The Thread of Gold - Jane Carole Anderson

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Terry

Should you know, what was the timeline of Max confronting Phillip vs Witness Lee calling out "The holy sisters"? As I have believed, Max was not present that weekend.

Sorry for being slow to answer, Terry.

Here are some facts I need to give you before I can answer your question:

1. Witness Lee never called out the “holy sisters.” In fact, Sandee R. and Ann Malir (another one of the three sisters) told me independently of each other that Lee never called them “holy sisters,” not even once. Sandee said that the person who always referred to them mockingly as “the three holy sisters” was Phillip Lee. So, when you hear this term, understand that it’s source was Phillip Lee, not Witness Lee.

2. I first heard this term in Houston in 1978 when either Benson Phillips or Ray Graver told us about Max and Sandee leaving the church. We were told that Witness Lee called out the “three holy sisters” in a meeting and had stopped the “sisters’ rebellion.” In retrospect, it is easy to determine the source of their information by the fact that they used the term “three holy sisters.” I suspect that Phillip was happy that his father had said something to these sisters in a meeting and passed this information on to the Texas brothers by saying something like Witness Lee had called out the three holy sisters in a meeting. From then to now that is how the Texas brothers have repeated this account.

3. Benson used this term and repeated the same story in December 2005, after my book came out, and if I remember correctly, he said Lee had called out the three holy sisters asking them to stand up in a meeting.

4. Here is what Lee actually did on Saturday night, Memorial Day weekend, 1977. Max was in Chicago, I believe. Lee gave a message in Anaheim and at some point during the message, he spoke to the three sisters (with whom he been meeting and giving them direction for several years) and said they should not sit together in the meetings but should sit with other sisters. That was the extent of it, according to Sandee and Ann. There was no strong rebuke, nor asking them to stand up, just this correction. Sandee and the other two sisters could not understand at the time why Lee had done this, when he could have easily told them in one of their private meetings with him that they should stop sitting together in the meetings. In time it became apparent that this action by him was his opening move to begin discrediting Max.

5. In 2006, when I asked Sandee about “the three holy sisters” event, she was surprised. She had no idea what I was talking about. All she could come up with was what I described in point 4. She found it interesting to learn that this "holy sister" story had been circulated and had come up again in a meeting as late as 2005.

Thankful Jane

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

4. Here is what Lee actually did on Saturday night, Memorial Day weekend, 1977. Max was in Chicago, I believe.

I can confirm that.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can confirm that.

Ohio,

This may not be the thread to do it, but over the years there has been some mention of the Chicago conference that weekend. I know Hope talked a little about being there, but not much details, more impressions. You have probably mentioned some too.

I have gotten a general sense that something was not right. That it was too chaotic. Maybe sort of overrun by dissing of older brothers (maybe thinking more of the Berkley conference — not sure).

Is it something that can be sort of spelled out, or is it somewhat intangible? What actually happened?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Is it something that can be sort of spelled out, or is it somewhat intangible? What actually happened?

From a young man's point of view, it was great fun. Like a high school pep rally before the big game. Max had somehow unleashed a kind of euphoria, building upon months of anti-religious fervor, so that there were nearly no boundaries remaining. At one point, brothers used the table, which held the bread and wine, and jumped off into the arms of catchers. After a few jumpers, that table splintered into pieces. TC himself was carried on one brother's shoulders around the front. We sang songs about being rip, roaring drunk in the Spirit. Personally I was a "reserved" observer (but still standing on my chair yelling and clapping) several rows back, but if someone had started streaking around the room, they would not have been out of place.

This happened all weekend long. Then we were all told to come back the following weekend to receive our instructions. Things were a little different by then. Max never made it the second weekend.

Several years ago the forum discussed the events surrounding those weekends. Being so young at the time, I was quite naive to the behind-the-scene dynamics of the leaders. WL used Max to travel around stirring up the pot. Max brought with him a cadre of supporters into Chicago. Max fueled fleshly zeal by using anti-religious sentiments in order to capture the control of young people, undermining their respect to local leaders. Local elders and workers were all blamed for the churches being "stinking religious." The ministry plan was to have all the young people relocate to ministry centers, or to campuses. This had happened in other places around the country.

TC really did preserve the condition of LC's in the GLA. Only he was "man enough" to stand up to Max and company. The elders close to TC refused to resign their position in shameful disgrace, as many had done already. In the aftermath, there was some heated dissension in greater Cleveland by some who felt the church was not faithful to "WL's burden."

After witnessing how WL thru Max had actively tried to destroy LC's, discredited elders, unleashed fleshly zeal, and damaged the faith of so many precious saints, it's hard for me to understand why GLA leaders, mainly TC, did not cut all ties with WL and LSM back then. Each time things would sour in the Recovery, WL had a way of blaming all his lieutenants for the problems, and he would come out smelling like a rose. WL never took the responsibility for any of the chaos and destruction. The lieutenants closest to him would all depart in shame, while the remaining saints would gather around WL as today's Apostle. Happened every time.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Each time things would sour in the Recovery, WL had a way of blaming all his lieutenants for the problems, and he would come out smelling like a rose. WL never took the responsibility for any of the chaos and destruction. The lieutenants closest to him would all depart in shame, while the remaining saints would gather around WL as today's Apostle. Happened every time.

Witness Lee understood the benefit of delegating the "dirty work" to others. He could sit back and watch and if things didn't turn out as planned he would have a fall guy.

If you set aside the highfalutin spiritual terminology of Lee's work and go beneath the surface to see how it actually operated you will discover how fleshly and base it really was: petty jealousies among workers, territorial disputes, immoral behavior, financial shenanigans, shabby mistreatment, Machiavellian political machinations, etc.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Each time things would sour in the Recovery, WL had a way of blaming all his lieutenants for the problems, and he would come out smelling like a rose. WL never took the responsibility for any of the chaos and destruction. The lieutenants closest to him would all depart in shame, while the remaining saints would gather around WL as today's Apostle. Happened every time.

I note that someone else commented on this portion and it reminded me of a thought on the subject that came to me while I was on a business trip to that land of Toronto.

I saw something in a comment back to or concerning Jane and a name that I did not really know reminded me of that little back and forth a couple of years ago concerning her report about some political squabbling that went on between the TX/OK region and the GLA over some other place sort of in between (IA or MO, maybe??). Anyway, I realized that in that particular case, no matter how strongly the guy Jane had reported from denied everything (once the LSM got hold of him), it appears that BP was basically trying to extend his realm of control at the same time that TC was doing the same thing.

So, it may not be as simple as "the underlings are going crazy and I'm not to blame," there is evidence that they were going crazy.

And it could be that this was one of those things that Lee was never going to get directly involved in anyway because he seemed to be less likely to say or do anything negative concerning another Chinese person. He left that to the arrogant Americans.

But those pesky Americans were always good scapegoats.

[Nell]

There is a condensed version of The Thread of Gold available on Amazon, 39 pages. The name of it is:

Deceived: A Warning to Campus Christians

https://www.amazon.com/registry/wish...bmit.promote=1
http://www.thethreadofgold.com

Nell

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Sorry for being slow to answer, Terry.

Here are some facts I need to give you before I can answer your question:

1. Witness Lee never called out the “holy sisters.” In fact, Sandee R. and Ann Malir (another one of the three sisters) told me independently of each other that Lee never called them “holy sisters,” not even once. Sandee said that the person who always referred to them mockingly as “the three holy sisters” was Phillip Lee. So, when you hear this term, understand that it’s source was Phillip Lee, not Witness Lee.

2. I first heard this term in Houston in 1978 when either Benson Phillips or Ray Graver told us about Max and Sandee leaving the church. We were told that Witness Lee called out the “three holy sisters” in a meeting and had stopped the “sisters’ rebellion.” In retrospect, it is easy to determine the source of their information by the fact that they used the term “three holy sisters.” I suspect that Phillip was happy that his father had said something to these sisters in a meeting and passed this information on to the Texas brothers by saying something like Witness Lee had called out the three holy sisters in a meeting. From then to now that is how the Texas brothers have repeated this account.

3. Benson used this term and repeated the same story in December 2005, after my book came out, and if I remember correctly, he said Lee had called out the three holy sisters asking them to stand up in a meeting.

4. Here is what Lee actually did on Saturday night, Memorial Day weekend, 1977. Max was in Chicago, I believe. Lee gave a message in Anaheim and at some point during the message, he spoke to the three sisters (with whom he been meeting and giving them direction for several years) and said they should not sit together in the meetings but should sit with other sisters. That was the extent of it, according to Sandee and Ann. There was no strong rebuke, nor asking them to stand up, just this correction. Sandee and the other two sisters could not understand at the time why Lee had done this, when he could have easily told them in one of their private meetings with him that they should stop sitting together in the meetings. In time it became apparent that this action by him was his opening move to begin discrediting Max.

5. In 2006, when I asked Sandee about “the three holy sisters” event, she was surprised. She had no idea what I was talking about. All she could come up with was what I described in point 4. She found it interesting to learn that this "holy sister" story had been circulated and had come up again in a meeting as late as 2005.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane, thank you for the post and thank you for the correction. I apologize for my previous post which misrepresented Witness Lee by saying he called the Holy sisters. This is clearly an example of a half truth being passed as a whole truth.
Based on what you have revealed, what Witness Lee said to the sisters does not seem like a big deal nor unreasonable. In any assembly it can be said to any group of sisters or brothers.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

Based on what you have revealed, what Witness Lee said to the sisters does not seem like a big deal nor unreasonable. In any assembly it can be said to any group of sisters or brothers.

I would agree. But I also would agree with Sandee that it seems a little much to make the first comment on the subject in a public meeting.

Unless the thrust of the meeting was about the tendency of people to flock to their regular subgroup, or clique, in contrast to a message concerning shepherding, or mutual respect, or some such thing. But in that case, you generally wouldn't call out three among many, even in a small way. You would be pointing to the tendency of the people as a whole. Sort of like Paul did in the first 4 chapters of 1 Corinthians.

If it were truly individual, then even if it was not something that Lee had against them in a Matt 18 kind of way, he should first speak to them alone. So for such a "man of God" to act in this kind of manner suggests a problem with the claim to be such a "man of God."

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Terry

Thankful Jane, thank you for the post and thank you for the correction. I apologize for my previous post which misrepresented Witness Lee by saying he called the Holy sisters. This is clearly an example of a half truth being passed as a whole truth.
Based on what you have revealed, what Witness Lee said to the sisters does not seem like a big deal nor unreasonable. In any assembly it can be said to any group of sisters or brothers.

In this case, I do not believe Lee's action was innocent. In 2006, Sandee told me that there was a background situation simmering in the church in Anaheim at that time with a few older sisters. Lee's comment threw fuel on that situaton and turned it into a fire.

According to Sandee, over a period of a few years the three sisters (Sandee, Ann, Harriet), under Lee's supervision, had been getting with Anaheim sisters one at a time to talk with them and help them personally with any problems they might be having. (Sandee said the brothers and sisters in Anaheim had come to Anaheim from all over the place and many had problems.) The three sisters were working their way through all the sisters, with the goal of spending time with all of them personally. There was no particular order at play. Midstream in this process, a few other older sisters complained about these three sisters saying they were exclusive or something like that. Sandee said she felt there was some jealousy at play. She said Lee knew about this situation.

When Lee made his comment, the simmering sisters became bolder in their complaint. They were joined by some others with whom the three had not met yet. This began an out-in-the-open split among the sisters in the church, one which grew from that time forward. I can't say more than that because it is a general memory. I've done the best I can to capture it. It might not be exactly what Sandee told me, but it is close.

As for the timeline and more details about that period, for anyone who is interested, I suggest looking at this thread on the Bereans:

http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?p=152101#post152101


As for the actual meeting where Lee made his comment, the following post contains more detailed information about what Sandee told me about that meeting. The information in this post was written shortly after I talked to Sandee.

http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showpost.php?p=152101&postcount=3

Thankful Jane

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

In this case, I do not believe Lee's action was innocent. In 2006, Sandee told me that there was a background situation simmering in the church in Anaheim at that time with a few older sisters. Lee's comment threw fuel on that situaton and turned it into a fire.

I believe that is likely. Based on reports Witness Lee did not want anything made an issue. Is it at possible the sisters in question had gone to Witness Lee previously and at the time he choose to disregard their concerns? Comes back to the Max/Phillip confrontation. It wasn't until after Max confronted Phillip, were the sisters concerns considered?
Ironically I lived in Anaheim during this time period until mid-79. I am curious whether my mom and the sisters she were close to had any fellowship with Sandee, Ann, or Harriet?

[Paul Cox]

The real problem in all these incidents isn't what happened on this side, or that side. It always seems to boil down to that because of the way things are handled. The real question is whether or not Witness Lee had the heart of a shepherd, and whether or not he passed on that caring heart attitude to those in leadership under him. Or, did he just have the heart to protect his ministry and the organization that sprang out of it, and is maintained by it.

If WL and company had a real heart of shepherding and caring, most of these things would never have even been heard about. What he termed "rebellions" would have come and gone, without even any need to bring it up to the saints. This would have happened, had he applied the same thing that he always tried to pound into us - endeavor to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace.

Rather, because of his paranoia about losing control, he blew everything up into a massive "rebellion," forcing people to take sides. This was his way of weeding out those who couldn't just be his yes men; those he considered to be troublemakers.

The Local Church is fast becoming "pure." Very soon there will be no one left willing to ask questions, and think hard about what they are being told to do. They are on the verge of becoming a full blown Laodicea.

P.C.