Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL?

[77150]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The blended brothers are behaving just as Witness Lee behaved. I don't see a lick of difference between the two of them, and over the years, nobody has presented one shred of evidence to show any significant difference between the two. And quoting things that Witness Lee wrote 40 or 50 years ago is much to do about nothing. Witness Lee did not practice the things posted here, and neither do the blended brothers. So? Even Witness Lee was not faithful to the entire ministry of Witness Lee! So why should his closest followers be any different?

How is a clear demonstration of the hypocrisy of every single person that signed the document concerning TC "much to do about nothing"?

Without the assertion that "they were the ones who were seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL" and TC wasn't they didn't have a single point to make. They could never have built the case on the unsubstantiated charge that TC was using fleshly means to preach the gospel because that charge had been around a long time and WL never did anything about it. They needed something more.

So then, how is proving that the BBs are speaking lies in hypocrisy to damage the saints and the church in order to promote their sect "much to do about nothing"?

The entire fraud does not rest on "the ground of oneness" or the teaching of the "MOTA". It rests on the BBs "seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL" because once that is false everything else falls too. Likewise, if your concern is for those who are currently in the LRC then you have to address the hypocrisy, lies, and sins of those who are currently in the leadership. There are valid reasons why a saint or elder would not want to discuss WL's or PL's flaws. There is no excuse however in refusing to discuss this very public "warning letter" written as a solemn testimony to all saints and churches. Now you can go through that letter point by point. But, if this one point is false, that "they are seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL" then the entire letter collapses.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by 77150

They could never have built the case on the unsubstantiated charge that TC was using fleshly means to preach the gospel because that charge had been around a long time and WL never did anything about it.

This has been discussed before some time back. The general thought is that WL was much more restrained when it came to dealing with another Chinese person in the environment of America. He might have destroyed TC years earlier if the audience had been Taiwan. But in front of Americans, he seldom dealt with another Chinese as he did with the Americans or Europeans. It was almost clearly a cultural thing.

So it is not so clear that Lee did not have everything he needed to demote or even cast out TC. But he would never treat TC like he had Max in front of us Americans.

So the fact that TC survived as long as he did after WL died is somewhat surprising. I guess that the BBs knew that despite his abuses, he was generally respected in the GLA and a pretty significant wedge had to be created.

[77150]

Originally Posted by OBW

This has been discussed before some time back. The general thought is that WL was much more restrained when it came to dealing with another Chinese person in the environment of America. He might have destroyed TC years earlier if the audience had been Taiwan. But in front of Americans, he seldom dealt with another Chinese as he did with the Americans or Europeans. It was almost clearly a cultural thing.

So it is not so clear that Lee did not have everything he needed to demote or even cast out TC. But he would never treat TC like he had Max in front of us Americans.

So the fact that TC survived as long as he did after WL died is somewhat surprising. I guess that the BBs knew that despite his abuses, he was generally respected in the GLA and a pretty significant wedge had to be created.

My point had nothing to do with WL. My point is that since WL had not acted, the BBs had no way to say they were "seeking to be faithful to WL's ministry" while excommunicating TC without a new charge.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by 77150

My point had nothing to do with WL.

That will be tough to establish since the statement from which I started was that Lee saw it all and did nothing. Your implication is that Lee had no basis for doing anything, so he didn't. But it would appear that there might be a reason that was not related to the correctness or incorrectness of taking action, but simply culture. That has everything to do with Lee. And it provides a reason that he might not have done what the BBs ultimately did.

And as Igzy has pointed out, Lee said much about many things and many people that we only know about because there have been some that were in the elders' meetings and have since repeated those things. That includes positions on many things about doctrine, theology, and people that were inconsistent with his public ministry.

It makes the inquiry about being "faithful to the entire ministry of WL" rather difficult. If you are an elder or co-worker, what is the "ministry of Lee"? Is it only what the people heard or read? Or does it include what they heard in those private meetings? So what are they being faithful to? The erratic contradictions of the whole man, or just the stuff that managed to get put in print by the LSM?

[77150]

Originally Posted by OBW

That will be tough to establish since the statement from which I started was that Lee saw it all and did nothing. Your implication is that Lee had no basis for doing anything, so he didn't. But it would appear that there might be a reason that was not related to the correctness or incorrectness of taking action, but simply culture. That has everything to do with Lee. And it provides a reason that he might not have done what the BBs ultimately did.

And as Igzy has pointed out, Lee said much about many things and many people that we only know about because there have been some that were in the elders' meetings and have since repeated those things. That includes positions on many things about doctrine, theology, and people that were inconsistent with his public ministry.

It makes the inquiry about being "faithful to the entire ministry of WL" rather difficult. If you are an elder or co-worker, what is the "ministry of Lee"? Is it only what the people heard or read? Or does it include what they heard in those private meetings? So what are they being faithful to? The erratic contradictions of the whole man, or just the stuff that managed to get put in print by the LSM?

There was no implication, there was merely the fact. Lee didn't do anything yet the allegation of using fleshly means for the gospel was already being bandied about. Therefore, if you are WL's disciple you must show me what changed to prompt this response. You cannot argue that "WL didn't like to take this action" tell that to Max, tell that to Jane, etc. WL was well able to "excommunicate" TC but didn't. Regardless of whether it was discussed or not, the fact is he chose not to do anything.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by 77150

WL was well able to "excommunicate" TC but didn't. Regardless of whether it was discussed or not, the fact is he chose not to do anything.

This was a function of Witness Lee's duplicity more than anything else. Titus Chu was not the only victim of Lee's duplicity and trickery. Lee would send out "spies" (really double-agents!), and these spies would pretend to be sympathetic towards those with genuine concerns, then they would gather information and report back to headquarters in Anaheim. NOBODY was spared from this unethical trickery...not even John Ingalls. It is simply how Witness Lee did business. Actually the blended brothers are rank armatures compared to Lee.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This was a function of Witness Lee's duplicity more than anything else. Titus Chu was not the only victim of Lee's duplicity and trickery. Lee would send out "spies" (really double-agents!), and these spies would pretend to be sympathetic towards those with genuine concerns, then they would gather information and report back to headquarters in Anaheim. NOBODY was spared from this unethical trickery...not even John Ingalls. It is simply how Witness Lee did business. Actually the blended brothers are rank armatures compared to Lee.

This is another matter altogether.

The fact that WL even believed all of those evil reports which filtered back to him only created more "spies." I found that many LC leaders also learned this pattern of "keeping dirt" on other brothers. These are not the ways of spiritual men, but of those who lust for power over others. Many times TC mentioned the "hell" he went thru because of numerous evil reports about him reaching WL. The sad thing was, that TC did the same to his followers.

The LC program had little appreciation for anyone, except for him at the top. The result was that ambitious brothers became man-pleasers, until the day comes when they are the one at the top. Meanwhile, those truly ambitious ones will jockey for position, backstabbing one another all the time. Looking back, it is just incredible how much WL encouraged and endorsed the infighting which has so characterized the Recovery for decades.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

This has been discussed before some time back. The general thought is that WL was much more restrained when it came to dealing with another Chinese person in the environment of America. He might have destroyed TC years earlier if the audience had been Taiwan. But in front of Americans, he seldom dealt with another Chinese as he did with the Americans or Europeans. It was almost clearly a cultural thing.
So it is not so clear that Lee did not have everything he needed to demote or even cast out TC. But he would never treat TC like he had Max in front of us Americans.
So the fact that TC survived as long as he did after WL died is somewhat surprising. I guess that the BBs knew that despite his abuses, he was generally respected in the GLA and a pretty significant wedge had to be created.

WL would never have quarantined his most gifted and fruitful student because TC never spoke against WL or his family, either publicly or privately.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 77150

How is a clear demonstration of the hypocrisy of every single person that signed the document concerning TC "much to do about nothing"?

Without the assertion that "they were the ones who were seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL" and TC wasn't they didn't have a single point to make. They could never have built the case on the unsubstantiated charge that TC was using fleshly means to preach the gospel because that charge had been around a long time and WL never did anything about it. They needed something more.

So then, how is proving that the BBs are speaking lies in hypocrisy to damage the saints and the church in order to promote their sect "much to do about nothing"?

I really have to agree with this point.

After the passing of WL, and before the quarantine matters started to heat up, nearly all the workers / full-timers in the GLA, under the direction of TC spent untold hours going back to the writings of WL to ascertain what did WL really say about certain crucial matters.

In this regard, if I could briefly summarize the entire Anaheim - Cleveland controversy in a nutshell, it would be this: Cleveland was following the written ministry of WL, while the Blendeds in Anaheim were following the "live" ministry of WL.

This makes a lot of sense, when we consider that the writings of WL were always sanitized by LSM editors. Eventually, many in the GLA, like myself, came to realize that their version of WL was all too often only a "mirage." The GLA always saw WL from "afar," even in live trainings, and held him in high regard. The Blendeds, however, saw WL for years, up close and personal, and became just like him. The Blendeds saw the "real WL." The GLA never, ever witnessed the many storms first-hand in Anaheim. Their version of history was "spun" by LSM wordsmiths.

This also explains why so many brothers who worked with WL over the years have left him. When the trials came to town, they got to see the real WL in action, and it wasn't pretty. They got to see how WL flexed his muscles behind the scenes. They got to see how WL allowed his son Philip to abuse and molest both LSM staff and leaders around the world, while the rest of us worker-bees around the globe didn't know Philip Lee even existed.

This is why topics on WL hypocrisy should be more important to LC members than all the teachings and threads about modalism, dispensing, trinitarianism, ground of locality, God's economy, oneness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[77150]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I really have to agree with this point.

6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
6:18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
6:19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

I believe that it is these 7 things that will prompt the Lord to action.

So then, if you can demonstrate that the warning letter was not done in good faith but was in actuality the “sowing of discord among brethren” then you have the basis to ask the Lord to act. Now I think we have made progress in demonstrating that the statement that the BBs “were seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL” was a lie. That makes them “false witnesses”. So we do have the basis already, but I still think we need to dig some more. Why would they devise this “wicked imagination” in their heart? I don’t know, but I do know it is an abomination to the Lord. Now Nell’s testimony was really enlightening how when they wish to drag their feet in doing the right thing how easy it is for them, yet when it came to excommunicating brothers and churches, wow, their feet could run fast.

There are many topics where the BBs could have valid arguments against bringing them up, this is not one of them. There are also many topics where the BBs could claim plausible deniability, again, this is not one of them. They might be able to argue that their word was taken out of context, or that it had been a careless comment, again this is not one of those scenarios. This is the Achilles heel of the BBs, LSM and the LRC.

If this action can stand under the scrutiny of the Lord’s light, then that is evidence that they acted under the authority of the Lord. If it cannot stand then the Lord never authorized them, and if the Lord never authorized them they are workers of iniquity.

[Cal]

Although whether the BBs are faithful to WL is not a useless subject, I've shied away from it because it's very hard to demonstrate due to the fact that WL was all over the place with his ministry and often taught diametrically opposed things without explanation. He also taught things to co-workers that were unique to what he taught publicly. And he privately confided things which were also unique, like his purported reservations about Chu. This gave the BBs the "out" which they've often retreated to--that because of their intimate knowledge of WL they know what he really meant about everything.

The whole argument of who is faithful to the guru is old hat because it just goes round and round. It's a red herring anyway. The BBs' actual error is more fundamental than straying from WL and lying about it. Their real error is claiming that being faithful to WL is a boast they should make before the Lord in the first place. The Lord never tells us to be faithful to a man's ministry. We're supposed to be faithful to Him. So once you get caught up in defending your faithfulness to WL you're already off the path.

The whole business of who is more faithful to WL is like who is king of the playground sandbox. Children think it's important, but grownups know better.

It's disconcerting how many of those who have left the BBs still feel the need to show that they haven't left WL. Do they really think the Lord cares they are faithful to a man's ministry? Or is it a culture they feel the need to genuflect to?

[77150]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The whole business of who is more faithful to WL is like who is king of the playground sandbox. Children think it's important, but grownups know better.

Agreed. However, this is not the question here. The question here is "Was the justification for the excommunication a lie?" Because if it was a lie then there was no justification for it.

Second, it is true that with all of the WL's ministry there might be some wiggle room concerning differing teachings. This is why I initially chose "Experience of Life" and dealing with sins. This was a basic teaching taught in the Full Time Trainings and one that all BBs would have to adhere to.

However, the quote provided is central to the thesis of the letter of warning and it clearly condemns the actions of the BBs in plain language. As a result the only way the BBs can justify their action is by discrediting WL's ministry. It may not be perfect, but it is certainly a valid complaint that any righteous judge, like the Lord Jesus, would respect.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by 77150

Agreed. However, this is not the question here. The question here is "Was the justification for the excommunication a lie?" Because if it was a lie then there was no justification for it.

Second, it is true that with all of the WL's ministry there might be some wiggle room concerning differing teachings. This is why I initially chose "Experience of Life" and dealing with sins. This was a basic teaching taught in the Full Time Trainings and one that all BBs would have to adhere to.

However, the quote provided is central to the thesis of the letter of warning and it clearly condemns the actions of the BBs in plain language. As a result the only way the BBs can justify their action is by discrediting WL's ministry. It may not be perfect, but it is certainly a valid complaint that any righteous judge, like the Lord Jesus, would respect.

Your point is valid but it's also one that is totally lost on the BBs. They left the solid ground of reason and principles, and embraced the murky world of we're-the-move-of-the-age-so-what-we-do-is-self-justifying a long time ago. With them it is not what they do but who they think they are. It's always been that way with this movement. Even when they're wrong they're right, they think.

I'm not saying you are wasting your time, just that there are a lot of reasons the BBs should consider themselves unrighteous and they are thus far unfazed. As long as they have a following they are going to be open for business.

[77150]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Your point is valid but it's also one that is totally lost on the BBs. They left the solid ground of reason and principles, and embraced the murky world of we're-the-move-of-the-age-so-what-we-do-is-self-justifying a long time ago. With them it is not what they do but who they think they are. It's always been that way with this movement. Even when they're wrong they're right, they think.

I'm not saying you are wasting your time, just that there are a lot of reasons the BBs should consider themselves unrighteous and they are thus far unfazed. As long as they have a following they are going to be open for business.

I am not concerned with how the BBs receive this word, I am concerned with the Lord. I believe that these things happen under His sovereignty. I believe that Christians are supposed to reign in the Kingdom age and during the church age we are being trained. Hence, I believe that if these things are so and the Lord has still not judged it is due to our fault, not unlike the gentile woman praying to the Son of David and being told that the Son of David was sent to Israel. Adjust your prayer and you will get an answer.

[77150]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not saying you are wasting your time, just that there are a lot of reasons the BBs should consider themselves unrighteous and they are thus far unfazed. As long as they have a following they are going to be open for business.

If thus far they are unfazed why the obsession with "opposers" in Nell's testimony under the thread "Mark them..."

It seems to me they are scared of their own shadow. They are fleeing when no one is chasing them.

Why so scared to talk to Nell?

The actions with TC, the actions in Brazil, the testimony of Nell. These are not the actions of people who "are unfazed".

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's disconcerting how many of those who have left the BBs still feel the need to show that they haven't left WL. Do they really think the Lord cares they are faithful to a man's ministry? Or is it a culture they feel the need to genuflect to?

This is the point. It all revolves around Witness Lee. Who is most faithful to the person and work of Witness Lee - Not who is most biblical in their teachings and practices. The simple fact is that both the blended brothers and Titus Chu are wholly dedicated to the person and work of Witness Lee. Just as there is not a lick of difference between Lee and the blended brothers, there is not a lick of difference between the blended brothers and Chu. They are all peas in a pod. They teach the same things. They practice the same things. I guess some churches under Chu have let the young people use drums and electric guitars? So? Witness Lee clearly taught that things like music were non-essentials....but did Witness Lee ever let non-essentials become an issue and divide? Of course he did - he did it all the time! So, now the blended brothers are making a big issue out of all sorts of non-essentials. Unfortunately for Chu he is simply out numbered. So he just ended up taking his ball and going home. Then, naturally, the blended brothers ordered all churches under their control to never go and play ball at any of Chu's sandlots. Much to do about nothing

[77150]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This is the point. It all revolves around Witness Lee. Who is most faithful to the person and work of Witness Lee - Not who is most biblical in their teachings and practices. The simple fact is that both the blended brothers and Titus Chu are wholly dedicated to the person and work of Witness Lee. Just as there is not a lick of difference between Lee and the blended brothers, there is not a lick of difference between the blended brothers and Chu. They are all peas in a pod. They teach the same things. They practice the same things. I guess some churches under Chu have let the young people use drums and electric guitars? So? Witness Lee clearly taught that things like music were non-essentials....but did Witness Lee ever let non-essentials become an issue and divide? Of course he did - he did it all the time! So, now the blended brothers are making a big issue out of all sorts of non-essentials. Unfortunately for Chu he is simply out numbered. So he just ended up taking his ball and going home. Then, naturally, the blended brothers ordered all churches under their control to never go and play ball at any of Chu's sandlots. Much to do about nothing

And that, by definition, is hypocrisy. And if the split with Chu is based on lies, deceit and hypocrisy it was not authorized by the Lord. And if they acted without authorization in excommunicating brothers and churches they are worthy of being judged. Therefore they will be judged by their own words.

The point is that "it all revolves around WL" in word but not in fact. The reality is they have ulterior motives and use "being faithful to WL" as some kind of bogus justification. Expose that lie and the structure they have built up collapses. The point is this is their action that they must be held accountable for. They do not have "plausible deniability". WL was dead. WL never excommunicated TC. If they can complain about being held accountable for WL sins, then this is a case where it is not WL's sin, it is their sin.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by 77150

And if the split with Chu is based on lies, deceit and hypocrisy it was not authorized by the Lord.

. . . .

The point is that "it all revolves around WL" in word but not in fact.

Are we discussing the actions of the BBs in relation to Lee's ministry ("faithful to the entire ministry of WL") or to the Lord. Seems that the basis for analysis keeps shifting depending on the point being made at the moment.

Analysis under either basis is acceptable. They both tell us something about Lee and the BBs. But if hypocrisy is based on "not authorized by the Lord" then the topic is not relevant to the discussion you want to have.

Try to keep your discussion coherently on the analysis of Lee and the BBs relative to either the public teaching of Lee or the Lord, but not both. Or clarify what needs to be analyzed relative to the teachings of Lee and what needs to be analyzed relative to the teachings of the scriptures. There is a chasm with terrible traps between the two.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This is the point. It all revolves around Witness Lee. Who is most faithful to the person and work of Witness Lee - Not who is most biblical in their teachings and practices. The simple fact is that both the blended brothers and Titus Chu are wholly dedicated to the person and work of Witness Lee. Just as there is not a lick of difference between Lee and the blended brothers, there is not a lick of difference between the blended brothers and Chu. They are all peas in a pod.

Much to do about nothing

I'm not understanding this.

This is a forum of members and ex-members and topics such as leadership actions, which impact all members, by definition, can not be "much ado about nothing."

We have provided ex-members, like Nell and the Andersons, endless audience, and unlimited bandwith on these forums, but when the new guy 77150 has a new slant or two, the moderator steps in to limit discussion, or at the least, attempts to downplay it.

Unless we address the very attitudes which members and ex-members have towards following the teachings of WL, this forum is irrelevant. Who are we attempting to help?

What am I missing here?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What am I missing here?

I think that the problem is that if the analysis is actions based on Lee, then the BBs and TC were mostly cookie-cutter duplicates of the original — Lee. And it turns out that when there was only one sheriff with minions, things went on OK. But once the sheriff dies, (kind of like when Julius Caesar died) there is this attempt to share power. And one-by-one they get bumped off (or take their place as subservient to some presumed stand-out among them) until there is a single leader.

Just peas in a pod.

And the pod isn't big enough for the both of them. (That sounds very ant- LRC dogma when you say it as "this church isn't big enough for the both of us.")

I read Unto's "much ado" as discussing the inter workings of the upper echelons of a crime syndicate. It isn't about law. Or right and wrong. It is about power and being unafraid to wield it.

Discussing the BBs in terms of a seriously flawed ministry is like judging a Mafia war based on the way the Mafia works, or a battle among pirates based on the pirate's code.

So the stated topic is only important if the basis (the ministry of Lee) is truly a sound basis for analysis. Otherwise, it is an effort in futility. It does expose the complete lack of morality of those mired in that way of thinking. But we already knew that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's disconcerting how many of those who have left the BBs still feel the need to show that they haven't left WL. Do they really think the Lord cares they are faithful to a man's ministry? Or is it a culture they feel the need to genuflect to?

To "outsider" Christians, I agree completely. I do hope, however, that you are not implying that Ohio or 77150 need to show why we have not left the ministry of WL.

As far as "playing in the sandbox," I know lots of folks who could say the same thing about all politicians in Wash DC.

But, on the other hand, if one wants to understand "what really happened" during the recent quarantines, then I think this line of thought provides valuable insight. If nothing more, it does provide an important historical perspective.

Just now I checked, and there were 28 guests on this forum. Maybe somebody is more interested than you think.