Does 2 Peter 2's warning of false teachers describe Witness Lee?

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Ohio

These kind of statements drive me crazy.

How can we fellowship when you are of Calvin, Igzy is of Paul, and I am of Lee?

Okay, I've taken it out, sorry for that. I'm gonna be gone this weekend and returning to work next week, so I'll be posting less from now on until I come across the next break. It's been nice chatting with y'all even though it's been tense. I'll still be here but not as one who is frantically posting and responding to every single message God bless you all.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Okay, I've taken it out, sorry for that. I'm gonna be gone this weekend and returning to work next week, so I'll be posting less from now on until I come across the next break. It's been nice chatting with y'all even though it's been tense. I'll still be here but not as one who is frantically posting and responding to every single message God bless you all.

God bless you and your family!

[InChristAlone]

A few years ago I asked myself this question, “Was Witness Lee a spiritual man?” By this term I understand those men who are full of God’s Spirit. When you meet them, you feel something special about them. You feel God’s Love, Peace and Compassion shining through them upon you. What about Witness Lee, the man who believed he had been given authority to recover “fallen” Christianity?

I have never met him personally. But I have read his books. I have seen his videos. To me he looks like a scholar/lecturer/prolific author, i.e. a man of knowledge, but not a man of spiritual strength. His knowledge is just facts, skills and information. It’s his theoretical understanding of a subject; while spiritual strength is not information but love.

Brothers, I do not want to condemn Witness Lee, but does anybody want Witness Lee to be his pattern? Do we want to be like him? No way. We want Jesus Christ to be our pattern. Why do leeists follow WL then? Look at their leaders. Do they resemble Witness Lee or Jesus Christ? I do not mean their look. I mean their hearts.

Please check this video. It’s an interview with Father Tadej (an elder and monk) from the Orthodox Church. He was a humble Christian monk. He did not create his own church. He did not teach anything about oneness, the “Body” and other Lord’s recovery “high-peak” truth. His high-peak truth was so simple that he did not look like a man of knowledge. But he had something else. And in my opinion, that’s the core of Christian teachings. He had love in his heart. Look at the eyes of this humble man. He looks like an overcomer more than any Local Church leader.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ficmQ3anAyM

If you like it, you can start watching the interview from beginning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj3UL...c4-overview-vl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2urXBDR8ZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ficmQ3anAyM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84axxCyVELs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Mu-ftKFFNU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8ZCgWOjkcI

[Ohio]

During his early days in the US, many have testified that Witness Lee was a humble servant of God. Even though he was very knowledgeable concerning the scriptures, he had a fresh anointing as he ministered the word. Sometimes change came slowly, and sometimes it came abruptly, but Lee definitely changed.

The books of "later-Lee" definitely contradicted those of "early-Lee." Some posters feel that "later-Lee" was the "real-Lee," and they are probably correct. Irregardless, the condition of those early LC's is basically unrecognizable from what you see today.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

During his early days in the US, many have testified that Witness Lee was a humble servant of God. Even though he was very knowledgeable concerning the scriptures, he had a fresh anointing as he ministered the word. Sometimes change came slowly, and sometimes it came abruptly, but Lee definitely changed.

The books of "later-Lee" definitely contradicted those of "early-Lee." Some posters feel that "later-Lee" was the "real-Lee," and they are probably correct. Irregardless, the condition of those early LC's is basically unrecognizable from what you see today.

Was there a "fresh anointing" on him or was his message just new and different? One can be mistaken for the other.

My impression is that other than an occasional turn aside to someone with a sort of smile when walking through the crowd, he was aloof relative to everyone but his closest circle. And from what they now tell, it was really no different with them. He, like his predecessor Nee, was a loner. He was all-inclusive as to his source and ministry. He never even considered that anything he taught or said was anything but the gospel truth. God's word for the day.

The only thing he displayed that we took to be of the spirit was all of this "wealth" of teaching. We were sure that that much "good stuff" could only come from the spirit. . . . And we were right. From whatever it is that Lee called his spirit came all this stuff. In hindsight, not much Spirit in so much of it. Just different.

Sometimes I think that some of those lines in movies, like "it depends on your point of view" (when Obi Wan was talking to Luke about Vader) are very meaningful. Our perspective in the early days has colored our ability to be objective about it. Because we had a different sense about it then, our sense must be valid. We didn't like the old ways of Christianity, so a new way was better and "of the Spirit." Whether it was actually any more of the Spirit than what we left. But it was our perspective. If we refuse to take a different perspective, we may fail to discover that we have been standing three inches from the left hind leg of an elephant trying to describe the whole of the animal. It was surely different than the trunk. But it was still elephant. But what if we were now standing three inches from the trunk of a dead tree but thought it was still an elephant?

No, the metaphor does not prove anything about the content. But it may shed light on the condition of things as we observe that content. Are we sure that our perspective is clear? That we have honestly reassessed the perspective with which we made our original assessment?

I honestly think that the LRC could go through crazy phase after crazy phase because too much of our feeling was euphoria and not the Spirit. We mistook good feelings for God. We thought that it meant blessing. Instead, we were blessing ourselves with endorphins. And calling them God.

Not saying that everything we were taught was bogus, error, heretical, etc. But we were blind to any of that because our focus may have been called God, but it was too often a feeling. And we still look back in awe at the times because we felt so good then.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Was there a "fresh anointing" on him or was his message just new and different? One can be mistaken for the other.

I knew that post would attract attention.

I base my comments, not only on my limited experience, but on those of other trusted brothers. One of which is the poster Hope, from your neck of the woods.

But you are entitled to your opinion tooooo!

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The books of "later-Lee" definitely contradicted those of "early-Lee." Some posters feel that "later-Lee" was the "real-Lee," and they are probably correct. Irregardless, the condition of those early LC's is basically unrecognizable from what you see today.

I have read something about "early-Lee" and "later-Lee", but there was no detail.

Originally Posted by OBW

My impression is that other than an occasional turn aside to someone with a sort of smile when walking through the crowd, he was aloof relative to everyone but his closest circle. And from what they now tell, it was really no different with them. He, like his predecessor Nee, was a loner. He was all-inclusive as to his source and ministry. He never even considered that anything he taught or said was anything but the gospel truth. God's word for the day.

The only thing he displayed that we took to be of the spirit was all of this "wealth" of teaching. We were sure that that much "good stuff" could only come from the spirit. . . . And we were right. From whatever it is that Lee called his spirit came all this stuff. In hindsight, not much Spirit in so much of it. Just different.

Sometimes I think that some of those lines in movies, like "it depends on your point of view" (when Obi Wan was talking to Luke about Vader) are very meaningful. Our perspective in the early days has colored our ability to be objective about it. Because we had a different sense about it then, our sense must be valid. We didn't like the old ways of Christianity, so a new way was better and "of the Spirit." Whether it was actually any more of the Spirit than what we left. But it was our perspective. If we refuse to take a different perspective, we may fail to discover that we have been standing three inches from the left hind leg of an elephant trying to describe the whole of the animal. It was surely different than the trunk. But it was still elephant. But what if we were now standing three inches from the trunk of a dead tree but thought it was still an elephant?

No, the metaphor does not prove anything about the content. But it may shed light on the condition of things as we observe that content. Are we sure that our perspective is clear? That we have honestly reassessed the perspective with which we made our original assessment?

I honestly think that the LRC could go through crazy phase after crazy phase because too much of our feeling was euphoria and not the Spirit. We mistook good feelings for God. We thought that it meant blessing. Instead, we were blessing ourselves with endorphins. And calling them God.

Not saying that everything we were taught was bogus, error, heretical, etc. But we were blind to any of that because our focus may have been called God, but it was too often a feeling. And we still look back in awe at the times because we felt so good then.

Thanks for such a thoughtful and interesting observation!

WL really looks like a loner who struggles to do his best to prove his theories. I loved some points in his books but generally, I find them boring. My wife and I still read "The Holy Word for Morning Revival" but most of the messages are tedious. Well, I do not ask for some "feel-good" stuff, but I don't find any valuable content in that mishmash. It's a mechanical structure, full of words, nothing much of Spirit. I always wonder how saints stand up and prophesy. The messages are hardly related to me. (They were related years ago, but not anymore). It's almost as spiritual as a phone book.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I have read something about "early-Lee" and "later-Lee", but there was no detail.

Early-Lee had an effect on our lives and our personal walk with Christ, made the scriptures alive, emphasized the individual local churches, allowed for other ministers to develop, and basically his ministry served the churches.

Later-Lee was filled with tedious doctrines and systematized theology, indoctrinations about "the body" to manipulate us and keep us in the fold, allowed no other ministry, stifled the leading of the Spirit, and basically all the churches existed to serve his ministry.

The elders meeting in Jan 1974 (Hope once posted a laundry list of changes which Lee initiated) signaled a radical change in the movement, and the "new way" of 1985 signaled the complete takeover.

Others have said that Lee was always abusive, controlling, and heretical, and they may be right. Those I have read and talked to from the earliest days say that was not the case. I go by what has occurred, not by what may or not have been in Lee's heart.

After Lee passed away, grumblings in the leadership surfaced between Anaheim and Cleveland. In the late 90's, Titus Chu had all workers and elders go back and read what W. Lee had taught about pertinent topics affecting the leadership of the movement. Titus Chu presented stacks of documents replete with quotes from Lee's earlier books to the Blended Brothers in order to influence them. These were never read. The Blendeds felt that only they knew the "real" Lee, having sat with him personally, and had received his "unedited" ministry.

The writings of "early-Lee" which they documented provided a stark contrast to his "new way" and "high peak" periods, which I called "later-Lee." One example which became relevant to the quarantines which took place, at about the time you entered the Recovery, was the matter of publishing. The Blendeds issued an edict that all publications besides LSM were banned. Both Chu of Cleveland and Dong of Brazil had an extensive list of booksby then, and more in the works. Titus Chu justified this by going back to when Lee actually promoted this.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Early-Lee had an effect on our lives and our personal walk with Christ, made the scriptures alive, emphasized the individual local churches, allowed for other ministers to develop, and basically his ministry served the churches.

Later-Lee was filled with tedious doctrines and systematized theology, indoctrination about "the body" to manipulate us and keep us in the fold, allowed no other ministry, stifled the leading of the Spirit, and basically all the churches existed to serve his ministry.

Thank you, Ohio. So I guess Lee's great idea to make each saint work as a functioning member comes from his early years. And his tedious doctrines are his later "high-peak" truth.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I have read something about "early-Lee" and "later-Lee", but there was no detail.



Thanks for such a thoughtful and interesting observation!

WL really looks like a loner who struggles to do his best to prove his theories. I loved some points in his books but generally, I find them boring. My wife and I still read "The Holy Word for Morning Revival" but most of the messages are tedious. Well, I do not ask for some "feel-good" stuff, but I don't find any valuable content in that mishmash. It's a mechanical structure, full of words, nothing much of Spirit. I always wonder how saints stand up and prophesy. The messages are hardly related to me. (They were related years ago, but not anymore). It's almost as spiritual as a phone book.

Bro InChristAlone to tell it like I see it : Yer goose is cooked. Yer mind has jumped the LRC fence. It's free now. And can't go back.

And if your wife loves you more than the local church your marriage will make it. If not yer in fer a break up. Either way hang in there bro.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro InChristAlone to tell it like I see it : Yer goose is cooked. Yer mind has jumped the LRC fence. It's free now. And can't go back.

And if your wife loves you more than the local church your marriage will make it. If not yer in fer a break up. Either way hang in there bro.

Bro awareness, I don't really know if my wife loves me more than the local church. (I'll have to check it out). I just know she loves God more than she loves me. (And that's fine with me). As for God and the local church, I just pray so that she see the difference.

I'll really leave it to the Lord, but I'll also do my part. I know my goal. I know what I can do to achieve it. Though I don't know if I pull it off or not. But who knows? I want to fulfill God's will, not mine. "And when His will and yours are one, circumstances can’t stop you."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

WL really looks like a loner who struggles to do his best to prove his theories. I loved some points in his books but generally, I find them boring. My wife and I still read "The Holy Word for Morning Revival" but most of the messages are tedious. Well, I do not ask for some "feel-good" stuff, but I don't find any valuable content in that mishmash. It's a mechanical structure, full of words, nothing much of Spirit. I always wonder how saints stand up and prophesy. The messages are hardly related to me. (They were related years ago, but not anymore). It's almost as spiritual as a phone book.

Usually I define as Early-Lee has messages spoke prior to 1974 and later Lee as 1974-1997.
As for The Holy Word for Morning Revival, it's just clanging cymbals. Sure someone can prophesy from it on Sunday morning.
1. Do they comprehend what they're prophesying?
2. Does it correspond into daily life situations?

By comparison, I find more value for example in Proverbs, the Book of James, etc in providing depth for daily living.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Usually I define as Early-Lee has messages spoke prior to 1974 and later Lee as 1974-1997.
As for The Holy Word for Morning Revival, it's just clanging cymbals. Sure someone can prophesy from it on Sunday morning.
1. Do they comprehend what they're prophesying?
2. Does it correspond into daily life situations?

By comparison, I find more value for example in Proverbs, the Book of James, etc in providing depth for daily living.

And a hearty "Amen" to that!

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Terry

As for The Holy Word for Morning Revival, it's just clanging cymbals. Sure someone can prophesy from it on Sunday morning.
1. Do they comprehend what they're prophesying?
2. Does it correspond into daily life situations?

1 I am not sure. I have stopped listening. When they start prophesying, I fish out my phone and start reading the news.

2. Does it correspond into daily life situations? Sometimes it does. Generally, if it's not related to their lives, it's all idle talk and sound waves. I really wonder how some saints can talk non-stop. They have a knack for it. I have never had such mental abilities.

I have one of those "revival" things on my table. Its title says "Entering into the Fourth Stage of the Experience of Life to Arrive at a Full-grown Man for the Fulfillment of God's Purpose." English is not my native language. I had to reread the title three times... each time with admiration of a rare genius of the unknown luminaries who struggle to translate this first-grade nonsense into my mother tongue.