The LCS Factor

[Thankful Jane]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

[Thankful Jane]

This morning I started reading in Malachi. Before my journey in the Word with Jesus was over, I had received a new understanding about high places in the O.T.

In the O. T. all the children of Israel had to go and worship the Lord in Jerusalem. The oneness of the children of Israel was maintained by their going there three times a year to worship. Brothers had to reconcile on the way there because they had to appear before the Lord in good and pleasant unity. (Psa. 133)

Jerusalem was where God had chosen to put His name. His name meant that He was there. So, it’s clear that God had a big family and He wanted them to have a harmonious unity. The ten commandments were the rules for His family to live by to keep a good relationship with Him and each other. If they broke them they had to make things right with God and one another, accordingly, when they came to appear before Him.

Where do we go to worship Him in the N.T.? Lee, not the Bible, told us that the New Testament reality of Jerusalem was the ground of locality. What does the Bible tell us? (John 4:20-24) We worship in spirit and in truth, not in a physically defined place such as a city locality. God wants us as His family to be in right relationship to Him and in unity and harmony with every member of the body of Christ--His and our big family. We cannot worship Him in spirit and in truth if we have offenses against God and/or others on our conscience. If I go to worship and remember an open offense against a brother, I have to stop and clear up the problem with my brother, then I can come back to worship Him in spirit and in truth.

At the moment of our new birth we became part of the one loaf. Lee wrongly told us that the "genuine" oneness had been lost and needed to be recovered. He then told us that the way to recover the oneness was to recover the practice of the ground of locality. This became a major part of our “governing vision,” one that we had and others did not have, our “special calling.”

Lee’s definition of oneness was not the same as the Bible’s. It was restrictive. It was too small in scope, just as Sparks said. According to Lee, if you didn’t believe and practice the genuine oneness on the ground of locality, you were not in the genuine oneness.

In the O.T., they were forbidden to worship any where other than Jerusalem. To set up a high place in another place and worship there was equal to dividing themselves from the rest of the family of Israel. If they did, they were establishing a oneness of a smaller scope than God defined. God cared about the oneness of His whole family. When they stopped recognizing the whole family by setting up high places, the Bible says they profaned the covenant and dealt treacherously with their brothers.

Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

In the New Testament, God’s name (and His presence) is for all His children to enjoy together. We are taught to pray “Our” Father, hallowed be thy name. If we set up a high place that defines oneness in a smaller scope than the whole family of believers, we can deal treacherously against our brother, who is not worshipping in, and according to, our high place, and then proceed to worship without having to clear up the offense with him. To behave in this way is to profane our new covenant relationship with God and one another.

Our basis of oneness with all believers is the NAME of Jesus. In the N. T. we do not have to come to a physical place to worship God. We are to worship Him in spirit in truth. Such worship governs our oneness. We have to take care of sins between each other or we cannot worship Him in spirit and truth. Our fellowship with Him is broken by our having broken relationships with others in his family. It is very serious for us to have problems with anyone in the Body of Christ, and we are told to always go the distance to reconcile. So, if we have lost anything related to oneness that needs to be "recovered", it is the practice of reconciling.

The scope of oneness in the N. T. is the whole body of Christ. Lee set up a definite high place (a new definition of oneness, smaller in scope than the whole body of Christ) and whoever accepted this, began to worship at another altar. He and his followers offended God by making the scope of His family smaller than it is. Those in the LCs only keep oneness among themselves and deal treacherously with their brothers who are not worshipping at their high place. They offend the body of Christ and even feel good about it, believing they are serving God.

Thankful Jane

[Matt Anderson]

I'm introducing some additional source material for review (and yes, I am still going somewhere on topic with all of this! This is still about the LCS factor ). This is another excerpt from the Morris Fred paper. In case anyone is not aware, I am using this paper to establish a key fact. Witness Lee was the same before coming to the US. His temporary lull in bad behavior may not have been at all about repentance but rather about re-exerting control in Taiwan. The good report about Lee in America was one of the tools used to re-establish his pre-eminence among the Taiwanese by the late 60's/early 70's. Lee needed leverage in Taiwan in order to re-establish his pre-eminence among as many of the Taiwanese churches as possible.

It should also be noted that the same tools Lee used in Taiwan to construct a system of worship that was not wholly focused on the Lord, he also used in the United States. There were no differences.

Please note that Morris Fred has rightly detected three of the major ills that we have spoken about on these forums.

1) "Church Ground" (i.e. ground of locality) as the organizational base of the church.

The "ground of locality" was among Lee's first topics in the US. I will find and quote Jim Reetzke on this issue who has written a pro-LC version of LC history. He notes that Lee introduced these concepts of the "ground of locality" from the very beginning of his time in the US. The So. Cal brothers were anxious for Lee to stay in the US so that they could establish a church on the "proper" ground and Lee finally did stay. They had already been meeting in LA, but they were desirous of being on the "proper ground of locality". Hmm...??? Do we see a problem here?

Important Note: I will return to this fact in another post, but note for now that Lee had just been admonished by T. Austin Sparks on this issue and this didn't sway Lee. It strengthened his choice on this doctrine.

See Titus 3:10 - the work "heretick", "factious", or "sectarian" comes from the Greek word:

hairetikos - 1 fitted or able to take or choose a thing. 2 schismatic, factious, a follower of a false doctrine. 3 heretic

and hairetikos comse from hairetizo - 1 to choose. 2 to belong to a sect.

Yes. Lee made a strong choice in regards to this teaching. This forms the basis of heresy if the chosen doctrine turns out to be false. As a doctrine, I believe it has proven to be false.

2) "Positional Authority" (i.e. deputy authority)

We know that he introduced the concepts of "Deputy Authority" in seed form in the mid-sixties to a future inner circle of men who could potentially form one of the layers of hierarchy in this system of worship. This information was not given out freely, because if it were it could fall into the hands of those who would recognize it's source (the Enemy).

We know that where the Local Churches ended up was under a system of hierarchical control that verbally denies hierarchy, but behaviorally exhibits it to a tremendous degree.

3) "Preaching" (i.e. God's oracle, Minister of the Age)

I don't think I have to say much about this one.

----------------------------------------------------------------

The above facts (which will be repeated below) are highlighted because there is a tendency among LCer's and ex-LCer's to discount outside voices. In this excerpt you will read about the methods that Morris Fred used to identify these three items.

In addition, 40+ years of additional evidence from other case examples of problematic situations have proven Mr. Fred to be true.

After this post, I will present additional anecdotal evidence from Mr. Fred's paper that he shares as reports from those involved in the Taiwan split.

Keep in mind: This was written in 1972-75

Page 198-206

Examination of the 1966 split in the Local Church illustrates the relationship between changes in the church's organization and ritual. As noted in Chapter II, Sparks' visit had undermined the ongoing dialectic between world view and experience by challenging the boundaries defining the organization. Once the dissidents left, it was up to Witness Lee to rebuild the church organization on which this world-building dialectic is based. How he did this comprises the subject matter of this chapter.

As stated before, in referring to the history of the bitter split which occurred in the Local Church, individuals on either side supplied information when tended to justify their respective positions. An analysis of the types of information recalled provides insight into the fundamental causes of the disagreement. In general, those who left attacked Lee's manipulation of power within the church as well as other personal behavior. In addition, much attention was paid to what were considered heretical ideas and strange developments in the church ritual after the split. On the other hand, supporters of Lee concentrated on many of the dissidents' desire for personal status that led them to forsake the only true church. To them the proof of God's support for their position lies in the reality of their own successful growth when compared with that of the other group whose Taipei membership is merely several hundred. This may be the reason for the Local Church brethren's general silence regarding the details of the split--discussion could only injure their position by introducing the issue to the more than half the members who have been baptized since the split. Thus, revelation of such events is carefully controlled, as by Witness Lee in a sermon to young brethren at a special meeting (2/12/72). This sermon, as well as three articles written with respect to the split in Hong Kong, is my main source for the pro-Lee position. For the opposite side, I have depended on interviews, a public letter (Shr, 1970), and the Hong Kong magazine article referred to in Chapter II (Lu, 1973)

<< Note from Matt: Does anyone have this public letter (Shr, 1970)? >>

Despite the different information supplied by each group, there are certain points of agreement regarding the dispute. All parties noted that it was tragic and upsetting and had an adverse effect, during its duration, on church growth and unity. Many of the individuals who left the church ranked high in the leadership hiearchy of the church. Because of this, there was much confusion among the brethren regarding the reasons for the conflict. One informant remembered that immediately after the split, attendance at church meetings floundered and many brethren not directly involved wandered about to other church services. Moreover, while the dispute in Taiwan has been finalized and the situation among the various parties is somewhat stable, its effects still linger in Hong Kong. There it has taken on even more drastic aspects, with groups opposing Witness Lee "occupying" church buildings and forcing Lee to turn to the courts for resolution. Given the world view of the brethren, one can imagine the effect of taking spiritual disagreements to secular courts for resolution.

Those interviewed, to whichever group they belonged, agreed that Sparks' visit marked the point in which disagreement began within the Local Church. For those who broke with Lee, however, this visit served merely as a catalyst for quarrels in which underlying tensions became manifest. One informant noted that even before Sparks' visit, he had become concerned with Lee's overemphasis on Nee's concept of the principle of locality. He said that when he questioned Lee, Lee responded by stating that the worker was very young and "what could he know about things such as this." This picture substantiated the overall one of the early years in the church development in Taiwan in which Witness Lee maintained close scrutiny and control over all the co-workers, viewing the relationship as one similar to that between father and children. Time and again various informants recalled the strictness with which Lee directed them in their early training.

This strictness was maintained over the years and as the various co-workers and elders grew within the church organization, they matured and began to question absolute parental authority. One informant has suggested the great importance placed in Chinese churches on authority and discipline (Yu, p.I, 1974); thus, Sparks' prestige and background as a spiritual leader made him a logical alternative to Lee as a source of inspiration without the direct control involved. In stating the three reasons for his own leaving the church, one ex-worker in the Local Church was able to summarize the basic points of disagreement between Lee and the dissidents. They were: church ground, preaching, and positional authority. As will be shown in the ensuing discussion these three elements are not only closely related but also were mentioned with different emphasis by the opposing factions.

"Church ground" (Jyau Hwei Li Chang): is the literal translation for a church's organizational base; in the case of the Local Church that ground is the principle of locality. The nature of church organization has been previously mentioned as the focal point of disagreement between Lee and T. Austin-Sparks. On Taiwan the brethren within the Local Church had been discouraged from the close contact with Christians of other denominations. Lee argued that the ground for building the church was prescribed in scriptures as being that of locality. Any other basis for church organization was considered non-scriptural and thus damaging to the unity of the body of Christ. Universal church unity could only be achieved by restoring the church on the basis of independent local churches maintaining contact and fellowship through the offices of apostle and workers, much like the situation during Paul's time. On the other side of the argument, it was maintained that Lee carried the doctrine of locality to its extreme and was using it to create a denomination such as those that already exist. As such it was not furthering the cause of Christian unity but rather disrupting it. One individual mentioned that while working with Nee on the mainland, he had many friends in other Christian denominations, but while in Taiwan, his contacts were exclusively with Christians within the Local Church. The Local Church shunned (and does to this day) any participation in ecumenical organizations, and this was seen as being in direct contradiction of the spiritual unity of all Christians. Many of these younger co-workers were in agreement with Sparks' statement that the Local Church had been working on too narrow a ground for the growth and spiritual development of Christianity in Taiwan. In effect the dissidents saw Lee as creating an exclusive church on a doctrinal basis of rejecting people with different spiritual feelings.

"Preaching": Immediately following Sparks' departure, Lee expressed his displeasure with the latter's ideas in meetings with his co-workers in Taipei. Nevertheless, several of the co-workers and elders had been impressed with Sparks and began meeting together to read the latter's works. The core of this group was at the Third Assembly Hall. When Lee discovered that such meetings were taking place, he was very angry with the culprits. He felt that they had been meeting behind his back and in doing so were challenging his authority as church apostle.

In addition several of the co-workers heeded Sparks' advice to begin preaching among Christians of other denominations. They were either reprimanded or relieved of their positions as co-workers. Moreover, to insure that those sympathetic to Sparks' ideas would not be able to disseminate them among other church brethren, Lee began to demand that all speakers for the church follow an outline distributed by Lee instead of using their own ideas. To many of them this contradicted the notion that preaching should be spontaneous, according to direction by the Spirit.

"Positional Authority": While the first area of disagreement was discussed in theoretical terms, the problem of authority within the Local Church was revealed in terms of information specific to personalities within the church. The first group of arguments which we will examine regard the person of Witness Lee himself. Several instances were noted in which the integrity of Lee was questioned. One dealt with the finances within the church; the other with Lee's personal moral standards. It should be noted here that this information comes exclusively from those who left the church and there is little information regarding this aspect on the other side. Nonetheless, it was reiterated by several sources (without coaching or leading questions by me). After Sparks left Taiwan, Lee used church funds to go to the United States and England where he visited the church group of Sparks, who according to my informants was not aware of the great hostility Lee felt toward him. Later Lee discovered that his wife had cancer. After returning to Taiwan, he decided to go to the United States to seek medical assistance. At this point, the rather blurred boundaries between church and personal wealth first caused friction. Some members wondered if the church would provide funds for their wives should the need arise for them to go to the United States. It was decided that Lee's wife's contributions to the church warranted making such an exception. The treatments, however, were not successful and she soon died. Within a year, Lee's reputation was not enhanced by his marriage to a sister whose previous simple appearance soon changed to one affected by jewelry, make-up, and a fancy coiffeur. The remarriage within one year of the death of his first wife was considered in bad tasted and some members began to complain that Lee, who often expounded on the need to de-emphasize the matters of the flesh, had perhaps lost his spirituality. A church sister noted that this opposition had been countered by reference to the consequences of Aaron's and Miriam's criticism of Moses' marriage, the former was stricken with a skin disease. The analogy suggested that like Moses, Lee was only responsible to the Lord and no one had the right to interfere with his personal decision. This argument reflected the view that Lee as modern day apostle of Christ held a position above the rest of the members and was thus responsible only to God for his actions.

In the area of finance, a second problem arose when large sums of money were given to Lee's son for investment purposes in the United States, whether for personal or church gain is disputed. When challenged for using church funds for private gains, Lee allegedly replied that the money had been given to him personally by overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia and that nothing illegal or immoral had occurred.

Other complaints regarding the authority of Lee were also mentioned.

(To be continued)

Matt

[Matt Anderson]

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

[Shawn]

Hi Matt,

Thanks for bringing to the forum this historical document that gives full exposure to both sides of this discussion.

I would say that the full picture shows the degree of problems that resulted from the exclusive position that the ministry took concerning the ground of oneness, but does not prove the teaching itself is heretical.

I did look at T. Austin Sparks message that I found on ”the other forum,” where again, the doctrine was not assailed, only that if the doctrine were carried out with an impure heart, the results would be damaging.

I do acknowledge the damage that has been done to the churches by the carrying out of this doctrine in the way of exclusivity, but cannot declare this teaching to be heretical, as surely there can be an expression of one church in each city; all you need to do is read the New Testament.

Can this be realized today? I’m not sure, as the differences that make each group unique may be near impossible to bridge, but this does not take away from the fact that the ground of oneness can be realized today if sought after by those whose hearts burn for the establishing of one testimony as led and established in the Holy Spirit.

Yours in Christ,

Shawn

[finallyprettyokay]

So, am I getting this right? From almost the very beginning, there were questions concerning money, morality, Lee, and his son? And Deputy Authority. It was all there from the beginning.

We were really duped.


fpo


Oh, by the way --- a few posts back, blessD mentioned a sister from Taiwan who did not understand the way American sisters were so austere, and questioned our lack of wedding festivities. BlessD -- did you know that WL's daughter, married just a few years after my husband and I, had a wedding that cost a princely sum? Always two standards ---- no wonder WL didn't like the book of James. He perfected being a respector of persons. Heck, he made doctrines about it. Go for the good material, all that bunk.

Duped No More.

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Hi Matt,

Thanks for bringing to the forum this historical document that gives full exposure to both sides of this discussion.

I would say that the full picture shows the degree of problems that resulted from the exclusive position that the ministry took concerning the ground of oneness, but does not prove the teaching itself is heretical.

I did look at T. Austin Sparks message that I found on ”the other forum,” where again, the doctrine was not assailed, only that if the doctrine were carried out with an impure heart, the results would be damaging.

I do acknowledge the damage that has been done to the churches by the carrying out of this doctrine in the way of exclusivity, but cannot declare this teaching to be heretical, as surely there can be an expression of one church in each city; all you need to do is read the New Testament.

Can this be realized today? I’m not sure, as the differences that make each group unique may be near impossible to bridge, but this does not take away from the fact that the ground of oneness can be realized today if sought after by those whose hearts burn for the establishing of one testimony as led and established in the Holy Spirit.

Yours in Christ,

Shawn

Shawn,

I hear your point and I understand that many feel we can draw a distinction on the issues related the "ground of locality". If you have some time to listen to T. Austin Sparks message I think it would be valuable to consider. He makes a particularly strong point on this fact. It goes something like this (i'm paraphrasing):

"It is a very great peril when we try to resolve a spiritual reality into a technical system". ... "It has been my (TAS) struggle to avoid this problem".

He's saying that when we try to put our hands on this spiritual reality of our oneness with all believers we mess it up and it is very dangerous when you try it.

My main point is that the "ground of locality" is heretical as a doctrine. When men try to implement it as a "practical" reality there are always problems. I believe that this happens because trying to implement it "practically" goes against the reality of what God is doing. Our oneness with all believers is something we acknowledge in our hearts but we cannot implement in practical reality. Here is why I say this...

If we try to bring everyone into the same "practical expression" it requires us to use the "tools of men" (incorporation, buildings, scheduled meetings, etc.) None of these things do anything to promote or take away from the fact that we are one. This is a reality. It just is. Nothing men can do can advance it. The only thing we can do by trying to implement it among ourselves is to deny the reality of our oneness by trying to make some "practical expression" of it. We implicitly "divide" and "section" off the Body of Christ from itself in the very attempt.

It's one of those oxymoronic items. If you try to do it, you fail. If you don't try to do it, then you may still fail if your heart isn't right. The only way it can be done, is to not do it but acknowledge the reality of it. It's unsound doctrine to teach others that they should try to implement it. What is sound is helping each person learn how to be one with every other member of the Body of Christ. This isn't a group thing. This is a one at a time issue.

What I am talking about here is faith. We believe we are one because we are one. To attempt to make a "practical expression" of it like Lee did is actually an act of unbelief. It's basically saying, "we are only one if we can see it with our eyes." I don't believe that is faith. I believe it is unbelief.

Matt

P.S. I realize there are other views on this and I've got no corner on the market on what I am saying here. However, I do think that the "ground of locality" issue has been tested, reviewed and it will fail again and again. God will not fail in this, but men always will. In order to succeed you have to have control over the whole Body of Christ. Only Jesus Christ has that! He is the Head!!!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Can this be realized today? I’m not sure, as the differences that make each group unique may be near impossible to bridge, but this does not take away from the fact that the ground of oneness can be realized today if sought after by those whose hearts burn for the establishing of one testimony as led and established in the Holy Spirit.

Yours in Christ,

Shawn

Hi Shawn. Only by the Lord can it be realized and not by our natural concepts or preferences towards a particular ministry. There are many differences to bridge, but only if we take Christ as our common ground is there a way. It is ideal, but not practical to seek one testimony of the Lord and in the Holy Spirit. It's what we see in I Corinthians that is the obstacle; I of Cephas, I of Apollos, etc.

Terry

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Hi Matt,

I would say that the full picture shows the degree of problems that resulted from the exclusive position that the ministry took concerning the ground of oneness, but does not prove the teaching itself is heretical.

Shawn

I had one further thought regarding your concern about the use of the word "heresy". Paul & Titus mention something called "sound doctrine".

Even if we are unwilling to say that the "ground of locality" is not heresy in it's doctrinal form I believe we can say that it is not completely sound doctrine because it implicitly divides the Body of Christ. You cannot take a stand on the "ground of locality/ground of oneness" like they do in a Local Church without implicitly dividing the Body of Christ inside any recognizable geographic region.

To me, this makes the concept of "ground of locality" unsound. Setting aside Lee's narrower conception of the "ground of locality" does nothing to disturb the oneness of the Body of Christ.

Details on "Sound Doctrine":

G5198 hugiainō
From G5199; to have sound health, that is, be well (in body); figuratively to be uncorrupt (true in doctrine): - be in health, (be safe and) sound, (be) whole (-some).

G1319 - didaskalia
From G1320; instruction (the function or the information): - doctrine, learning, teaching.

1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

2Ti 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Tit 2:1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

Matt

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by Matt

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

It is amazing to read this about what occurred in Taiwan in 1957:


Then Witness Lee argued with TAS saying, "We say that the Church Ground is one locality one church, which means Unity in one city." TAS said: "If you mean that the Church Ground means Unity in one city, it means that you agree with my opinion, and disagree with yourselves! One locality or one church teaching or other teachings cannot bring Unity among Christians. Only Christ Himself can bring Christians true Unity, not only in one place, but also in other places! The truth is: Things divide; Christ unites!" When I heard this, it was a second shock to me; in fact, the Church Ground teaching collapsed within me and I totally abandoned that teaching from that moment.

Witness Lee argued again, but TAS said, “If you follow the Holy Spirit's leading and do something according to the examples in the New Testament, that is good, but don’t say 'this is the only way'! The Holy Spirit is too big to comprehend.” (As I understand it he meant: Don’t say that other Christian bodies are all concubines and are not the Church.) Then TAS said: "There is no need to continue this kind of meeting!" And immediately the meeting ended!


We see from this posting that Witness Lee apparently had an agenda. He always preached and taught for us to come back to the pure Christ. But apparently he only wanted us to come back on his (WL’s) terms. It would have been better for us all to realize that “the Holy Spirit is too big to comprehend” and in turn to have questioned Witness Lee’s insistence on his teaching of “one locality one church.” However, as young, idealistic people—many newly saved—we jumped on the bandwagon as Witness Lee “rode” the tide of the Jesus Movement in the United States and we evidently became his “franchises.”

I agree with finallyprettyokay that we were really duped.

[Hope]

TJ,
Here are a few quotes from a previous post. Any bold phrases are from me.

Please quote my bitter accusations against you so I can see what you are talking about. No I don’t see how what I have done is the same. You’ll need to explain how.

I do not find a bitter tone or resentment. These are comments made about the actual event that actually happened.

Obviously the most glaring thing of importance was the very abuse that you went through--abuse which was nothing less than a psychological and spiritual gang rape, and this was done in front of your parent's who sat there silently watching. Words fail me.

but the fact is that any other response to your story is not normal. I am sorry you had to have insult added to injury by having your story questioned. It made me think of someone who finally is able to come forward and report a shameful crime who finds themselves being questioned like they were the criminal.

In this case it seems that the prime directive quickly became minimizing your story or finding a way to make it go away. BlessD, I am sorry for this treatment. You didn’t deserve it.

I can see how this offended you, however, I wasn’t talking to you directly and it was not meant to be hateful to you. It was meant to be kind to BlessD. I made a choice between taking care of how you might feel and how she might feel. I chose to take care of her. I would do it again. I do not hate you at all. I just don’t like how you have been behaving on this thread.
There is no question that you have never harmed me in any way. I also have no intention to harm you.

I am now aware you are offended and I am sorry that I offended you. I am willing to go the distance with you to clear up the offense. If you need me to be more specific, then I will need more specific explanation of what you want me to apologize for.

Above are a few quotes from your post. I have no desire to get into a “prove it debate.” Over the past months, you have basically taken a mode of “be on the alert to put down whatever Don says since he was once an elder.” But I was never an elder related to you nor did I ever have any interaction with you in that capacity.

I knew you as a very intense person and have assumed that many of your posts and choice of language were only a reflection of your personality and that I was sometimes caught in the crossfire due to my alleged position in the Texas churches. I have always kept in my mind an image of you as I knew you and John when we were in Houston together. You both were first and foremost dedicated lovers of Christ with a heart for people in the Kingdom of God and a desire for those who were not that they could be saved. Because of your statement, “I just don’t like how you have been behaving on this thread” I now realize that the sharpness and put down of recent language had nothing to do with Benson, Ray etc but reflected how you desired to treat me in the current context. I will let that go and accept whatever you choose to do. You have enough on your plate without needing to take on an old man.

I desire only the best for you and John. I am certainly the better off for knowing you when we were in the church in Houston together. I am sorry that our fellowship was interupted due to past events, events that I was 98% in the dark about until you sent out a blanket letter sometime in the 1980s.

I prefer to drop my request rather than get into a “prove it” exchange.

Yours in Christ Jesus,

Hope, Don Rutledge