I'm a student in the FTT - AMA

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

There may always be ulterior motives, such as those of Titus Chu in Ohio, but you can see in John Ingalls' testimony that autonomy was a primary concern of many elders and localities even long before Phillip Lee's sins were widely known. John Ingalls and Godfred Otuteye made much of this clear in their fellowship with other elders and regional/national leaders of The Local Churches. More and more orders and demands were coming in from LSM as if they had some kind of authority over the church, and those who resisted were often reprimanded by Lee or his subordinates. This only became worse when Phillip, who was not at all seen as a mature believer by many or even a believer at all by some, began to exercise this authority as well with little, if any, checks and balances from the churches. With time this culminated with more and more authoritarian teachings within The Lord's Recovery with doctrines such as "Minister of the Age," "God's deputy authority," "apostolic succession," "1000 years of darkness," "one publication." This goes hand in hand with their teachings of reflexively labeling any critics of LSM materials as "dissenters" and "poisonous" people who should absolutely be avoided regardless of whether or not you think they are right or are good people.

Autonomy was a pivotal and foundational reason for the localities in the Local Churches to express dissent because what they were seeing over the years reeked of the hierarchy and clergy/laity that Witness Lee had supposedly been standing against for so long. It went against everything that Lee had supposedly taught that The Lord's Recovery should be. Many elders disregarded the red flags for many years, but it became clear what kind of system was being built by Lee and his loyal followers, and it wasn't at all what Lee had promised them. Lee's reaction to these concerns was not proper humility, fellowship, and assurance, but public shaming of others, the tightening of the noose around many localities, and the culling of any who would speak up against him, leaving him and his successors with even more absolute control over the localities associated with The Lord's Recovery.

So while you may technically be right in saying that the issue of autonomy was not the only concern or motivation, for there are many involved with their own personal ideas and goals, it was the foundational and most widespread one since it led to Witness Lee's and Phillip Lee's abuse of power not only within the publication company known as Living Stream Ministry, but over many localities in the Local Churches.

Ok, thanks for bringing more clarity on that point. I talked to my sister last night who was older than I was during the Moses Lake schism and she said that from her viewpoint and understanding of the situation that:

1. Brother Lee was very critical of the church in Moses Lake, claiming that locality was full of works of the flesh and full of fleshly believers doing whatever they wanted. Which I can somewhat confirm. For several reasons-

A. I believe there was a type of hierarchy for sure being practiced there with Bill Freeman and Ken Sandburg, brothers who acted like supreme authorities in their leadership. And I know that these brothers went around Washington state to recruit members. Which is actually how my family ended up moving there from Seattle a year or so before I was born. They promised my dad that the elders there were "really cool, and really loving" and because he had problems with his dad he was always looking for a father figure type and he bought into the story and moved over there. There may or may not have been some opinions about the leadership in Seattle from the lower ranking members which may have precipitated certain feelings which led my dad to want to leave that area. In the sense that let's say hypothetically he felt that the leaders in Seattle were too legal or were too stuck in their power and rigid.....then that would make an elder who is "really cool and really loving" seem very attractive to a downtrodden member like my dad who needed a lot of brotherly love and care at the time

B. There was physical abuse of children in their daystar meetings (they named the school attached to the church 'daystar'), where if a child did something wrong it was permitted behavior for ANY adult to use physical punishment on the child, regardless if the child was their own or not. Which they absolutely did and practiced, which reminds me of the Catholic church. I was too young to attend the school, and ultimately never did because we left that locality, thank God. But my brother and sister were spanked for very very questionable offenses such as like not tying their shoes correctly and things like that. Which is pretty much abuse any way you slice it and would damage these children. My brother grew up to have a lot of psychological problems

C. I know that some members got away with a lot of bad behavior such as drinking and certain familial abuses that was not called out because there was a type of brotherhood there that just fostered and tolerated certain loose behaving brothers. Possibly because they had experienced legalism from elders in other localities and they didn't want to be controlled or dictated to anymore. But that doesn't excuse the bad behavior


2. she confirmed that she felt the church in Moses Lake was very fleshly and they were doing things that were kind of outside of the scope of what a normal local church would do. but I suppose this falls into the local church autonomy category. But again, she felt that Lee was correct to say they were a rebel church because of how they behaved and how they didn't have much outside fellowship over decisions they were making. she felt they were hiding a lot of bad behavior and they practiced a lot of things that were just kind of culty. Didn't get much examples of those things from her, but I know that sometimes localities can get weird in their behavior

I'm not saying all that to say brother Lee was 100% right about them in every aspect and he was right to assert authority over them or anything like that. But rather say that to say on both sides it seems there is a lot of extra information and nuance that could be being overlooked. Maybe both sides were majorly wrong in a lot of their behavior. so ultimately brother Lee just claimed the high ground and stood upon his laurels of being the founder of the local churches in America and this meant the bros in Moses Lake got cut off if they chose not to fall under him. He basically just claimed superiority through past merit and accomplishments despite both parties being majorly wrong in certain things. so to simply say that "the church in Moses Lake was rebellious for not bowing down to Lee" is really shorting the scenario of information. Probably both parties were majorly wrong and possibly because of Lee's major wrongness in certain things the Moses Lake brothers felt they had impetus to dissent. Now maybe they wanted to dissent anyways because they didn't want to be exposed of their bad behavior, but if Lee was majorly wrong then they had justification to "rebel" against him

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by Jay

I'm not saying all that to say brother Lee was 100% right about them in every aspect and he was right to assert authority over them or anything like that. But rather say that to say on both sides it seems there is a lot of extra information and nuance that could be being overlooked. Maybe both sides were majorly wrong in a lot of their behavior. so ultimately brother Lee just claimed the high ground and stood upon his laurels of being the founder of the local churches in America and this meant the bros in Moses Lake got cut off if they chose not to fall under him. He basically just claimed superiority through past merit and accomplishments despite both parties being majorly wrong in certain things. so to simply say that "the church in Moses Lake was rebellious for not bowing down to Lee" is really shorting the scenario of information. Probably both parties were majorly wrong and possibly because of Lee's major wrongness in certain things the Moses Lake brothers felt they had impetus to dissent. Now maybe they wanted to dissent anyways because they didn't want to be exposed of their bad behavior, but if Lee was majorly wrong then they had justification to "rebel" against him

How disheartening. Whether leaders are decent or terrible, and I certainly believe Lee ultimately proved to be the latter, there are always those lurking below seeking to gain their own little kingdoms and abuse God's sheep.

Ezekiel 34:1-16

1 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to you shepherds of Israel who only take care of yourselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? 3 You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. 4 You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. 5 So they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and when they were scattered they became food for all the wild animals. 6 My sheep wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. They were scattered over the whole earth, and no one searched or looked for them. 7 “‘Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: 8 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, because my flock lacks a shepherd and so has been plundered and has become food for all the wild animals, and because my shepherds did not search for my flock but cared for themselves rather than for my flock, 9 therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: 10 This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock. I will remove them from tending the flock so that the shepherds can no longer feed themselves. I will rescue my flock from their mouths, and it will no longer be food for them. 11 “‘For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. 12 As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness. 13 I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land. 14 I will tend them in a good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel will be their grazing land. There they will lie down in good grazing land, and there they will feed in a rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. 15 I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign Lord. 16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.

...

I'm curious. Have you ever read Steve Isitt's account of the Rosemead locality? He titled his book "The Rosemead Rebellion."

If you wanna talk more about it, TLF made a thread about it already.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Jay

I know that some members got away with a lot of bad behavior such as drinking and certain familial abuses that was not called out because there was a type of brotherhood there that just fostered and tolerated certain loose behaving brothers. Possibly because they had experienced legalism from elders in other localities and they didn't want to be controlled or dictated to anymore. But that doesn't excuse the bad behavior

This was and probably still is a problem in many churches and not just local churches. When you have a brother who prophesies in meetings, he's going to be well thought of even when behaving badly. Those in church leadership don't want to discipline such brothers. It is far more easier to discipline a reserved yet concerned brother. If he's not prophesying in meetings, a reserved brother might have their standing in the church under scrutiny.
An example I used to use a brother can go drinking or get high on Saturday night, come an prophesy on Sunday morning and he's a brother in good standing. Then you could have a spiritual brother who comments we should drop the Holy Word for Morning Revival and just use the Bible. He might be requested to come to the fellowship room for an Inquisition.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

This was and probably still is a problem in many churches and not just local churches. When you have a brother who prophesies in meetings, he's going to be well thought of even when behaving badly. Those in church leadership don't want to discipline such brothers. It is far more easier to discipline a reserved yet concerned brother. If he's not prophesying in meetings, a reserved brother might have their standing in the church under scrutiny.
An example I used to use a brother can go drinking or get high on Saturday night, come an prophesy on Sunday morning and he's a brother in good standing. Then you could have a spiritual brother who comments we should drop the Holy Word for Morning Revival and just use the Bible. He might be requested to come to the fellowship room for an Inquisition.

Well this is a hard thing because I feel like the elders and other members really have no business knowing about the personal lives of the saints. However in some cases from Moses Lake some wives of abusive brothers came forward for help to the eldership and were basically ignored. I know of one though at least who was told they supported her if she left her husband. But I don't think they were going to support her financially or anything like that. They just gave her the amen to leave if he was physically abusing her, which he was. But she was too scared to leave

So it's kind of a catch-22 because we don't really belong in other people's business in their personal lives. And I would not want to be in a locality that did exercise control over what people do in their personal lives. But I do understand the scenario that you're painting. You're saying that certain brothers are covered if they are viewed as very active in the church life, while others who seem more reserved might be looked at with more scrutiny. But to me this scenario you're describing is wholly wrong because my personal life and other's personal lives are no ones business but between them and God. Even Paul said he didn't want to know anything amongst the saints, but Christ crucified- 1 Corinthians 2:2

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Jay

Well this is a hard thing because I feel like the elders and other members really have no business knowing about the personal lives of the saints. However in some cases from Moses Lake some wives of abusive brothers came forward for help to the eldership and were basically ignored. I know of one though at least who was told they supported her if she left her husband. But I don't think they were going to support her financially or anything like that. They just gave her the amen to leave if he was physically abusing her, which he was. But she was too scared to leave

So it's kind of a catch-22 because we don't really belong in other people's business in their personal lives. And I would not want to be in a locality that did exercise control over what people do in their personal lives. But I do understand the scenario that you're painting. You're saying that certain brothers are covered if they are viewed as very active in the church life, while others who seem more reserved might be looked at with more scrutiny. But to me this scenario you're describing is wholly wrong because my personal life and other's personal lives are no ones business but between them and God. Even Paul said he didn't want to know anything amongst the saints, but Christ crucified- 1 Corinthians 2:2

It is a catch-22. On one hand we don't want "responsible ones" knowing about home lives of the saints. On the other hand we want the "responsible ones" to show care. It's not so easy. I think that's part of what led Steve Isitt to write "In Wake of the New Way". It was from a lack of care.
There is a fine line between knowing and caring versus knowing and controlling.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

It is a catch-22. On one hand we don't want "responsible ones" knowing about home lives of the saints. On the other hand we want the "responsible ones" to show care. It's not so easy. I think that's part of what led Steve Isitt to write "In Wake of the New Way". It was from a lack of care.
There is a fine line between knowing and caring versus knowing and controlling.

Really good point. In some recent experiences I have seen the so called elders not care about certain needy saints. And it's given me a bad taste in my mouth. I feel like genuine love and care should be a prerequisite for leadership in a church. But what I see is some very talented and capable brothers in those positions based on their capacity but not based on their growth in life and growth in the love and humanity of Jesus. Which in my view should disqualify them from a leadership role

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by Jay

You're saying that certain brothers are covered if they are viewed as very active in the church life, while others who seem more reserved might be looked at with more scrutiny. But to me this scenario you're describing is wholly wrong because my personal life and other's personal lives are no ones business but between them and God. Even Paul said he didn't want to know anything amongst the saints, but Christ crucified- 1 Corinthians 2:2

Hate to burst your bubble Jay but in a genuine Biblical Church community, nobody's personal life is their own business when abuse of another is taking place - mine included. And the so-called "anti-gossip" verse you quoted above has absolutely nothing to do with exposing someone's private personal matters - please read it again, but in context.

Watchman Nee and Witness Lee would have us to believe otherwise though, and the rotten fruit of decades of leaders (or overbearing men in general) getting by with living a double life (under "the covering") is starting to ooze out at the corners of certain Ministry Churches; so much so that Civil Authorities have been forced to get involved.

A recent court case in Oklahoma directly involved the eldership of a Ministry Church there which I am pretty sure proves my point. I have emphasized certain sections in red to help us all see the Nee/Lee rotten fruit which was laid out plainly before the so-called heathen there in the "Bible Belt".



Full Document (this was page 16) can be read here: https://blendedbody.com/4LCD/THE-COU...F-OKLAHOMA.pdf

WARNING! This document describes abuse of all kinds toward innocent women & children (including a Full Time Serving Sister) and it does so in graphic detail - so please view this at your own discretion.

P.S.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by PriestlyScribe

Hate to burst your bubble Jay but in a genuine Biblical Church community, nobody's personal life is their own business when abuse of another is taking place - mine included

P.S.

I don't disagree with you when it comes to matters of abuse and lawbreaking. But that wasn't my point. In general the personal lives of saints is no one's business but God's. But yes, if it comes to abuse and breaking the law within the church then those things matter and I agree with others sentiments here that abuse should be called out publicly and I believe the law should be involved if it involves large crimes such as sexual abuse that people have claimed has happened within the walls of the church buildings. Absolutely it should go to the law, and that person should be removed from the church. I've read other's testimonies of these things being swept under the rug and I can't at all agree with that behavior. If an elder or the leadership in a given church did that and ignored an abuse of that magnitude then they are fully wrong

But that's not what I was talking about so you're taking something I said and adding a twist onto it that leads in a different direction, and then acting like I'm saying something I'm not saying, like I'm ok with abuse being ignored or something. No, I'm not. So please don't do that. Please don't twist my words into something that I didn't say and don't mean