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

[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.

[OBW]

As Ohio has pointed out, I am becoming very cynical about the perception of any so-called blessing of the early days, or the freshness of it all.

With respect to the idea of everyone becoming a functioning member, I am now more likely to understand that people who think they have a part in what goes on are more committed to it than if they are less involved. While I actually agree with participation, the kind of participation that was so fresh and enlivening appears more like the actions of children when not corralled than something that I find patterned in the words of the Bible. So the hook was not necessarily spiritual participation, but enjoyable participation.

And there are many who are still trying to grind it out. I have heard from a now somewhat former member that the way things go now is almost disgusting. Remember the days of actually being the one to call a song? It is over. There is often only one song and LSM dictates which one it will be.

That is surely not so enticing. But those who are hanging on have their memories to comfort them as they dutifully stand in the dirt . . . er, on the ground.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by OBW

As Ohio has pointed out, I am becoming very cynical about the perception of any so-called blessing of the early days, or the freshness of it all.

With respect to the idea of everyone becoming a functioning member, I am now more likely to understand that people who think they have a part in what goes on are more committed to it than if they are less involved. While I actually agree with participation, the kind of participation that was so fresh and enlivening appears more like the actions of children when not corralled than something that I find patterned in the words of the Bible. So the hook was not necessarily spiritual participation, but enjoyable participation.

And there are many who are still trying to grind it out. I have heard from a now somewhat former member that the way things go now is almost disgusting. Remember the days of actually being the one to call a song? It is over. There is often only one song and LSM dictates which one it will be.

That is surely not so enticing. But those who are hanging on have their memories to comfort them as they dutifully stand in the dirt . . . er, on the ground.

"A fish rots from the head down".

I believe if LC is a cult, it was nothing else but cult from beginning. WL put his seed in the soil and now we see the harvest.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

"A fish rots from the head down".

Somehow this saying seems to conflict with your moniker.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

As Ohio has pointed out, I am becoming very cynical about the perception of any so-called blessing of the early days, or the freshness of it all.

You seem to think that I think that all the blessing came thru Lee because he thought that he was the source of all the blessing but I don't think the way you think I think because I think that the blessing was upon the members' seeking the Lord and serving Him in the Spirit like it says in Psalm 133.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You seem to think that I think that all the blessing came thru Lee because he thought that he was the source of all the blessing but I don't think the way you think I think because I think that the blessing was upon the members' seeking the Lord and serving Him in the Spirit like it says in Psalm 133.

No. I am fully aware that probably the majority of any perceived blessing was without reference to him. It was more likely the release from the forms of the Christian trappings we had been caught in. And while there were surely some possible problems, at some level it was just as much a product of the times as anything else. The whole world was busy throwing off the old ways. Hippies, and the beatniks before them. The sexual revolution. Change was in the blood of western society. It could not be kept out of the church.

Now that does not mean that some change was not in order, or that whatever change happened was simply wrong. It just provides a different context for assessing what we found ourselves in. The LRC wasn't the only sort of free-group tossing things aside. Some of the origins of the LRC was in groups that were still associated with mainstream denominations, but also having private gatherings to have experiences outside of those forms. A few got introduced to books by Watchman Nee. And even fewer were introduced to a little China man named Witness Lee. The rest is history.

But many of those free groups slowly dissappeared because they had no leadership or organization. (Odd that in the end there is always some level of organization and leadership.)

I do not pretend that there was nothing real. And I don't suppose that all of that early enjoyment was generated by Lee. But I still have some questions about it as a whole. I'm not sure we really have a good idea what it was we were so enamored with. It has been too long now. Too hard to pin down. Even for Don Rutledge. And I probably trust his assessment more than most.

And what we think about those times is interesting. I have had a couple of talks with my dad. He has indicated that if he had heard anyone talking about apostles in 1973, he would likely have just left then. Strangely, I did hear it, though not necessarily from any message. So perceptions and experiences are often different even in the same location at the same time.

[bearbear]

I just saw a sermon by Francis Chan where he shares about how when ministry leaders break our trust, it affects our ability to trust God. Skip to 15 minutes for this topic. That said, the whole sermon is worthy of watching and it reflects my recent life experience as well so I can vouch for this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2VZEPC4iKA

This is a must see sermon for everyone who felt Witness Lee broke their trust.

[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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

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

I have an old friend who would start sharing from the Bible during this "prophetic" time. Things went fairly well in the beginning since he was new to the place, having just relocated to that mile high city. Then one of the sisters happened to stand and said "Oh praise the Lord, what brother So-n-so said was really good." He grimaced, knowing his time was near.

Afterwards the elders asked if they could "fellowship" with him.

They asked him not to come back.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They asked him not to come back.

Wish it were the other way around.