Leaders of the Lord's Recovery

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The easiest thing to do as a leader is to chew a subordinate out. While it's sometimes true that challenging people with strong words is effective, that truth is all too often an excuse for venting frustration and shifting blame. Being harsh with others is often the most gutless thing one can do. Much harder as a leader is to show genuine love, concern and long-suffering, while accepting responsibility for failure. This is "taking the cross" at its best.

Whenever we have discipline, whether private or public, we must always ascertain whether the correction matches the behavior. Of course, this is the last thing a hot-tempered coach, parent, or church official wants to have happen. Abusive people always thrive in an environment void of accountability. Healthy leaders will always measure their correction to the crime, so to speak. What a shame that leaders like Lee and Chu could publicly shame so many brothers, yet never answer to any oversight.

Paul instructed Timothy (I Tim 5.17-21) to never receive a complaint without proper witnesses. This was to prevent any church leader from acting impulsively or with bias. If an accusation was warranted, then a sinning public elder needed open reproof so that all the congregation could properly learn and be admonished. Then he warned Timothy never to serve the saints with favoritism and partiality. Paul's wise instructions precluded so many works of the flesh which only serve to damage God's children. It's too bad the LC leaders never followed Paul's wisdom.

I personally have been publicly reproved by Titus Chu, who never even asked me for my side of the story. I have witnessed others who likewise were rebuked without a proper examination. One can only conclude, after years in the local churches, that nearly none of the public shaming was deserved, rather it only served to reinforce their false sense of authority. For LC leaders like Witness Lee and Titus Chu to convince themselves that this abuse is "spiritual perfecting" is little different than applauding those inquisition torturers for using justifiable means to "perfect" God's children.

This is why brothers like Ron Kangas can travel to South America and defame Steve Isitt as a "man of death." These patterns of abuse have been learned first hand from watching Witness Lee. Kangas is treating Isitt no different than Lee treated Ingalls, Mallon, or so many other brothers over the years. Whenever brothers in the Recovery speak their conscience and address serious concerns in an upright manner, their very act of speaking up makes them deserving of the harshest censures.

Years ago Isitt was branded a rebel and quarantined for writing an honest evaluation of Recovery history called "In the Wake of the New Way." I found that paper extremely helpful, not just for its content, but for the courageous spirit necessary to break party policy and report fairly and honestly. Obviously honest reporting has never been in LSM's best interests. They prefer to spread the fairy tale about the infallibility of their MOTA.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

One can only conclude, after years in the local churches, that nearly none of the public shaming was deserved, rather it only served to reinforce their false sense of authority. For LC leaders like Witness Lee and Titus Chu to convince themselves that this abuse is "spiritual perfecting" is little different than applauding those inquisition torturers for using justifiable means to "perfect" God's children.

I once personally witnessed WL "shaming" TC. In fact TC used those exact words: "I am ashamed to admit...", after WL queried him about events in the Midwest. And TC really acted out the part of "losing face" before WL, as if it were his job to take one for the team. Like there was some kind of social ritual involved, in order to keep the machine running smoothly.

Anyway, I had not meant to drag the conversation too far afield. I just felt that "the BBs were a continual source of dismay for WL" perhaps signalled a social and organizational context worth noting.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I once personally witnessed WL "shaming" TC. In fact TC used those exact words: "I am ashamed to admit...", after WL queried him about events in the Midwest. And TC really acted out the part of "losing face" before WL, as if it were his job to take one for the team. Like there was some kind of social ritual involved, in order to keep the machine running smoothly.

Exactly.

TC was only displaying the response he himself expected to receive when shaming those brothers "under" him. There was a hierarchy of authority which was top-down, and a proper flow of praise which was bottom-up. Any violation was deemed to be insubordination, especially by those like TC who were in the know.

I heard about another training or conference in Anaheim where the Cleveland attendees gave a glorious test when called upon to review the message. It totally upstaged all the SoCal churches which were, of course, directly under WL's ministry and supervision. Obviously WL was slighted by the performance of the Ohio saints. What TC did next was initially startling, but entirely predictable once one understands the rules of engagement. TC went to his lieutenant, Louis Cheng, who had been placed in charge of testing preparation, and reemed him up one side and down the other. Thus the rule of order was established. Rebuking must flow downhill, and glory must go uphill.

Once this principle is understood, and regularly practiced, life in the Recovery was very peaceful. Obviously, all the storms and rebellions in the Recovery resulted from brothers refusing to follow these simple rules.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is why brothers like Ron Kangas can travel to South America and defame Steve Isitt as a "man of death." These patterns of abuse have been learned first hand from watching Witness Lee. Kangas is treating Isitt no different than Lee treated Ingalls, Mallon, or so many other brothers over the years. Whenever brothers in the Recovery speak their conscience and address serious concerns in an upright manner, their very act of speaking up makes them deserving of the harshest censures.

This kind of behavior really displays the corruption of the upper echelon in the LC system. Brothers like Mallon and Ingalls are virulently besmirched and yet Philip Lee continues on as Witness Lee's top coworker and is ultimately apologized to by the new elders in Anaheim for his excommunication.

Why was this allowed to go on? Because it was Witness Lee's son. If it was my son or your son he would have been fired from LSM and removed from the fellowship of the church until repentant. But Witness Lee's son gets an exemption.

Approximately 10 years prior to these events of the late 1980s his son was involved in similar immoral behavior. The eyewitness who reported it was excommunicated from the church and Philip Lee continued on as the LSM GM. Why? Because he's Witness Lee's son.

[aron]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Anything about M.E. Barber or LC system history that has it's source in Witness Lee/LSM I take with a grain of salt. Who said she behaved this way? Witness Lee. What did Lee have to gain by using this legend - a license to be abusive toward others. If it was good enough for Watchman Nee it's good enough for you too brother so just learn to "take the cross".

I wanted to comment because alwayslearning has highlighted the problem of "legend" and "myth" in the histories of the Lord's recovery. We heard lots of self-serving, abbreviated versions. WL would tell them over and over in meetings and trainings. Indeed there was probably some truth.

But as we have seen in WL's book "The fermentation of the present rebellion", and other attempts to convey what really happened, we cannot simply say that something occurred as WL stated. If we could not trust his accounts of events in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s, how much less the events in China in the 1920s?

Christianity is in one aspect an emergence of thinking from the "myths" of Gods and primordial mists. What we believe, largely, is based on observable fact, not legend. There was a city named Jerusalem, with a race called the Jews. They had been at one time a great kingdom (David, Solomon, etc) with a great temple and "palaces of ivory" (Psa 45:8). The kingdom had fallen and became under the control of the Roman empire. Even atheists will admit that these are facts.

Etc. We know the story about Jesus. My point is that Christians believe this as independently observable fact, not myth. There really was a Jerusalem, there was the promise of a coming king, the "Son of Man" and the "Son of David" who would restore the former glory, and we Christians believe that there was a man named Jesus. We believe that He conquered sin, death, the devil and Hades. He is the true king.

Our history as Christians has thousands of years of observable and verifiable facts. Even the raising from the dead of Jesus Christ -- it is a fact that the disciples claimed to have seen Him and it is a fact that we the Christian polity believe their claims.

Now, enter WL. He arrived in the U.S. with many stories, many of which are now at least suspect as self-serving fictions. Given his account with the facts of local church history in the last few decades, we would do well to suspect anything he said unless it is independently verified by untampered witnesses.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Maybe through circumstances, training and/or personality she did develop certain mannerisms that came across as being stern. But she was a British lady in the early part of the 20th century - when ladies starting when they were young girls were conscientiously taught to be "lady-like" i.e. polite and proper in the company of others. So I find the idea of her berating brothers to be quite a stretch - yet a useful fiction for the likes of Witness Lee, Titus Chu, etc.

Notice how alwayslearning prefaces his comments with "maybe"; that is what we should do when we don't have the facts. We can speculate, ponder, and examine, as long as we don't pretend, a la WL, that what we are saying/writing is "the truth". Because we don't know the truth, often. And we should not just think that because WL said or wrote something that it was so.

The apostle Peter clearly told us in his epistle "not to lord it over each other." Now, one can be strict and disciplined with oneself, and be an example in this way to others. Perhaps MEB was very "polite and proper" in the 19th century British way, and the young foppish Chinese lads wandered off in search of something more relaxing, except the young WN who realized that discipline was necessary. Wesley had learned this hundreds of years before, and anyone who tries to follow Christ should at some point learn that being a "disciple" involves self-control, or "discipline", and might do well to imitate, or follow, someone who displays self-control. But that is entirely different from public shaming and lording it over one another, and the fiction of "strict" MEB may have been created as a cover for the latter behavior.

I don't know. I am just thinking aloud here. What I do remember is that WL was "continually disappointed" in pretty much everyone and everything, up to and even including his cheerleaders the BBs, but MEB and WN could do no wrong. That looks like legend to me.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

We know the story about Jesus. My point is that Christians believe this as independently observable fact, not myth. There really was a Jerusalem, there was the promise of a coming king, the "Son of Man" and the "Son of David" who would restore the former glory, and we Christians believe that there was a man named Jesus. We believe that He conquered sin, death, the devil and Hades. He is the true king.

Our history as Christians has thousands of years of observable and verifiable facts. Even the raising from the dead of Jesus Christ -- it is a fact that the disciples claimed to have seen Him and it is a fact that we the Christian polity believe their claims.

One further point. It is noteworthy, I think, that there are 4 different and largely independent "gospel" accounts: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is important that there are multiple witnesses. This was according to God's plan. It is important for us that there are the historical accounts in Acts, that Paul references them in his epistles, that Peter's epistle notes Paul's ministry and Paul's writings acknowledge his interactions with James, Peter, and so forth. We have not myth but separate accounts of history.

And this continued after the canon of the Bible was finished. There are voluminous writings from the first centuries, not only Christian but also Jewish and Roman historians and so forth. All of these textual witnesses independently corroborate and strengthen the gospel story.

As I have mentioned, it seems that a lot was ignored and even actively suppressed in the 4th through 10th centuries by "church authorities" who had their own agenda. When the RCC split from the Greek Orthodox Church, Luther & Calvin's "recovery" of truth in the 16th century didn't have access to a lot of post-canonical commentaries. They were left to their own logic and the text at hand; they'd look at scripture and say, "What does this mean to me, a reasonable believing person?", and the group consensus became "Calvinistic doctrine" and "Puritanism" and so forth.

Luther's "justification by faith" is arguably an improvement on the traditions and authorities of the RCC, but we should not say, "Okay, now we have fully recovered the truth". That is the WL fiction we were sold: WN supposedly had read all the old books and recovered their truths; now just read (LSM edition) WN and WL books and get the "completed NT revelation", the "high peak truths" etc.

Nonsense. That is like saying that since "Read with Dick and Jane" contains all the letters of the English alphabet and has been used for decades in the U.S. primary school system that now we have everything an have no need for any further reading materials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileick_and_Jane.jpg

Fun with Dick and Jane may be fun in first grade, but don't kid yourself and pretend it is post-graduate study. Shouting it repeatedly may be even more fun than reading it, but it still doesn't "constitute" anything but a loud first grader. And actively discouraging and suppressing people who want to go beyond that makes you a stumbling to others. Jesus said, "Woe to you; you neither enter in nor do you permit others to enter."

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

And this continued after the canon of the Bible was finished. There are voluminous writings from the first centuries, not only Christian but also Jewish and Roman historians and so forth. All of these textual witnesses independently corroborate and strengthen the gospel story.

After the canon of the Bible was completed the discussion continued. This non-canonical and extra-canonical discussion didn't supplement the scripture, so much as further illuminate it.

It is important to say here what we are doing, and what we are not doing. We are not adding to the scripture. Scripture is scripture and commentary is commentary. But to tackle the scripture on your own without the guidance of those who were there before you is to assume that they were wasting their time and have nothing to add to the discussion. Smacks of arrogance to me. As RK might say, "What have they accomplished? Absolutely nothing".

Also, we are not taking anything away from God's word. WL's dismissal of large sections of scripture as "natural" and "fallen" is arguably the equivalent of taking away the words of God. If you don't get something in the Bible, fine. If it doesn't speak much to you, fine. But does that mean it is not the inspired word of God but rather the natural word of fallen man? I really don't think I want to go there either.

WL seemed to circumvent his lack of scholarship by stressing "life". Like if he wrote it it was life, but if someone else said it then it was maybe just "dead knowledge". So for scriptural understanding you basically ended up with "WL said it; therefore it's true." And if WL didn't say it, then nobody said it. Why? Because that's what WL said: WN had read everything, and had told WL everything useful, so why bother read anything else?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Approximately 10 years prior to these events of the late 1980s his son was involved in similar immoral behavior. The eyewitness who reported it was excommunicated from the church and Philip Lee continued on as the LSM GM. Why? Because he's Witness Lee's son.

I think there's a post somewhere more detailed about this event, but I am under the opinion was the so-called sister's rebellion and Max becoming personna non grata was directly related to Max confronting Phillip (1977?). The eyewitness I understand took the steps and brought it to the elder's attention. How was he excommunicated? And by whom?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

... and Max becoming personna non grata was directly related to Max confronting Phillip (1977?). The eyewitness I understand took the steps and brought it to the elder's attention. How was he excommunicated? And by whom?

I thought the eyewitnesses were relocated (witness protection program?) and the elder was effectively told to leave. When the elder came to the church meeting, the elder's seat next to WL had been filled by someone else.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by aron

I thought the eyewitnesses were relocated (witness protection program?) and the elder was effectively told to leave. When the elder came to the church meeting, the elder's seat next to WL had been filled by someone else.

Perhaps you are thinking about another event. In the instance I am referring to the eyewitness was excommunicated and the other party involved in the immoral behavior was relocated.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

The whole death v. life thing is another handy tool of deception used by Witness Lee and now LSM employees to divert attention away from their own behavior and history. "Pay attention to life not right and wrong" etc are catch-all phrases designed to stop those with legit concerns in their tracks. It gives those doing wrong or covering up wrong a license to do whatever they want without recourse.

Discussing "the facts of the case" requires a certain amount of objectivity. The subtlety of the death v. life tool of deception is switching everything into the realm of subjectivity with a nary a concern for the facts.

"How do you feel when you read or talk about what took place in the LC system back in the late 1980s-early 1990s? "

"I feel sick to my stomach."

"Ah ah! That is because you are eating of the wrong tree. You are touching death brother. You should pay attention to life. Get out of your mind and turn to your spirit where life is..."

Very subtle! But the truth is:

1. I legitimately feel sick to my stomach based on the facts regarding corruption, lying, deception, mistreatment of others, machinations, hypocrisy, politics, manipulation, immaturity, etc. in the upper echelons of the LC system.

2. This is the way I should feel.

3. What I feel really is life.

The Audio and a word from Ron

www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?t=50798

RON KANGAS: "The temptation is to ask, who is right and who is wrong. Or you may try to find out for yourself what is right and what is wrong. “Oh, this man of death, Steve Isitt, he wrote something. And someone else is sending it everywhere. I need to figure this out; oh, I never heard these things. Could this be true? Did the brothers behave like that?”

"As soon as you think this way, you yourself are finished. Okay? Because you are on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You apply that tree to the situation. So some may decide that this person is right. Others will say that person is wrong. That will lead to argument, dissension, division, and confusion. Who has all the information?

"There is a statement made about Brother Lee; you can’t ask Brother Lee about it. If you try to discern this way, you will be brought into death. This is serious. You read through this thing, you listen to this thing, you exercise your mind, you try to discern what is right, what is wrong, and all the while you are eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, and you will be the first one to be killed. And, then if you speak about this, you will spread death.

"But there is another way to discern. This is the way of God." RK


The Audio and a word from Ron
www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?t=50798

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

"There is a statement made about Brother Lee; you can’t ask Brother Lee about it. If you try to discern this way, you will be brought into death. This is serious. You read through this thing, you listen to this thing, you exercise your mind, you try to discern what is right, what is wrong, and all the while you are eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, and you will be the first one to be killed." RK

From post #45,

Amoral is: lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Terry

I think there's a post somewhere more detailed about this event, but I am under the opinion was the so-called sister's rebellion and Max becoming personna non grata was directly related to Max confronting Phillip (1977?). The eyewitness I understand took the steps and brought it to the elder's attention. How was he excommunicated? And by whom?

He was excommunicated by the church per Witness Lee's heavy-handed influence to protect the imagine of the/his ministry.

There were several contributing factors to Max Rapoport getting the ax:

1. The young Galileans "flow" created a lot of havoc as churches throughout the country were gutted of their young people who moved to OC. This was a plan devised by Witness Lee and implemented by Rapoport as his front man. Thus Rapoport was a convenient scapegoat offered up by Lee to appease elders and coworkers who were upset by this "flow".

2. Sandy Rapoport was publicly accused of being in a "sister's rebellion" while her husband was out of town.

3. Prior to and regardless of the young Galilean thing some coworkers and elders were unhappy with Rapoport suddenly becoming Lee's "right hand man" so to speak. They considered him nothing but an uncouth upstart who did not deserve such a position.

4. The final straw was Rapoport confronting Philip Lee about his immoral behavior. That was an absolute no-no!