The LCS Factor

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Matt

2. It was enticing to the innocen-minded. The idea of being part of a special group of brothers/sisters that were "IT" made it easy for people to buy into it initially.

Matt

Matt:

This post is not a response to your general point of whether the "ground" became something put on a pedestal, it is just an empiracle challenge to your quote above. This may be true statement (that being "IT" was an enticing factor to join the group), its just not obvious to me that it is. In fact, many - even most - folks I know were attracted by something other than the "we're IT" sentiment. Yes, this focus on being "unique" did grow for many, if not most, but I'm not sure it was the (or even an) enticing factor.

The testimonies that come to mind when I ponder the testimonies I have heard about what attracted folks to the LC, have more to do with the lovely community, the felt power in the meetings and the mutuality among the believers. For others, there really wasn't even anything outward that attracted - not a practice, not a doctrine - in fact, just the opposite. One brother who came in in the seventies recounts that he was really really really annoyed by the whole group after his first meeting, but also knew that that is where God wanted them to be.

I admit that I have a small cross-section of knowledge about why folks came into the LC - so I am not disagreeing with your point, just asking whether you base this assessment on multiple accounts, or just an intuition.

In Love,

Peter

[Shawn]

Good Morning TJ,

Yes, your clarification surely helped my jumbled post become more clear, I actually addressed a few different posts but the focus of my thoughts were nailed by your comments...Thanks!

I think we've moved beyond the heresy issue, I'm looking forward to where these posts will go, I would agree with Peter:

The testimonies that come to mind when I ponder the testimonies I have heard about what attracted folks to the LC, have more to do with the lovely community, the felt power in the meetings and the mutuality among the believers. For others, there really wasn't even anything outward that attracted - not a practice, not a doctrine - in fact, just the opposite. One brother who came in in the seventies recounts that he was really really really annoyed by the whole group after his first meeting, but also knew that that is where God wanted them to be.

My attraction was in pursuing the writings of Watchman Nee, for it was in these writings that I found a way for Christians to pursue the deeper things of God. Others?

[blessD]

My attractions to the LC were: firstly, so I would be accepted by my parents and make them happy; secondly, friends encouraged me to go (friends that I had made when other LC families came to dinner at our house); and, lastly, I was initially excited to see a group of people where everyone seemed to be saved and spoke about salvation often (giving testimonies, etc.).

Shortly after attending my first meetings, I quit going and told my friends that my parents had joined a cult. Mind you, I was 13-ish and don't know if I used the term before. Cults like the Children of God and the Unification Church ('moonies') were highly publicized at the time. Some things seemed similar enough for me to make the equation. I grew lonely since my family was gone most nights and weekends. I started going with them so I wouldn't feel so alone. Soon, I made friends, began reading my Bible a lot, learned how to play the guitar & sang a lot, and joined the music and many other service groups. I had a healthy walk with the Lord for a while.

Even with the good things, I heard and saw stuff that seemed very off (this feeling was so strong on some points it bothered me for days, months, years). Now, I realize it was the Lord in me - it was the "prove all things" which I was led to believe should be left to elders or only WL. I saw some warning signs early on with WL's behavior and the idolization of him by some members so I never reached a comfortable place of fully trusting him or what he said. Oddly enough, it took 15 to 20+ years for me to find my way out. I still love many of the people there. Like Ohio says - love the people, hate the system.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

This may be true statement (that being "IT" was an enticing factor to join the group), its just not obvious to me that it is. In fact, many - even most - folks I know were attracted by something other than the "we're IT" sentiment. Yes, this focus on being "unique" did grow for many, if not most, but I'm not sure it was the (or even an) enticingfactor.
The testimonies that come to mind when I ponder the testimonies I have heard about what attracted folks to the LC, have more to do with the lovely community, the felt power in the meetings and the mutuality among the believers. For others, there really wasn't even anything outward that attracted - not a practice, not a doctrine - in fact, just the opposite. One brother who came in in the seventies recounts that he was really really reallyannoyed by the whole group after his first meeting, but also knew that that is where God wanted them to be.
In Love,
Peter

Dear Peter,

We tend to think of “idolatry” in terms of loving or being enticed. This is definitely a part of idolatry, but I think that God’s view of idolatry in the O.T. was much more than this. He was in covenant relationship with His people, as their husband. For them to serve other Gods was to break covenant with Him. He alone was to be their God, so He considered idolatry among his people to be spiritual fornication.

The ground of locality teaching, as part of LC “idolatry,” is more than just an enticing teaching. The attractiveness of the teaching plays a part, but the actual thought introduced by the teaching is what resulted in idolatry, because it led God’s people to violate their new covenant relationship with God and one another. Let me explain what I mean by this.

An Unbiblical Definition of Oneness

The ground of locality teaching defines “practical” oneness among God’s people in terms of meeting, in a physical sense. This definition resulted from Lee focusing on the idea that the children of Israel all had to meet in one place, Jerusalem. He told us that this is how their oneness was maintained. He then extrapolated this idea to the N. T. and told us that the “one place” idea of meeting, which God had ordained in the N.T. to keep practical oneness, was the city boundary. This conclusion was a “leap” that he made which is not supported by scripture. (Scripture actually says plainly that the place in the New Testament would not be a physical one. John 4:20).

This leap resulted in a false belief and false teaching. Those who embraced this teaching ended up producing division in the body of Christ because they adopted a scope of oneness that was too small, not to mention impractical.

This is exactly what T. A. Sparks warned Lee about. Sparks told Lee in private, told Lee with a few others present, and then told the whole church that this teaching was too small in scope and would lead to sectarianism and division. Lee was infuriated by this. He refused to hear what was clearly (proven now by history) God’s warning to Lee. Not only that, after rejecting the warning, Lee came to the USA and passed this teaching on to us.

Just as Sparks predicted, this teaching has resulted in brother being divided from brother in the body of Christ in a major way, both in Taiwan and in the USA and places worldwide. Those who embraced this teaching as the basis of oneness lost sight of the fact that they were under a heavenly mandate to keep the oneness of the Spirit with every member of the Body of Christ. Instead they became one with a man and his teaching about oneness--a man who did not practice keeping the oneness of the Spirit in the whole Body of Christ. He did not maintain right relationship with all his brothers in Christ. Those who follow him and his teachings do likewise. To be one with someone other than God and follow someone else's words over those of God is to commit spiritual fornication.

Biblical Oneness

The factor of oneness in the O.T. was not the place or the meeting, but God Himself, and the requirement to be in right relationship with Him and one another (ten commandments). The children of Israel were told to meet in the place where the Lord put His name. It wasn’t about the place, it was about where the Lord Himself was. The Lord was there. Likewise, the N. T. oneness is not defined in terms of meeting or place, but in terms of His name and where God is. Where His name is, He is there.

When I am walking in spirit and truth holding, His name (cleansed by the blood of Christ, looking to Him alone for everything as my husband, following only His voice only, not letting the voices of other men or teachings or whatever come between me and Him), He is with me and I am with Him. When I gather with others who walking likewise with Him, we experience the blessing of our oneness with Him together. (That is, unless we have a problem with another brother, then we have to take steps to reconcile with them, in order to keep the oneness of the Spirit, and continue experiencing the blessing of the oneness He already gave to the entire Body of Christ: Him.)

N. T. worship is not in a place (John 4:20) but in spirit and truth. We each have a relationship directly with Him in spirit and in truth, which we maintain in holiness by the blood of Christ. We are in new covenant relationship with him. We don’t go to a physical altar to confess our sins, etc. We confess to Him directly, in spirit and in truth. Wherever we are from morning to night we can do this. Neither is our oneness with Him as His members defined in terms of a physical place. We can pray and worship in every place. We can do this with others who are one with Him, wherever we are physically. I’m repeating this because it bears repeating!! Note in this astounding prophecy from Malachi the change that has taken place under the new covenant:

Mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

God's Relationship with Man

Eph 5:31-32 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

The new covenant oneness between God and His people is a great mystery. Like a man and his wife, no one and no thing should come between God and each of His children. Throughout the O. T., God's people always went whoring after other gods. I used to think we were different in N.T. times, but not any more. Just like the children of Israel, we prefer to follow someone we can actually see and hear who gives us confidence that we are following God. We are easily enticed to follow other men and their leavened teachings and easily tricked into allowing them and their teachings to take the place of our relationship with God and His Word.


The ground of locality teaching is part of the LC idolatry because this teaching, and the man who taught it, have come between God and His people and have interfered in their oneness (like the oneness of man and wife). Instead of God’s people hearing His voice only and practicing oneness according to His words, they are hearing another man’s words and practicing oneness according to his words, maintaining oneness with the man, his teaching, and only with others who do likewise. To God, this is the same as spiritual fornication which is the principle of idolatry.

We are in new covenant relationship with God. That is a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, thing. It will consummate in the marriage of the Lamb. Today as believers each of us are walking with Him in a holy relationship. If we let another voice take the place of God’s voice in our life, we sin, just as a woman does who takes another man other than her husband. If we do not maintain our oneness as brothers, receiving all whom He has received, we sin likewise. In this way, the ground of locality teaching and practice resulted in spiritual fornication (idolatry).

The authority teachings and practices contributed to the same result. Both of these teachings are false and produce bad results which can be clearly seen as far back as Lee’s pre-U.S. Taiwan days.

Thankful Jane

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Dear Peter,

We tend to think of “idolatry” in terms of loving or being enticed. This is definitely a part of idolatry, but I think that God’s view of idolatry in the O.T. was much more than this. He was in covenant relationship with His people, as their husband. For them to serve other Gods was to break covenant with Him. He alone was to be their God, so He considered idolatry among his people to be spiritual fornication.

Thankful Jane[/FONT][/COLOR]

Dear Thankful:

I was not specifically addressing whether the ground of locality became an idol for some - if not all in the LC. I was addressing a much more specific claim made by Matt - that the idea that "we're IT" was a factor which intially attracted people.

It may be the case that those who stayed in the LC eventually learned and uplifted the "ground". But that is not what I'm addressing. I am questioning, as a factual matter, whether the "uniqueness" aspect of the LC was, in fact, what initially made people want to begin meeting there.

Regarding whether the "ground" did become an idol for individual members, I have some thoughts, which I will share soon. In that discussion, I think it is two separate matters: 1) did WL idolize the "ground" from the beginning and 2) did individual members idolize the "ground" and, if so, at what point and in what way.

The evidence concern WL in Taiwan does not inherently implicate a new believer who came in and stayed in the LC in the 1970s. It may, but not because of WL's idolatry, if there was any - but a different, individual, criteria - which I will try to flesh out soon.

In Him,

Peter

[Matt Anderson]

Peter,

I'm not stuck on the idea that the "we're IT" factor was the only factor that initially drew people to the LC. With the outpouring of the Spirit going on and the thoughts which were not countered that the LC was the God's special move on the earth, it was part of the equation.

There were other things. I'm trying to draw out the ones that were not based solely on the truth and/or tended towards allowing a man (or men) to setup an idolatrous environment that started in a smaller way, but grew.

The other primary fact is that Lee wasn't in some better condition from the earliest days. He was dirty and wasn't listening to sound admonition from someone like TAS who was speaking soundly. This opened the door to the Enemy to be integrated into the environment from the beginning.

In regards to Lee, I believe the "ground" represented a means of establishing earthly control over other believers in the name of God, but not of God.

Matt

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Matt

Peter,

I'm not stuck on the idea that the "we're IT" factor was the only factor that initially drew people to the LC. With the outpouring of the Spirit going on and the thoughts which were not countered that the LC was the God's special move on the earth, it was part of the equation.

There were other things. I'm trying to draw out the ones that were not based solely on the truth and/or tended towards allowing a man (or men) to setup an idolatrous environment that started in a smaller way, but grew.

The other primary fact is that Lee wasn't in some better condition from the earliest days. He was dirty and wasn't listening to sound admonition from someone like TAS who was speaking soundly. This opened the door to the Enemy to be integrated into the environment from the beginning.

In regards to Lee, I believe the "ground" represented a means of establishing earthly control over other believers in the name of God, but not of God.

Matt

Matt:

I didn't think you were presenting it as the sole factor which brought people in. Nor am I countering the evidence you're bringing forth concerning "early Lee."

What I am interested in, in part, is what is was that attracted folks in the first place. There are varied answers to that question, but its answer is important. Rephrased, my question to LC members could be: "What was the foundation of your being in the LC." I do think this is an analogous inquiry to the one you are pursuing.

Its an important question. Because this initial "foundation" is what sustained people and perhaps caused them to remain. Certain teachings or practices that came in or they adopted later may be cause of concern, but if they were not the source of their reason for being in the LC - and especially if they were subsidiary to their presence in the LC - then I think it changes the "idolatry" discussion. This question also is applicable to all of us - even after being in the LC and in other groups. It treats our accoutability as being larger than whether we were or were not in an errant group.

As I said, there seem to me to be two conversations here:

1) Did Witness Lee adopt or create an idol out of "the ground"
2) Were you [mr or mrs LC person] idolatrous?

First, in this discussion where the definition of "idol" is not as crisp as in the OT (i.e. where the idol is actually another god with a name, etc...), no given object or idea is inherently an idol. Its people's relationship to it which makes it an idol. Thus, an idol to one is not to another. Secondly, the existence of an idol is one thing. But being in and around something that some treat as an idol does not itself make one idolatrous. Thus, I am interested in establishing the Scriptural criteria by which we can say any given individual has been idolatrous when in and around something that others, especially leaders, have idolized.

I would like to suggest a possible four categories of folks here, let me know what you think:

Those who created idols
Those who knowingly "ate food sacrificed to idols" because they thought it was the right thing to do (even if they didn't see it that way)
Those who did not know the food had been sacrificed it to idols and simply ate of it as food.
Those who recognized that the food had been sacrificed to an idol, but did not idolize, and thus whose conscience allowed them the freedom to eat

What are your immediate impressions of this rubric? The premise of the rubric is that, concerning idols, there are different standards of accountability, based on personal knowledge and conscience. If this seems like a workable rubric, onto what do you think these four categories should map in the LC? What's the "idol" and what's "food sacrificed to idols" etc...?

Thoughts?

Peter

[AndPeter]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Dear Thankful:

I was not specifically addressing whether the ground of locality became an idol for some - if not all in the LC. I was addressing a much more specific claim made by Matt - that the idea that "we're IT" was a factor which intially attracted people.

It may be the case that those who stayed in the LC eventually learned and uplifted the "ground". But that is not what I'm addressing. I am questioning, as a factual matter, whether the "uniqueness" aspect of the LC was, in fact, what initially made people want to begin meeting there.

Regarding whether the "ground" did become an idol for individual members, I have some thoughts, which I will share soon. In that discussion, I think it is two separate matters: 1) did WL idolize the "ground" from the beginning and 2) did individual members idolize the "ground" and, if so, at what point and in what way.

The evidence concern WL in Taiwan does not inherently implicate a new believer who came in and stayed in the LC in the 1970s. It may, but not because of WL's idolatry, if there was any - but a different, individual, criteria - which I will try to flesh out soon.

In Him,

Peter

Dear Peter:

Let me take a stab at answering your inquiries. This is a precis of my perceptions. Time constraints do not allow for more. I realize now my blind trust caused me to overlook certain things that should have been alarm bells. But then we all know hind sight is 20-20.

I began to meet with the LC in March 1973. This was just post the hippie era in which my generation was seeking love, peace and an alternate way among other things. In the LC I saw the answer to these things.

There was at this time the definite uplifting of Christ and His Word. That is what attracted me. I saw the Word being used to explain the Word. There was also a paper put out called 'The Generation'. So there was the 'IT' factor as part of the package. We were the generation that was going to bring the Lord back. Specifically the LC people would because we were on the proper ground. Outside was only doom and gloom.

Problems did occasionally surface but most were kept below the surface and therefore I was not aware of them. Those that did pop up were explained away (Daystar, consolidation). There was, at least for me, a naive trust in the words of WL. After all, he had such a grasp of the bible and talked so much about his close walk with the Lord.

In the last few years I have come to realize an ideology can trump many things including allowing a work 'for the Lord' to come before a proper care of the Lord's people. I saw this in the last 2 years in Toronto in spades. The army comes before the flock. This is a paraphrase of what I was told directly by brothers from Anaheim.

The 'out there nothing but doom and gloom' picture has, to my realization in Toronto, now been proven patently false. We are seeing the Word of God being opened up and people spontaneously being empowered by it and by the Lord working in their lives. Hallelujah!


Steve

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Good Morning TJ,

Yes, your clarification surely helped my jumbled post become more clear, I actually addressed a few different posts but the focus of my thoughts were nailed by your comments...Thanks!

Good afternoon to you, Shawn.

You are welcome. Like the Bible says,

If any man speaks in an unknown tongue ... let another interpret.

Glad to be of service.

TJ