Titus Chu spin off-help?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

So we talk in code. And I broke your code as you (somewhat ) did mine. All three men had great strengths and great weaknesses though Paterno was, imho, undone by subordinates.

That’s what I’m talking about. TC always gave us the impression that WL’s ministry burden was “undone by subordinates.” He held WL in the highest reverence, yet nearly despised all the Blendeds, eg “those 5 little boys.” Paterno did nothing wrong himself except for “covering the brother.” Sounds like nothing more than sordid LC behavior, “covered up” by others.

Like your early “contempt” for Knight, I am convinced that is the safest approach. In a world of idolatry, even among Christians, being overly skeptical of exalting our leaders is healthy. The Bible holds them to higher standards, and so should we. In the Recovery, WL and WN and TC have long been canonized into sainthood. Don’t you see the danger in that? The danger in bestowing such honors is too great to overcome.

You mentioned a story from 1982. I have another one from Columbus about that time. TC was invited, and a gifted brother from Willoughby showed up to the meeting. The brother BR had stopped meeting for awhile, and had grown a beard. Out of the blue, TC said that if a brother grows a beard, then it shows that his heart is cold towards the Lord. The comment was startling and inappropriate. Why shame a brother like that in a meeting? It’s not like the brother had a chance to respond. Why not greet him warmly? Pride at large on the bully pulpit!

What then was the lasting message? No spiritual man has a beard. Every brother with a beard has a cold heart towards the Lord. I literally had that pathetic thought in mind for 20 years at least. So judgmental of me! Then one day in the early 00’s I was studying the Plymouth Brethren in order to understand the division we were going thru. I got this book “Chief Men Among the Brethren.” Nearly all the brothers had beards! Imagine that! George Muller, Robert Chapman, etc. all had beards. Finally, I was delivered from that careless judgmental comment spoken 20 years ago from the pulpit. Unfortunately brother BR never returned. Then I also realized it was merely cultural - Chinese can’t grow beards, hence they condemned them.

[SpeakersCorner]

Ohio,

About ten years ago my wife and I visited Oldtown Bethlehem, Pa. and sat in the church Zinzendorf planted there. We paid for the tour. The guide told us that Zinzendorf came on Christmas Eve to see the fine new meeting hall they had built. They sang and were filled with joy. Then the Count led them out of the building and down the cobblestone street to where they first had met at a humble barn, I believe (my memory’s a bit fuzzy here). As they gathered around in the dark December night at the spot where the saints had first met Zinzendorf said, “Christ did not come to high Jerusalem but to lowly Bethlehem. Let us never forget that.” And then he christened the town Bethlehem.

This story touched me deeply. I didn’t think of it at the time but here now, as I continue in this thread, it strikes me that I experienced something similar back in 1982. It has nothing to do with hero worship or exaltation of leaders. Brother TC came to my house on a gravel road, a dusty gravel road, where six people met once a week for the purpose of supporting us, lifting us to something higher than a mere Bible study. It’s amazing to me to realize that we still have a testimony that remains 42 years later.

You and others have pointed out what you believe are TC’s failings many times in these spaces. I am presenting a different view. If you think I’m guilty of exalting him or others such as WL, that’s fine. It matters not to me. It isn’t true, though. If you don’t believe me allow me to introduce you to many brothers who think I’m too critical of everybody and everything. Actually, I don’t need to do the introductions since you know many of them.

No, I don’t exalt anyone but Christ which I do every Domingo (Lord’s Day. The Spanish got it right). But I definitely do give credit to those who have labored to help build the church. And that’s why I told my story.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

All three men had great strengths and great weaknesses though Paterno was, imho, undone by subordinates.

20 some years ago I could not understand why the LC’s, who talk more about the oneness of believers and the cross of Christ than any other Christians, could be on the verge of a major schism. Each one of us, one by one, whether with loved ones or without, were forced to take sides. I eventually decided not to, and so I left due to the conflict.

It was not until I studied Darby and the Plymouth Brethren that I could understand “great men.” How could lowly JNDarby daily visit new believers on long dusty roads every afternoon, and then publicly rebuke and shame notable and fruitful ministers and scholars like BWNewton and George Muller? These conflicts were totally irreconcilable to me. How could ones like Darby have life-altering visits with new believers in the afternoon, and then damage these same believers in the evening by publicly destroying other well-respected ministers?

I first needed to understand “great men.” Their inner drive to be on top can at times supersede all other positive virtue. Jesus addressed this drive repeatedly while on earth, humbling His disciples. With Paul, we only see this power displayed in Antioch with Peter when the truth of the Gospel was at stake. Paul got this message from the Lord. He never used his authority on perceived rivals in the church. Unfortunately, all the LC leaders we have discussed have missed that memo. The most powerful rises to the top, and others must line up behind, waiting for their chance.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

This story touched me deeply. I didn’t think of it at the time but here now, as I continue in this thread, it strikes me that I experienced something similar back in 1982. It has nothing to do with hero worship or exaltation of leaders. Brother TC came to my house on a gravel road, a dusty gravel road, where six people met once a week for the purpose of supporting us, lifting us to something higher than a mere Bible study. It’s amazing to me to realize that we still have a testimony that remains 42 years later.

You and others have pointed out what you believe are TC’s failings many times in these spaces. I am presenting a different view. If you think I’m guilty of exalting him or others such as WL, that’s fine. It matters not to me. It isn’t true, though. If you don’t believe me allow me to introduce you to many brothers who think I’m too critical of everybody and everything. Actually, I don’t need to do the introductions since you know many of them.

Brother SC, I’m sorry if I gave the impression that you have overly exalted a man. You were the recipient of a blessed “afternoon visit.” Others, however, were victims of those “evening meetings,” where brothers got beat down into submission. With most “great men” in the Recovery the conflict here is never recognized. Kind, brotherly shepherding in the afternoon easily becomes public “ice-baths” in the evening.

Jesus said these things ought not to be. No man on earth, especially in His church, should ever be on top. That system of thought, whether Papal or MOTA. is not of God. I’m thankful you could reject that thought and stay. I had to leave in order to reject it.

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Brother SC, I’m sorry if I gave the impression that you have overly exalted a man. You were the recipient of a blessed “afternoon visit.” Others, however, were victims of those “evening meetings,” where brothers got beat down into submission.

No need for apology at all. Your “blessed afternoons” vs. “evening beatdowns” displays insight. I didn’t know that about Darby. Believe it or not, I have been the recipient of a few public beatdowns though, I must say, none like some others I witnessed. I personally saw that whole method of leadership as counterproductive to the max. A lot of it was performative, I thought. A lot was simply Chinese culture brought to the West which I hate. Whatever. I had some of the same basic criticisms of Bobby Knight, who I used as a proxy to make points here.

I brought up David (as in King David) in a post above because he too did a lot of stuff that was indefensible. This forum, though ostensibly here to bring conversation between those in with those out of the LC, is mainly here just to point out the flaws. The Bible certainly points out David’s flaws but it also tells us that David was a “man after God’s heart” and that God will establish His ultimate throne on the regal line David founded.

[SpeakersCorner]

Aron,

I at first didn’t read your post because it looked long and boring. But I just now did read it and, while long, it wasn’t boring. I don’t disagree with everything you wrote. One comment stuck out to me: “Yes, TC (and WL and WN) could be ‘tender, nursing mothers’ and you saw that. But that was to get you in the Network.”

You’re calling them hypocrites and evil workers. That’s the only way I can read that. You’re also, by implication, implying I’m a dupe for falling for their Absolomian kisses. Well, I’m not a sap, a dupe, a rube, a dope and I would think that just by reading my posts here you would recognize that. The fact that you can’t make that connection makes me very distrustful of any analysis you bring to the discussion. Further, citing a book with the word “Intellectual” in the title as some kind of self-validation is amusing to me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Aron,

I at first didn’t read your post because it looked long and boring. But I just now did read it and, while long, it wasn’t boring. I don’t disagree with everything you wrote. One comment stuck out to me: “Yes, TC (and WL and WN) could be ‘tender, nursing mothers’ and you saw that. But that was to get you in the Network.”

You’re calling them hypocrites and evil workers. That’s the only way I can read that. You’re also, by implication, implying I’m a dupe for falling for their Absolomian kisses. Well, I’m not a sap, a dupe, a rube, a dope and I would think that just by reading my posts here you would recognize that. The fact that you can’t make that connection makes me very distrustful of any analysis you bring to the discussion. Further, citing a book with the word “Intellectual” in the title as some kind of self-validation is amusing to me.

In defense of aron, I don't think there needs to be hypocrisy here.

The severity of LC "beat downs" was proportional to the threat. Perceived rivals, dissenters, and whistleblowers got the worst treatment for sure. New ones, young ones, sisters, and weak ones got only love and encouragement. Obviously the longer you stuck around and matured in your operation, the harsher your treatment.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

No need for apology at all. Your “blessed afternoons” vs. “evening beatdowns” displays insight. I didn’t know that about Darby. Believe it or not, I have been the recipient of a few public beatdowns though, I must say, none like some others I witnessed. I personally saw that whole method of leadership as counterproductive to the max. A lot of it was performative, I thought. A lot was simply Chinese culture brought to the West which I hate. Whatever. I had some of the same basic criticisms of Bobby Knight, who I used as a proxy to make points here.

I brought up David (as in King David) in a post above because he too did a lot of stuff that was indefensible. This forum, though ostensibly here to bring conversation between those in with those out of the LC, is mainly here just to point out the flaws. The Bible certainly points out David’s flaws but it also tells us that David was a “man after God’s heart” and that God will establish His ultimate throne on the regal line David founded.

Brother SpeakersCorner, as you may well remember, we had often stood side-by-side defending the valuable "pearls" we have received in the Recovery. I'll never forget the 2by4 you threw me once when my knees got a little wobbly defending the faith.

I would like to address these "beat-downs" according to the scripture, adding that I am in no way categorically opposed to them. Rather the question is simple: What is the goal and the motive behind the "beat-down?" There are two types:

(1) Paul's instruction to Timothy (I Tim 5.17-21) provides incentive. "Beat-downs" are used exclusively for leaders who sin. Not arbitrarily, but in cases where there are witnesses, and necessarily due process. The goal is to warn the church, limited to those who are affected, so that all might be in fear. This must also be done without prejudice against one who may be disliked, and without partiality towards one who may be favored.

(2) Peter warns us not to "lord it over" others, (I Pet 5.3), which should match John's mention of the Nicolaitans, or "conquer the laity," (Rev 2.6) and his rebuke of Diotrephes, who loved to be first. (3 Jn 9-11) These admonitions correspond with Jesus' own warnings about wanting to be great, (eg Matt 20.20-28) and Paul's warning with tears of those who will "rise up from within drawing the disciples after them." (Acts 20.30)

This latter type of public "beat-down" has no basis in scripture, and merely serves to establish hierarchy in the church, targeting one's perceived rivals. Unfortunately the Recovery was consumed with the latter, and the former was rarely employed especially when sorely needed. Supposedly, sister M E Barber "recovered" this practice, which has dominated LC culture ever since.

Concerning King David, yes, he had notable failures now known by all men. God was faithful via Nathan the Prophet to apply a serious "beat-down" of the first type. I am not aware of David using the second type.

[SpeakersCorner]

Ohio,

Again, I agree with the bulk of your post, maybe its entirety. I think the beatdown tactic is counterproductive. I sometimes wonder it’s just because I’m too soft to handle it but actually, I don’t wonder that anymore. My younger self did. This as a public forum makes it difficult to speak plainly as you no doubt understand. My deepest intention in the present discussion is (I think) to try to nudge this thread away from a TC-bashing session. I read your verses and they are true: leaders do need to be taken to account. How the Lord does that is up to Him though I am not unaware that He used many means in the OT including the nations to do the disciplining. And, as you note, the prophets such as Nathan (who, imho, told the most cunning allegory in history).

My LC experience, as you know from years ago postings, is really atypical. But it is part of the mosaic and many people both inside and out are unaware of such experiences. The Blended Bros. seemed really caught off guard by my story. I wrote, with great pleasure, during the quarantine time how Titus had been to my home but not a one of them had even taken ten minutes to meet meet in the nine trainings I attended on their soil. That arrow found its mark, let me assure you. (I feel guilty even now of the pleasure I feel at this moment recalling the exchanges I made with them. It’s fleshly and I denounce myself. Yet still I smile.)

[aron]

I don't buy the "great but flawed church leader" argument. A first-year seminary student would be taught not to take OT types, shadows and figures to glide past clear NT directives. Paul was direct in how Church leaders should behave, and what happens when they don't. He was quite frank.

If you can't understand the difference between a flawed but repentant church member and a flawed but unrepentant church leader, then you are being used to cover up their abuse. And to those who find my observation insulting, too bad. I'm willing to offend some, if some will wake up.

And I notice in online forums, that people who get offended by my characterizations never actually address the substance. I will, for example, quote the mutuality that's seen in 1 Cor 14, and Galatians 2, and missing in the Local Church, but it's never acknowledged... just that I'm an aggressive writer. That's kind of my point: I see assiduous determination to focus on only selected part of the Bible, avoiding the unhelpful parts, then retreating back to homespun analogies, or holding up OT types that don't wash. And on that the church is supposedly being built.

There is no Drunken Noah in the NT, no David the Adulterer and Murderer. Christ is our Noah, our David, our Moses. And he's not a drunk or an adulterer. Paul goes over this in great detail in his epistles to Titus and Timothy. And none of the other NT-era leaders violated this. What if Peter had taken the funds from property sales in Acts 4 and 5, built a fleet of boats for his immediate family, saying that it was for the gospel? What kind of NT would that be? I know that the Dong, Nee, and Lee families all did variations of this. Even if the Chu family didn't, did he call it out when it was going on? Or, did he write it off as a cost of maintaining the Network?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

This forum, though ostensibly here to bring conversation between those in with those out of the LC, is mainly here just to point out the flaws. The Bible certainly points out David’s flaws but it also tells us that David was a “man after God’s heart” and that God will establish His ultimate throne on the regal line David founded.

Long time no see SpeakersCorner. I see you still are riding that one-trick pony as well as ever! - My friend, I really think you need to catch up on your church history, especially recent church history. We are in the 21st century now, and things have changed. False teachers are being called out for their false teachings. Abusers are being called out for their abuses. And more and more, thanks in part to the Internet and forums such as this, former members of cultic groups like the Local Church of Witness Lee are doing the calling out, and they cannot be so easily silenced and cancelled by a simple proclamation of the Grand Poohbah(s) in Anaheim or Cleveland.

I'm not really sure where you are going with this "The Bible certainly points out David’s flaws but it also tells us that David was a “man after God’s heart" illustration, but it smacks heavily of the pathetic defenses of Witness Lee by his minion followers over the years. I know it when I see it, because I used to be one of the minions for 20+ years. And I hate to be the one to tell you, but this all applies to Titus Chu as well. You see, Titus not only picked up on Lee's false teachings (and ran with them quite well), he also picked up on his abusive ways. So he is getting called out just like his mentor and apostle Witness.

God is not mocked. My crude, but contemporary, interpretation is this: "God will no longer suffer fools gladly". And neither should those who want to see truth and integrity restored in the house of God. Yes, Peter was right - "For it is time for the judgment to begin with the household of God" (1 Pet 4:17) And this judgement is a long time in coming for the Local Church of Witness Lee, and for any of the spinoff sects such as the one established by Titus Chu.
-

[SpeakersCorner]

Gotta say, UntoHim, when it comes to one-trick ponies you are the master.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Gotta say, UntoHim, when it comes to one-trick ponies you are the master.

Is that something like a "lying dog-faced pony soldier?"


It sounds almost Presidential!