The History of Philip Lee

[TLFisher]

Below is a link to theberean.net thread on The History of Philip Lee

http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?t=39435

[aron]

Los Angeles Times

Leader's Son Excommunicated
Crisis Threatens Future of Little-Known Church

by Russell Chandler
Jan 7, 1989

Growing dissent in the LocalChurch movement led by Witness Lee of Anaheim has resulted in the excommunication of Lee's son and a leadership crisis that threatens the future of the little-known sect.

According to interviews with former and current members, the anonymous publication of a 20-page pamphlet critical of the movement has sparked unprecedented controversy within the group and seriously depleted several congregations.

Stormy meetings-including shouting matches-at recent gatherings of the group in Anaheim have created a rift between members and some of the leaders, according to those present.

Philip Lee, a powerful figure in the church second only to his father, was excommunicated by some members at a meeting in Anaheim on Oct. 16 and by church elders several weeks later, several persons told The Times. They said the action was based on allegations that the younger Lee had been involved in immoral actions with a female church member.

`A Public Announcement'

Neither Witness Lee nor Philip Lee could be reached for comment, but a church elder in Anaheim said the excommunication "was a matter of record (from) . . . a public announcement."

Meanwhile, at least one local congregation-the Church in Rosemead-has distanced itself from the Living Stream Ministry, the tape and publishing arm of the LocalChurch movement.

The LocalChurch, founded in 1920 and brought to the United States from China in 1963, claims about 120,000 members worldwide, with an estimated 25,000 of them in Taiwan. About 12,000 members belong to 125 local congregations in the United States. Attendance at the Church in Anaheim, which once ran above 300 on a Sunday, is less than half that now, observers said.

Witness Lee was an intimate associate of Nee Tuo Sheng, known as Watchman Nee, who formed the organization when he became convinced that Christianity as taught by Western missionaries was defective. There should be only one Christian church in each city, Nee determined, based on his interpretation of the New Testament.

When the Communist Party swept into power in in China in the late 1940s, Lee went to Taiwan but Nee remained behind and was jailed in 1952 on charges on being a U.S. spy-accusations denied by the LocalChurch. Nee died in a Shanghai jail shortly before his scheduled release.

Members of the LocalChurch meet in unmarked halls and usually shy away from Christians in other denominations, believing that the LocalChurch is the only true faith.

The dispute over Philip Lee's role in the church and criticism of Witness Lee's alleged heavy-handed authority over the local congregations and members' lives has been simmering for nearly a year. But members who are still active in the group have refused to talk to reporters for attribution, and John Ingals, a leading elder at the Anaheim church, said the problems were best handled internally out of the public eye. He refused further comment.

Some former members furnished The Times with transcriptions of taped emotional meetings in Anaheim and a copy of the pamphlet that has been circulated widely among church members in Taiwan and the United States. Several still sympathetic to the church's teachings said they were trying to reform it in a way that would give local congregations more autonomy and make church financial statements available.

`False Prophet'

The circulated document suggests that a "Mr. X"-who persons close to the church identify as Witness Lee-is a "false prophet," and calls for church members to obey the Bible rather than a human leader. "Mr. X" twisted the Bible by teaching that there is to be but one spiritual leader during any age, and that leader for the present age is Witness Lee, the pamphlet says.

The leaflet, titled "Reconsideration of the Vision," also alleges that "Mr. X" engaged in questionable business deals and "arranged to have his eldest son as president" of a firm that went bankrupt.

Further, according to the pamphlet, "Mr. X" was "puffed up," did not discipline his "second son," (Philip), and insulted workers and elders while seeking to replace older leaders with younger followers.

Several former elders in Southern California congregations of the church, speaking on condition that they not be named, said doubt and confusion about the Lees and the Living Stream Ministry was widespread in several congregations in Washington, Texas and Arizona, as well as overseas.

Earlier Turmoil

"Many are against a one-man papal system . . . that in practice is very devious," declared one former elder in a telephone interview.

The LocalChurch also underwent turmoil in 1978 when Max D. Rapoport, then considered the heir apparent of the movement, quit his position as president of the Church in Anaheim. Earlier in the year, the leader of the Boston church departed.

Both cited intense psychological pressures to conform in one's views and to perform up to expectations. Witness Lee, in a rare interview, denied the allegations: "In our church we are so free. We are free in thinking," he said then.

[aron]

Apparently there were two incidents with Philip Lee involving gross immorality, one in the late 1970s and one in the late 1980s. After the second one, Witness Lee was forced to discharge his son Philip from authority. These incidents were not rumors or innuendos, but named witnesses coming forward, whose consciences could not allow them to pretend that all was Hunky and Dory in the Land of (Lee's) Food.

Besides immoral behavior, the record of heavy-handed behavior by PL is widespread. Read some of the testimonies of people who attempted to serve God under this man's leadership. Witness Lee's "personal chef" ran a very messy kitchen.

When someone asked Benson Philips how far to take "oneness" with such continually displayed behavior, BP merely asked the questioner, "How do you feel", as WL had asked the Shanghai elders who excommunicated WN 40 years prior. So BP "got life" to follow PL, at all costs. This is untrammeled subjectivity leading to La-la land: at best, weird; at worst, cult-like.

Here's the post in question (#55):

3. Coming back to the Philip's meeting with the fulltimers, Benson was sitting right next to Philip while he was basically going ballistic. He did nothing to stop him and not only so, he supported him. I have no more respect for this man. He has given up every ounce of integrity that he has to follow a man…. Back when he met with the couples at a restaurant on Ball Road nobody brought up this meeting or what went on with Philip.

While walking back to the meeting hall my wife and I made it a point to confront Benson about this meeting. My wife said, "when do you say enough is enough as far as the oneness goes", in other words how much can one take and follow blindly before common sense takes over? He couldn't come up with an answer. I said "let me get this right. When it comes to the ministry the spiritual side, that's Witness Lee. When it comes to the practical side, the business side of it that's Philip Lee. Am I being too narrow to say that Philip had no business sharing anything let alone what he shared and the manner in which he did it?" Benson's response was a question. Did you get any life or light in anything that he shared? He couldn't give my wife or me an answer when it was going on yet he had all of the answers by the time of “The Fermentation of The Present Rebellion” book. To me this is terrible.

Today I would ask him to his face how he could say things about John [Ingalls] and his motives and not look at himself. He knew and still knows what type of person Philip was and still is. What it boils down to is Benson thinks it's more important to follow a man than it is to follow God.

[aron]

Also, the thread in question has a number of comments on Chinese culture as it played out in the dynamics of Philip Lee and his father, and the churches serving under PL. Here is a representative quote from 2007, (post #52):

About ten years ago it was my personal revelation that many of the things I had taken from WL and others in the "church life" as kingdom culture was merely Chinese culture. In my analysis, some of what had gone wrong in the church life was a repeat of 18th/19th century missionary work: cultural imperialism. And it was quite ironic, to me, to think that it was the Americans who were being forced to adapt to an invading culture.

I recall going to Anaheim to a training - the door-knocking training as a matter of fact -- and losing my badge while pounding the pavement. When I went to the evening meeting, I was forced to stand in line and wait until my turn to meet with a stern, suspicious, guardian of the gate who issued me a "visitor's badge" then later led us pathetic miscreants in a herd into the meeting late. It would have been humiliating had it not been so absurd. It just made me mad. I know one thing for sure, this type of thing would not have happened in an American seminar of any kind.

At that point in my church experience I was beginning to realize that maybe some of the instinctive criticisms I had of the "recovery" were not merely my fallen nature reacting to God's way, but my fallen nature reacting to other fallen natures, if you get my drift. The sad thing is that the ones who made it through all the ebbs and flows of the church life got something valuable of their American culture beaten out of them. We became something weird, something the world around us wasn't attracted to.

Lee wanted us to be a 'peculiar people', but instead "we became something weird, something the world around us wasn't attracted to". Amen to that. Been there.

And the points about cultural imperialism, and submitting our fallen culture to another fallen culture, (or conversely resisting it), all in the name of a supposedly higher good, agree with what I've been writing on this forum, now nine years later. It's worth repeating.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by aron

So Benson Phillips "got life" to follow PL, at all costs. This is untrammeled subjectivity leading to La-la land: at best, weird; at worst, cult-like.

Benson Phillips may have been a lot of things, but he wasn't dumb. There has been ample testimony on these forums that Benson knew EXACTLY what kind of person Philip Lee was. Even if he didn't experience "the Philip treatment" (as some brothers in Anaheim coined it) firsthand, it was reported to him by others who he had good reason to believe were faithful witnesses. So why would Benson, in his right mind, "follow" Philip Lee? Why wouldn't he do what anybody with any semblance of spiritual maturity, and even a basic understanding of the responsibilities of a Christian leader, would do under the circumstances - Go with others to Philip's boss (Witness) and DEMAND that he be removed immediately from any position of responsibility or influence.

Why didn't Benson do the right thing? Well, aron has given us the answer in the part quoted above. At best he was caught up in the garlic room of Witness Lee's La-la land where the reality of right and wrong are trumped by the subjective "feeling of life" as dictated by the person and work of Witness Lee, and at worst it was all of the above, taking Benson and the rest of us from the frying pan of the La-la garlic room to the fire of a cult-like system of error. My personal opinion is that it was probably something in between. But hey, what do I know, I'm just a 20-year "bitter former member" who can't bring himself to admit that Witness Lee was at one time an anointed minister.
-

[TLFisher]

Benson knew. Read Speaking the Truth in Love. It's there. John and Ken went to visit Benson and Ray and they wouldn't receive what John and Ken had to share.
It's never been shared to my knowledge by Brad or Brent Barber, but it's been my feeling Philip Lee is the reason why James Barber ended up in Oklahoma City. For all we know, James was happy to be there....being far from Philip.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Apparently there were two incidents with Philip Lee involving gross immorality, one in the late 1970s and one in the late 1980s. After the second one, Witness Lee was forced to discharge his son Philip from authority. These incidents were not rumors or innuendos, but named witnesses coming forward, whose consciences could not allow them to pretend that all was Hunky and Dory in the Land of (Lee's) Food.

Besides immoral behavior, the record of heavy-handed behavior by PL is widespread. Read some of the testimonies of people who attempted to serve God under this man's leadership. Witness Lee's "personal chef" ran a very messy kitchen.

Current elders would claim it is rumors and hearsay which is why I tend to draw parallels between Living Stream Ministry and Isaiah 5:20.

If it was rumors, how come there was no lawsuit against the LA Times? Philip allegedly threatened to sue brothers for wanting to use hymns from the hymnal LSM publishes.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Benson Phillips may have been a lot of things, but he wasn't dumb. There has been ample testimony on these forums that Benson knew EXACTLY what kind of person Philip Lee was. Even if he didn't experience "the Philip treatment" (as some brothers in Anaheim coined it) firsthand, it was reported to him by others who he had good reason to believe were faithful witnesses. So why would Benson, in his right mind, "follow" Philip Lee? Why wouldn't he do what anybody with any semblance of spiritual maturity, and even a basic understanding of the responsibilities of a Christian leader, would do under the circumstances - Go with others to Philip's boss (Witness) and DEMAND that he be removed immediately from any position of responsibility or influence.

Why didn't Benson do the right thing? Well, aron has given us the answer in the part quoted above. At best he was caught up in the garlic room of Witness Lee's La-la land where the reality of right and wrong are trumped by the subjective "feeling of life" as dictated by the person and work of Witness Lee, and at worst it was all of the above, taking Benson and the rest of us from the frying pan of the La-la garlic room to the fire of a cult-like system of error. My personal opinion is that it was probably something in between. But hey, what do I know, I'm just a 20-year "bitter former member" who can't bring himself to admit that Witness Lee was at one time an anointed minister.
-

Benson did not put up with that nonsense because he was "drugged" with the "feeling of life" in the garlic room, but because Lee made it clear that his "successor" would have to be "absolutely one" with him the same way Lee was with Nee. The exact same description, however, also characterized Titus Chu. Why would he put up with all the abuse from WL and PL, unless he desired to be his "true" successor.

Benson and Titus were really the two rivals for Lee's position. Personally, I still cannot believe that Titus lost. He definitely underestimated Benson. Titus was much more spiritual, scriptural, gifted as a speaker, and respected around the globe, especially in the Asian world, where many were already clamoring, "Nee, Lee, Chu." But Benson controlled LSM in Anaheim, and was as resolved as steel. Furthermore, I believe that Titus was more constrained by the truth and the Lord's righteousness. Benson, however, was free to employ every means possible, just as Lee had done before him, in order to justify the end game. All the events surrounding the Whistler Quarantine seem to prove this.

[NewManLiving]

So much for the Lord's Testimony. They all failed the test starting with Witness Lee. Absolute power corrupts. It is not found in the NT. When in comes right down to it WL was willing to sacrifice the entire Body for oneness with himself, his ministry, and the erroneous New Way. The blendeds have this same spirit. What hypocrisy! There is only one fact: Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life! Everything else is garbage.

Repent for the Kingdom of the Heavens is at hand!

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Benson did not put up with that nonsense because he was "drugged" with the "feeling of life" in the garlic room, but because Lee made it clear that his "successor" would have to be "absolutely one" with him the same way Lee was with Nee. The exact same description, however, also characterized Titus Chu. Why would he put up with all the abuse from WL and PL, unless he desired to be his "true" successor.

You missed my point (again.) Nothing you post here is contradictory to the part of my post that you even put in BOLD:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

..where the reality of right and wrong are trumped by the subjective "feeling of life" as dictated by the person and work of Witness Lee.

So I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. Are you saying that objective right and wrong was not superseded by the dictates made clear by Witness Lee? Even to this day the term "the feeling of life" or "the feeling of the Body" are used in such a way. Maybe these terms weren't used in the GLA as much as in So.Calif and Texas when Lee was alive. If so, what other terms were used when people were put in the dilemma of going against their conscience and against the Word of God?

Why would Benson put up with all the abuse? I don't know for sure. Ask him. But I highly suspect, and my 40 years of experience in and out of the Movement tell me, it wasn't just his lust for being Lee's successor, but rather he was under the spell, just like all of us. And that, my dear friend, was the point of my post.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

You missed my point (again.) Nothing you post here is contradictory to the part of my post that you even put in BOLD:

So I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. Are you saying that objective right and wrong was not superseded by the dictates made clear by Witness Lee? Even to this day the term "the feeling of life" or "the feeling of the Body" are used in such a way. Maybe these terms weren't used in the GLA as much as in So.Calif and Texas when Lee was alive. If so, what other terms were used when people were put in the dilemma of going against their conscience and against the Word of God?

Why would Benson put up with all the abuse? I don't know for sure. Ask him. But I highly suspect, and my 40 years of experience in and out of the Movement tell me, it wasn't just his lust for being Lee's successor, but rather he was under the spell, just like all of us. And that, my dear friend, was the point of my post.
-

Sorry to miss your point! Again!

If we said the same thing, great!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

So much for the Lord's Testimony. They all failed the test starting with Witness Lee. Absolute power corrupts. It is not found in the NT. When in comes right down to it WL was willing to sacrifice the entire Body for oneness with himself, his ministry, and the erroneous New Way. The blendeds have this same spirit. What hypocrisy! There is only one fact: Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life! Everything else is garbage.

Repent for the Kingdom of the Heavens is at hand!

I'll never understand how Lee would sacrifice the entire Body for his reprobate, profligate, prodigal sons.

[Lisbon]

After James Barber was in OKC I heard him speak in Arlington a terribly rash word. "Anyone who is not absolute for the Lord's Recovery I will drive them out of my church." This has been a long time ago but it struck me as being really out of place. What in the world is this church that one has to be absolute for or get driven out by such a leading one. Strange.
Quite unrelated. Benson spoke to me privately of the last days James Barber in which James did a lot of repenting to his sons. I think it appeared James had been far too legal and demanding with his sons which led to both of them leaving as well as his wife. A lot of strange things in the so called "recovery."

Lisbon

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'll never understand how Lee would sacrifice the entire Body for his reprobate, profligate, prodigal sons.

Actually it's quite simple. On another thread there was another writing posted of Steve Isitt's. He quoted WL in saying:

"This is not easy. The local church is not our personal enterprise. The local church is the property of the local saints, not some worker’s business. Some gifted persons put a local church in their pocket."

Contrary to our understanding Witness Lee DID treat the local churches as his personal enterprise. The local churches may have it's directors, but Witness Lee saw it as his personal business. Then and today if a local church doesn't benefit Living Stream Ministry in revenue, it is worthy of being replastered.
The local churches were apparently franchises what were a revenue source for Witness Lee and his children. It's just the revenue was filtered through LSM.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Los Angeles Times

Leader's Son Excommunicated
Crisis Threatens Future of Little-Known Church

by Russell Chandler
Jan 7, 1989

Earlier Turmoil

"Many are against a one-man papal system . . . that in practice is very devious," declared one former elder in a telephone interview.

The LocalChurch also underwent turmoil in 1978 when Max D. Rapoport, then considered the heir apparent of the movement, quit his position as president of the Church in Anaheim. Earlier in the year, the leader of the Boston church departed. Both cited intense psychological pressures to conform in one's views and to perform up to expectations. Witness Lee, in a rare interview, denied the allegations: "In our church we are so free. We are free in thinking," he said then.

"In our church we are so free. We are free in thinking."

This was a bald-faced lie. Witness Lee was telling people that they were in the army (his army), and couldn't do what they wanted, but rather what he, the commander-in-chief, told them. The only one free in this system was Witness Lee: his every utterance was God's inspiration. Everyone else had to be "absolutely identical" to the current speaking. How free is that?

Everyone else, if they even questioned, much less challenged or refused, was branded a rebel. How can anyone be free in that system?

"We are so free"? The man was speaking out of both sides of his mouth. How he could do it in front of so many people, and get away with it, is simply astonishing. Nobody could call him on it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

WL: "In our church we are so free. We are free in thinking."

Who was so free in thinking and speaking save WL & son PL? As RG put it to BM, "Well do as we are told." Program enforcers RG and MP probably drove out 10 members for every one they recruited, but they ensured that those who remained were cowed and compliant.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Who was so free in thinking and speaking save WL & son PL? As RG put it to BM, "Well do as we are told." Program enforcers RG and MP probably drove out 10 members for every one they recruited, but they ensured that those who remained were cowed and compliant.

A brother I met in 2007 several decades removed from meeting with the Church in Seattle was allegedly told by Seattle's lead elder JK that it would be better if he met somewhere else after the brother expressed an observation the New Way was not organic, but an organized movement.
So much for free thinking. It must be "concepts" we have between our ears are fine as long as it's not expressed verbally or written.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

"In our church we are so free. We are free in thinking."

This was a bald-faced lie. Witness Lee was telling people that they were in the army (his army), and couldn't do what they wanted, but rather what he, the commander-in-chief, told them. The only one free in this system was Witness Lee: his every utterance was God's inspiration. Everyone else had to be "absolutely identical" to the current speaking. How free is that?

Everyone else, if they even questioned, much less challenged or refused, was branded a rebel. How can anyone be free in that system?

"We are so free"? The man was speaking out of both sides of his mouth. How he could do it in front of so many people, and get away with it, is simply astonishing. Nobody could call him on it.

It is statements like "we are so free..." that really caused me to lose a lot of respect for WL. I attended numerous LSM trainings. Never was there any sentiment expressed from the podium about being "free" in the church life. What they did talk about was how we need to be restricted, regulated, and of course, the army analogy was always used.

Personally speaking, it wasn't that difficult for me to meet the high LC standard compared to others that I knew, so the atmosphere of oppression didn't bother me as soon as it should have. Others saw the problem and ran away as soon as the opportunity arose, in fact, many "church kids" that I grew up with did just that.

When ex-members are screaming "cult", that should be a motivation for LC leaders to take a hard look at the system that they are overseeing. It is all too easy to characterize any kind of criticism as "groundless accusations". That benefits no one. It doesn't deal with the criticism itself, and it gives outsiders all the more reason to view the LC suspiciously.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It is statements like "we are so free..." that really caused me to lose a lot of respect for WL. I attended numerous LSM trainings. Never was there any sentiment expressed from the podium about being "free" in the church life. What they did talk about was how we need to be restricted, regulated, and of course, the army analogy was always used...

Here is a quote from an LC loyalist regarding Titus Chu, when the "quarantine" letter came out of Anaheim in 2006. A GLA brother wrote in his blog about the assemblies in Elyria and Lorain bickering over allegiance, and whether they belonged to Titus or the Blendeds, and he advised them to "chill out." A following comment from an LC loyalist is quoted below:

i can't believe what you have said. but i do understand in some ways. this is all about Titus Chu and great lakes brothers vs LSM and the blended brothers. this will surely happen ... when opportunity comes. when bro.WitnessLee went to the Lord, some of his co-workers will surely felt "independence has come." but they have to act legitimately and within the compound of hidden agenda. well, Titus Chu and his co-horts did it. He has poisoned many to follow him. that is why about 80 churches in greatlakes area followed him ... not knowing the truth. well, here he tried to gather some followers but was stopped and discovered. well, i just think bro.Titus Chu is a great opportunist. if bro.Witness lee is alive ... he will surely be reprimanded. but that will not surely happen ... for he succeeded. But the churches and the saints are the Lord's. i've been in the meeting in a local church for 30 years now, but it seems things are progressing. but somehow ... never mind.

The blog is at:

http://seanmacnair.blogspot.com/2006...omination.html

Titus Chu just wanted to be free, which as we all know is forbidden in the LC. And as regular poster Ohio has remarked on this forum, nobody got to be free under TC, either. It wasn't in the LC rules of order; you know, being in the army, and under submission to God's deputy, and all that.

Therefore Witness Lee's public remark on being so free was a flat-out falsehood; it only pertained to him and his profligate sons. But maybe in his world that was all that existed. Who knows?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

"In our church we are so free. We are free in thinking."

Few thoughts here --

1. In the beginning of the Recovery in the US, most of us had left the restrictions of overly structured and aging denominations. Growing up in Catholicism, their Mass was like a one act play, duplicated repeatedly. As an altar boy back in the 60's, we had Mass 5x each weekday morning, and I was sometimes called on to assist back-to-backs, when no one else showed. I could do that in my sleep -- "hey, wake up and ring the bells." So I knew a little bit about restriction and bondage in the context of liturgy. Then they changed the mass into English, yeah!

2. In the beginning of the Recovery in the US, the LC meetings were really free. For me, and others I knew, the meetings were really liberating. There was fresh light from returning to the word, and much joy of the Holy Spirit. Knowing the Lord within was life-changing. That did not last long. Within a year we had our first "storm" -- choose you this day who you will serve? who is for Lee? who is for Titus? Slowly restrictions, requirements, and regulations crept in to steal our liberty, and bring us under subjection.

3. Lee had a way of sounding so legit. The court cases were proof positive. To outsiders, he could sound so kind, giving, and loving. For some reason, this form of politics never seemed to alarm me. How could he tell outsiders that there is absolutely no control over the LC's, and then tell the elders that they had the "liberty" to decide what time the prayer meeting should start? Truth was, we had Anaheim and Cleveland jockeying behind the scenes to rob us of all local liberties.

4. The matter of control would come up occasionally, but Lee (and Chu) was able to quickly diffuse it. I remember one time him challenging, "Who do I control, I can't even control a mosquito?" We all laughed, and thought the whole idea was absurd. Francis Ball would chime in, "Brother Lee is simply an old minister whom we all love." Yes, that's right, how dare some guy accuse him of "controlling" anybody.

Looking back, I felt like a mushroom. Kept in the dark, and fed manure.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The matter of control would come up occasionally, but Lee (and Chu) was able to quickly diffuse it. I remember one time him challenging, "Who do I control, I can't even control a mosquito?" We all laughed, and thought the whole idea was absurd. Francis Ball would chime in, "Brother Lee is simply an old minister whom we all love." Yes, that's right, how dare some guy accuse him of "controlling" anybody.

There was passive control. Leaders who couldn't be controlled became out of favor and had their reputations smeared so no one would receive them. I saw control being delegated to loyal leaders who would not question the decision making process; ethical or unethical, righteous or unrighteous. Just as in the movie Absolute Power, the secret service agent's excuse for covering up a crime, "right or wrong, he's our president". Same can be said of LC leaders in regard to those loyal to Witness Lee prior to his passing. Even after his passing, the blended's decision making is indicative of loyalty with no respect to righteousness of unrighteousness

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

Below is a link to theberean.net thread on The History of Philip Lee

http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?t=39435

I think the original thread has been lost somewhere in the Berean archives. As I recall it had a lot of info on the dynamics of the ministry of Lee, as it played out, especially with his children's effect on his ministry and the "church life".

Here's a quote which I'm bringing forward:

About ten years ago it was my personal revelation that many of the things I had taken from WL and others in the "church life" as kingdom culture was merely Chinese culture. In my analysis, some of what had gone wrong in the church life was a repeat of 18th/19th century missionary work: cultural imperialism. And it was quite ironic, to me, to think that it was the Americans who were being forced to adapt to an invading culture.

I recall going to Anaheim to a training - the door-knocking training as a matter of fact -- and losing my badge while pounding the pavement. When I went to the evening meeting, I was forced to stand in line and wait until my turn to meet with a stern, suspicious, guardian of the gate who issued me a "visitor's badge" then later led us pathetic miscreants in a herd into the meeting late. It would have been humiliating had it not been so absurd. It just made me mad. I know one thing for sure, this type of thing would not have happened in an American seminar of any kind.

At that point in my church experience I was beginning to realize that maybe some of the instinctive criticisms I had of the "recovery" were not merely my fallen nature reacting to God's way, but my fallen nature reacting to other fallen natures, if you get my drift. The sad thing is that the ones who made it through all the ebbs and flows of the church life got something valuable of their American culture beaten out of them. We became something weird, something the world around us wasn't attracted to.