Answer to Mr. MacDuff.

[MacDuff]

UntoHim

I attended Elden Hall, but was never part of the LC. At the time, I had no use for the doctrine of Lee who seemed to me to be consistent only in his inconsistencies. What little I learned of Witness Lee’s doctrine while at Elden Hall I’ve forgotten over time.

What I knew of the person of Lee comprises one introduction where he looked at me and ignored me. As if he had foreknowledge I would never become one of his minions. The very few times I saw him present in the meetings in Elden Hall (never once saw him in one of the spontaneous meetings that took place outside of the hall itself) where he didn’t practice the art of “prophesying in the meetings” as he himself advocated. Where he rarely said anything at all even as a teaching. It was as if he only attended as an observer. And the times I saw him on stage at the convention center. And the only reason I saw him then was because I got a ride with someone I considered a friend (that was still allowed back then) who encouraged me to go, and I didn’t have to pay for admission.

What I currently know of the teachings of Lee I’ve learned in the last two months from reading posts on the two forums and reading a few of his writings on the LC website. What I currently know of the person of Lee I’ve learned in the last two months on the two forums, which is second hand knowledge at best, and appears to me to be mostly biased by negative events in the lives of those who portray him. But the many negative events they portray leads me to have a poor opinion of Lee. That he was a bad tree with bad fruit.

When I attended the meetings of the LC a few months ago, for reasons I’m not even clear about myself, it seemed like a foreign land in contrast to what I remember of Elden Hall. They pray-read the writings of Witness Lee as if those writings are equal to or more than the Bible, instead of the Bible alone. The obviously leading ones (who were leading ones in the meetings in Elden Hall were not outwardly apparent) would encourage the rest to, “say ‘Oh Lord Jesus three times’ ”. As if calling three times is going to bring Jesus running faster than calling once with faith. Or change the faith of the ones calling, or help them to “touch their spirit”. The obviously leading ones spoke a lot more often then at Elden Hall with a lot more self importance and show of authoritative knowledge as they quoted Lee more often than the Bible. I had the impression that Jesus is hearing them no more than they are hearing him.

I really have two views. I was born Catholic. And as a Catholic I believe in the Catholic view. But I am also a Biblicist, in the sense of a view according to what I understand the Bible to be saying. Sometimes the views coincide. Sometimes they do not. The view I usually share when among Protestants is the Biblicist view. Which is the view I shared the most basic part of on this forum. And presented as part of that basic part a distinction between the ekklesia as portrayed in the New Testament and the Churches as they exist in Christianity. Igzy was correct when he said I repeated myself a lot. It was due to advocating a basic that seemed to me should be agreed with by anyone claiming to believe in the Bible alone, and thinking the reason they don’t is merely due to a misunderstanding of what I was advocating. I have since come to realize the disagreement is not due to misunderstanding.

I’ve never agreed that Christianity needs to be reformed, recovered, restored, renewed, or what have you. Updated from a Catholic view. From a Biblicist view those who are in Christ need to start distinguishing between what is truly of Christ and what is of Christianity, a man-made religion that is predominantly denominational in character and thinking, that has been overtly a man-made religion since the 4th century. The nature of which is ultimately expressed in Catholicism, the character of which is ultimately expressed in Protestantism. While exhibiting both the nature and character of Christianity.

I currently have nil interest in reading any more of the writings of Witness Lee or Watchman Nee. I have nil interest in the LC. My personal view of reality, whether from a Catholic or a Biblicist perspective, bears little resemblance to the view of Lee or the LC. And in the grand scheme of Christianity, the LC is a drop in the bucket percentage wise. Two billion versus a few thousand? I still wonder what the current statistics are on the LC. I’ve personally not found anything on the internet as yet. I have as much interest (nil) in the JW’s who have more adherents at a half mil than the LC ever had, near as I can tell.

I was never abused by the LC. I and many others didn’t make the move from Elden Hall to Anaheim, after which things apparently changed drastically in the LC. So I haven’t that kind of negative baggage from which to unpack an interest in Lee or the LC.

So, as far as my having anything in common relating to Lee or the LC with the former Recoveryites on this forum.... is mostly nil.

Regarding the Mission Statement and guidelines as presented by Igzy. Which I question whether he alone is the source. I personally consider them to have some potential to be the parameters they are intended to be. Nevertheless, as they stand are too unrealistic, inconsistent with some of Igzy’s own actions, and internally inconsistent to fulfill the purpose for which they are intended. And I’m not sufficiently interested to do as Igzy has suggested, which is to PM him concerning my personal thoughts that might improve the standard or the forum. Seeing as I do not foresee my presence here to be of long duration.

Neither my Catholic view nor my Biblicist view corresponds in any way to Evangelical Protestantism.

I am thankful for two things since coming on this forum. Concerning Al Knoch, I already mentioned in a post to Igzy on another thread. And to Aron for introducing me to another side of Erasmus, I didn’t know before. Having read his entire book that Aron quoted from, he appears to be midway between Catholicism as it existed in the 16th century and the Reformation of Martin Luther so called. I think Erasmus would fit in rather well with Catholicism as it exists today. Since Vatican II it has become much more like Protestantism in practice, and for some even in faith, though the faith hasn’t really changed from an official view. Erasmus doesn’t appear to me to be one who argues simply to argue.

Let me ask you, UntoHim. As one who appears to be more influential on this forum than the word member under his name implies. What is the reason you think I should hang around? If you are even still of that opinion. What have I got to gain from a community of Christians who already in two months time has influenced me to be more appreciative of my Catholic roots, rather than persuaded me toward the view of Evangelical Protestantism that igzy’s Mission statement says is the basis of this forum? And what have they to gain from me? Seeing as Ohio claimed my view of the New Testament is a fairy tale and Igzy claimed I am a phony, that neither has thought it necessary to retract, and not one here has thought it necessary to say either was wrong? Implying to me either agreement or that chiming in on my behalf would have negative repercussions. Either way....

MacDuff

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Seeing as Ohio claimed my view of the New Testament is a fairy tale and Igzy claimed I am a phony, that neither has thought it necessary to retract, and not one here has thought it necessary to say either was wrong? Implying to me either agreement or that chiming in on my behalf would have negative repercussions. Either way....

MacDuff

Dear MacDuff,

This is what you posted a month ago ....

Originally Posted by MacDuff

In my view, there is a distinction between the ekklesia portrayed in the Bible and the Churches of Christianity. They are two entirely different things.

In the gatherings of the ekklesia, no human ruling authority would be necessary. Only the supernatural ruling authority of the living Jesus Christ as Lord through the indwelling Spirit within the community, within each individual who is in Christ.

To which I made this comment ...

Originally Posted by Ohio

In my view, MacDuff has a fairy tale view of the New Testament. I'm not saying that I don't like this point of view since I also have been burnt by bad leaders who placed personal gains above the needs of the flock, but I see the same issues in the Bible. MacDuff's view of the early church is tainted by the desire to have something "perfect" as a starting point. There was nothing perfect in the book of Acts! Unfortunately for both of us, we were jaded by Lee's Recovery paradigm which begins the age with a "perfect" church and ends the age with a "perfected recovered" church.

I personally believe that MacDuff's assessment of the Christian life and the church in general would be vastly improved by regularly reading the New Testament. Read it for the facts. Read it afresh like the first time you ever saw the book. Try to read yourself into every scripture. Don't read as an observer but as a player. Picture all the scenarios that Paul, Peter, and John addressed in their epistles.

I think my comments were appropriate for this forum. I really like my encouragement to you about reading the scriptures afresh. Sorry if my opinions insulted you, but I see no reason to recant.

Sincerely,

Ohio

[Cal]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Seeing as Ohio claimed my view of the New Testament is a fairy tale and Igzy claimed I am a phony, that neither has thought it necessary to retract, and not one here has thought it necessary to say either was wrong? Implying to me either agreement or that chiming in on my behalf would have negative repercussions. Either way....

The reason I said that, MacDuff, is because you seem to be completely wrapped up in yourself. Ever since your first post everything has been about you. I asked you to summarize and you took offense. I asked people to try to keep posts shorter and you got snippy about it and have since made even longer posts, consciously I suspect.

Here we are weeks later from your debut and you are still talking about yourself and your perceived slights. Everything is about MacDuff. If you want me to change my opinion, change your behavior.

If I could summarize my message to you, MacDuff, it would be:

G-E-T---O-V-E-R---Y-O-U-R-S-E-L-F

I have 8 and 11-year-old boys who understand this concept better than you.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

UntoHim

I attended Elden Hall, but was never part of the LC. At the time, I had no use for the doctrine of Lee who seemed to me to be consistent only in his inconsistencies. What little I learned of Witness Lee’s doctrine while at Elden Hall I’ve forgotten over time.

What I knew of the person of Lee comprises one introduction where he looked at me and ignored me.

Hey MacDuff. My friend of long standing was in Elden Hall, known as Hosepipe on these forums, sat at table with Witness Lee at Elden. He said he tried to strike up conversation with Lee, but Lee totally ignored him, like he wasn't there, and wasn't speaking to him. As a result Hosepipe thought Lee was an A-hole. He said when he got around Lee the hair on the nape of his neck would stand up. Lee was creepy to him. Eventually, according to hosepipe, Lee killed Elden Hall with the Life-studies, or as hosepipe calls them, Death-Studies. He calls Lee "Witless Lee." Seems apropos to me ... and funny ...

Originally Posted by MacDuff

And what have they to gain from me? Seeing as Ohio claimed my view of the New Testament is a fairy tale and Igzy claimed I am a phony, that neither has thought it necessary to retract, and not one here has thought it necessary to say either was wrong? Implying to me either agreement or that chiming in on my behalf would have negative repercussions. Either way....

MacDuff

This forum belongs to UntoHim, and he can run it anyway he wants. But his opinions aren't any different than anyone else's out here.

So whether you stay or go I have to tell you that I've really appreciated your presence out here. But then I'm one of the rebels out here.

And by the way, everyone's view of the New Testament is likely a fairy tale. We don't know because we don't have access to all the current up to date celestial data.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

So whether you stay or go I have to tell you that I've really appreciated your presence out here. But then I'm one of the rebels out here.

I appreciate much of his input, too.

I just don't appreciate people coming on the board and acting like prima donnas.

I will continue to push back on such people, because I think that kind of behavior is inexcusable.

Everyone better figure that out, because it won't be tolerated. Be warned.

And if someone wants to act like a victim because they weren't up to playing by the rules and got called on it, that's their business. But it just make the point.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Let me ask you, UntoHim. As one who appears to be more influential on this forum than the word member under his name implies. What is the reason you think I should hang around? If you are even still of that opinion. What have I got to gain from a community of Christians who already in two months time has influenced me to be more appreciative of my Catholic roots, rather than persuaded me toward the view of Evangelical Protestantism that igzy’s Mission statement says is the basis of this forum? And what have they to gain from me?

MacDuff, I’ve got to hand it to you. You are quite the writer. I haven’t said anything on the forum for years that deserved this kind of massive, comprehensive response! (1352 words according to www.wordcounttool.com … much to the chagrin of our current Admin) I’m not sure if this says more about my ability to push your buttons, or your uncanny, superhuman ability to turn the tinniest molehill into Mount Everest. Maybe it’s somewhere in between.

I could only wish I was as influential on this forum as you seem to think. At this point I’m not much more than a pneumatic conduit who simply pays the bills to keep this thing afloat. I have asked (sometimes begged) various folks to come and assist with administration and moderation over the years. I finally got some sucker…errrrrrrrr…kind soul to take over as day-to-day administrator. Technically, I am still the head “Admin” because I am the originator, but for all intents and purposes Igzy is da man. Igzy seems to think that this is just something temporary until I catch my breath…..little does he know.

“What is the reason you think I should hang around” you ask. Well, I would say that reason may differ greatly from member to member. Each of us may have our own reasons. And that’s ok by me. And despite what you might think, I’m pretty sure it’s ok with Igzy as well. You see, the “Mission Statement” does not mandate that every member make the mission of the forum their own personal mission. It was simply a long overdue iteration of what is in the hearts and minds of many (most?) of us longtime participants. In short, “the basis of this forum” is not necessarily to persuade anybody “towards the view of Evangelical Protestantism” (as if that is some high crime or misdemeanor) but really to provide a venue for current and former LC members to discuss the teachings, practices and history of the Movement.

In any event, my friend, I noticed that you admit that our little “community of Christians” has “influenced” you, albeit to be “more appreciative of my Catholic roots”. Not sure which parts of your Catholic roots you are referring to, but not all of those roots can be totally rotten, so I’m going to look on the brighter side and think that we have not done you a terrible disservice after all.

Your assignment, MacDuff, should you choose to receive it, is to respond in 500 words or less (the length of this post is 438). Hardly Mission Impossible.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Igzy seems to think that this is just something temporary until I catch my breath…..little does he know.

The reason I seem to think it is because that's what you told me.

[UntoHim]

Don't confuse people with the facts.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

UntoHim

I attended Elden Hall, but was never part of the LC. At the time, I had no use for the doctrine of Lee who seemed to me to be consistent only in his inconsistencies. What little I learned of Witness Lee’s doctrine while at Elden Hall I’ve forgotten over time.

What I knew of the person of Lee comprises one introduction where he looked at me and ignored me. As if he had foreknowledge I would never become one of his minions. The very few times I saw him present in the meetings in Elden Hall (never once saw him in one of the spontaneous meetings that took place outside of the hall itself) where he didn’t practice the art of “prophesying in the meetings” as he himself advocated. Where he rarely said anything at all even as a teaching. It was as if he only attended as an observer. And the times I saw him on stage at the convention center. And the only reason I saw him then was because I got a ride with someone I considered a friend (that was still allowed back then) who encouraged me to go, and I didn’t have to pay for admission.

What I currently know of the teachings of Lee I’ve learned in the last two months from reading posts on the two forums and reading a few of his writings on the LC website. What I currently know of the person of Lee I’ve learned in the last two months on the two forums, which is second hand knowledge at best, and appears to me to be mostly biased by negative events in the lives of those who portray him. But the many negative events they portray leads me to have a poor opinion of Lee. That he was a bad tree with bad fruit.

When I attended the meetings of the LC a few months ago, for reasons I’m not even clear about myself, it seemed like a foreign land in contrast to what I remember of Elden Hall. They pray-read the writings of Witness Lee as if those writings are equal to or more than the Bible, instead of the Bible alone. The obviously leading ones (who were leading ones in the meetings in Elden Hall were not outwardly apparent) would encourage the rest to, “say ‘Oh Lord Jesus three times’ ”. As if calling three times is going to bring Jesus running faster than calling once with faith. Or change the faith of the ones calling, or help them to “touch their spirit”. The obviously leading ones spoke a lot more often then at Elden Hall with a lot more self importance and show of authoritative knowledge as they quoted Lee more often than the Bible. I had the impression that Jesus is hearing them no more than they are hearing him.

Always the student of history, I see the defining year the recovery movement began to change was 1974.

What happened before 1974, before the migrations, etc was never about WL and it wasn't about a ministry. As I understand through my parents, at Eldon Hall there were so many people meeting there it was difficult to really get connected unless you served together. You may have seen someone in during this time, but not get connected until the migrations to the different cities.

[MacDuff]

UntoHim

Well, in 500 words or less, I certainly prefer your understanding of the Mission Statement than what that Statement itself implies. And in spite of what Igzy thinks, everything I’ve said was with the consideration that Jesus Christ is the center, not me. And because I’m Christocentric, I detest being in the lime light in the sense of this thread. I’ve never been accused of being a prima donna before. A lot of other negative epithets, but not that one. I shared my experience of Elden Hall. Which is the only reason I came here in the first place. In addition I shared what to me are basic matters of my Biblicist point of view because I felt certain statements warranted it. Things I would expect those who claim to be Bible only would or should agree with. The only reason I repeated myself so much was because I thought no one was getting it. I’m no longer under that misconception.

As for the remaining 339 words, I would prefer to wait until there is more input from the general population. But I appreciate your response. I didn't expect it to be in this manner.

MacDuff

[aron]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Neither my Catholic view nor my Biblicist view corresponds in any way to Evangelical Protestantism.

As a card-carrying Protestant who grows ever more appreciative of the Bible, specifically for the Christ it portrays to me, I want to say I've also appreciated your often skeptical comments. Christians shouldn't be afraid of the fire. They should embrace it. The fire "prunes" our faith, and makes it more humble, more right-sized. Folks who question the collective are often unpopular, but in some sense they are "most valuable players" on the team.

I always like to think, "What if I'm wrong?", and it's also helpful when others come alongside to aid with this necessary question. Because we probably have more in common than we realize, here in our brief sojourn on earth, it is also good for us acknowledge and respect each others' differences. God in His wisdom made each of us similar, but unique, and for good reason. Your skepticism may be God's skepticism.

Witness Lee was a bright guy, but in the end it seems that the only person he was interested in listening to was himself, and this spelled his doom theologically, if not spiritually. "In a multitude of counselors there is safety".

I am thankful for two things since coming on this forum. Concerning Al Knoch, I already mentioned in a post to Igzy on another thread. And to Aron for introducing me to another side of Erasmus, I didn’t know before. Having read his entire book that Aron quoted from, he appears to be midway between Catholicism as it existed in the 16th century and the Reformation of Martin Luther so called. I think Erasmus would fit in rather well with Catholicism as it exists today...

As I said elsewhere, perhaps the Protestant Reformation was an over-reaction to the short-comings of the Catholic Church. I grew up a Protestant and will probably remain one (as Paul wrote, "Each one of you, in which you were called, in this let him remain"), but I have the "Catholic lifer" Erasmus at least partly to thank for this. Because in Erasmus' example we can really see the practical wisdom of Paul's counsel to the Corinthian believers.

And I think Erasmus wrote simply because it was a joy for him to do so, not because it was a chore or a way to make a living. In his writing one sometimes senses the simple power of finding oneself alive, and having an at-least-partly rational brain, and being allowed to exercise it. It is as if he were discovering God, and the exuberance of his journey of discovery awakens something similar in us.

Erasmus doesn’t appear to me to be one who argues simply to argue.

Nor to me. I think he argues because the truth is worth pursuing. "Come, let us reason together, saith the LORD."

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

The only reason I repeated myself so much was because I thought no one was getting it. I’m no longer under that misconception.

That wasn't entirely a misconception, MacDuff - I confess that I am guilty of sometimes "not getting it"... where you were coming from, that is.

That is, unfortunately, the trouble with this kind of correspondence- fellowship. It's entirely too easy to put our own feelings/emotions, or, if you like "interpretations" into what the writer has put down. Without facial expressions, inflections in tone, considerate pauses... it can be hard to "hear" the heart of the writer. I try to write carefully so as not to cause offense; not that I'm always successful either. In any case, for what it is worth, I have appreciated being able to both read what you have to say, and to challenge what I have interpreted you to have written... and some of your more recent posts are putting things in a little clearer light for me, so I'm trying to read more and write less until I get a better feeling to add to the discussion.


Ray

[Cal]

Ultimately, the lesson of the Church is that God expects us to cooperate with each other, because none of us is self-sufficient. We need each other. That means each of us is incomplete, and therefore cannot have all the answers.

God is glorified in our willingness to cooperate with, defer and help one another in a spirit of brotherly love. Some of us seem to think he is glorified by each of us figuring everything out. As if, if we finally "get it" that will be the ultimate.

Discussing the nature of the Church is not a bad thing. But experiencing the Church is what God is after. That means jumping in somewhere and serving others, imperfections and all.

I don't think we get any points for being "clear" on the shortcomings of the Church while never jumping in and serving others. Let's be sure we have our priorities straight.

Interestingly, when I began to do this, the Lord didn't proceed to point out what was wrong with the Church. He began to point out what was wrong with me.

I was always saying to the Lord "They need to fix this and that. This is wrong. That is wrong." The Lord would just say, "Maybe. But in the meantime, I'd like you to address this about you...."

Over time, a lot of those problems didn't matter anymore.

[Cal]

MacDuff, you keep dissing "interpretation" as if there is some alternative. But there isn't. It's all interpretation. Now, some interpretation is inspired, and some isn't. But it's all interpretation. Everything is filtered through our minds. There's no other way to contact reality. We interpret everything, including the movements of the Spirit in us.

What's missing from your discourse is something telling us how to know the difference between inspired and uninspired interpretation.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

NeitherFirstnorLast

To whom do you attribute this interpretation?

MacDuff

Now sir, only Yoda gets to answer a question with a question - I asked you first for your thoughts....

Ray

[OBW]

One of the hardest things for many, including the extremely intelligent, is to separate what they think and what they say from who they are. On this forum we argue (in the sense of discussion and debate, not fighting) about things.

I have views based upon many things. I like to think that they are all entirely rational and soundly founded on whatever is thought to be the most important touchstone for the subject. But it is often not entirely true. Sometimes I discover that I am relying on secondary sources that are not representing the primary in a faithful manner. Sometime worse than that.

And when I build my own conclusions on questionable sources, others may see them for what they are. Or others may be seeing mine from their own faulty base. Or we may both be completely off-track, but in different ways.

So when someone says that my perspective or conclusion is a fairly tale, that is not a condemnation of me. It is only a comment on the position I am holding. I can choose to be insulted and refuse to even rethink my position. I can stick to my guns as blindly as those who are holding other positions.

Or I can accept the somewhat extreme reference to fairy tales as an indication that someone thinks I am missing something important and at least consider any alternate thinking that is provided. And once I have done that, I can conclude that they have not swayed me and return to explain why my position is not (in my opinion) a fair tale. I don't even need to refer to their characterization. Just state my reasons for continuing with my position.

- - - -

Separately, while I never had the opportunity to be close enough to Lee to be ignored by him, the behavior that others have noted was quite evident. He seemed almost disinterested in anything in any meeting unless it was his own speaking, or was someone else making reference to his teaching, especially when the whole place was stirred-up about it.

But to defend him (just a little, and very distastefully), can you imagine the implications of Lee actually jumping up because he had a sudden realization and saying something? Something that he had not had time to vet and filter? Given the way we gladly hung on every word he uttered, if he sat down, then went home only to realize that he had said something that was not entirely accurate (and for him, that did not square with his own system of teachings), what do you think he would find? The next day, before he could do any "damage control," everyone who was there (and probably people all over the country due to phone calls) would be jumping up and shouting about this latest "gold nugget" from Lee and how wonderfully meaningful it was to their lives.

I personally think he would deserve it.

And having said that, he probably didn't ever speak like that because he was above it. He wanted to keep a kind of separation between himself and even the elders around him. I recall that when Max was doing all the stuff he did, the other elders (who had previously been in private meetings with Lee at least weekly) were clueless because they were not privy to any of it. Even they were outsiders at that time. (Of course, Max had no idea how much of an outsider he was. Max was mostly a tool of Lee to set the stage for his rise from "trusted adviser" to "chairman of the board.")

[OBW]

Yesterday, McDuff said:

To regard one’s own view as merely an opinion, leaves one with nothing of importance. Everyone has opinions. The trick is to know the difference between what is opinion and what is objective truth.

The problem I have with this is that any claim to knowing "objective truth" is based on the knower's filters and biases.

No matter how much you think you are simply reading the words, you have a base of experience, environment, learning, prejudice, etc., that colors even simple sentences. This is your "lens." When you read, you understand certain kinds of statements as building up or tearing down based on your lens.

Listen to the kinds of things that are said in the political arena and the responses to them. Someone makes a reference to true equality for everyone and the response is filtered through the listener and their thoughts about the speaker. One side hears "equal opportunity" as meaning "leveling the playing field (positively)" if said by one person but "putting the minority down" if said by the other. Another listener hears "giving unequal preferences (not equality) based on the inequality of long-past times" if said by one person, and "truly equal opportunity in which the discriminator is only merit and ability" if said by the other.

So you read a phrase in the Bible. Jesus said it. He is speaking about the Pharisees. Is he simply describing the state of affairs? Or is he condemning them with colorful metaphors? Sometimes it is obvious. Others not so much. Or He says "don't call your brother a fool." Is that exactly what he said? Do we really understand the passage? Are we prepared to declare that those who do so in any way shape or form are simply going to Hell? And excommunicating those who think it is more of a statement warning of false statements against a brother (one of many variations on how to understand this that I have heard over the years)?

You think that it is simply obvious and we should know how to figure it out?

Well, the way to figure that out is two-fold. First, you don't do it by yourself. You consider it carefully with several (or more like many) others. And second, once you have come to your conclusion, you don't declare it to be the right one and everyone else's to be an opinion, with the tack-on declaration that opinions are something to be despised. (BTW, for someone who doesn't seem to think much of Lee, you really bought into his take on opinions. According to Lee, whatever he said was the truth and everything else was an opinion. Something to avoid like the plague.)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

(BTW, for someone who doesn't seem to think much of Lee, you really bought into his take on opinions. According to Lee, whatever he said was the truth and everything else was an opinion. Something to avoid like the plague.)

Yeah, unfortunately this is what I hear MacDuff saying, too. His ideas are truth. Everyone else's are interpretation. And he doesn't tell us how he knows the difference. I could be wrong, but that's what I keep hearing.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Separately, while I never had the opportunity to be close enough to Lee to be ignored by him, the behavior that others have noted was quite evident. He seemed almost disinterested in anything in any meeting unless it was his own speaking, or was someone else making reference to his teaching, especially when the whole place was stirred-up about it.

I was close enough. I was in Taipei during the FTTT when WL was in Hall 1. I was in Hall 3, just down the road. I found it strange that WL never went to a meeting unless he was running it. This wasn't true of BP or RG, they were often in prayer meetings, or fellowship meetings or even messages where they were not the speaker and where they didn't even share a testimony, or at the most spoke for less than a minute or two. All of the trainees ate at the cafeteria in Hall 3 and yet you never once saw WL show up, walk around, or act like a normal person. By contrast AY and everyone else associated with the training was very accessible and "normal".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I was close enough. I was in Taipei during the FTTT when WL was in Hall 1. I was in Hall 3, just down the road. I found it strange that WL never went to a meeting unless he was running it. This wasn't true of BP or RG, they were often in prayer meetings, or fellowship meetings or even messages where they were not the speaker and where they didn't even share a testimony, or at the most spoke for less than a minute or two. All of the trainees ate at the cafeteria in Hall 3 and yet you never once saw WL show up, walk around, or act like a normal person. By contrast AY and everyone else associated with the training was very accessible and "normal".

I saw WL once just walking outside of hall #1 where several of us were working. He even said high to me and asked where I was from. His eyes appeared so weak that I could barely tell he was looking at me.

[MacDuff]

ZNPaaneah

If the nature of the Lee supporters in not the nature of those who are in Christ, isn't that further evidence that both Lee and his followers were false prophet and false brethren?

False teacher. And I was only referring to those who treated Al in that negative way. As for the rest of his followers.... Well, do you think that Recoveryites are in Christ only upon leaving the LC? Was that the case with you?

That is the point of this thread. To help those who suspect something isn't right to examine the facts and see the light. This is why I believe it is important to examine and be fully persuaded. Whatever you decide will color and influence your relationship with the word, with the church and with the Lord. If you believe WL was the MOTA that will have a big influence, if you believe he was a false prophet that also will have a big influence, and if you feel he was merely a Christian teacher and that issues you have or had in the LRC are unrelated, then that also will have a big influence.

Whatever MOTA means. I still haven’t managed to figure that one out. You people use a lot of abbreviations that will mean nothing to the casual observer and those new to this forum. One of the complaints against the LC is that it has its own language. Why do the same thing here?

Yes, I agree that however one views Witness Lee and the LC that one will be influenced by that view. And that the purpose of this forum is to discuss both. But rest assured that whatever view a person has will be a part of that discussion. If LC people come on this forum, it can’t be expected that they will espouse some other view than they already have. And on a forum of former Recoverites, many of which have been hurt by the Recovery or someone within, that could get volatile. I think it’s not a good thing to include Recoveryites on a forum such as this. If the LC feels they need to defend themselves, they have several sites on which to do so. And surely someone is going to see their defense and pass it on to this forum.

MacDuff

[MacDuff]

Igzy

MacDuff, you keep dissing "interpretation" as if there is some alternative. But there isn't. It's all interpretation. Now, some interpretation is inspired, and some isn't. But it's all interpretation. Everything is filtered through our minds. There's no other way to contact reality. We interpret everything, including the movements of the Spirit in us.

What's missing from your discourse is something telling us how to know the difference between inspired and uninspired interpretation.

Dissing: “act or speak in a disrespectful way towards, disrespectful talk” Oxford Dictionary.

Why do you think I should respect something that I don’t believe is proper. People on this forum diss Lee and the LC all the time. Why don’t you go to them and discuss disrespect? Maybe because you’re guilty of it yourself?

But have no fear. I’m beginning to change my mind about a lot of things. Interpretation included.

Those who are led by the Spirit know the difference between what is inspired and what is not inspired. And being led by the Spirit should lead one who is open minded to the teaching of Christ through the Spirit, to the realization that personal interpretation can not be the end all of our knowledge as those who are in Christ.

And I think I should add that only the Bible is inspired in my Biblicist view. There is no such thing as inspired interpretations. Now as a Catholic, my view is that only the interpretations of the Church are inspired, if inspired is even the right term to use. In that regard I’m not sure. What I do know is that the practice of interpretation is valid in Catholicism, but only on a community and historic level. The practice of personal interpretation, which is what is being talked about here, is not valid. And I’m beginning to see why.

Either way, I would have to oppose the idea of the validity of personal interpretation. As a Catholic, only the interpretations of the Church are valid. As a Biblicist, only the interpretations of Jesus Christ are valid. Personally, I can’t find any solace in personal opinions. It seems that those who believe in the validity of personal interpretation are able to do so.

In answer to OBW
Yeah, unfortunately this is what I hear MacDuff saying, too. His ideas are truth. Everyone else's are interpretation. And he doesn't tell us how he knows the difference. I could be wrong, but that's what I keep hearing.

Let’s see how many feathers I can ruffle. Perhaps the reason is because you’re not listening to what I’m saying.

There was a guy on the board a while back like that. He didn't seem to have faith in anything, even to trust the hand in front of his face. He was most unhappy. I told him to pray every day for 30 days for faith.

He never posted again.

Which implies nothing. You haven’t a clue why he never posted again. Maybe he started to consider you in the same way you consider me and figured it was a waste of time to post here.

Why you would encourage an Atheist (assuming he didn’t believe in anything you believe in) to pray is beyond me. Who do you think he would be praying to in his mind? And you are wrong to imply that he didn’t seem to have faith in anything. Everyone has faith in something. Even Atheists have faith that God doesn’t exist and act according to that faith. You just didn’t know what he had faith in. You have a tendency to judge people by your own standard. Which is actually reasonable because it’s all you’ve got to judge with. Maybe it would behoove you to leave people you can’t understand to people who can. It’s not about you any more than it’s about me.

MacDuff

[MacDuff]

NeitherFirstnorLast

Now sir, only Yoda gets to answer a question with a question - I asked you first for your thoughts....

Sorry. I thought you would be able to distinguish between a thought statement and a thought question.

As far as a thought statement, I have no such thoughts. Except perhaps to say that it depends on one’s point of view as to whom the interpretation should be attributed. Other than that, any thought statement I might have would depend on your answer to my question. And even then my thoughts may still involve questions as I try to understand your point.

And you’re wrong about Yoda. Socrates answered questions with questions pretty consistently. Not that I’m trying to follow the Socratic method here.

MacDuff

[MacDuff]

OBW

The problem I have with this is that any claim to knowing "objective truth" is based on the knower's filters and biases.

I see your point. But what must also be considered is the context in which I made that statement. If it all depends on our own filters and biases, then there really is no way to arrive at objective truth. Even the existence of God becomes merely an opinion. Which is what the Atheists have been saying all along.

There has to be some way in which we can know what is objective truth and what is not. As you probably know by now, I have two views from which to draw an answer to that question.

In the Catholic view, as far as objective truth relating to those who are in Christ, the matter is simplicity itself. The Catholic Church knows what is and what is not objective truth in areas it has already authoritatively defined. And if you’ve ever seen the Catholic Cathechism, then you know quite a bit has been already defined. In any other area, one is free to speculate at will.

In the Biblicist view, sitting at the feet of Jesus Christ and hearing his teaching will enable us to discern the difference between what is personal opinion and what is objective truth. Of course, that depends on whether or not one is being led by the Spirit.

We are as a community encouraged by Paul to be transformed by the renewing of the mind. Many actually think that refers to interpretation as the means of renewal. The only problem being that interpretation is an activity of the mind, not a source for knowing what is objective truth in relation to the supernatural. Interpretation works reasonably well in the natural realm, and I say reasonably because it doesn’t always work. Not everyone who has desired to be rich has been successful monetarily for example. Their interpretations of the natural realm have not made them rich. And this reveals that man is limited individually even in the natural realm. Men may be created equal, but how that plays out won’t by any means be equal. How much more in the supernatural realm.

From a Biblicist view, more is necessary to distinguish between objective truth and opinion than just a personal ability to interpret. And that was the context of my statement.

MacDuff

[OBW]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

And you’re wrong about Yoda. Socrates answered questions with questions pretty consistently. Not that I’m trying to follow the Socratic method here.

Thanks for pointing that out. Questions are an excellent way to focus someone to find the answer you would suggest. Or to demonstrate the uncertainty of their assertions.

When Mary and Joseph returned to Jerusalem to find Jesus, he was in the temple astounding the religious leaders with his questions, not his answers.

They don't notice that much in my posts is less than certain. Not always punctuated with question marks, but not much more than statements of reasonable alternatives to consider rather than just asserting something as the answer. And sometimes they are full of questions. And it is interesting how often the responses are full of certainty. And how often they don't really address the questions.

And I noticed late yesterday that I have been misspelling your moniker.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

But have no fear. I’m beginning to change my mind about a lot of things. Interpretation included.

Those who are led by the Spirit know the difference between what is inspired and what is not inspired. And being led by the Spirit should lead one who is open minded to the teaching of Christ through the Spirit, to the realization that personal interpretation can not be the end all of our knowledge as those who are in Christ.

And I think I should add that only the Bible is inspired in my Biblicist view. There is no such thing as inspired interpretations. Now as a Catholic, my view is that only the interpretations of the Church are inspired, if inspired is even the right term to use. In that regard I’m not sure. What I do know is that the practice of interpretation is valid in Catholicism, but only on a community and historic level. The practice of personal interpretation, which is what is being talked about here, is not valid. And I’m beginning to see why.

I will start by noting that I am uncertain that the RCC view is entirely the way. But it is much more reliable than the Protestant "sola sciptura." Why? Because sola scriptura implies that I can figure it out on my own because it just says what it says. And the result is my personal interpretation which is unlikely to be the right one.

Now, having said that, the church does arrive at what it concludes is the answer by weighing the various thoughts from the group, then through deliberation and prayer, concludes what they see as best based on the inspiration of the Spirit within the group. And, based on the recorded history of such things, their certainty is often "it seems good to us and to the Holy Spirit . . . ."

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Either way, I would have to oppose the idea of the validity of personal interpretation. As a Catholic, only the interpretations of the Church are valid. As a Biblicist, only the interpretations of Jesus Christ are valid. Personally, I can’t find any solace in personal opinions. It seems that those who believe in the validity of personal interpretation are able to do so.

I can accept that, like the Nazarite vow, an individual may be compelled to live a certain way as the result of agreement with God on what would be considered "personal interpretation." But that does not rise to the level of something to assert as generally true and teach to others. So, on the whole, I believe your view is correct. And with that I am stepping on a whole lot of toes around here.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Let’s see how many feathers I can ruffle. Perhaps the reason is because you’re not listening to what I’m saying.

I believe that the reason is that your answer is in things like your comments above about the Catholic way. But it is not direct enough.

And when you mention that the only valid interpretations are those of the Church, due to your context, you are at least implying that a universal body is required. And the RCC does assert its universality. But, like the LRC (Lord's Recovery Church, since they assert that their name is not the "Local Church"), they exclude a major part of the body from their so-called universal body.

Yet, at some level, it is unfortunate that the German government backed Martin Luther in his suggestion that things needed to change. Up to that time, that was the way that interpretation happened. Someone suggested an alternative. They spent time, sometimes years, even decades, considering it, then they took a stand. By splitting apart and not being involved in each other's processes, we now have incomplete inquiry. The things that we think are wrong about the RCC or any particular Protestant group are now being thrown over walls rather than discussed within the family. It is only those who actually try to get together and discuss, study, etc., that there begins to be some return to the right position. We do not need to be under each other's umbrella to actively be part of the same global community of faith. But not all will join. Mostly out of fear that their pet doctrine will not get the uber respect that they give it.

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Which implies nothing. You haven’t a clue why he never posted again. Maybe he started to consider you in the same way you consider me and figured it was a waste of time to post here.

And while you are right, you are also not much more than throwing a barb that you cannot know is correct. Just suggest. But, you did say "maybe."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

Why do you think I should respect something that I don’t believe is proper.

Because everything you believe is an interpretation. That was my point. Everyone interprets, including you. So your stated position is self-contradicting. Even your belief that you shouldn't interpret is an interpretation. Everything you think the Bible means is your interpretation or one you got from someone else. The same goes for me. (See last paragraph below.)

Those who are led by the Spirit know the difference between what is inspired and what is not inspired.

Not always. Even Paul didn't know for sure all the time. Paul wrote the verses immediately before 1 Cor 7:40 and then said in 7:40 "I think I have the Spirit of God," meaning he wasn't absolutely sure. Yet this example became scripture, meaning sometimes even Paul went with his best guess.

You said the Bible is inspired. Okay, I think most agree. But that's the easy part. The hard part is knowing what it really means. How do we know? We have to interpret. There is really no way around this.

What the Bible means and what we think it means are distinct. The trick is knowing the difference. If it were as simple as you seem to think there wouldn't be much discussion about what it means. This board wouldn't exist.


Here's a example. The Bible says, "Love one another." Now we probably all believe that is truth and the word of God. We should love one another, right? Anyone want to disagree at that level? Probably not.

Now, here's the hard part. What does "love one another" actually mean in practice? Suppose you ask me for $10? To love you should I give it to you? What if you ask for $100? $10,000? What if you ask me to take time off work to drive you to Seattle? Should I do it? If I don't do it does that mean I am not loving?

Suppose to love one another you have to break the law? Maybe smuggle bibles into a country which forbids them. What do you do? How do you know?

The problem is not agreeing that we should love each other. The problem is what does that mean in practice. The idea that you know for sure in every instance is laughable. You rely on interpretation whether you admit it or not.


It seems possible that your definition of "interpretation" is any idea of what the Scripture means that is not inspired by the Spirit. But I don't know of anyone who claims we should interpret Scripture without the help of the Spirit. So if that's your definition then this discussion is moot and uninteresting, because then it's just about semantics.

[Cal]

Guys, Let's keep this subject of interpretation versus inspiration and which is which in this thread please. Thanks.

[UntoHim]

Unfortunately, in The Local Church, there is only one interpretation because there is only one interpreter. In fact, in many cases Witness Lee's interpretations are treated at the same level as scripture itself, sometimes even higher. A good example of this would be Witness Lee's proclamation that one of the authors of the New Testament (James) was "devoid of the divine revelation". Apparently Lee missed that day in vacation bible school where they taught that James' words were not devoid of the divine revelation at all, THEY ARE THE DIVINE REVELATION. But since much of the writings of James do not match up with Lee's teachings (in fact they contradict and expose his teachings) he had to make sure his followers knew that his words were more "divine" then what James wrote.