"Against the Tide" by Angus Kinnear

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

And to whatever "Living Stream Ministry" and "Editora Arvore da Vida" (DYL) and "Good Land Publishers" (TC) types out there who think these ministries are equivalent to the Father's 'oikonomia', I've four words for you: "Philip Lee" and "Timothy Lee". These are actually human enterprises with a godly veneer. WL's ministry was able to usurp WN's ministry because they were both Alpha-based human creations and thus susceptible to usurpation just like any human kingdom. And now BP and TC and DYL are the new controlling Alpha males. Surprise, surprise. The king is dead - long live the king!

For many years I heard the ministry of Titus Chu. While Witness Lee was alive, TC always had to fly under the radar, lest the local "sleeper cells" and the "ministry spies" would report back to LSM that "Cleveland" was doing "their own thing." Before all his lieutenants in the Great Lakes Area, however, TC had to appear valiant and independent of those ministry lackeys at LSM, so he would develop a posture of "respect" for WL, his spiritual "father." In other words, TC would never hold official trainings or publish his own books while WL was alive and thus "disrespect" him, so that the alpha dog in Anaheim would start growling.

Being a dog owner, who has literally hiked thousands of miles of wooded hills with my furry companion, I have learned a little about dog psychology. My dog is known as "omega submissive," and when confronted with an alpha bully, she lays down and submits. When she is with me, she tends to hide between my legs. After losing one such skirmish with "Ollie" the local bully, our vet told us that most dog bites occur to the underside of the dog during so-called submission. In other words, bullies love to bully whether you submit or not, and bully people behave the same as bully dogs.

The accounts of history show us that WL would bully TC, whether TC submitted to WL or not. Likewise, I know of far too many cases where TC would bully other brothers, whether they would submit or not. Like I said, alpha bully ministers are like alpha bully dogs. It makes me just sick to think about how many precious, kind-hearted brothers over the years have been abused by TC, and not one brother ever came to their aid!

I have discussed with brothers on occasion how to best respond to TC's aggression. Each has basically said that TC only respects "push back." TC will limit his abuse only when challenged. Like they say, the only way to deal with a bully is to punch him in the nose.

It troubles me that successful ministers are always compelled to "build empires" for themselves in the name of God. They siphon off the saints' giving and volunteer labor away from the church to build their own pyramids. When things get tough, they beat the rank and file into submission so that they continue to build without straw. They love to teach about how all the saints "need their own ministry," yet how dare they use any of the church's resources to accomplish that.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The accounts of history show us that WL would bully TC, whether TC submitted to WL or not. Likewise, I know of far too many cases where TC would bully other brothers, whether they would submit or not.

We have the purported history of MEB disciplining WN.

We have seen (I saw it myself) WL shaming TC publicly.

We have Ohio's accounts of TC bullying the GLA saints.

What we don't have is the WN-to-WL dynamic. What was WN's leadership style? We have, as I recall WL's accounts of a humble, suffering servant WN who was persecuted by rebellious and misunderstanding saints. Expelled from ministry on false pretenses and so forth. "The woman he was living with was actually his mother." Etc.

But in his writing on "authority" and "submission" WN seems to indicate an authoritarian leadership style that WL praised in MEB, demonstrated publicly with TC and others, and TC and others copied from WL.

But I am not aware of objective, outside (non-LSM) accounts of WN's leadership style with WL and other subordinates.

Is there anything out there on this?

Secondly, I suppose WN could have actually been a "non-bully". But the system which he established of one-church-one-city allowed the bullys to emerge, and eventually dominate. The checks and balances were removed. So WN's leadership history may be irrelevant.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

We have Ohio's accounts of TC bullying the GLA saints.

Just a little clarification.

Most (many?) of the saints in the GLA would actually consider TC to be "grandfatherly." He was rarely overbearing in public, and often was quite charming. It was with the gifted ones, the elders and the workers, that TC could really put to shame, without provocation, notification, or justification.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

TC was rarely overbearing in public... It was with the gifted ones, the elders and the workers, that TC could really put to shame, without provocation, notification, or justification.

Your comment adds a layer to the shaming/dominating-based pattern of "discipling" or "training" relationships.

MEB to WN: check.

WN to WL: ??

WL to TC: check.

TC to his more gifted subordinates: check.

TC's underlings to the GLA rank-and-file: check.

TC didn't bully you directly. Instead he did it through an elder. I suppose you (Ohio) were meant to "disciple" someone else underneath you, as well. As I said, we are looking at a behavioral pattern here; a clear behavioral pattern manifesting itself institutionally through the construction of a worldly, fear- and shame-based hierarchical organization.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

TC didn't bully you directly. Instead he did it through an elder. I suppose you (Ohio) were meant to "disciple" someone else underneath you, as well. As I said, we are looking at a behavioral pattern here; a clear behavioral pattern manifesting itself institutionally through the construction of a worldly, fear- and shame-based hierarchical organization.

The Recovery is definitely a "shame-based hierarchical organization."

I remember the shock Don Rutledge received while visiting Anaheim for a leaders' gathering. He had known "Early-Lee" in the late-60's early-70's, and enjoyed a "brotherly" relationship with Witness Lee, as a younger brother with an older brother. While staying with Ned Nossaman, Don was publicly shamed by Lee. On the way home, Ned started laughing at Don's dismay, and welcomed him to the "weekly ice-cold shower," courtesy of WL.

Recently I spent some time with an old LC friend of mine, being reunited after both of us had been out of the Recovery for some time. We shared a few stories of abuse at the hands of TC and his lieutenants. That time together dispelled any doubts I might have had, that the Recovery was just a breeding ground for bullies.

And they wonder why so many marriages have failed, and why so many of the 2nd generation want nothing to do with them. Many of the American families who survived were because the wife refused to tolerate that nonsense.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I remember the shock Don Rutledge ... was publicly shamed by Lee. On the way home, Ned started laughing at Don's dismay, and welcomed him to the "weekly ice-cold shower," courtesy of WL.

Local church M.O. - first you "brotherly love" them to get them in, and then once they are invested in your scheme, you let them know their place.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Is there anything out there on this?
Secondly, I suppose WN could have actually been a "non-bully". But the system which he established of one-church-one-city allowed the bullys to emerge, and eventually dominate. The checks and balances were removed. So WN's leadership history may be irrelevant.

I would call Nee's deputy authority and MOTA doctrine bullying, or the basis of it. And also his insistence on "Handing Over."

Both revealed and documented in Dr. Hsu's book.