New Comic Strip -- MOTA

[Cal]

I've long wanted to do a comic strip on the LC. But I'm not much of an artist. I finally found some software to help. Below is my first installment. I hope you like it. More to come.

[Cal]

[Intothewind]

These are great!

...care to share the software?

A few sketches of the following would be of interest

-bearing/gaining fruit off the campuses

-going to the FTTA

-dating in the church life

-taking the ground in a locality

[Cal]

Thanks and thanks for the ideas!

It's www.toondoo.com

[JJ]

Funny cartoons, Igzy! "The truth hurts", I'm laughing on the outside, but crying on the inside.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by JJ

Funny cartoons, Igzy! "The truth hurts", I'm laughing on the outside, but crying on the inside.

Thanks JJ!

[Cal]

[Cal]

[DistantStar]

I really like these. Keep them coming.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

I really like these. Keep them coming.

I love the stick-man gestures. So informative.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Igzy

What's a "MOTA"?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

What's a "MOTA"?

Minister Of The Age

[Cal]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

I really like these. Keep them coming.

Thank you!

[Cal]

[Cal]

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Igzy

LOL! Does the upside down guy have his eyes closed? Ah, these stick figures do limit the animation possibilities

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So many times when I got manipulated into something against my will, I would get strongly exhorted to "take a stand." It was really the "spiritual" equivalent of "bend over."

[Cal]

[Cal]

[Ohio]

Best one so far!

Having spent lots of time with the college kids outside the meetings, I know this fits.

[Cal]

[Timotheist]

The guy on the left will NOT be a recurring character, as he will soon be sued into silence

[Cal]

[Cal]

[Ohio]

Great story.

"Inspired by true events."

[Cal]

[JJ]

Welcome to the Hotel CaliforNeeLee

You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

[Cal]

[Cal]

[Cal]

After a hiatus, MOTA returns!

[Cal]

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Re: "If you want to have a discussion, you have to use language I can understand"

In the LC this is called "the vision". In order to participate in the discussion you have to have the vision. There will be some questionable assertion by the MOTA, and then you'll need the vision. Otherwise you don't get it, because it makes little if any sense. "You just need the vision, brother".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

Re: "If you want to have a discussion, you have to use language I can understand"

In the LC this is called "the vision". In order to participate in the discussion you have to have the vision. There will be some questionable assertion by the MOTA, and then you'll need the vision. Otherwise you don't get it, because it makes little if any sense. "You just need the vision, brother".

There is faith, there is blind faith, and there is stupid faith.

Guess which kind "the vision" requires.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

There is faith, there is blind faith, and there is stupid faith.

Guess which kind "the vision" requires.

Misplaced faith.

[Cal]

[Cal]

[Cal]

Hat tip to aron for this idea!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hat tip to aron for this idea!

Now that's a great one. Good job bro.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now that's a great one. Good job bro.

Thanks, Harold!

[Cal]

[Cal]

[Cal]

[Cal]

[Cal]

Another hat tip to aron for this idea!

[aron]

Re: Strip #24, panel 3

It is probably significant that the letters were addressed to the angel of the church in that city. Not to the elders or to the church in general. And yes it does trump the "street address" idea that I heard in a LC meeting. "The Lord knows those who are His" - I don't think the angel needed a physical set of coordinates from Jesus. It was understood who was the Lord's flock. A Book Publisher doesn't determine this.

Now, as to multiple assemblies: We have the epistle to the Romans which tells them to "greet the church" in someone's house (16:5), a house in Rome, I presume. So "ekklesia" could mean what we call "meeting", like "the home meeting in Sister Smith's house". This is corroborated by Acts 17 where the city clerk dismisses the "ekklesia" which is clearly not what we'd call a "church" but would be called a "meeting" or "gathering" or "assembly" (v.41). It was an ekklesia, just not a very pleasant one. Furthermore, Jesus spoke of "my ekklesia", meaning there were ekklesia not of Jesus, like the one dismissed by the city clerk in Acts 17. If one looks at the usage of the word "ekklesia" in the first century, this NT usage is consistent with that. There were multiple ekklesia occurring in any given metropolis. Some were of Jesus, some were not.

And the Lord knows who are His. The question is, do we? Do we know God, or rather are we known by Him? I think this is in our living, and we all need to look to ourselves. This is the "practical church life" - how we behave, and how we treat others. This is not determined by a Book Publishing House, sorry. The Lord knows who are His. So let us abstain from poor behavior, and make the glad confession, and endevour to go on together, best as we can.

And I do apologize for my overly sharp tone. I see poor arguments and people getting carried along by them, and the damage caused. So I get exasperated. But my lack of peace and charity is my own issue. Mea culpa. I'm working on it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

And I do apologize for my overly sharp tone. I see poor arguments and people getting carried along by them, and the damage caused. So I get exasperated. But my lack of peace and charity is my own issue. Mea culpa. I'm working on it.

Me too. I have a neighbor friend who is a devout, believing Catholic, who counsels clients in his law practice. One day in passing, he said sarcasm comes from the Greek words "cut flesh." Until then I had always considered sarcasm to be a highly effective means of communication. Something to consider.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

Re: Strip #24, panel 3

And the Lord knows who are His. The question is, do we? Do we know God, or rather are we known by Him? I think this is in our living, and we all need to look to ourselves. This is the "practical church life" - how we behave, and how we treat others. This is not determined by a Book Publishing House, sorry.

This is the key point. If the servants in the parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matt 13) were not able to discern real believers from false believers, then certainly we are not able to discern real churches from false churches. Presuming to be the judges of what were real and false churches is one of the most stunningly arrogant moves of the LR, which has a lot of them.

Originally Posted by aron

And I do apologize for my overly sharp tone. I see poor arguments and people getting carried along by them, and the damage caused. So I get exasperated. But my lack of peace and charity is my own issue. Mea culpa. I'm working on it.

You aren't the only one, bro.

[Cal]

[Ohio]

As I was told, "Billy Graham didn't see the church." And more pathetically, "anyone can give birth to many babies, but who is raising them up?"

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

As I was told, "Billy Graham didn't see the church." And more pathetically, "anyone can give birth to many babies, but who is raising them up?"

Billy Graham saw the Church better than anyone in the LR ever has.

"Anyone?"... "Anyone?"

Billy Graham was one of a kind. He reached more people that probably the next 50 best evangelists together did.

But "anyone" could do it? "Anyone..."

That's LR arrogance for you right there.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Billy Graham saw the Church better than anyone in the LR ever has.

"Anyone?"... "Anyone?"

Billy Graham was one of a kind. He reached more people that probably the next 50 best evangelists together did.

But "anyone" could do it? "Anyone..."

That's LR arrogance for you right there.

It's so sad that our conscience can be alerted to fleshly and immoral sins, but still be so numb to pride.

[Cal]

[Cal]

[JJ]

Hah! Keep em comin Igzy!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by JJ

Hah! Keep em comin Igzy!

Thanks, JJ! As long as I keep getting good ideas, I will.

[Cal]

[ZNPaaneah]

I am reading about the Enron collapse which was all about this one crook named Fastow who is eerily reminiscent of WL in certain respects. Many people in the company felt he was naive, a fool, poorly educated, a lightweight, and made incredibly foolish blunders in some of the things he said.

However he was very vindictive, anyone who said a word against him got fired, or reassigned to the far reaches of the company. He had a small cadre of very loyal underlings (think PL, etc). They were more than happy to be criminal in return for lots and lots of extra money.

Finally, he portrayed himself as the greatest CFO, who was doing "unique" and "creative" things. Anyone who disagreed with him was a cow who lacked creativity. They were lambasted for being overly focused on rules.

It is very clear in hindsight that his actions were criminal, what is not so clear is if he realized he was a criminal and the whole spiel was simply a scam, or if he was so naive as to be deceived as well.

Anyway his MO was jedi mind tricks to cheat on the taxes and earnings statements.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am reading about the Enron collapse which was all about this one crook named Fastow who is eerily reminiscent of WL in certain respects. Many people in the company felt he was naive, a fool, poorly educated, a lightweight, and made incredibly foolish blunders in some of the things he said.

However he was very vindictive, anyone who said a word against him got fired, or reassigned to the far reaches of the company. He had a small cadre of very loyal underlings (think PL, etc). They were more than happy to be criminal in return for lots and lots of extra money.

Finally, he portrayed himself as the greatest CFO, who was doing "unique" and "creative" things. Anyone who disagreed with him was a cow who lacked creativity. They were lambasted for being overly focused on rules.

It is very clear in hindsight that his actions were criminal, what is not so clear is if he realized he was a criminal and the whole spiel was simply a scam, or if he was so naive as to be deceived as well.

Anyway his MO was jedi mind tricks to cheat on the taxes and earnings statements.

These megalomanics all have a few things in common:

• Exaggerated sense of self worth
• Deep feeling that laws are for others
• Disdainful, condescending attitude
• Dismissed or attacked all critics
• Maintain cadre of minions who placed loyalty above integrity
• Ingrained conviction of self-righteousness
• Permitted no peers who might provide balance
• Become very successful in the short term fueling bad behavior

[Cal]

[Cal]

[Cal]

Another tip of the cap to aron for this idea!

[Ohio]

As "proof" of this, I tell you all that "I can't even control a single mosquito!"

[Cal]

[JJ]

This last one is hilarious, Igzy. I witnessed young people in TLR playing video games together.... and thought “there’s something that would never have been thinkable in the 1980’s.” Depending on the game it might be a good thing.

[Cal]

Thanks JJ!

[Cal]

[Cal]

[ZNPaaneah]

I recall WL calling religion the egg shell, and Jesus was the chicken. I guess this means the LC was the nut shell.

[Cal]

Just a note: This was meant in good fun. I'm not actually saying here that LR members are nuts. I'm saying that Lee's attitude implies he expects them to be a little nutty.

His attitude actually reflected this. He was coy about publicly saying he was an apostle. His obvious reasoning was that he didn't want to open himself to ridicule. The fact is he knew the claim was nutty.

Yet, on the other hand, he clearly wanted his followers to think he was some kind of major apostle. Which means, as the comic satirizes, he expected them to accept the nuttiness of it, meaning he expected them to be a little nutty.

This continues with the current leadership. Clearly they think Lee was a major apostle, yet they are oddly timid to declare this publicly. On the one hand, they expect all followers to give him such respect, honor and corresponding obedience, on the other hand they are hedging their bets publicly, because they know they would be made to look foolish if they actually declared what they believe.

Simply put, it is double-mindedness and duplicity, which in the end is nutty.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Igzy

....
This continues with the current leadership. Clearly they think Lee was a major apostle, yet they are oddly timid to declare this publicly. ...
Simply put, it is double-mindedness and duplicity, which in the end is nutty.

Not only are they "timid" to declare their relationship with Witness Lee and the Local Churches, they do not hesitate to offer disingenuous statements to the public as follows in two newspaper articles where long time elder, Jerry McGill, is interviewed:

The Dallas Morning News: October 20, 1995
SpringPark residents oppose church
Religious group to continue seeking site
Jayne Noble Staff Writer of The Dallas Morning News
GARLAND - Hundreds of homeowners around the SpringPark addition have signed a petition opposed to The Church in Richardson moving into their neighborhood.

Mr. (Jerry) McGill said that he is aware of the organization, which sometimes is called The Local Church and is named after the cities where services are held. But Mr. McGill said The Church in Richardson does not have any "official ties with any church."

"We have no central headquarters . . . no organizational leader or ties to anything," he said. "We're an independent,Bible-believing church with no affiliation . . . just like a lot of churches in Garland."


"The Dallas Morning News
November 8, 1995
Residents fighting church
Lawyer hired to halt a move to Garland
Jayne Noble Staff Writer of The Dallas Morning News

GARLAND - Homeowners near the SpringPark addition have hired an attorney to fight plans by The Church in Richardson to move into their neighborhood." ...

"Some people say they are also concerned about the church's practices and its ties to other churches in Austin and Arlington, whose members profess to follow a Chinese spiritual leader named Witness Lee.

The churches are sometimes called Local Churches and are named after the cities where services are held.

(...Quoting Jerry McGill, elder in The Church in Richardson: )

Mr. McGill said this week that he has "had fellowship" with those churches, but that each is independent and that members "don't consider that the church, as the body of Christ, is an organization."

This is total prevarication. Jerry McGill, not only "has knowledge" of and "had fellowship with", McGill had been meeting with the Church in Dallas for years in various leadership roles, and had been to many trainings and conferences with Witness Lee. He was attempting to minimize his relationship with the Witness Lee in order to assuage the skepticism of the home owners in Garland, Texas, a suburb of Dallas...clearly hiding something.

Ultimately the residents of Spring Park prevailed. The Church in Richardson was unsuccessful in getting the zoning laws changed so they could "build a church" in their neighborhood.

Nell

[Cal]

This will be last MOTA for awhile. I'm going to take a break and recharge my batteries. Thanks!

Igzy

[Cal]

Why Deputy Authority Must Be Limited

How Overbearing Deputy Authority Can Get Out of Hand

The Solution to Deputy Authority

[Cal]

[Cal]

My son actually does this. He has won prizes and scholarship money!

[Raptor]

Today´s MOTA debunk:

There is no scriptural basis for "one minister of the age" in the New Testament. God did raise unique men of God in the Old Testament, like Noah, Moses, Joshua, David, but they are types of Christ. When the New Testament began, all those types are over, because the reality, Jesus Christ came. No believer should consider himself a fulfillment of any of those types. Only Christ. He is the Minister of the age, He is still here on the earth (as well as in ascension at the right hand of God), alive, in resurrection, ministering as the High Priest to the churches. Christ is the Minister of the age, the Head, with many ministers sent out by Him, the members of His Body.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Today´s MOTA debunk:

There is no scriptural basis for "one minister of the age" in the New Testament. God did raise unique men of God in the Old Testament, like Noah, Moses, Joshua, David, but they are types of Christ. When the New Testament began, all those types are over, because the reality, Jesus Christ came. No believer should consider himself a fulfillment of any of those types. Only Christ. He is the Minister of the age, He is still here on the earth (as well as in ascension at the right hand of God), alive, in resurrection, ministering as the High Priest to the churches. Christ is the Minister of the age, the Head, with many ministers sent out by Him, the members of His Body.

Stand for that in the LC and you'll be pushed out the door so fast it will make your head spin.

[Raptor]

Where can I find what LSM considers "the age" in the MOTA phrase? What is their definition of "age". Age of grace? Church age? New Testament age? 20th century? Last days age?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Where can I find what LSM considers "the age" in the MOTA phrase? What is their definition of "age". Age of grace? Church age? New Testament age? 20th century? Last days age?

What amazed me was that "the age" to LSM assemblies was so arbitrary, self-selective and could change at a moment's notice. When WL passed, we were informed from the dais that "the age of spiritual giants is over" and henceforth it was to be the age of small potatoes.

I think that ages changed so rapidly and arbitrarily because the ministry had to change the rules to adjust for circumstances. Like with WN, when they were trying to throw off the Western yoke, it was all about localism. Then, when it was time to consolidate, WN discovered the Jerusalem Principle. Likewise, ages came and went in Anaheim, depending on the perceived need at any given moment. One could go from "law" to "grace" and back again in a fortnight.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Where can I find what LSM considers "the age" in the MOTA phrase? What is their definition of "age". Age of grace? Church age? New Testament age? 20th century? Last days age?

In his book "Vision of the Age," Lee would identify one or two MOTA's for each century. What a joke. Lee equated the Recovery to the lineage of MOTA's starting with Luther. Then he went on to identify an obscure French nun named Guyon as Luther's successor, saying that all ministers must go to her if they wanted to know the Lord's up-to-date speaking. Huh?

How can anyone take Lee's version of church history seriously? It was all so self-serving, with gaping holes in his historical theories, until JNDarby came along followed by WNee. How convenient for those whose memory of church history only went back a century or so. Exclusive Brethren also re-enacted these same mythological genealogies as the Roman popes, and today boast of "Oracles" going back to Darby.

The only surprise here is the breakdown begun with the Blendeds "We." Where's the beef, I mean "Where's my MOTA?"

How can we have "Recovery" with no MOTA? How can we ever know what God wants to say?

[Cal]

Nee and Lee came up with the concept of MOTA and applied it to themselves, creating a back-history mythology to support it. Then, just a soon as the concept was "recovered," there are conveniently no more MOTAs. Amazing!

So Nee and Lee were the only MOTAs who "knew" they were MOTAs. That doesn't raise any suspicions?

I have the feeling that Titus Chu always expected to be the next MOTA. He was as "qualified" as any and more than most. That's why the Blendeds had to squash him. Of course, he would have been a disaster in that role, being the bully that he was. It would have been like going from Lenin to Stalin.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In his book "Vision of the Age," Lee would identify one or two MOTA's for each century. What a joke.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Nee and Lee came up with the concept of MOTA and applied it to themselves, creating a back-history mythology to support it. Then, just a soon as the concept was "recovered," there are conveniently no more MOTAs. Amazing!

So Nee and Lee were the only MOTAs who "knew" they were MOTAs. That doesn't raise any suspicions?

It's fit for a comic strip.

Disciple: "MOTA, what's the vision of the age?"
MOTA: "That there's only one vision per age."
Disciple: "Okay, then what's the vision for this age?"
MOTA: "I told you - that there's one vision per age."
Disciple: "I don't get it."
MOTA: "You need the vision to get it."
Disciple: "What vision, MOTA?"
MOTA: "Easy, silly one. You have to have the vision of the age, to get it."
Disciple: "Ohhhh! Now I get it! I didn't understand it before! What a vision!"
MOTA: "Yes, it's nearly overwhelming, once you grasp it."

Seriously, it reminds me nothing so much as Pol Pot & Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. They took over, pronounced it the Year Zero, that humankind started over with them. The same self-obsessed hubris becoming collective lunacy.

Before Nee took over "the mantle", you could have multiple hymn-writers being simultaneously inspired by God to compose songs for the church. You could have Congregationalists in the Colonies and Methodists in England, Lutherans in Germany and Reformed Dutch in South Africa, all subjectively experiencing Christ, and expressing in a non-coordinated way the varied graces of God. The LC was kool with that, even called it their "goodly heritage".

Once Nee put quill to parchment, however, the age turned. Only one hymn-writing outlet, on the "proper ground", under the "genuine ministry". All others became instant Babylon. Amazing how fast it became the "Age of Oneness". Suddenly you couldn't do anything without "fellowship". If HQ didn't sign off, forget about it. Is it aligned with the vision? Then drop it.

I remember when some of the Jesus Freaks started putting psalms to music. Keith Green, "Create in me a clean heart". Some of it made it into the LC. When WL heard of this, he put the kibosh to it, right quick. We couldn't have anyone outside the "local ground" getting inspired by the Holy Spirit. Didn't you know the age had turned? Nothing out there. Babylon. MOTA says so, and he should know, right?

Or, what about Nee's fabled collection of 3,000 "Christian classics"? Do you think that 30 sequential MOTAs wrote 100 books each? No? Before Watchman Nee, one could (again) see multiple un-coordinated sources of inspiration and enlightenment. The Spirit of God could move over the face of the earth, and turn in the hearts of humanity, but once Nee started to minister, the Christian earth just dried up and became Babylon. In a stroke, Protestantism suddenly went from "Recovery" to "Great Gilded Harlot". No vision out there, any more.

Just amazing, how fast things changed... a 25-year-old in China copied Jessie Penn-Lewis and published "Spiritual Man" and the HS suddenly was limited to one human vessel at a time. What an age-turning vision.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I have the feeling that Titus Chu always expected to be the next MOTA. He was as "qualified" as any and more than most. That's why the Blendeds had to squash him. Of course, he would have been a disaster in that role, being the bully that he was. It would have been like going from Lenin to Stalin.

There was whispers in the alleys in Asia of "Nee, Lee, Chu."

And there definitely would have been some "purges," recovery style.

Lee himself saw it coming. TC knew him better than any. Lee knew that only MOTA WE could stand up against MOTA TC.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee knew that only MOTA WE could stand up against MOTA TC.

That's why the age turned. Suddenly spiritual giants were a threat. So MOTA WE declared that age over, cutting off MOTA TC at the pass. TC had 2 choices - become a small potato and grovel - sorry, submit - or get out.

And on such the ages of humankind are supposed to hinge.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

That's why the age turned. Suddenly spiritual giants were a threat. So MOTA WE declared that age over, cutting off MOTA TC at the pass. TC had 2 choices - become a small potato and grovel - sorry, submit - or get out.

And on such the ages of humankind are supposed to hinge.

Witness Lee didn't even start the 4th Great Awakening. In fact, he and his We boys don't even rate in it. The whole movement is irrelevant in the scheme of the Christian world.

[Raptor]

Are there any papers here in this forum that offer a comprehensive and detailed scriptural exposition debunking the MOTA myth?

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Are there any papers here in this forum that offer a comprehensive and detailed scriptural exposition debunking the MOTA myth?

I think you said it well enough in your post #75. The New Testament ministers were many, and they actually worked together without trashing each other in spite of occasional disagreements and getting corrected by another when they erred. Old Testament types of Noah, Moses, etc were types of Christ. MOTA is pure hogwash and doesn’t justify much more than a simple comparison between the real apostles and TLR’s to get clear.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Are there any papers here in this forum that offer a comprehensive and detailed scriptural exposition debunking the MOTA myth?

Raptor, this article is from "ConcernedBrothers.com" The website was fairly active during the Midwest quarantines.

One, Unique “Minister of the Age”? – What Did Watchman Nee Teach?


Another related article:

Witness Lee, the “Wise Master Builder,” & the “Acting God”

And another:

One, Unique ‘Minister of the Age’ – What do the “Blended Co-workers” Teach?

[Cal]

[Cal]

Thanks to the BBs for their continual supply of great material!