Does it even matter?

[leastofthese]

ZNPaaneah gave us a thoughtful response in the thread discussing unbiblical teachings and practices of the LC (pasted below). If we assume that Z's premise is solid - what are the implications for the "Local Churches"? If Lee's vision is not divine, if his "ministry" is not the move of God... where does that leave the "Lord's Recovery" Church movement? Where does that leave the followers of Witness Lee? Does it even matter? Is God OK with it all?

This isn't a bait or some type of rhetorical question. There are many really smart people on this forum that have probably thought through this before and can articulate themselves much better than I could.


(Quote from ZNP)
I think the obvious "unbiblical" teaching is the teaching from Witness Lee that some parts of "the word of God" are actually man's concept, imagination, or short of the vision.

I think the term "unbiblical" is too vague. Is the "Ground of the church" doctrine Biblical? Sure. They use lots of Bible verses to build this doctrine. But is it based on a sober mind view of the Bible? No.

There are black and white doctrines, those are doctrines that are plainly stated in the scriptures. These are crucial, fundamental doctrines, items of the faith that were once for all delivered to us. The "ground of the church" is not in black and white, it is inferred. Inferential teachings are derivative. It is acceptable to have an inferential teaching, but these cannot be items of the faith. You can infer 3 wise men because there were 3 gifts. But it isn't stated and it isn't an item of the faith. However, we have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus. This is stated plainly. It is an item of the faith.

One critical error made by Witness Lee is to raise inferential teachings up to items of the faith.

Then there are types and shadows. These fall into two categories, one are the types that are clearly stated to be types in the NT. David and Solomon are stated to be types of Christ. Hebrews talks about the items of the Earthly tabernacle being a shadow of things above. So if the Bible says David is a type of Christ it is quite fundamental to teach that David is a type of Christ. Types are not exact replicas. David's sin is not a type of Christ. Therein lies the danger in using types, you can over allegorize. Cult leaders like David Koresh did this. Witness Lee does this with his MOTA doctrine. The Bible clearly states that Moses is a type of Christ who is to come. You can therefore teach that Moses was the "minister of his age" just as Christ is the "minister of the age of grace". But Witness Lee over allegorizes this to have micro slices of the age each with their own "MOTA", 99% of whom have never been identified.

This danger gets amplified when you leave the types that are clearly stated in the NT to go and discover your own. No longer are you directly tied to the Bible. Witness Lee did this to the extreme. Hence Peter's warning that no scripture is of its own interpretation. The Ground of the Church doctrine is an excellent example. He takes types that are mentioned (Temple type of Church) extends this to what is not mentioned -- the ground, runs up and down the OT with this, and then with wildly ridiculous inferences ties it into the NT and then elevates it to an item of the faith.

[JJ]

To answer the question posed “does it matter whether “the local churches” that exclusively follows Living Stream Ministry leadership are off (with respect to doctrine, practices, and teaching concerning the nature of God based on Kevin’s thread started that led to this thread)?”

Yes it matters because many people have been damaged by it, and many more will be hurt as it crumbles and collapses. Therefore it behooves us to seek answers to help the hurt and provide rescue assistance while warning people away from it and out of it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

(Quote from ZNP)

This danger [of inferring 'truths'] gets amplified when you leave the types that are clearly stated in the NT to go and discover your own. No longer are you directly tied to the Bible. Witness Lee did this to the extreme. Hence Peter's warning that no scripture is of its own interpretation. The Ground of the Church doctrine is an excellent example. He takes types that are mentioned (Temple type of Church) extends this to what is not mentioned -- the ground, runs up and down the OT with this, and then with wildly ridiculous inferences ties it into the NT and then elevates it to an item of the faith.

The reference to Peter is useful: that scripture itself tells us how to view scripture, and how to derive meaning from it. I see a pattern in NT reception of the Psalms and I don't see any invititation to deviate.

Jesus said, "David was in spirit writing about me"; I don't see anywhere Jesus suggested only in this or that passage, with the rest being David entertaining fallen human concepts. Likewise, Paul calls the Psalms "the word of Christ" and encourages singing them; nowhere does he say only Psalm 16 and 2 and 8 and 110 are the word of Christ, with others being a word from David's natural human mind, wandering far from God.

If the Bible doesn't give us permission to think this way about scripture, then why take it upon ourselves? Lee seemed to find certain over-arching themes on the narrative, which themes could then be read back on the text, even to the point of dismissing those that didn't conform. But if that's where your theme takes you, I question it.

And that extends to Micah, Job, Proverbs, etc. If Lee's logic leads him to conclude that scripture is so flawed, then I question his logic. If, for example, Psalm 18's "He rescued me because He delighted in me" is dismissed simply because David sinned, then why isn't Psalm 16's "You will not let my flesh see corruption"? Same sinner wrote both verses. The NT gives us plenty of passages showing us the Father's delight in His Son. Can't we at least consider the possibility? I don't see evidence that Lee did.

This isn't to say that Psalm 18 definitively shows Christ. The NT doesn't explicitly show this, either. But neither does it give permission to dismiss it the way Lee did.

And I keep coming back to one question: how could several thousand people sit there passively while one man so brazenly overturned apostolic precedent in handling scripture? What kind of church was this?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

The reference to Peter is useful: that scripture itself tells us how to view scripture, and how to derive meaning from it. I see a pattern in NT reception of the Psalms and I don't see any invititation to deviate.

Great point.

Originally Posted by aron

Jesus said, "David was in spirit writing about me"; I don't see anywhere Jesus suggested only in this or that passage, with the rest being David entertaining fallen human concepts. Likewise, Paul calls the Psalms "the word of Christ" and encourages singing them; nowhere does he say only Psalm 16 and 2 and 8 and 110 are the word of Christ, with others being a word from David's natural human mind, wandering far from God.

If the Bible doesn't give us permission to think this way about scripture, then why take it upon ourselves? Lee seemed to find certain over-arching themes on the narrative, which themes could then be read back on the text, even to the point of dismissing those that didn't conform. But if that's where your theme takes you, I question it.

Great point, Witness Lee has no head covering on this.

Originally Posted by aron

And that extends to Micah, Job, Proverbs, etc. If Lee's logic leads him to conclude that scripture is so flawed, then I question his logic. If, for example, Psalm 18's "He rescued me because He delighted in me" is dismissed simply because David sinned, then why isn't Psalm 16's "You will not let my flesh see corruption"? Same sinner wrote both verses. The NT gives us plenty of passages showing us the Father's delight in His Son. Can't we at least consider the possibility? I don't see evidence that Lee did.

This isn't to say that Psalm 18 definitively shows Christ. The NT doesn't explicitly show this, either. But neither does it give permission to dismiss it the way Lee did.

And I keep coming back to one question: how could several thousand people sit there passively while one man so brazenly overturned apostolic precedent in handling scripture? What kind of church was this?

Thank you for this post.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by aron

And I keep coming back to one question: how could several thousand people sit there passively while one man so brazenly overturned apostolic precedent in handling scripture? What kind of church was this?

This is an interesting question. This passive dismissal of the truth continues today. Granted... the LSM churches are a fruitless, dying, movement... but a movement nonetheless.

What are you thoughts on how (your first question)?

What are your thoughts on what (your second question)?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

And I keep coming back to one question: how could several thousand people sit there passively while one man so brazenly overturned apostolic precedent in handling scripture? What kind of church was this?

It was not the church described in Matthew 18.

[aron]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

This is an interesting question. This passive dismissal of the truth continues today. Granted... the LSM churches are a fruitless, dying, movement... but a movement nonetheless.

What are you thoughts on how (your first question)?

What are your thoughts on what (your second question)?

How could people sit passively while apostolic precedent was overturned in front of them? I'd say, ignorance of the apostolic pattern seen in scripture, combined with conditioning not to ever question leadership. What is this, resulting? Certainly not the "my ekklesia" spoken by Jesus in Matthew 16:18.

In Acts 15, we see a network of peers, we see "much discussion" (v. 7) before consensus is reached. The Nee model is of supreme mastership and rule by fiat. It is Exclusive Brethrenism, coloured by Continental mysticism, run through oriental despotism. And so, people are now "voting with their feet", as they say.

As I said several times before, we're all biased, at least somewhat, and driven by a combination of ignorance and cultural pre-suppositions. And Nee rightly pointed out the foibles of the Western church model imposed on Eastern soil. And the Chinese all "voted with their feet" in the 1920s and '30s, as well. But the Eastern soil wasn't 'virgin soil', at all, as Lee tried to sell it to us. The church of supreme mastership its own issues, one of which is that "who you are" is solely determined by your proximity to the Maximum Brother. Think of Mao's China, but with spiritual trappings.

By contrast the wisdom of scripture calls for "many counselors"; Proverbs says it 3 times. None of us should dominate the discussion of the assembly. There's no "super apostle". That's a human-centered model, destined to fail.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

This is an interesting question. This passive dismissal of the truth continues today. Granted... the LSM churches are a fruitless, dying, movement... but a movement nonetheless.

What are you thoughts on how (your first question)?

What are your thoughts on what (your second question)?

First, Lee and Co. were remarkably skillful at silencing those who spoke their conscience. Lee had 50 years of doing this, and learned from the 100 years experience of the Exclusive Brethren and Nee in China.

Second, each time the men of conscience left, those who remained were the more passive compliant ones. Remember -- they were all convinced what a little old fashioned "ambition" could do to your reputation and future.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The Nee model is of supreme mastership and rule by fiat. It is Exclusive Brethrenism, coloured by Continental mysticism, run through oriental despotism. And so, people are now "voting with their feet", as they say.

Remarkably concise digest as only aron could!

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

how could several thousand people sit there passively while one man so brazenly overturned apostolic precedent in handling scripture? What kind of church was this?

Mark 1:1 the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Notice that at it's beginning, the gospel was not about Christ and the church, but about Jesus, that he was Messiah, Son of God, and King of Israel. There were other aspects: incarnate Word, great Shepherd, great High Priest, the Prophet, etc. But I'll focus on the simplicity of the initiation, in contrast with what followed.

Now, the 'church' made its entrance halfway thru the gospel, in Matthew 16. By divine inspiration Peter saw who Jesus was, and his anointed role. At that time there were many 'ekklesia', or temporal agglomerations of people; e.g., "And with these words he dismissed the 'ekklesia'"(Acts 17:41).

But Jesus introduced the subject as, "My 'ekklesia'"; that is, the assembly of Jesus, of those who affirm what Peter declared. This is confirmed on Pentecost, when Peter preached "this Jesus" as Lord and Christ. The focus of this ekklesia was wholly on this Jesus.

Now, what happened? How could it all get so distracted?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Mark 1:1 the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Notice that at it's beginning, the gospel was not about Christ and the church, but about Jesus, that he was Messiah, Son of God, and King of Israel. There were other aspects: incarnate Word, great Shepherd, great High Priest, the Prophet, etc. But I'll focus on the simplicity of the initiation, in contrast with what followed.

Now, the 'church' made its entrance halfway thru the gospel, in Matthew 16. By divine inspiration Peter saw who Jesus was, and his anointed role. At that time there were many 'ekklesia', or temporal agglomerations of people; e.g., "And with these words he dismissed the 'ekklesia'"(Acts 17:41).

But Jesus introduced the subject as, "My 'ekklesia'"; that is, the assembly of Jesus, of those who affirm what Peter declared. This is confirmed on Pentecost, when Peter preached "this Jesus" as Lord and Christ. The focus of this ekklesia was wholly on this Jesus.

Now, what happened? How could it all get so distracted?

What was worse for the saints was how Lee transitioned from "Christ and the (local) church" to "one with the ministry for the building up of the body" during the New Way.

Kind of like all those dictatorships naming their countries, "The People's Republic of ..."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

In Acts 15, we see a network of peers, we see "much discussion" (v. 7) before consensus is reached. The Nee model is of supreme mastership and rule by fiat. It is Exclusive Brethrenism, coloured by Continental mysticism, run through oriental despotism. And so, people are now "voting with their feet", as they say.

I once read of how they had been successful at keeping the Manhattan project a secret when there were thousands and thousands of people involved. The term is "compartmentalization". Each person has a very specific job to do, is not to know what anyone else does, and this is strictly enforced (the whole security clearance idea is based on this). In this way you can limit to a handful of Phd's who actually know what is going on. Then you keep those people under constant surveillance and build a dossier against them to give you leverage. The dossier doesn't have to be true, simply believable because once you act no one will be able to discover the truth without also being painted with the paint brush of "treason" (i.e. rebellion).

[JJ]

Originally Posted by aron

How could people sit passively while apostolic precedent was overturned in front of them? I'd say, ignorance of the apostolic pattern seen in scripture, combined with conditioning not to ever question leadership. What is this, resulting? Certainly not the "my ekklesia" spoken by Jesus in Matthew 16:18.

In Acts 15, we see a network of peers, we see "much discussion" (v. 7) before consensus is reached. The Nee model is of supreme mastership and rule by fiat. It is Exclusive Brethrenism, coloured by Continental mysticism, run through oriental despotism. And so, people are now "voting with their feet", as they say.

As I said several times before, we're all biased, at least somewhat, and driven by a combination of ignorance and cultural pre-suppositions. And Nee rightly pointed out the foibles of the Western church model imposed on Eastern soil. And the Chinese all "voted with their feet" in the 1920s and '30s, as well. But the Eastern soil wasn't 'virgin soil', at all, as Lee tried to sell it to us. The church of supreme mastership its own issues, one of which is that "who you are" is solely determined by your proximity to the Maximum Brother. Think of Mao's China, but with spiritual trappings.

By contrast the wisdom of scripture calls for "many counselors"; Proverbs says it 3 times. None of us should dominate the discussion of the assembly. There's no "super apostle". That's a human-centered model, destined to fail.

Well said Aron. Scary thing is that I was one of the thousands who sat there when what are now “Life Study of the Psalms” messages were preached by Witness Lee and didn’t object. I had “been trained” not to question the maximum brother who “saw all”.

It’s so good to have been set free from that system of error.

[Steel]

Originally Posted by JJ

...Yes it matters because many people have been damaged by it, and many more will be hurt as it crumbles and collapses.

Is this "Local Church/Recovery" (and maybe LSM) actually crumbling and collapsing?

Not from what I have witnessed. But perhaps you have a more informed viewpoint, JJ.

If so, could you tell us more about how this "Local Church/Recovery" (and maybe LSM) is crumbling and collapsing?

Originally Posted by JJ

...Therefore it behooves us to seek answers to help the hurt and provide rescue assistance while warning people away from it and out of it.

And is this thinking out of your natural man... Or before the Lord can you definitely declare that it is in and out of the Lord Himself?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Steel

Is this "Local Church/Recovery" (and maybe LSM) actually crumbling and collapsing?

Not from what I have witnessed.

The young people are leaving in droves. They know the most. That's one reason the college recruiting is pressed - to replace the mass exodus.

How much do you think FTTA-XB cost? And that from HWFMR sales? No, rather from several deep-pocketed "angels" who keep the whole thing afloat. Without them it would fall in a fortnight. One recently gave 350 million USD to Harvard to re-name a school. Who do you think pays for all those full-timers?

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...ft-to-harvard/

Similar to the 1950s where several Asian businessmen supported him.

Originally Posted by Steve Isitt

The Catalyst for Coming to the U.S.: Although Brother Lee testified that he was commissioned by the Lord to come to the U. S., there were serious issues between him and churches in the Far East that were a catalyst for his coming here. In the late fifties he had created a major problem to the church in Taipei through business failures involving investments from the saints, and his oldest son, Timothy, and he lost a lot of money. This brought a financial crisis to the church in Taipei. All the donations from the church members were used to pay the debt incurred, and still a large amount of money was owed. Due to the desperate situation, Brother Lee coerced the elders to sell a piece of land belonging to the church in order to pay the debt. Because of that action many coworkers and church members were especially unhappy with the debacle. That piece of land had been bought by the church to build a training center and a new meeting place. Brother Lee knew that what he did was wrong and left for the West Coast of the United States in 1960.

After Brother Lee left Taiwan, the church coworkers formed two sides. One side was Brother Lee’s strong followers, while the other group had questions about some of his activities. Those two groups had a strong difference of opinion, which greatly affected the church life and made the work of the church difficult to carry out. Eventually, some of the coworkers who were followers of Brother Lee asked him to come back to Taiwan to resolve differences. In the summer of 1965, Brother Lee came back to Taipei. He decided to get rid of those coworkers who disagreed with him. Consequently, there were thousands of people who left the church. At that time almost 30% of the regular members left, a most serious situation being that about 80-90% of the young members who were college students left the church. Brother Lee’s action in 1965 has been referred to as a “cleansing massacre” to get the church to line up with him only. Others feel that it was a necessary move. At any rate Brother Lee came back to the U. S. and the saints in Taipei were left to pick up the pieces and begin to rebuild.

In other matters in the Far East, toward the end of the 1950’s co-workers in Hong Kong, the Philippines, Singapore, and Malaysia had serious differences with Brother Lee because of the absolute authority he exercised, which was hard for them to take. Everything was dictated by him, and he would not take any input from others. It was a “my way or the highway attitude”, according to one brother. In addition some of the affluent church members were very unhappy about his handling of the financial matters. This was due to the fact that a lot of the money had been contributed by them and Brother Lee handled the finances according to his own thought. The co-workers did not feel they could trust him anymore and because of the differences they had with him they split up.

As Brother Lee left Taiwan in 1960 for the U. S., the church work there was in serious disarray. Also the Philippines work was split off. The Philippines was very important to Brother Lee and several well-to-do church members supported the church there financially over the years. Manila, however, decided to sever relationships with Brother Lee totally in 1960. (Concerning the Philippines and finances, Brother Lee was nearly arrested at the Manila airport for trying to smuggle a gold bar out of the country. He received a warning only, because of his good reputation in the country.)

Originally Posted by Witness Lee - High Peak of the Vision p23

At the end of 1950 I went to Manila. I worked there for five and a half months, and just before I left, a brother went to the elders and asked them to make an appointment for him to see me. This brother was a businessman and was quite wealthy but had donated little prior to that time. He came to see me and said, “Brother Lee, now you are going back to Taiwan. Please tell me the total amount o the annual expenses of your work in Taiwan, including the building of meeting halls and the support for the co-workers. I have the burden before the Lord to bear the whole responsibility.” This was truly something of the Lord’s doing. Then I said, “Brother Wang, you know the practice among us is that we do not tell people of our needs.” He said, “This is not you telling me, but it is I receiving the Lord’s commission. Therefore, if you don’t tell me, how can I know the amount?” So I told him. Thus, he supplied the work every year for eleven years, from 1950 to 1961; every year there was a sum of money as a supply Thank the Lord, this was all His doing.

Note that Lee doesn't say why the yearly sum of money stopped flowing in 1961 and he came to USA. And the Later Lee Ministry had no such reticence in relating monetary needs to parishioners. Every year there were "urgent need" announcements. But the portion borne by the ultra-wealthy remains disproportionately large.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

How much do you think FTTA-XB cost? And that from HWFMR sales? No, rather from several deep-pocketed "angels" who keep the whole thing afloat. Without them it would fall in a fortnight. One recently gave 350 million USD to Harvard to re-name a school. Who do you think pays for all those full-timers?

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...ft-to-harvard/

If you look at the link, the Harvard Gazette story says Morningside Foundation "...has focused its philanthropy primarily on education, health, and faith-based organizations in North America and Asia."

The "faith-based organisation" Local Church aka Lord's Recovery aka Living Stream Ministry is a guanxi network. Chan gave $350 million to strengthen his place in the network: with one phone call he can put a "church kid" into Harvard. With money, he bought power.

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by aron

The young people are leaving in droves. They know the most. That's one reason the college recruiting is pressed - to replace the mass exodus.

How much do you think FTTA-XB cost? And that from HWFMR sales? No, rather from several deep-pocketed "angels" who keep the whole thing afloat. Without them it would fall in a fortnight. One recently gave 350 million USD to Harvard to re-name a school. Who do you think pays for all those full-timers?

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...ft-to-harvard/

Similar to the 1950s where several Asian businessmen supported him.





Note that Lee doesn't say why the yearly sum of money stopped flowing in 1961 and he came to USA. And the Later Lee Ministry had no such reticence in relating monetary needs to parishioners. Every year there were "urgent need" announcements. But the portion borne by the ultra-wealthy remains disproportionately large.

The problem is- this support becomes a crutch and I think really hurts a lot of these FTT kids in the long run. Not saying it's like welfare, but it does hurt these young people when they're outside of the real world for so long- during a time they should be getting a better education and starting/establishing their career.

I wish those "donors" could see this.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by aron

If you look at the link, the Harvard Gazette story says Morningside Foundation "...has focused its philanthropy primarily on education, health, and faith-based organizations in North America and Asia."

The "faith-based organisation" Local Church aka Lord's Recovery aka Living Stream Ministry is a guanxi network. Chan gave $350 million to strengthen his place in the network: with one phone call he can put a "church kid" into Harvard. With money, he bought power.

Tax documents for Morningside show significant contributions to LC organizations (among a few other, mostly educational and medical, charities):

2013
Bibles for America $180,000
Defense and Confirmation Project $200,000
Living Stream Ministry $1,850,000
The Church in Anaheim $1,849,000
The Church in Cambridge $276,520
The Church in Irving $200,000
The Church in Los Angeles $320,000
Pneuma Media $60,000


2014
Bibles for America $430,000
Defense and Confirmation Project $100,000
Living Stream Ministry $200,000
The Church in Anaheim $66,000
The Church in Cambridge $286,260
The Church in Fullerton $100,000
The Church in Los Angeles $120,000
Pneuma Media $60,000

2015
Bibles for America $180,000
Defense and Confirmation Project $200,000
Living Stream Ministry $200,000
The Church in Anaheim $186,000
The Church in Cambridge $88,260
The Church in Irvine $350,000
The Church in Los Angeles $120,000
Pneuma Media $60,000
Engedi Campand Conference Center $1,970,000

[aron]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Tax documents for Morningside show significant contributions to LC organizations

There is nothing wrong with being rich, and people can give money to whomever they want. The question was, if the LSM was crumbling and collapsing, and my response was that without a few benefactors the whole thing would crumble in a fortnight. It's not organic, but organisational.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by aron

There is nothing wrong with being rich, and people can give money to whomever they want. The question was, if the LSM was crumbling and collapsing, and my response was that without a few benefactors the whole thing would crumble in a fortnight. It's not organic, but organisational.

I agree. And I am by no means faulting Chan for his success. The ebb and flow of the annual contributions probably gives indication of where the financial needs are in any given year.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

The ebb and flow of the annual contributions probably gives indication of where the financial needs are in any given year.

Another window into the organisation's culture is seen in the spin-off groups. I know the China Mainland groups are pretty tied-off, but the Brasilian spin-off has been written about by some who got out, and their experiences have marked similarities to those within LSM & suggests a pattern.

The local purveyor of "high spiritual lore", Dong, who'd freely cribbed from Lee, just as Lee had gotten his from Nee before, astounded the unsophisticated locals and got his own church.

So far, so good. Then, the mesmerized natives give themselves to serve the Lord, neatly tied to the man's person and ministry. Even better. Then, the acolytes set up compounds and companies to serve the Lord, run by the man's children. Best of all!

Then, when someone gets suspicious and wants to know where the money trail is, the Great Man gets furious. You're making him publicly lose face, by your inquiry, which is the ultimate no-no. He says, "My finances are a black box". That was Dong's reply to such an inquiry.

In other words, the "sheep" who are "serving the Lord" somehow becomes "my private business". Dong Yu Lan & Witness Lee seem two peas in the same pod, here.

http://www.cacp.org.br/o-localismo-o...e-o-donguismo/