The LCS Factor

blessD · 08-30-2008, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John

BlessD and Process,

I am so thankful that you two continued to post both during and after the “fireworks” that occurred on this thread. You may have felt that your voices were almost drowned out. I am writing to let you know that I heard you and am praying for you. What your voices did were to put real people with real Local Church abuse in front of us.

BlessD, you mentioned that all of the doctrinal discussions don’t help much with the pain. As I have asked the Lord what I could share with you, I haven’t had anything specific until recently. So, here’s some practical help that you may have already tried: write letters to the ones who hurt you...

John,

I appreciate your experience and thanks for hearing and praying. I am pondering on the approach of writing letters.

Toledo · 08-30-2008, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessD

I really want an escape from debate and politics when it comes to spirtual things. When I open my Bible, I want to quit thinking so hard and SIMPLY enjoy and be enlightened. The same goes for when I write on this forum. I have considered that maybe I should just read and not post... ? don't know... just thinking 'out loud'...

Yup, that's about what I've been doing -- read and not post so much. I'm not looking to score any points for one side or another. I'm tired of so many "sides".

I came to the churches because that was where I found so many who knew and loved the Lord. The main stream denominations that I knew about didn't have much to offer in terms of experience or doctrine.

I got a lot of help from the experiential teachings of WL and Titus (though I pretty much held to the systematic theology from Dallas Theological Seminary).

I am disappointed (but not altogether surprised) that things have turned out so poorly. I am still struggling with baby and bathwater questions:

What to keep?
What to throw out? and
How to go on from here?

blessD · 08-30-2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toledo

Yup, that's about what I've been doing -- read and not post so much. I'm not looking to score any points for one side or another. I'm tired of so many "sides"...

Thanks Toledo, Ironically I deleted what I wrote earlier; I thought maybe I was just being whiney.

Matt Anderson · 08-31-2008, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toledo

I am disappointed (but not altogether surprised) that things have turned out so poorly. I am still struggling with baby and bathwater questions:

What to keep?
What to throw out? and
How to go on from here?

If one was to be as intellectually honest as possible and be willing to through everything out that was not Christ what do we believe the Scripture tells us in regards to how to separate out the baby from the bathwater?

This may well be a question for a another thread, but I sense in this post an honesty and willingness to ask these questions. I don't think these questions should be lost in the fray of this thread even though they have been asked before.

Matt

Thankful Jane · 08-31-2008, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toledo

Yup, that's about what I've been doing -- read and not post so much. I'm not looking to score any points for one side or another. I'm tired of so many "sides".

I came to the churches because that was where I found so many who knew and loved the Lord. The main stream denominations that I knew about didn't have much to offer in terms of experience or doctrine.

I got a lot of help from the experiential teachings of WL and Titus (though I pretty much held to the systematic theology from Dallas Theological Seminary).

I am disappointed (but not altogether surprised) that things have turned out so poorly. I am still struggling with baby and bathwater questions:

What to keep?
What to throw out? and
How to go on from here?

Hi Toledo,

When I read your post, these verses came to mind. Paul knew there were some very good things in his past (the Law, Jehovah God, the priesthood, the temple, etc.) but he said:

Php 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
Php 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
Php 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
Php 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
Php 3:11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
Php 3:12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
Php 3:13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
Php 3:14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
Php 3:15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

With God, it is safe for us to throw everything out except our faith in Him. He is the God of resurrection with whom we can trust everything, even our very lives. Whatever things are of Him will come back in resurrection, in His time. When they do they will be new.

Paul had the best religious experience and instruction possible but he let all of that go, along with his position and prestige, in order to obey the call to follow Jesus. He didn't try to sort it all out. In time God gave Paul a new understanding about all the things in the law and the prophets, one which was out of the shadows and in the full light of day.

It's hard to let go of things we think are of God, but sometimes God asks us to do this. Abraham faced this with Isaac. Isaac was definitely something of God--the fulfillment of His promise to Abraham. But, at one point God asked him to give up Isaac (throwing out the baby and the bathwater!). Because we know that God gave him back, we might fail to grasp the agonizing reality of what Abraham was asked to do. Ultimately, knowing that he had been called to trust God and obey Him, even if it cost him everything, Abraham laid Isaac on that altar. We know the rest of the story.

Actually, Abraham had no idea how many of us would one day read about what he did and learn from it, and be encouraged to imitate his faith. I am thankful he didn't count the cost and gave us all opportunity to see God's amazing faithfulness (not only that, he gave God the way to have an Old Testament figure of Christ.)

May He be the one who persuades you in all things as you follow Him,

Jane

finallyprettyokay · 08-31-2008, 02:54 PM

Note to Admin:

Should Toledo's question become it's own thread, or maybe be moved to the thread Psychological Damage in the LC? It is a really good question, and may get buried in the current thread. (Not that there haven't been responses already ).

Toledo: I have been thinking about this question, as well as the one in the Psychological Damage in the LC thread. When I left the LC, I eventually threw out everything. I don't recommend it.

And I do mean I threw out everything--- God, Jesus, faith, everything --- and eventually, I brought everything back, one at a time. I think Thankful Jane is exactly right:

Quote:

With God, it is safe for us to throw everything out except our faith in Him. He is the God of resurrection with whom we can trust everything, even our very lives. Whatever things are of Him will come back in resurrection, in His time. When they do they will be new.

What I ended up with is so healthy and real --- my relationship with Jesus, my fellowship with other Christians, my relationship with myself --- a wonderful thing to have.

I hope you get lots of responses, and I hope the other thread does also --- these are such good questions.

finallyprettyokay

Matt Anderson · 08-31-2008, 03:32 PM

I’ve been mentioning 1 Corinthians 10 as an important chapter for considering the issues of idolatry. In the Bible I am looking at, it is given the title “Avoiding Israel’s Mistakes”. I don’t think this totally encompassing, but it suffices as a basic idea of what Paul addresses.

It is acknowledged up front that the condition of the Corinthian church as it relates to the issue of idolatry was one which addressed actual physical idols being worshipped by Gentiles as part of what Paul is addressing.

In considering the LC, we are not talking about idols carved from wood and stone. Idols of concept and idea are just as much idols as those of wood and stone. Idols in the form of exalted men are also still idols. If these things replace the Lord in our lives and His place of pre-eminence then they bring us into an idolatrous condition.

It should also be acknowledged before we start that there were things introduced in the LC of by no fault of those who came into the group. They were introduced by a highly gifted, educated worker who was not working solely for the purposes of God, but had wanted things for himself and his family. He used God’s Word for his own personal advantage and financial gain. He used genealogies to entice and sway many to a false way which turns out to be idolatrous. I know that quite a few don’t like it when others bring this into the light, so let me provide some more evidence of this fact for ongoing consideration. (This will take several posts)

I would like to introduce into evidence the events surrounding T. Austin Sparks visits (2 of them) to Taiwan and the eventual split that formed in Taiwan as a result of the disagreement that arose between T. Austin Sparks and Witness Lee.

I want to emphasize one most important point. Time has fully demonstrated that T. Austin Sparks spoke as a true prophet and Lee did not. This point cannot be overemphasized. It is very important in the scheme of things. Lee's falseness was his holding to a particular non-essential doctrine of locality which set a boundary on the Body of Christ that was less than the full Body of Christ.

For a more complete account of T. Austin Sparks speaking that was at the core of Lee and Sparks disagreement, you can listen to him in his own words. The Chinese translator is Witness Lee. Please review the following thread (click here) and find the link to the site that contains an audio recording of T. Austin Sparks message.

The “new” evidence I am producing has been available. It is part of the Morris Fred dissertation from the early 70’s which has been previously posted in it’s entirety (click here)

Please note that this paper was funded by a grant of the US Government. The National Institute of Health issued a training grant (NIGMS-1224) to fund this research. Yes, our God is a sovereign God. This paper was not written by someone who was either “pro” or “anti” LC. It was written by someone who was scholarly interested in Philosophy. This does not make it more or less valid. It just makes God sovereign in all things.

Morris Fred Dissertation - Page 42-44 (Keep in mind that this was written in the early 70's)

Sparks' first visit to Taiwan ran fairly smoothly with the topics of discussion revolving around spiritual revelation and living of the spiritual life. Two years later, Sparks returned to Taiwan and a house was rented for him and his wife and a cook was provided for them.

This time Sparks dealt with the nature of serving within the church, an aspect directly related to church organization. He argued the need for greater communication among all Christians and that remaining only within the bounds of the Local Church is against the idea of the universality of Christ. Lee replied that if one doesn't have a glass, how can one put water into a receptacle, alluding to the need for strict boundaries in order for spiritual growth to take place. Sparks' answer was that Jesus (the water) should not be placed in a receptacle as small as a local church for Jesus is too big.

After various meetings, Lee attacked Sparks' position in meetings with elders and co-workers. He said he had made a mistake in inviting Sparks to Taiwan and that as a guest, Sparks had no right to criticize or suggest changes in the organization of the Assembly Hall Church in Taiwan. One informant present during a small meeting in which Lee criticized Sparks said that he had been shocked by the harsh language used--that Lee had said that Sparks had a superiority complex and was unwilling to listen to others' viewpoints.

The disagreement can be viewed on two levels. In the first place, many of the younger co-workers, who previously had been skeptical of the level of spirituality of foreign Christians, were very impressed with Sparks and his scriptural knowledge. This engendered an interest on their part in reading Sparks' writings and discussing them amongst themselves. Implied in the statements of these informants regarding Lee's reactions is that Lee felt his position as sole head of the church threatened by Sparks. Thus, at one level, the clash was a personal one. At the second level, the important aspect of the "foundation" of the church was at stake. Lee felt that the only scripturally prescribed basis for church organization was the locality and that all church workers should remain within the bounds of the Local Church.

Sparks, however, felt that this doctrine was too dogmatic and had the effect of turning the principle of locality (which had been discussed by Nee) into a doctrine one which another sect or denomination was being formed, hindering the desired goal of universal fellowship among all Christians. Thus, he encouraged the co-workers within the various local churches to establish contact with other church groups and to preach the gospel in meetings other than their own. Lee correctly saw this as a potential subversion of the organization of the Local Church as it existed in Taiwan. The result was that some of the co-workers and elders were sympathetic with Sparks' position and others maintained allegiance to Lee. The publication of Sparks' sermons in the "Ministry of the Word" in 1955 was halted (Note by Matt: I believe the halt came in 1957) and the stage was set for a struggle between the two factions which led to the formal split in 1966.

Please note the timeframe here.

From 1958?/59? -1960 Lee began traveling to the US some. By 1960, Lee stayed in the US. It has been assert that Lee remained in the US starting in 1960 because he was not welcome to return to Taiwan. From 1960-1966 there was turmoil in Taiwan until the split was finalized in 1966. To my knowledge, this breach has never been healed.

It has been asserted by some from the US side of the LC that Lee was a little more “repentant” or “subdued” during his initial years in the US. This claim is made to support the idea that he was “under the blessing” during some of the 60’s. I want to say plainly that I do not believe this is true. Lee was in jeopardy of losing the product of his efforts in Taiwan. He had opportunity in the US and being less welcome in Taiwan he took advantage of the opportunity.

It is entirely possible Lee was “toned down” in the early 60’s, but his behavior patterns did not change. In fact, he was working stealthily to re-exert control in Taiwan. He remained in contact with his “top lieutenants” in Taiwan during the years of 1960-1966 while he was supposedly “under the blessing” in the US.

I believe the truth is more like this. God was pouring out His Spirit in a big way in the US and throughout the world in the 60’s and 70’s. Given Lee’s advanced knowledge of the Word and his claim to a “genealogy” linking him to Watchman Nee, he was able to take control of a system of worship and shape it. Behind him, Satan was subtly working to ensure that this system was one that would actually be a destroyer of God’s faithful. He (the Enemy) did this by exercising particular strength/weaknesses in Lee that had not been fully dealt with by the Lord and were not in full submission to the Lord.

(To be continued)

Nell · 09-01-2008, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

...It is entirely possible Lee was “toned down” in the early 60’s, but his behavior patterns did not change. In fact, he was working stealthily to re-exert control in Taiwan. He remained in contact with his “top lieutenants” in Taiwan during the years of 1960-1966 while he was supposedly “under the blessing” in the US.

Matt, do we know the nature of this contact? Are there letters or other some such indication of what kind of contact took place? Who were the players?

Nell

Thankful Jane · 09-01-2008, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

...If you listen to Sparks' message you will hear him specifically address his concerns in front of the whole church there in Taiwan with Lee translating his message.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

Why did Sparks' tell it to the church? Because Sparks' was being a faithful brother to Witness Lee.

It is documented that Lee and Sparks had already:

a) Discussed this matter privately.
b) Discussed this matter with witnesses to establish the matter

(If you want references to these facts, please respond and I will get them).

Remember Matthew 18 --> (go privately, go with witnesses, tell it to the church). Well, Sparks' was faithful and did it. He did not stop at telling just a few witnesses. He told the whole church. Lee was furious. Sparks had planted a seed (which was based on the truth in the Word of God) that would cost Lee dearly in his pre-eminence in the Taiwan churches.

History now proves that Sparks’ warning was of the Lord. In retrospect, I find it interesting that Lee told us when Sparks rejected the “ground of locality” teaching the blessing left his ministry. I think it was the other way around, especially if you consider what happened in Taiwan next. Lee blamed Sparks for the "rebellion" that occurred, but the truth is that what happened was a result of Lee's stance.

Lee’s insistence on the teaching of the ground of locality immediately resulted in him gathering those around him that supported his treasured teaching and labeling those who didn’t as ones in rebellion. Lee kept in touch with his “lieutenants” throughout the “rebellion” and solidified his hold over a number of brothers and sisters with his ground of locality teaching.

Sparks had warned him that the teaching of the ground of locality would result in a oneness that was narrower than the scope of the whole body of Christ. Lee's teaching proceeded to do exactly that. His “practical oneness” teaching immediately became the basis for excluding as “rebels” all those who did not accept it.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane · 09-01-2008, 02:38 PM

I agree that the ground of locality teaching was not the only thing present in the 50s and 60s in Taiwan. Authority teachings were clearly being practiced, because Lee was dealing with his "lieutenants." Yes, money and property were also involved. All these are roots of a serious problem.

Didn't we become involved in that problem? Didn't we end up with the "locality teaching" becoming a factor of oneness? Didn't we end up with a hierarchy of Lee and his lieutenants who condemned and labeled others as being in rebellion. Didn't we end up fighting over property? There is great big fruit all over the place for us to look at to make these assessments.

When we gave ourselves to Lee's vision and practice, we entered into something that was clearly off track from day one. It was unclean because of what had just happend in Taiwan under Lee's direction. We entered into an unholy alliance with him when we adopted his definition of practical oneness, one that had a smaller scope than the whole Body of Christ. He convinced us we were "standing" for others until they saw. Was this true? We kicked brother's out left and right in the years to come, just like Taiwan, yet we were standing for the oneness of the body of Christ and paving the way for others?

In our early days, yes, we experienced the Lord together! (... and we all still love each other, even though we sometimes behave like a dysfunctional family in the hills of Arkansas a la the Hatfields and the McCoys).

We had wonderful experiences of the Lord together. How could it have been otherwise? We were all believers with the Lord in us. It was an inevitablility. We gave credit to Lee for our experience, but was it to his credit or was it because of Jesus? I was having an huge experience of the Lord before I ever heard the name of Witness Lee and before I had one thought about something called "genuine" oneness. I don't think I'm alone in that. Was our experience really due to our "high vision" of ground of locality? I can now give a resounding NO. I see now that it was in spite of it. Was it because of our developing hierarchy? NO. It was in spite of it. What was the reason for our joy together? JESUS ONLY! JESUS IN YOU. JESUS IN ME.

Did we all become involved in something the Bible calls idolatry? I'll speak for myself. I did. Each one of us has to answer that question for ourself. Maybe God is giving us a head start and time to think about that before He asks us in person. This morning as I was in the Word, I became clear that I had become a worshipper at a high place that Lee set up and I repented in a more thorough way, with more understanding, than I have done before. I'll share more about what I realized about high places in another post.

Thankful Jane

Matt Anderson · 09-02-2008, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Matt, do we know the nature of this contact? Are there letters or other some such indication of what kind of contact took place? Who were the players?

Nell

Nell,

See this post: http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showpost.php?p=228048

It shows the nature of the contact and the players at the "witnessed" discussion between T. Austin Sparks and Witness Lee.

Matt

blessD · 09-01-2008, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toledo

Yup, that's about what I've been doing -- read and not post so much. I'm not looking to score any points for one side or another. I'm tired of so many "sides"...

I am disappointed (but not altogether surprised) that things have turned out so poorly. I am still struggling with baby and bathwater questions:

What to keep?
What to throw out? and
How to go on from here?

I would like to share my own experience to answer these questions. The summary, is to keep what is good, your salvation in Christ, and your faith:

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Hebrews 10:23
Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)

I think I have traversed the spectrum of baby and bathwater scenarios. I was one of those 'lost' children when at 37 I threw it all out and ran from God like a prodigal son. I threw out the baby, the bathwater, the bath tub, the soap, the washcloth - I decided I would be absolutely liberal on all points. Okay, so I found out all things are lawful - BUT not expedient. In short, I was trying to figure out my own opinions since most of my life I did not make decisions for myself. At the end of the road, I found that my salvation remained... what Christ had done for me never changed. I repented for my journey away from Him, but found God loved me just as when he saved me. Everything that had happened to produce faith in me was still there, no matter whether it happened while I was amongst the local churches or Life Church (http://www.lifechurch.tv/ - where I am going now) or when I was a 'lost' child trying to find my way.

08-31-2008, 03:32 PM	#7
Matt Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 155	Sorry... It's long... I’ve been mentioning 1 Corinthians 10 as an important chapter for considering the issues of idolatry. In the Bible I am looking at, it is given the title “Avoiding Israel’s Mistakes”. I don’t think this totally encompassing, but it suffices as a basic idea of what Paul addresses. It is acknowledged up front that the condition of the Corinthian church as it relates to the issue of idolatry was one which addressed actual physical idols being worshipped by Gentiles as part of what Paul is addressing. In considering the LC, we are not talking about idols carved from wood and stone. Idols of concept and idea are just as much idols as those of wood and stone. Idols in the form of exalted men are also still idols. If these things replace the Lord in our lives and His place of pre-eminence then they bring us into an idolatrous condition. It should also be acknowledged before we start that there were things introduced in the LC of by no fault of those who came into the group. They were introduced by a highly gifted, educated worker who was not working solely for the purposes of God, but had wanted things for himself and his family. He used God’s Word for his own personal advantage and financial gain. He used genealogies to entice and sway many to a false way which turns out to be idolatrous. I know that quite a few don’t like it when others bring this into the light, so let me provide some more evidence of this fact for ongoing consideration. (This will take several posts) I would like to introduce into evidence the events surrounding T. Austin Sparks visits (2 of them) to Taiwan and the eventual split that formed in Taiwan as a result of the disagreement that arose between T. Austin Sparks and Witness Lee. I want to emphasize one most important point. Time has fully demonstrated that T. Austin Sparks spoke as a true prophet and Lee did not. This point cannot be overemphasized. It is very important in the scheme of things. Lee's falseness was his holding to a particular non-essential doctrine of locality which set a boundary on the Body of Christ that was less than the full Body of Christ. For a more complete account of T. Austin Sparks speaking that was at the core of Lee and Sparks disagreement, you can listen to him in his own words. The Chinese translator is Witness Lee. Please review the following thread (click here) and find the link to the site that contains an audio recording of T. Austin Sparks message. The “new” evidence I am producing has been available. It is part of the Morris Fred dissertation from the early 70’s which has been previously posted in it’s entirety (click here) Please note that this paper was funded by a grant of the US Government. The National Institute of Health issued a training grant (NIGMS-1224) to fund this research. Yes, our God is a sovereign God. This paper was not written by someone who was either “pro” or “anti” LC. It was written by someone who was scholarly interested in Philosophy. This does not make it more or less valid. It just makes God sovereign in all things. Morris Fred Dissertation - Page 42-44 (Keep in mind that this was written in the early 70's) Sparks' first visit to Taiwan ran fairly smoothly with the topics of discussion revolving around spiritual revelation and living of the spiritual life. Two years later, Sparks returned to Taiwan and a house was rented for him and his wife and a cook was provided for them. This time Sparks dealt with the nature of serving within the church, an aspect directly related to church organization. He argued the need for greater communication among all Christians and that remaining only within the bounds of the Local Church is against the idea of the universality of Christ. Lee replied that if one doesn't have a glass, how can one put water into a receptacle, alluding to the need for strict boundaries in order for spiritual growth to take place. Sparks' answer was that Jesus (the water) should not be placed in a receptacle as small as a local church for Jesus is too big. After various meetings, Lee attacked Sparks' position in meetings with elders and co-workers. He said he had made a mistake in inviting Sparks to Taiwan and that as a guest, Sparks had no right to criticize or suggest changes in the organization of the Assembly Hall Church in Taiwan. One informant present during a small meeting in which Lee criticized Sparks said that he had been shocked by the harsh language used--that Lee had said that Sparks had a superiority complex and was unwilling to listen to others' viewpoints. The disagreement can be viewed on two levels. In the first place, many of the younger co-workers, who previously had been skeptical of the level of spirituality of foreign Christians, were very impressed with Sparks and his scriptural knowledge. This engendered an interest on their part in reading Sparks' writings and discussing them amongst themselves. Implied in the statements of these informants regarding Lee's reactions is that Lee felt his position as sole head of the church threatened by Sparks. Thus, at one level, the clash was a personal one. At the second level, the important aspect of the "foundation" of the church was at stake. Lee felt that the only scripturally prescribed basis for church organization was the locality and that all church workers should remain within the bounds of the Local Church. Sparks, however, felt that this doctrine was too dogmatic and had the effect of turning the principle of locality (which had been discussed by Nee) into a doctrine one which another sect or denomination was being formed, hindering the desired goal of universal fellowship among all Christians. Thus, he encouraged the co-workers within the various local churches to establish contact with other church groups and to preach the gospel in meetings other than their own. Lee correctly saw this as a potential subversion of the organization of the Local Church as it existed in Taiwan. The result was that some of the co-workers and elders were sympathetic with Sparks' position and others maintained allegiance to Lee. The publication of Sparks' sermons in the "Ministry of the Word" in 1955 was halted (Note by Matt: I believe the halt came in 1957) and the stage was set for a struggle between the two factions which led to the formal split in 1966. Please note the timeframe here. From 1958?/59? -1960 Lee began traveling to the US some. By 1960, Lee stayed in the US. It has been assert that Lee remained in the US starting in 1960 because he was not welcome to return to Taiwan. From 1960-1966 there was turmoil in Taiwan until the split was finalized in 1966. To my knowledge, this breach has never been healed. It has been asserted by some from the US side of the LC that Lee was a little more “repentant” or “subdued” during his initial years in the US. This claim is made to support the idea that he was “under the blessing” during some of the 60’s. I want to say plainly that I do not believe this is true. Lee was in jeopardy of losing the product of his efforts in Taiwan. He had opportunity in the US and being less welcome in Taiwan he took advantage of the opportunity. It is entirely possible Lee was “toned down” in the early 60’s, but his behavior patterns did not change. In fact, he was working stealthily to re-exert control in Taiwan. He remained in contact with his “top lieutenants” in Taiwan during the years of 1960-1966 while he was supposedly “under the blessing” in the US. I believe the truth is more like this. God was pouring out His Spirit in a big way in the US and throughout the world in the 60’s and 70’s. Given Lee’s advanced knowledge of the Word and his claim to a “genealogy” linking him to Watchman Nee, he was able to take control of a system of worship and shape it. Behind him, Satan was subtly working to ensure that this system was one that would actually be a destroyer of God’s faithful. He (the Enemy) did this by exercising particular strength/weaknesses in Lee that had not been fully dealt with by the Lord and were not in full submission to the Lord. (To be continued)

09-01-2008, 02:38 PM	#10
Thankful Jane Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Georgetown, Texas Posts: 295	I agree that the ground of locality teaching was not the only thing present in the 50s and 60s in Taiwan. Authority teachings were clearly being practiced, because Lee was dealing with his "lieutenants." Yes, money and property were also involved. All these are roots of a serious problem. Didn't we become involved in that problem? Didn't we end up with the "locality teaching" becoming a factor of oneness? Didn't we end up with a hierarchy of Lee and his lieutenants who condemned and labeled others as being in rebellion. Didn't we end up fighting over property? There is great big fruit all over the place for us to look at to make these assessments. When we gave ourselves to Lee's vision and practice, we entered into something that was clearly off track from day one. It was unclean because of what had just happend in Taiwan under Lee's direction. We entered into an unholy alliance with him when we adopted his definition of practical oneness, one that had a smaller scope than the whole Body of Christ. He convinced us we were "standing" for others until they saw. Was this true? We kicked brother's out left and right in the years to come, just like Taiwan, yet we were standing for the oneness of the body of Christ and paving the way for others? In our early days, yes, we experienced the Lord together! (... and we all still love each other, even though we sometimes behave like a dysfunctional family in the hills of Arkansas a la the Hatfields and the McCoys). We had wonderful experiences of the Lord together. How could it have been otherwise? We were all believers with the Lord in us. It was an inevitablility. We gave credit to Lee for our experience, but was it to his credit or was it because of Jesus? I was having an huge experience of the Lord before I ever heard the name of Witness Lee and before I had one thought about something called "genuine" oneness. I don't think I'm alone in that. Was our experience really due to our "high vision" of ground of locality? I can now give a resounding NO. I see now that it was in spite of it. Was it because of our developing hierarchy? NO. It was in spite of it. What was the reason for our joy together? JESUS ONLY! JESUS IN YOU. JESUS IN ME. Did we all become involved in something the Bible calls idolatry? I'll speak for myself. I did. Each one of us has to answer that question for ourself. Maybe God is giving us a head start and time to think about that before He asks us in person. This morning as I was in the Word, I became clear that I had become a worshipper at a high place that Lee set up and I repented in a more thorough way, with more understanding, than I have done before. I'll share more about what I realized about high places in another post. Thankful Jane Last edited by Thankful Jane; 09-01-2008 at 03:02 PM.