The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church

[OBW]

The following reflects a combination of my understand from the 70s and what we have learned since:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Of course, I was in the LC's at the time this occurred. I definitely commend Max for what he did with Philip Lee -- confronting him about adultery. I also sympathize with the family for how his wife was shamed by Lee publicly. Of course, WL used Max as a scapegoat for his own failed programs. He was a master at doing this. This is just pure politics -- fire the cabinet member to protect the President. Is not Max, however, accountable for the things he did? He should have mentioned that in the article.

You make Max sound like a victim here. Is he not responsible for the damages he caused? Self-righteous behavior always blames others for one's actions in an attempt save face. Max was a grown man. He knows better. Did he not rise to prominence within the Recovery by coercing the saints to forgive and forget their Daystar "investments?"

The comparison with Ingalls is not fitting. John attempted to protect the saints from the rottenness at LSM, whereas Max was active to spread it throughout the continent. John hurt no one, while Max left a trail of damaged young people. Max may have been duped into doing things, but he was still an accomplice, and that's how the legal system would judge him.

It's one thing for Max to warn others about the system, but something altogether different for him, soon after the Jonestown suicides, to tell parents to get deprogrammers for their kids.

This is a very real observation that matches what I was able to see from my perch in Dallas. I remember my dad having reservations about Max long before the thing went sideways. I recall the stories from those who were off in Anaheim building the Ball Road facilities. The number who simply dropped out from there. They dropped out from the center of the system, not the periphery. And it wasn't beaus they simply worked constantly and didn't get to meetings. There was poison in the air.

I recall a brother who had been a leading on in Dallas before moving to Anaheim giving an account of a run-in with Max and some of the ones who hung around him.

At this point in time, I am fine with accepting that Max was playing a part that was given to him by Lee. That some of it was just a personality thing that might have grated wrong on some people. But anyone who believed that the things that were being driven from Lee through Max were what was right or what was needed had a different need. And that is to have their heads examined.

It is not a lot different than the recent account of TC carrying out the excommunication of someone for Lee where he should have had the spiritual sense that there was no basis for excommunication. But they were all under orders in a sense.

I have this quandary as to whether to blame Max for being a perpetrator, or just being a blind follower. Was he just blind until he opened his eyes and saw? Or was he really that ambitious?

At this point in time, I am tending to lean toward "just blind." Why? because the evidence of the remainder of what little I can see of his life would seem to indicate that the claim that he had some tremendous drive to run some big organization has not materialized in any way. He has seemed to be willing to serve at some level.

Yes. His ability to get through to some of us is damaged. How could he have done what he did and then claim (and appear) to be so different? Can he be trusted? That is something we all have to decide for ourselves. I am not fully settled. But I am leaning toward the notion that he was just as caught up in the fog of Lee and the LRC as others, but his eyes were opened once he got away from the fog machine. That is where I lean.

But I think that Ohio has summed up the feeling of many who knew more than just the funny story that they sent out to tell. I was visiting Albuquerque when it was first revealed. It was quite shocking to me. There was this wolf running around among us.

And at some level it was true. But what was not told was that the presence of the wolf was by design of the shepherd. How's that for a story — a shepherd hiring a wolf to destroy some sheep so that the shepherd could put the sheep in a fenced barnyard and rule over them like a king (I know, the imagery is beginning to fall apart).

As for the calls for deprogrammers, that is too much. But given the times, when a grown man awakens to realize how deep he was in a group that had him so blinded that he could do what he did in the (alleged) name of Christ might scare them enough to think that deprogramming was the answer. The realities about such things were really not yet known or understood that well. If the events had been 10 years later, that might not have been his solution.

And it may have just been a kind of sour grapes response.

But who can say?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have this quandary as to whether to blame Max for being a perpetrator, or just being a blind follower. Was he just blind until he opened his eyes and saw? Or was he really that ambitious?

At this point in time, I am tending to lean toward "just blind." Why? because the evidence of the remainder of what little I can see of his life would seem to indicate that the claim that he had some tremendous drive to run some big organization has not materialized in any way. He has seemed to be willing to serve at some level.

Based on what little I know it seems that Phillip Lee's lasciviousness was the "wake up pill" (as SCP would say) for Max. I think prior to that he was willing to "be trained" by Witness Lee, but that was the point at which he had to make a decision and he made the right one. From there it seemed things just got better for him as a Christian (unlike what we were taught about those that leave the LRC).

Still, you cannot be an elder, the "president" of the local church, a member of the Board of directors of LSM, and the chief spokesman/Public Relations guy for WL and not bear responsibility for your actions. If Witness Lee was the leader of a cult, then what does that make you? Blind doesn't cut it for me. Mistaken, in error, and responsible are words that I would feel are much more in line with the facts.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Based on what little I know it seems that Phillip Lee's lasciviousness was the "wake up pill" (as SCP would say) for Max. I think prior to that he was willing to "be trained" by Witness Lee, but that was the point at which he had to make a decision and he made the right one. From there it seemed things just got better for him as a Christian (unlike what we were taught about those that leave the LRC).

Still, you cannot be an elder, the "president" of the local church, a member of the Board of directors of LSM, and the chief spokesman/Public Relations guy for WL and not bear responsibility for your actions. If Witness Lee was the leader of a cult, then what does that make you? Blind doesn't cut it for me. Mistaken, in error, and responsible are words that I would feel are much more in line with the facts.

On the first paragraph, I think it is reasonable. But I'm not so sure about the second.

Just because Max was one of the blind followers using his obvious skills at the behest of the master puppeteer does not make him permanently responsible for what went on.

By the way, I take the "what does that make you" question personally. It makes me ( or rather made me) a loyal member of a cult. One in which a single man managed to orchestrate a phenomenal shutting off of the mental capacities of many very intelligent people. Cause serious Bible readers and even scholars to ignore the actual scripture and wander off into la-la land.

And I think you can say the same for Max. Maybe it would be reasonable for him to apologize for what he did. But those who are still there are mostly the ones needing the apology (along with the rest of the story). Many of us now outside can see that his life since has been different. Like so many others, including former LRC elders. The opening of their eyes is what I want to see. The telling of the truth. It seems that the lie primarily is still buried in the LRC. It is the most important artifact that remains shrouded in secrecy. Like the rituals to become members of the KKK or become one of the full-fledged Mormons. (The only likeness in these two groups is the secrecy surrounding their initiation ceremonies. No other parallels being made here.)

Yes. Max was responsible for what he actually did. But oddly, it may be that the ones that Lee and the LRC declared to be "damaged" by it are the only ones who were freed. To those who remained, it was just another war story to tell about how Satan was out to get "God's best."

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Chapter Three Continued.... On Lee's Spiritual Authority

"A reputable source active in the Local Church for years says that the LC people believe Witness Lee to be the only oracle of God alive today. to disagree with the oracle is tantamount to being out of the Holy Spirit's leading.

"When I command in my spirit, the Lord commands with me, for I am one spirit with the Lord" (WL - How to Meet, pg 97). "....Is this my teaching? No! This is the revelation of God in the Bible. It was buried, it was covered for centuries, but by His mercy it has been discovered." (Ibid pg 94). (This follows a discussion of the relation of daily lives to quality of worship, using 1st Corinthians as the text).

Some LC people have privately confessed belief that Witness Lee is the apostle of this age. No spokesman for the executive branch of the Local Church has corrected that understanding, or tried to dissuade members from embracing that view. Lee himself believes that he stands in the line of apostolic succession, his authority commensurate with that of the twelve apostles. Lee claims to have received the apostolic mantle from Watchman Nee during their last meeting, when Lee was commissioned to supervise the Taiwan churches.

A striking anecdote illustrates Witness Lee's view of the complete sufficiency of his apostleship. Lee once told an elder that the church was like a car; it has only one driver at any given moment. And, he went on, nobody appreciates a back-seat drive. Passengers should cover their eyes, closer their mouths and never distract the driver. Lee demonstrated proper "passenger posture" by putting his hands over his eyes and mouth. During similar conversations Lee's climactic statement had been that, even if the car were headed for a cliff, driver and passengers alike should all go over the edge together."

*****************

Wow. That is quite an assertion of Lee's - it certainly sounds a lot like some old quotes Igzy posted on another thread... What was it? Oh yes....

“Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him.” — St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: “The Book of Obedience”, Chapter 1: “There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope”).

[Cal]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

“Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him.” — St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: “The Book of Obedience”, Chapter 1: “There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope”).

Isn't that insane? Yet if LCers were honest they would admit that they believe something approaching this. Maybe not for eternal salvation, but certainly for kingdom reward. But essentially they think as this dear, demented woman did--that loyalty to God's man means favor with God. A lie on several levels, for, first, there is no "God's man" and, second, loyalty should always be to the truth, not men.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Isn't that insane? Yet if LCers were honest they would admit that they believe something approaching this. Maybe not for eternal salvation, but certainly for kingdom reward. But essentially they think as this dear, demented woman did--that loyalty to God's man means favor with God. A lie on several levels, for, first, there is no "God's man" and, second, loyalty should always be to the truth, not men.

Not to disagree with you bro, but I now believe that our real loyalty should not just be to "truth," but to the Lord Himself. Perhaps I am over-reacting, but during the last quarantine, all the brothers I knew were "standing for the truth," yet fighting each other, and in reality, were not standing for the truth, but were standing for a man, some for Lee, and some for Chu.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not to disagree with you bro, but I now believe that our real loyalty should not just be to "truth," but to the Lord Himself. Perhaps I am over-reacting, but during the last quarantine, all the brothers I knew were "standing for the truth," yet fighting each other, and in reality, were not standing for the truth, but were standing for a man, some for Lee, and some for Chu.

Point taken.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Some LC people have privately confessed belief that Witness Lee is the apostle of this age. No spokesman for the executive branch of the Local Church has corrected that understanding, or tried to dissuade members from embracing that view.
A striking anecdote illustrates Witness Lee's view of the complete sufficiency of his apostleship. Lee once told an elder that the church was like a car; it has only one driver at any given moment. And, he went on, nobody appreciates a back-seat drive. Passengers should cover their eyes, closer their mouths and never distract the driver. Lee demonstrated proper "passenger posture" by putting his hands over his eyes and mouth. During similar conversations Lee's climactic statement had been that, even if the car were headed for a cliff, driver and passengers alike should all go over the edge together."
*****************

This book is NOT just about the published writings of Witness Lee (although that covers some of the "teaching" part of the review of the teachings and practices) Duddy et al suspected (and were correct in suspecting) that as with most groups like the Local Church of Witness Lee, there is a facade of orthodoxy put up for public viewing. Behind the doors of the meeting hall is where the real story can be discovered. And discover they did. It was probably even worse than they originally thought. In any event, they dug enough to find and report on what "some LC people privately confessed". Back in the day the notion that Witness Lee was the Apostle of the age was so drilled into the mentality of the entire Movement that there was no need for it to be in black in white...anymore than one would need to carry around their birth certificate to know that their father was their father. Things changed towards the end of Lee's life, when he had nothing to lose, he then allowed it to become official - in black and white.

The "striking anecdote" provided above is not very striking to those of us who know the real Witness Lee. It was his mindset, so it just came out of his mouth...all the time. Most of the time it was edited out or maybe smoothed over by Kangas and the other editors, so it didn't make it to print. But Duddy knew to dig further. He interviewed current and former members. He knew better than to just talk to a few elders and ministry leaders. This is how he found out about how Witness Lee was truly viewed by the average LC member, and it's how he found out how Lee truly viewed his position in the Movement.

Those of you with only "book knowledge", or only want to discuss what is published in black and white, may want to consider sitting this one out. This is about the teachings and practices AS THEY ARE ACTUALLY TAUGHT AND PRACTICED. This is the focus of this book, and this is what we should be discussing in this thread.

[OBW]

The idea that Lee was an apostle was fully under way in 1973. I can't recall specific meetings or who said it, but by the time I went back to our old place in the early spring that year to return some things like choir music, I already had Nee and Lee down as apostles. I had only been around the LRC since the beginning of January, and by the time of that chance encounter with the Youth Minster at our previous church, within weeks of me turning 18, I was already steeped in "they are apostles" thinking. (Put the math to it if you must. I'm 57 now.)

Then I read some of the transcripts of the trial discovery where Lee was deposed. He was asked if he was an apostle. He responded with double-speak. He claimed that he told anyone he heard say that not to say it. In other words, he didn't really respond. When the lawyers kept trying to ask the question in different ways, the judge eventually ruled that the question had been answered. But it really had not. It only seemed that way.

But it was the way he said what he did that was most revealing to me. It was the carefully scripted response of someone trying to not lie while telling a lie. He never simply said "I have never said such a thing." Or "I always insist that there are no more apostles."

Of course, most of those kinds of things that he denied became absolutely true shortly after the verdicts came in. I believe that in that famous conference (wherever) in which he was so exalted by the crowd that he is quoted as saying something like "I kind of like it." At that point, he openly became exactly what he tried so hard to deny under oath in the trial.

[OBW]

BTW. And interesting observation. When they announced in Dallas that "we" would be doing our own translation of the Bible, there were a couple of men present who nobody knew. A few meetings later, I believe it was Benson sort of bragging about how those guys had sort of opened their eyes really wide at hearing about a new translation. (It might have been Don. He can probably provide a better account. It is just a fuzzy memory to me now.) I believe that they were reported to have been taking occasional notes. Afterward, they left never to be seen again.

I have always wondered if their notes were part of what was compiled for somebody's book or other research. I cannot remember the time frame precisely enough. Of course, if someone knows when they announced the coming translation efforts, that would pretty well nail it down.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have this quandary as to whether to blame Max for being a perpetrator, or just being a blind follower. Was he just blind until he opened his eyes and saw? Or was he really that ambitious?

I don't think the answer is in either of these extremes. Was Max ambitious? Yes, definitely. He had a level of ambition which few of us even understand. Did Lee take advantage of that ambition? Sure. Max could do things which he could not.

To a certain degree the world's legal systems have had to struggle through these same concepts, and we should take note of their conclusions, because there is a certain amount of time-tested wisdom here. When crimes are committed, all perpetrators bear the same responsibility. One cannot use the defense that "he pulled the trigger." All are guilty of murder, not just the shooter, but the driver who drove the get-away car, the guy who gave the orders to kill him, and the guy behind the scenes who planned it all. All are guilty of murder.

Likewise, we must assign culpability to Max for what he did, whether Lee put him up to it or not. He was the promising understudy rising to the top of the heap. Max cannot claim he was completely deceived, just a blind follower, only a patsy setup to take the fall. Max knew what he was doing, even if he was not completely aware of the consequences of his actions.

[UntoHim]

What Duddy had is what Duddy knew.
He went to Local Church meetings and found out that the Local Church really was The Local Church of Witness Lee. The teachings were Lee. The practices were Lee. The history of the Movement was defined by Lee. Lee, Lee, Lee. Duddy had eyes and ears. He saw what he saw and he heard what he heard.

Please Cassidy, don't be a game player. If you heard different let us know. If you saw different, let us know. Duddy wrote of the Local Church of Witness Lee back 35 years ago. Please, let us know different from you. What is your PERSONAL experience that can tell us a different story. I'm not asking for your full name, rank and Social Security Number here my man....just something we can hang our hat on. We all know what you DON'T BELIEVE...we've all seen what you DON'T believe for years. WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE? What do you believe about Witness Lee and the Movement he founded? We know what you DON'T BELIEVE about what others say. What DO YOU BELIEVE?

If what you have posted here on these forums all these years is all you have to offer then it is laughable. Seriously.

............................

[Cassidy]

If all Duddy had is what has been posted then Duddy had nothing. That is my question, did he have more than what was posted? Apparently you don't think so but maybe you are wrong, maybe he has a whole chapter on "apostolic succession". Does he? No? A paragraph? No? What?

Let's not confuse the train of thought here. You specifically asked us all to limit our entries to discussions about the content of this book on this thread. So I am doing that. We have been presented and dealing with Duddy's allegation about the so called "apostolic succession" belief of Witness Lee. And if there is any game playing it is the obvious attempts to protect the glaring deficits of this book by blocking serious inquiry about its content, or most probably if current trends continue, its gross lack of content.

Now, is Duddy offering anything more than what has been posted about this "apostolic succession". If not, let's just confirm that. Apostolic succession is a heresy and that you will find in LSM publications. Yet who knows, maybe Mr. Duddy hit pay dirt. Maybe he found the smoking gun. If so, let's see it. If not, then all he has is an anon comment, and that would be laughable for such a "scholarly work".