What is God's Economy?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay,
The N.T. never mentions the “church of the apostles” nor the “church of the ministry,” but that is what we had become. An independent and healthy eldership would have prevented this. Thus we were not “the church of Christ” or the “church of the saints” which are both spelled out in the Word. Hence God’s economy, God’s “house rule,” or God’s household administration, were seriously violated. Actually, Nee’s “Normal Christian Church Life” spells this out fairly clearly.

I see what you're saying here, but it doesn't invalidate Lee's doctrine on the economy of God. Actually it just shows that Lee himself misused his position, and the elders and coworkers around him were complicit in his errors. I have read nothing that eludes to Lee believing that the apostles, elders, coworkers etc. have any type of authority over the personal lives of the saints. I'm not saying it's not out there, but I have never read it. And I've read a great deal of LSM material from Nee and Lee in my lifetime. The only thing close to that thought is 'Authority and submission' by Watchman Nee, but I don't think even that thought is in there because Nee is touching on spiritual authority, which is spiritual, and not personal, and doesn't have anything to do with people's personal financial decisions as far as I know. Also being in the church for as long as I have, we rarely if ever talk about authority; spiritual or otherwise. It just never comes up

Now if Lee and co. encroached into that territory, which it sounds like they absolutely did (and I myself have experienced this with other leaders in the church), then they are just flat out wrong. And it sounds like this is Lee's lifetime major fault, and those who covered him at the expense of the body of Christ are complicit in his errors. And those who stood up against it were right to do so. It's possible he should have stepped down from any type of leadership position he held, and just relegated his sphere of function to speaking. But I suppose ultimately that's up to God. When king David sinned God didn't remove his kingdom from him, but he punished him in other ways and ultimately David's kingdom was split in half between his son's fighting. So there were major major consequences. Also with his seed Solomon, who eventually became degraded to the inth degree. But then why would I even be talking about Lee as if he was the king or ruler of the recovery? That's a funny thing right? It just means that the recovery revers Lee as if he was a king in a way. Which maybe is human nature, but it's something that is kind of hidden but obvious too. Strange thing. At any rate, how much Lee's failures damaged the church is what it is. I think at this point in time it's in the past mostly. Granted many who were caught up in the problems had their church life ruined and there should be accountability for that before God. Jesus said clearly that the stumbling blocks would be judged harshly

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Jay

The only thing close to that thought is 'Authority and submission' by Watchman Nee, but I don't think even that thought is in there because Nee is touching on spiritual authority, which is spiritual, and not personal, and doesn't have anything to do with people's personal financial decisions as far as I know

Actually this is pretty interesting. I read a bit of authority and submission when I was younger but didn't get very far into it. I just now went and read a little bit of chapter three and Nee is talking about Moses being a chosen deputy authority by God. He also mentions Noah and the sin of Ham by uncovering his father

The problems I have with these two examples is:

1. Noah's sin was a personal sin that didn't effect other people. He was simply drunken and naked, and in that sense sure Ham was wrong for exposing his father's personal sins. That is true, but with regards to the sins that Lee is accused of it doesn't fit the same category. If Lee was covering his son and not removing his son from office while his son was breaking the law and harming women then Lee was beyond wrong. That type of thing simply can't exist in the church and be covered like it was. Totally unacceptable and that type of thing SHOULD be exposed so that we don't foster that type of environment. And it has happened again since Lee's son did it. Other brothers have done it and got away with it. So clearly Lee's son should have been made an example of. This shows how damaging the misuse of scripture can be

With regards to Moses, the whole thing just sounds like a soap opera. Moses's sister and brother were all mad because he married an Ethiopian woman or whatever, is just a silly thing. And then God coming around and giving them leprosy or whatever is kind of unnecessary for such silly drama. I'll have to go back and read more of that but it just sounds like a soap opera. There's many examples in the Old Testament of God being petty and cruel. The example of the bears coming out and devouring the children who were mocking Elisha is a shining example of misuse of power and God being petty. But anyway

2. I can't go along with someone holding a position over a large group of people while harming a large number of them at the same time. Maybe I'm just "natural" or maybe I'm a rebel, but it seems to me that one should lose their position of leadership if they make grave errors and sins. Saul lost his position due to his sins. So why didn't David? It's God playing favorites I suppose. So this type of wonky scripture could absolutely be exploited by leaders who want to cover up their misdeeds or leaders who are corrupted by their own position

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Jay

Actually this is pretty interesting. I read a bit of authority and submission when I was younger but didn't get very far into it. I just now went and read a little bit of chapter three and Nee is talking about Moses being a chosen deputy authority by God. He also mentions Noah and the sin of Ham by uncovering his father

The problems I have with these two examples is:

1. Noah's sin was a personal sin that didn't effect other people. He was simply drunken and naked, and in that sense sure Ham was wrong for exposing his father's personal sins. That is true, but with regards to the sins that Lee is accused of it doesn't fit the same category. If Lee was covering his son and not removing his son from office while his son was breaking the law and harming women then Lee was beyond wrong. That type of thing simply can't exist in the church and be covered like it was. Totally unacceptable and that type of thing SHOULD be exposed so that we don't foster that type of environment. And it has happened again since Lee's son did it. Other brothers have done it and got away with it. So clearly Lee's son should have been made an example of. This shows how damaging the misuse of scripture can be

With regards to Moses, the whole thing just sounds like a soap opera. Moses's sister and brother were all mad because he married an Ethiopian woman or whatever, is just a silly thing. And then God coming around and giving them leprosy or whatever is kind of unnecessary for such silly drama. I'll have to go back and read more of that but it just sounds like a soap opera. There's many examples in the Old Testament of God being petty and cruel. The example of the bears coming out and devouring the children who were mocking Elisha is a shining example of misuse of power and God being petty. But anyway

2. I can't go along with someone holding a position over a large group of people while harming a large number of them at the same time. Maybe I'm just "natural" or maybe I'm a rebel, but it seems to me that one should lose their position of leadership if they make grave errors and sins. Saul lost his position due to his sins. So why didn't David? It's God playing favorites I suppose. So this type of wonky scripture could absolutely be exploited by leaders who want to cover up their misdeeds or leaders who are corrupted by their own position

I don't say any of this to say that I believe Lee was a false prophet or a cult leader etc. I don't believe he was. I do believe he was used by God to set up the local churches and to speak a lot of great things with regards to the deeper meanings in the Bible. However it sounds like his personal life had a lot of major drama in it and that carried over into the church when he appointed his unworthy sons with high positions, of which they misused and abused. This was no doubt nepotism on Lee's part, and it sounds like this was his major flaw- his love for his sons. So despite the great things Lee did he also did a lot of damage and probably should have lost his position. But then we get into another argument of what exactly should the positions in the church be, and how should they be maintained and how should they function. This is something that is not talked a lot about in the recovery. But I think it's safe to say that if you have a position it should not be permanent and if you behave badly you could and probably should lose your position. Are positions hierarchy? Such a grey area right. I have also heard of elders being asked to step down. So why was Lee never asked to step down. Probably because they revered him to almost a deity status. They felt he was the "speaker of the age" just like Paul and this gave him a 'get out of jail free' card for any misdeeds or errors. Which he clearly made huge ones and they were just covered up because of this prevailing thought that the lower ranking members shouldn't expose the wrongs of the higher ranking members. Well this led to many lives being ruined and many thousands of people leaving the recovery

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Jay

So why was Lee never asked to step down. Probably because they revered him to almost a deity status. They felt he was the "speaker of the age" just like Paul and this gave him a 'get out of jail free' card for any misdeeds or errors

I suppose though that many elders and leading ones from other localities DID make it known that they were not ok with what happened and they were not ok with just covering it all up. Very interesting to know now where these "storms" that the speaking brothers are always talking about actually come from. Funny how they never go into detail about what caused these storms and funny how they always advise the saints to not go online and read about them

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Jay

I suppose though that many elders and leading ones from other localities DID make it known that they were not ok with what happened and they were not ok with just covering it all up. Very interesting to know now where these "storms" that the speaking brothers are always talking about actually come from. Funny how they never go into detail about what caused these storms and funny how they always advise the saints to not go online and read about them

I tend to say many of the current leaders in the recovery were part of the problem rather than part of the solution. If you were to read about Rosemead, Speaking the Truth in Love, etc there were young ambitious elder wannabe's that had their fingerprints over those situations. A saying attributed to Phillip Lee "out with the old and in with the new", I took as a double meaning. It also implied, out with the older elders and in with the younger ones.
January 2004, I met Bill and Barbara Mallon at Steve Isitt's apartment in Bellevue. They had stopped by on their way to Moses Lake. I had always heard Bill left because of unfulfilled ambition. I asked Bill, did you leave because of ambition. Bill looked at me and said, "if I was ambitious, I never would have left".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

I tend to say many of the current leaders in the recovery were part of the problem rather than part of the solution. If you were to read about Rosemead, Speaking the Truth in Love, etc there were young ambitious elder wannabe's that had their fingerprints over those situations. A saying attributed to Phillip Lee "out with the old and in with the new", I took as a double meaning. It also implied, out with the older elders and in with the younger ones.
January 2004, I met Bill and Barbara Mallon at Steve Isitt's apartment in Bellevue. They had stopped by on their way to Moses Lake. I had always heard Bill left because of unfulfilled ambition. I asked Bill, did you leave because of ambition. Bill looked at me and said, "if I was ambitious, I never would have left".

Another Philip Lee saying, "we don't care for right or wrong, we only care for life." And another, "Even when Brother Lee is wrong, he's right."

Concerning Bill Mallon, I heard this condemnation: "Bill Mallon said we should return to the pure word of God, but that is a tactic of the enemy."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

I see what you're saying here, but it doesn't invalidate Lee's doctrine on the economy of God. Actually it just shows that Lee himself misused his position, and the elders and coworkers around him were complicit in his errors. I have read nothing that eludes to Lee believing that the apostles, elders, coworkers etc. have any type of authority over the personal lives of the saints. I'm not saying it's not out there, but I have never read it. And I've read a great deal of LSM material from Nee and Lee in my lifetime. The only thing close to that thought is 'Authority and submission' by Watchman Nee, but I don't think even that thought is in there because Nee is touching on spiritual authority, which is spiritual, and not personal, and doesn't have anything to do with people's personal financial decisions as far as I know. Also being in the church for as long as I have, we rarely if ever talk about authority; spiritual or otherwise. It just never comes up

Jay, are you familiar with Nee’s excommunication by the Shanghai Church? When he was “restored,” which was done without repentance, his first ministerial act was the matter of “handing over.” Members could not be a part of his ministry unless they were willing to “hand over” everything they owned to Née. This was a false spiritual authority which definitely controlled their personal lives.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, are you familiar with Nee’s excommunication by the Shanghai Church? When he was “restored,” which was done without repentance, his first ministerial act was the matter of “handing over.” Members could not be a part of his ministry unless they were willing to “hand over” everything they owned to Née. This was a false spiritual authority which definitely controlled their personal lives.

I've heard the story of his excommunication, but I haven't heard of the "handing over" part. Do you have any links to info or testimonies that could shed more light on this?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, are you familiar with Nee’s excommunication by the Shanghai Church? When he was “restored,” which was done without repentance, his first ministerial act was the matter of “handing over.” Members could not be a part of his ministry unless they were willing to “hand over” everything they owned to Née. This was a false spiritual authority which definitely controlled their personal lives.

Also do you have any links to info or testimonies that could shed more light on WHY he was excommunicated in the first place. The story that I heard was that they falsely accused him of having inappropriate contact with a sister. From the story that I heard it was M.E. Barber whom he was visiting personally at her home and she was simply just his spiritual mentor, which was the reason for the personal visits

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

Also do you have any links to info or testimonies that could shed more light on WHY he was excommunicated in the first place. The story that I heard was that they falsely accused him of having inappropriate contact with a sister. From the story that I heard it was M.E. Barber whom he was visiting personally at her home and she was simply just his spiritual mentor, which was the reason for the personal visits

Jay, years ago I heard a different story, went something like this: WN's mother was living with him. Rumor went out that he was living with a woman. The SCC elders asked him if he was "living with a woman," and he answered "yes." The elders promptly excommunicated him. This just proves how "pure" WN was, he let his "yes" be yes, and his "no" be no.

We all believed that story, thinking WN was the holiest man on earth. Later on I re-thought the whole story. The elders of the Shanghai Christian Church were all appointed by WN, and worked with him for years. To believe this story one must also believe that these elders were all complete dunces, who never checked out the facts of the matter.

Several years ago a book was written by Dr. Lily Hsu, a retired doctor now in the US) who was a witness to these events in Shanghai before the Communist takeover. There has been much discussion on this forum concerning her (auto)biography. The book was also available online to read free of charge. Many of the posters here found Hsu's account of facts quite compelling and changed our long-held hagiographical views of Nee. You are welcome to investigate for yourself.

My Unforgettable Memories: Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church

Before this book on Nee was written, I had already done a somewhat extensive study on both WL (from 2006 to 2010) and JNDarby (from 2002 to 2005), with WN were supposedly all successive "ministers of the age" or MOTA's. After that study I no longer believed any history that I ever heard from WL without second source corroboration. Also I no longer embrace any of JND's writings, based on how he treated other Christian ministers. In order to accept any of them as MOTA's, one must believe untold lies and exaggeration of facts.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, years ago I heard a different story, went something like this: WN's mother was living with him. Rumor went out that he was living with a woman. The SCC elders asked him if he was "living with a woman," and he answered "yes." The elders promptly excommunicated him. This just proves how "pure" WN was, he let his "yes" be yes, and his "no" be no.

We all believed that story, thinking WN was the holiest man on earth. Later on I re-thought the whole story. The elders of the Shanghai Christian Church were all appointed by WN, and worked with him for years. To believe this story one must also believe that these elders were all complete dunces, who never checked out the facts of the matter.

Several years ago a book was written by Dr. Lily Hsu, a retired doctor now in the US) who was a witness to these events in Shanghai before the Communist takeover. There has been much discussion on this forum concerning her (auto)biography. The book was also available online to read free of charge. Many of the posters here found Hsu's account of facts quite compelling and changed our long-held hagiographical views of Nee. You are welcome to investigate for yourself.

My Unforgettable Memories: Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church

Before this book on Nee was written, I had already done a somewhat extensive study on both WL (from 2006 to 2010) and JNDarby (from 2002 to 2005), with WN were supposedly all successive "ministers of the age" or MOTA's. After that study I no longer believed any history that I ever heard from WL without second source corroboration. Also I no longer embrace any of JND's writings, based on how he treated other Christian ministers. In order to accept any of them as MOTA's, one must believe untold lies and exaggeration of facts.

I believe I read some of her accounts awhile ago regarding Nee. If what she claims is true about Nee then it doesn't sound like the CCP was wholly incorrect for accusing him of being a sexual degenerate. At any rate, I can't say I believe one thing or another. I don't know. It's possible. We all have a strong flesh that wars against our spirit. Does this disqualify him from being a MOTA (or we could argue that there's no such thing as a MOTA anyway, which I've heard others on this site claim)? Maybe, we could also infer that if it's true then God did come in and damage his ministry, and maybe Nee went downhill after that. How long was the resumption of his ministry? 5-10 years? I forget the timeline but he was always under scrutiny and suffering. Not like he had an easy time. And his twenty year imprisonment was probably hell. So maybe God came in and judged idk. Or maybe those sufferings were just general and prescribed for his transformation (Hebrews 2:10). But it doesn't discount what he set up in my view. That's like disregarding the message because the messenger isn't fully right. The message may still be true regardless of the behavior of the messenger. Where this focus on the messenger needing to be totally blameless for the message to be true or received idk where that concept came from. But I will say that if that behavior from Nee is true then it disqualified him from a leadership position according the Bible. Does that annul his message? Does that annul the local churches? I'm sure satan would like it too. But God uses highly damaged, highly fallible men. Look at the personal lives of David, Solomon, and Paul. They were lechers and murderers. Yet they have the highest experiences of the spirit in the entire Bible, and they are personally responsible for setting up God's kingdom on earth. If we throw out the work of Nee and Lee then certainly we have to throw out the books that David, Solomon, and Paul wrote. Do we not?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Jay

I believe I read some of her accounts awhile ago regarding Nee. If what she claims is true about Nee then it doesn't sound like the CCP was wholly incorrect for accusing him of being a sexual degenerate. At any rate, I can't say I believe one thing or another. I don't know. It's possible. We all have a strong flesh that wars against our spirit. Does this disqualify him from being a MOTA (or we could argue that there's no such thing as a MOTA anyway, which I've heard others on this site claim)? Maybe, we could also infer that if it's true then God did come in and damage his ministry, and maybe Nee went downhill after that. How long was the resumption of his ministry? 5-10 years? I forget the timeline but he was always under scrutiny and suffering. Not like he had an easy time. And his twenty year imprisonment was probably hell. So maybe God came in and judged idk. Or maybe those sufferings were just general and prescribed for his transformation (Hebrews 2:10). But it doesn't discount what he set up in my view. That's like disregarding the message because the messenger isn't fully right. The message may still be true regardless of the behavior of the messenger. Where this focus on the messenger needing to be totally blameless for the message to be true or received idk where that concept came from. But I will say that if that behavior from Nee is true then it disqualified him from a leadership position according the Bible. Does that annul his message? Does that annul the local churches? I'm sure satan would like it too. But God uses highly damaged, highly fallible men. Look at the personal lives of David, Solomon, and Paul. They were lechers and murderers. Yet they have the highest experiences of the spirit in the entire Bible, and they are personally responsible for setting up God's kingdom on earth. If we throw out the work of Nee and Lee then certainly we have to throw out the books that David, Solomon, and Paul wrote. Do we not?

Jay, the questions you ask at the end of your post here are the kind of questions the co-workers rhetorically ask in their articles, as if the obvious answer is "no" and the juggernaut of the ministry and the local churches should just continue on unabated, crushing all the victims in its path forever. But there are real answers to those questions.

What is the difference between David, Solomon, and Paul's sins versus Nee and Lee's sins?

REPENTANCE.

This distinguishes these two camps as far as the east is from the west. Rather than genuinely repent after committing sins and perpetuating evil, Nee and Lee would instead double-down, dig in further, and tighten the controls even more, driving out and slashing/burning anyone with a conscience who got in their path. This behavior does indeed annul the message, disqualify them from leadership, and throw the entire concept of the local churches -- founded on the shoulders of two abusive, controlling, unrepentant predators and predator-protecters -- into question.

Trapped