An Open Invitation From The Blendeds

[aron]

I wanted to post and open invitation from one of the leading figures in the local churches. I don't know who the current "blendeds" are, beyond Ron Kangas and Ed Marks. But one person has been quite active in supporting LSM initiatives** and is therefore on my list of "blendeds" leading the assemblies affiliated with Witness Lee. He also has a high profile public personality, and has funded several University schools that have subsequently been named after family members.

His name is Gerald Chan, and I recently came across several of his speeches in which he openly encourages people to read widely from divergent sources, to formulate unique ideas and to discuss them publicly, even with others who may not understand them, or agree.

So I ask here, has anyone heard him say something like this in meetings of the local churches? Or does he say, "No, that's just for unbelievers in public health. Here, we don't think" or some such? And if this is so, how can anyone sustainably hold two completely contradictory positions?

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/fe...-remarks-chan/

Here's his Harvard 2012 Commencement Speech, in part:

"Commencement is a rite of passage whereby the new graduates are inducted into the company of the learned. In your honoring me by inviting me to be with you today, I suppose I am expected to offer some words of wisdom as part of this rite of passage. Being one who had studied in this school and then gone on to do different things, I also sense there is an expectation that I would draw on my diverse life experiences in formulating my comments. I will attempt to do so by gathering my thoughts around three themes—idea, public and health—which, as a play on words, became the title of my speech today.

First, let me talk about idea. In times past when the discovery of new knowledge was slow and the dissemination of knowledge constricted, a learned person was one who had acquired and possessed knowledge... Times have changed. New knowledge is now being produced at a breakneck speed and is readily accessible to anyone with connection to the Internet. A learned person can no longer be defined merely as one who is in possession of knowledge, or perhaps more accurately, and somewhat derogatorily, one who is in possession of information. Today, whether a person can be considered a learned person hinges on what he does with the knowledge he has. A beautiful mind is not beautiful by virtue of its storage capacity, nor even what has been stored in it. A beautiful mind is a mind with beautiful ideas.

By an idea, I do not mean a thought which unexpectedly pops into your consciousness like the four year old in a play group who exclaims, “Hey guys, I have an idea!” By an idea, I mean the conceptualization of a matter which results from a conscious examination of it...

I talk about ideas because I see in the communications of today’s society, be they among individuals or the masses, an impoverishment of ideas. Politicians are known by their sound bites. Messages with 140 characters or less encourage the communication of the trivial. Tweets are great for knowing where your friends are having dinner tonight, but they are not conducive to the generation nor the communication of ideas. If modern communication technology has dumbed down society, it is in its proliferating communications which have no relevance to enriching the pool of ideas found in society. Being flooded with minutiae of everyday life subverts our intellectual life by luring us into, and holding us captive in the present, in what is, such that we have no time and no energy left to consider what might be, or what can be, or what should be. The peril we face in today’s society [read, local church] is that we unwittingly become mere pragmatists, and soon, exhausted realists.

I may be condemned here for being idealistic. Rightly so. History shows us that ideas are indeed aspirational. In the idea that all men are created equal is the aspiration that all men may be able to live as equals. It is in this gap between what should be and what is that there is a potential energy which, when harnessed, can be converted into kinetic energy to power action. In other words, ideas empower action. A person devoid of ideas will have neither ideals to work towards nor the energy to do so.

My first advice to you, graduates, is to enrich your lives with ideas, even big ideas. Read, reflect, and ruminate (the new three Rs). Observe and deduce, postulate and verify, look for connections. Be curious, be open-minded, reframe problems rather than just looking for answers, have the courage to differ from conventional wisdom, do not dismiss your intuition. Discuss, debate and discourse with others. Look into history, watch current affairs; study the sacred texts, observe humanity. These are the mental habits conducive to the spontaneous generation of ideas. A life is rich when it is rich with ideas."

**his non-profit Morningside Foundation gave over half a million dollars to CRI to fund the "We were wrong" issue.

[aron]

I apologize for the long quote in the previous post, and will add comments here as to not make it longer. My question is, does this open invitation restrict itself to the school of public health at one university? Did Gerald Chan ever go on record as to saying this was only for public health students and wasn't applicable to others?

To give an obvious example, there isn't one single quote in the NT where a verse says something like, "Pray-reading scripture is eating God, which is intrinsic to God's economy". The OT says, "Thy words were found and I did eat them" but in the gospels Jesus said his food was to obey, not to pray-read. So there's no actual support from scriptural text for Witness Lee's idea, but rather he formed it from a pastiche of unrelated verses and half-verses. Then, where's the discussion, examination, debate? "God's economy" as put forth by WL is merely an idea, not superior to any other ideational formulation. It currently lives on in the local churches in an examined state. But the door has been opened, and here it is suggested that it should be examined like any other idea.

When the Jerusalem pillars asked Paul to remember the poor, as he related it in Galatians 2, he didn't exclaim, "No! That's not God's economy!" In his final words to the elders in Ephesus in Acts 20:35, he didn't remind them to masticate the processed Triune God, but rather to give to the poor. I wonder if I'm starting to see a pattern, here? Probably not coincidentally, central to Jesus' teaching was, "Give to those who cannot repay you, and your reward will be great in heaven". Then, Paul spends much of Chapter 15 to the Romans on this theme, especially vv 27 - 31, it shows that the "offering of the Gentiles" is for the poor in Jerusalem.

Further, 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 says, "Now about the collection for the Lord’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem." Looking at this sweep of related verses, perhaps the "God's economy" which Paul wanted taught in every church was for those who have, to share with those who do not have. In this postulation, we have Jesus, the Twelve, and Paul all "speaking the same thing, with no differences whatever".

I perceive Gerald Chan opening the door here, and asking people to go through it. It's a fundamental and necessary door, intrinsic to being a whole person. As he put it, "Be curious. Be open-minded"... how is this any different from his (or my) professed faith in Jesus Christ, as an open-mindedness to consider Jesus as Lord? Are "faith" and "thought" at odds, here, or are they related aspects of the same? It's arguably a fundamental question that every Christian might profitably consider, whether at University or not. And here, I see a local church leader inviting the flock under his care.

[aron]

2017 Graduate School Commencement Ceremony: Principal Address by Dr Gerald Chan

“Your choosing to enroll in graduate school tells me that you want to continue to grow and that you’re reaching for greater opportunities. If I have one advice for you, and this is the same advice that I give my son and daughter-in-law for their newborn twins, it is this – one word – “read”.

Read good books. Access a huge number of books that are freely available online. Go to bookstores and browse through what is on display. I particularly like to go to used book stores because I’m randomly exposed to new subjects that I had not been interested in before.

When it comes to books, I am very, very old fashioned. Purchasing a book has symbolic meaning for me. It is my way of saying thank you to the author. It is my way of saying thank you to the bookstore for being a channel for the diffusion of knowledge. I am today a more avid reader than I have ever been in my younger days. Never stop reading, and you will never stop growing.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_ww7m_5BTs

Remarks are seen at 29:40. Again, I ask, is this advice limited to the secular realm, or is this applicable to LC members as well? For instance, if Watchman Nee had a library of 3,000 Christian classics, and took liberally from all of them, just as Chan advises above, why shouldn't other believers do so as well?

To do otherwise risks having a persona that's for public view, and another for private, which psychic bifurcation is the very definition of hypocrisy, and isn't healthy. We should either be curious, and read, and grow, or we should not. Don't divide yourself into a "local church half" and a "public half". That's not a healthy path. Either be curious and grow or else shut it down, but don't play it both ways.

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by aron

2017 Graduate School Commencement Ceremony: Principal Address by Dr Gerald Chan

“Your choosing to enroll in graduate school tells me that you want to continue to grow and that you’re reaching for greater opportunities. If I have one advice for you, and this is the same advice that I give my son and daughter-in-law for their newborn twins, it is this – one word – “read”.

Read good books. Access a huge number of books that are freely available online. Go to bookstores and browse through what is on display. I particularly like to go to used book stores because I’m randomly exposed to new subjects that I had not been interested in before.

When it comes to books, I am very, very old fashioned. Purchasing a book has symbolic meaning for me. It is my way of saying thank you to the author. It is my way of saying thank you to the bookstore for being a channel for the diffusion of knowledge. I am today a more avid reader than I have ever been in my younger days. Never stop reading, and you will never stop growing.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_ww7m_5BTs

Remarks are seen at 29:40. Again, I ask, is this advice limited to the secular realm, or is this applicable to LC members as well? For instance, if Watchman Nee had a library of 3,000 Christian classics, and took liberally from all of them, just as Chan advises above, why shouldn't other believers do so as well?

To do otherwise risks having a persona that's for public view, and another for private, which psychic bifurcation is the very definition of hypocrisy, and isn't healthy. We should either be curious, and read, and grow, or we should not. Don't divide yourself into a "local church half" and a "public half". That's not a healthy path. Either be curious and grow or else shut it down, but don't play it both ways.

Considering how the LCs often operate and the public's mixed perception of them, I imagine that Gerald's exhortation to "read good books" and "expose" themselves would rather be spun by leaders of The Lord's Recovery as a subtle invitation to open up to Witness Lee's strange teachings that are very different than the usual "Western" point of view. Otherwise you're just a close-minded, stubborn "Westerner" who hates Asians like all those other guys who spoke negatively, right?

I know it's been discussed on that "Asian vs Western Mind" thread that the Asian Christian point of view has much to offer to Westerners (and vice-versa) for sure, but knowing that his heart is probably for The Lord's Recovery, I am hesitant to be excited by such words from a man who is so closely tied to Lee's denomination. I'm more inclined to believe that in his heart he is hoping more people will be willing to hear "different" points of view like Witness Lee's and be open to The Lord's Recovery.

As an added bonus, The Lord's Recovery can once more brag that they have "intellectual" and "influential" people supporting them.

That's my tin-foil hat theory, anyways.

On a more practical note, I have also realized that many people in The Lord's Recovery seem like normal people. Perhaps he was genuine in his exhortation and truly believes that it is good and healthy to expose themselves to as many ideas as possible. That would include Witness Lee's faulty teachings, of course, but that doesn't mean he's twirling his mustache behind the scenes and rubbing his hands together while planning world domination for TLR.

Or maybe he is, haha!

[aron]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

I'm hesitant to be excited by such words from a man who is so closely tied to Lee's denomination. I'm more inclined to believe that in his heart he is hoping more people will be willing to hear "different" points of view like Witness Lee's and be open to The Lord's Recovery.

At some level, perhaps. But as a human being, especially as a Christian one, I remember Paul's advice, always to think the best. Always hope. Think of Philippians 4:8, for example, or 1 Corinthians 13:7. Love believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. We always endure, and hope. There's always a deeper level calling us, if we could only hear it.

Look at Saul, enroute to Damascus "breathing threats and murder" towards the saints, and whose breathing turned into a cry of surprise. I believe that all of us want to be made whole. Becoming Paul was Saul's path to wholeness, to restoring that fragmented person. And that path perhaps lies open before us all, and at whatever level Mr Chan spoke, I think that he wants it too, somewhere, and I'm reminding him and his audience of his own words. They're coming from an open door, should one choose to look, and to have some small portion of faith.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

My first advice to you, graduates, is to enrich your lives with ideas, even big ideas. Read, reflect, and ruminate (the new three Rs). Observe and deduce, postulate and verify, look for connections. Be curious, be open-minded, reframe problems rather than just looking for answers, have the courage to differ from conventional wisdom, do not dismiss your intuition. Discuss, debate and discourse with others. Look into history, watch current affairs; study the sacred texts, observe humanity. These are the mental habits conducive to the spontaneous generation of ideas. A life is rich when it is rich with ideas."

**his non-profit Morningside Foundation gave over half a million dollars to CRI to fund the "We were wrong" issue.

I'm sure these quotes attributed to Gerald Chan was not intended to be reflected back to TLR.

• Observe and deduce
• Look for connections
• Be curious, be open-minded
• Do not dismiss your intuition
• Discuss, debate, and discourse with others
• Look into history

Many of us have reflected back into Local Church history, but no. The writers from shepherdingwords are contentious against the history we are looking into.
We would love to discuss and debate with leaders of the Recovery, but they are not open to debate and discussion.

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by aron

At some level, perhaps. But as a human being, especially as a Christian one, I remember Paul's advice, always to think the best. Always hope. Think of Philippians 4:8, for example, or 1 Corinthians 13:7. Love believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. We always endure, and hope. There's always a deeper level calling us, if we could only hear it.

Look at Saul, enroute to Damascus "breathing threats and murder" towards the saints, and whose breathing turned into a cry of surprise. I believe that all of us want to be made whole. Becoming Paul was Saul's path to wholeness, to restoring that fragmented person. And that path perhaps lies open before us all, and at whatever level Mr Chan spoke, I think that he wants it too, somewhere, and I'm reminding him and his audience of his own words. They're coming from an open door, should one choose to look, and to have some small portion of faith.

I understand your position, Aaron. I knew one brother who had a similar spirit to what Chan appeared to have. He was for The Lord's Recovery, but he was open to fellowship and having the doctrines of the Recovery tested and tried. We had much sweet fellowship, and we had some tense fellowship, and he was able to realize that there is indeed much work to be done to address the issues in The Lord's Recovery and that such issues were being put on the back-burner for too long.

Still, it appears that Gerald Chan took part in paying the Christian Research Institute right at around the time that the "We Were Wrong" article was published. What a coincidence that this group suddenly publishes an about-face (and not a very good one at that) right when it started receiving massive donations from the denomination it was now defending.

May the Lord be so merciful and put in Gerald Chan a genuine heart to test all things rather than the lip-service given by many in The Lord's Recovery when in reality they are deathly allergic to having their doctrines questioned. So much so that such people are to be treated like the lepers of the Old Testament and put out of the church so as not to "poison" others. So much for their hatred of the "dead letter," huh?

[aron]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

May the Lord be so merciful and put in Gerald Chan a genuine heart to test all things rather than the lip-service given by many in The Lord's Recovery when in reality they are deathly allergic to having their doctrines questioned.

This is precisely my point - GC is publicly on record to test all things, unless I fundamentally misread him. My point here is that this opening might lead to an extremely useful and profitable endevour in the local churches. I'll give an example to follow.

There was a leading brother named BP who had a pet phrase, "the central lane of the divine economy." Everything was measured by him against that, and could be dismissed with barely a wave, if it didn't match up. But when looking at scriptures, what do we see as the central lane of the divine economy?

The greatest commandment was twofold: to love God and love one another. Loving God was shown by obedience, and loving one another was demonstrated by sharing. Otherwise, it's all just lip service. "They honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far away." ~Matt 15:8; Isa 29:13. Here we find numerous supporting scriptures, e. g., Ja 2:16, 1 Jo 3:17.

Regarding selfishness, the gospels have the story of Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man doesn't share with a needy one, and ultimately it burns him like fire. James' admonition "your riches burn you" in 5:2,3 come to mind. (See also Matt 6:19-21 with Jesus teaching not to store up gold and silver on earth, but to give.) On the positive side, Zacchaeus' "half my goods I give to the poor" is approved by Jesus. Why doesn't Jesus say, "That's not the central lane of the divine economy"? Perhaps because it is the central lane of the divine economy! Jesus says, "Today, salvation is come to this house"!

With that background, the events in the first few chapters of Acts aren't an anomaly, but rather continue the gospels' main theme. Everyone sold what they had, and gave to the poor. And Paul's reply to the leading apostles in Galatians 2:10 isn't an anomalous one-off, but intrinsically tied to his outreach to the Gentiles. Likewise his consistent appeals in his other epistles (e.g., Rom 15:14-29, 2 Cor chaps 8 & 9), and his returning at the end of Acts "with alms for my nation" (24:17). In 1 Corinthians 16:1, when asking for a collection, he even says, "do what I told the Galatian churches to do" - he's teaching this in all the churches!

So we have a consistent theme, that fallen humankind's default 'economy' is to be greedy and selfish, and the alternative is to be generous. The divine principle is established by the Messiah, is followed by "acts" of the apostles (not mere lip service), and Paul's missions further this as its seamless continuation. There's no "high gospel" of Paul and "low gospel" of Peter and James. There are no large sets of verses to be panned because they don't fit "God's eternal economy". Rather you see before you an integrated gospel message: we disciples should, each of us, stop caring so much for our own things, and begin to collectively care for the things of others. See, Matt 25:35,36 "When I was hungry you fed me" etc.

Now my question to the blended brothers is, if WL was wrong in his "divine economy" teaching, are you going to follow him? If the survival of WL's teaching necessitates the dismissal or diminishment of large portions of NT text, then it's likely a wrong teaching. It doesn't matter how many books have already been sold, or training sessions held. If you're going down the wrong road, are you willing to turn back?

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by aron

This is precisely my point - GC is publicly on record to test all things, unless I fundamentally misread him. My point here has been that this opening might lead to an extremely useful and profitable endevour in the local churches. I'll give an example to follow.

...

So we have a consistent theme, that fallen humankind's economy is to be greedy and selfish, and the divine economy is to be generous, not in word only but in deed. The principle is established by the Messiah, is followed by "acts" of the apostles (not mere lip service), and Paul's mission is a seamless continuation. There is no "high gospel" and "low gospel." There are no large sets of verses to be ignored because they don't fit "God's eternal economy". Rather you see before you an integrated gospel message. We should, each of us, stop caring so much for our own things, and begin to care for others. See, Matt 25:35,36 "When I was hungry you fed me" etc.

Now my question to the blended brothers is, if WL was wrong in his "divine economy" teaching, are you going to follow him? It doesn't matter how many books have already been sold, or training sessions held. If you're going down the wrong road, turn back. If the survival of your teaching necessitates the dismissal or diminishment of large portions of NT text, it's likely a wrong teaching.

That's quite a challenge to the leading ones, and I wholeheartedly support it. I'm doubtful that any blendeds would respond here though, haha! But you have ever so slightly increased the possibility of someone in The Lord's Recovery seeing this and taking it to heart, so I give the "amen" to this.

I absolutely resonate with what you've said regarding God's economy. This household stewardship, the management of assets and people, is absolutely intertwined with helping those who cannot help themselves. After all, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." (James 1:27) It is unfortunate that Lee's obsession with his ministry being "polluted" by other Christians kept him from really working within his congregation and in tandem with other genuine local churches outside The Lord's Recovery. If Chan is genuine, as we hope he is, then this could very well open the door to real fellowship.

I think one kink in the armor here is that he may not be well-known to many in The Lord's Recovery. To be frank, I feel like the average member of The Local Churches, because they do not know him, would be just as likely to say "he is so worldly" because he invites his audience to read as much as they can from as many sources as they can.

If I am wrong and many people do indeed see him as a prominent member right up there with Ron Kangas and the other blendeds, then hopefully more and more will see what he is saying and use that as a bridge to really connect with other Christians and get over their exclusive mindset.

But we all know how Ron Kangas feels about bridges, right?

[aron]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

But we all know how Ron Kangas feels about bridges, right?

Yes, but GC's money has been the bridge to the survival of the LSM efforts. So they can't dismiss him, or pretend that he hasn't spoken. Where have all their summer camps and training centres come from? Who supports so many of the campus full-timers? If the degree of financial support by Morningstar & the Chans to the LSM were fleshed out, it would be obvious where he stands with the blendeds - right at the innermost ring.

And I'm not asking them to build bridges to Christianity, however they define it. Rather, are they going to follow the clear pattern of NT text, or hold to a pastiche of unrelated half-verses like 1 Cor 15:45(b) to maintain their reason for existence? The choice is there - they can't pretend it's not. Paul never publicly taught anything like the "God's economy" that WL proposed. Rather, Lee fabricated it whole-cloth as his proprietary 'revelation'. I'm saying that it's unsupportable, if one merely has the courage to challenge it by holding it against scripture. Test all things.

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes, but GC's money has been the bridge to the survival of the LSM efforts. So they can't dismiss him, or pretend that he hasn't spoken. Where have all their summer camps and training centres come from? Who supports so many of the campus full-timers? If the degree of financial support by Morningstar & the Chans to the LSM were fleshed out, it would be obvious where he stands with the blendeds - right at the innermost ring.

And I'm not asking them to build bridges to Christianity, however they define it. Rather, are they going to follow the clear pattern of NT text, or hold to a pastiche of unrelated half-verses like 1 Cor 15:45(b) to maintain their reason for existence? The choice is there - they can't pretend it's not. Paul never publicly taught anything like the "God's economy" that WL proposed. Rather, Lee fabricated it whole-cloth as his proprietary 'revelation'. I'm saying that it's unsupportable, if one merely has the courage to challenge it by holding it against scripture. Test all things.

"To sleep, perchance to dream."

If you brought up GC to them, I'm fairly certain they'd say that he's not affiliated with Living Stream Ministry or any of the "independent" Local Churches. He's just someone who was moved by the Lord to donate to the cause. "We have supporters from all walks of life! Praise the Lord! He's moving! He's flowing! The money flows with the Spirit!"

And that'd be that. Ok, they probably wouldn't say that last sentence, but I digress, haha!

But now that I think of it, it might be nice to see their more unique doctrines being discussed and tested publicly. Bring in the CRI. Bring in Norman Geisler. Bring in current leaders. Bring in former leaders. Bring in current members. Bring in former members.

I'd pay money to see that happen.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

But now that I think of it, it might be nice to see their more unique doctrines being discussed and tested publicly.

We who were once under the thrall of their ideas have an obligation to raise questions publicly on behalf of others who lack our experience and are now being drawn from the college campus. We learned the hard way, they don't have to. It seems this was precisely why Walter Martin started CRI, for example - to protect the sheep, who are open, seeking, naive, vulnerable.

Acts 20:33-38 "I coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

And when he had said these things, he knelt down and prayed with them all. And there was much weeping on the part of all; they embraced Paul and kissed him, being sorrowful most of all because of the word he had spoken, that they would not see his face again. And they accompanied him to the ship."

Paul's final word to the Ephesians were "help the weak" and "it's better to give than to receive". Nothing on masticating the processed God. DCP needs to publicly explain why they think the latter is God's economy.

[TLFisher]

Anyone who has met with the Local Churches for decades would know the names.
I am curious how blended are the blended brothers?
In particular how blended were the blended brothers with Gene Gruhler and Dan Towle?
It seems Gene and Dan were considered among the blended brothers until they weren't.