ripe for the picking.

The organization is known as the "Local Church." lf such a group were in St. Louis, they would call themselves "The Church in or of St. Louis." They take the name of their locality.

So Lee, after soiling his nest in China, Taiwan, and the Philippines, found "virgin soil" in the USA in which to ply his wares. And they came in by the busload. So surely his ministry was responsible for the increase, right? Right?

The '60s was a time when they would all pile into whatever was "happening", without regard to the sense of it. If everyone else was doing it, okay fine, let's go! Eventually this thinking changed, in the '70s, when things like Jim Jones and his People's Temple occurred.

Joe: "Hey Bob, what possessed you to go into the jungle and drink poisoned Kool-Aid?"

Bob: "I dunno, seemed like a good idea a the time. Everyone else [900+] was doing it, so I figured, what the heck? Why not?"

But at its heyday, something like the "Elden Hall experience" was able to occur with little help from Lee. He was just this weird, inscrutable Chinese guy, but hey, he was Watchman Nee's closest co-worker! Let's all just love Jesus!

The second thing feeding Lee's megalomania was oriental culture. The (oriental) collective needed a strong center. Lee figured, if not me, then someone else has to do it. In this he was a pea in Watchman Nee's pod. Absolute and unquestioned authority was the conceptual center, the actual and ultimate "ground", of Nee's "Normal Church" model. Not coincidentally, Nee didn't articulate this principle until he was free of both the Western church, and all "senior co-workers" by his "local ground" discovery. Ultimately, the "local ground" was merely a preface for the "deputy God" thesis, which Nee used well, and which allowed Lee an open door to his own fiefdom, and then followers of Lee such as Benson Philips, Ray Graver, Mel Porter and Titus Chu. Anyone with ambition in the LC found out, just publicly grovel before the Ascended Master and you'll be given your own little satrapy. I saw Chu do this before Lee in the big meetings: "Lose Face" and the kingdom is yours. And from what I hear, Dong also followed suit in Brasil: he got to examine, expose, and "prove" everything, but his own business arrangements (for example, his son getting exclusive operational rights in Estancia Arvore outside of Campinas, Sumare) were a "black box" per his deputies. Because Dong, like Lee his mentor, always has to be right. Social coherence (i.e. good order in the Lee/Chu/Dong church) demands it. Don't question the Master.

Now, by contrast we can look at Stephen Kaung, another Nee peer who evidently didn't have a pathological need to dominate the assembly thus. Probably cultural reticence forbade Kaung from ever publicly critiquing the Nee model, but obviously his leadership style seems in contrast with those found in the Little Flock & Lord's Recovery.

Another contrast is provided by Leland Wang, one of Nee's initial co-workers and who started the independent (local) Shanghai Assembly group, before Nee pushed him out. Wang showed no evidence of "lording over the saints", that I can see. So this is not necessarily a Chinese/Asian trait, but oriental culture clearly filtered through what I saw in LC life: "Witness Lee is always right" and "cover the drunken Noah" and "questioning leadership is akin to rebellion, the most heinous of spiritual crimes" and so forth. To me that's human cultural imperatives dominating scriptural exegesis, and thereby also opening the way for complete control of the assembly bought by Christ's own blood.

(*This was also the assessment of recent LSM apologists CRI, regarding the Mainland Chinese Christians, characterizing them as "zealous" and "ignorant" - what a great combination, eh? Along with their innate, conditioned deference to strong centralized authority, it made them ripe for machinations by the supposed 'ministry of the age'.)

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then why does Lee et. al. get a free pass to recklessly and indiscriminately condemn the rest of the body of Christ as hopeless and helpless, "poor, poor ... " Don't they know that "nobody is perfect," and "we all make mistakes."

Whatever happened to the hundreds or thousands if not millions intended for the Linko project?.....Nobody's perfect....

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Whatever happened to the hundreds or thousands if not millions intended for the Linko project?.....Nobody's perfect....

Whatever happened to all those lovely sisters molested by Philip .... Nobody's perfect....