My Testimony: Olvin

[Cal]

Olvin, if you want to quote someone, click the quote button and you will be able to remove the stuff you don't want to quote and keep the stuff you do want to.

Originally Posted by Olvin

Olvin: OBW, Igzy, I hope you brothers are just ignorant not unrighteous in your fellowship. You misrepresent my words because you don't want to deal with the uncomplicated truth in them; and I understand that.

Olvin, Perhaps you need to do a better job of explaining what you mean, rather than accusing people of evading the truth for not reacting to your words the way you want. It's pretty arrogant to call what you write "the truth" when you don't even take the care to write in proper sentences.

Do you expect anyone who reads this to take you seriously when you play with the truth like some sport, just something to win at?

No, I don't expect that. But you are not the keeper of the "truth," my friend. Your interpretation of the Bible is not necessarily the truth. All we know for sure is it's how you view things. But it's typical of LCers to be intolerant and dismissive of those who see things differently than them. This is probably because you don't have an appreciation for the fact that truth doesn't begin and end with what you consider "the ministry." There is a lot of genuine ministry that you are not aware of. You might consider doing your homework.

I stated that Jesus NEVER told us to "act" but to deny ourselves and take up our cross and follow Him. Now it be would clear to most, even most young christians that following the Lord is tantamount to WWJD. That's: what would Jesus do, the operative word being do.

Jesus did tell us to deny ourselves. But by stating that you are actually making my point rather that disproving it. Why? Because by definition denying yourself means doing something that you don't want to do or that doesn't come naturally. It means going against the grain of what seems natural. By definition that's acting.

Denying yourself doesn't only mean "turning to the spirit." It means taking specific action, to love, to serve, to speak, when our flesh doesn't want to, which is most of the time. In order to take action that we don't want to take, there is by definition a certain in-faith acting out of behavior that we wouldn't have chosen if we'd had the choice. God gave all of us the ability to act, to assume behavior. Some are so good at this that they can make a living at it. This ability allows us to behave properly when God's commands meet with opportunity and the grace of God. When that time comes, God expects us to step up and do the job, not say "I can't" or "It doesn't feel spontaneous so it can't be the Spirit."

You don't think Christian speakers, even Lee, aren't acting when they give messages? You think they are being totally spontaneous? Of course they are acting, at least to some degree. That doesn't mean they aren't being sincere, it just means sometimes our actions are less than spontaneous. But that's not a sin. It's just the way things are.

The fact is God gave us two things: His commandments and his Spirit. We need both. The middle connecting point between these is our deciding to do what God commands us to do in the power of the Spirit. Whether you like it or not, that's acting. We decide how to behave and we act that way. The Spirit leads and empowers us, so much so that following him feels very natural and spontaneous. But the idea that if action is not spontaneous then we don't need to take it denies the commandments of God. Jesus never said, "Disciple the nations if it feels spontaneous to do it." He just said do it. Sorry, but your "uncomplicated truth" is an oversimplification.

I hope that others reading this post would go back and read from the beginning to see how you- Igzy- are an evader of the truth. You say a lot, with very little scripture to back what you say.

So now I'm an "evader of the truth?" Really now? Because I disagree with you on some things? That's thinking pretty highly of your own opinion, I'd say. Such ad hominem attacks are reminiscent of Witness Lee's character assassinations of others. You've even mimicked his clunky English.

[Olvin]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So now I'm an "evader of the truth?" Really now? Because I disagree with you on some things? That's thinking pretty highly of your own opinion, I'd say. Such ad hominem attacks are reminiscent of Witness Lee's character assassinations of others. You've even mimicked his clunky English.

The scripture says: Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; in malice be children but, in understanding be mature.

I, that's me, in my own personal opinion, which I have the God given right to, think you need to grow-up. How's that for your clunky?

Igzy, have a nice conflict -- I mean life.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Olvin

The scripture says: Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; in malice be children but, in understanding be mature.

I, that's me, in my own personal opinion, which I have the God given right to, think you need to grow-up. How's that for your clunky?

Igzy, have a nice conflict -- I mean life.

You're the one who's been malicious, Olvin.

And I am having a nice life. Thank you for wishing it for me. I wish the same for you.

[Cal]

BTW, Olvin. I see why you got kicked out of the LC. You don't take nuthin' from nobody. And for that, I commend you, brother. Sorry, we got off on a bad foot. That's mostly my fault. But I mean it when I say you are mistaken that you would not know the meaning of life without Lee.

[Mephibosheth2]

I wonder if anyone remembers an issue of the Christian Research Institute journal with the headline "We Were Wrong" emblazoned across its December 2009 issue? In it there was an apology extended to the LC system for criticizing the teachings of Witness Lee without proper deployment of the essential principles of genuine apologetics. Previously, the very same publication had held up the same LC teachings to scathing attack and ridicule.

So, my question is, if now there is no or little tension between the LC and more conventional evangelical thought, is it wise, then, does it make any rational sense, to throw away everything that Witness Lee wrote and taught? That notwithstanding, there are some problems with a few of the pivotal teachings (pivotal for the LC) like the 'one church, one city', and 'calling' and 'the Jerusalem principle', and 'the deputy authority', etc, but isn't the majority of what came out of his ministry of any merit whatsoever? Is it not a classic case of 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' when you burn all his literature and dismiss him as a buffoon? Is it not possible that the Lord who 'works all things together' may have used our sojourn in the LC to bring about radical shifts in our thinking and approach to the Scriptures. I for one can attest that I was released from the first floor, and went on to the second floor, and even on to the third floor, though I saw that the fourth through to the eightieth floor were just a fiction and a staircase that led, instead, down to the basement. But I remain convinced that there have to be other more solid edifices out there and I am looking for them.

And is it truly wise to disregard as nonsense even his most basic insights into the 'inner life'? How can one possibly hope to understand -much less apply- the full ramifications of 'denying oneself' in complete isolation of some of the most basic underpinnings of the teaching on the inner life as I have witnessed on this thread and elsewhere? Is Witness Lee's teaching on the 'organic union' with Christ really totally rubbish? Does nobody here have this experience? Can no balance be struck? Doesn't such an attitude open one up to a return to 'dead works' and 'salvation by works' knowingly or unknowingly?

Somebody posted on this thread how it is impossible to accurately discern and dissect WL's writings and detect his cultural bias, or separate his high-flown personal and political opinions from sound biblical exegesis. I vehemently disagree. That has not been my experience. Quite the opposite.

...

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

Somebody posted on this thread how it is impossible to accurately discern and dissect WL's writings and detect his cultural bias, or separate his high-flown personal and political opinions from sound biblical exegesis. I vehemently disagree. That has not been my experience. Quite the opposite.

...

Hi Mephi,

Please clarify. What, exactly, do you disagree with? I want to be sure I understand before I put by foo... I mean, before I speak.

[Mephibosheth2]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hi Mephi,

Please clarify. What, exactly, do you disagree with? I want to be sure I understand before I put by foo... I mean, before I speak.

I disagree with the assertion (I can't remember who stated it) that when it comes to Lee's ministry, it is well nigh impossible to separate, generally speaking, the chaff from the wheat. I contend that it is possible. It all comes down to the kind of glasses you're wearing to use to read him. These glasses are now available. They were not available even ten years ago. The sanitized version of Witness Lee -and indeed, Watchman Nee- has now dissipated into the air. We now see WL as he truly is...or was...warts and all...and it is this knowledge that those who are astute enough to do so can use to unmask him and unravel his so-called high teachings.

We can use that information to properly discern his writings in much the same way a university professor would, say for example, study the US Constitution. Let's take the second amendment as a case in point. It is generally accepted that it is the inalienable right of all Americans to bear arms (provided they are not barred from doing so as provided by law, as in the case of mental incapacity, for example, or in the case of a criminal record). As such millions upon millions of Americans have taken full advantage of this provision in the constitution in order to arm themselves, sometimes just adequately enough to protect themselves and their families; but sometimes needlessly and to the teeth. There are some who cannot see the logic in letting assault weapons of the most frightful and lethal capabilities be bought and sold on every street corner like so many bags of potatos. The result has been clear for all to see. Sandy Hook and Columbine come to mind, not to mention the violent drug and gang cultures in the inner cities. Now, isn't it folly to think that the second amendment has not played at least a minor role in this? And that, some would say, is an understatement.

Then there are those to whom the second amendment makes perfect sense. It is logical. If I am threatened in my own home by a gun-toting thief, then surely I must have recourse to an equal and opposite means of defending myself. They argue. There are of course, other reasons, put forward in defense of gun ownership. These gun owners would appeal to the founding fathers as the enduring founts of wisdom who guaranteed them their right. And they would be correct. The 'founding fathers' did indeed establish it, and they did indeed guarantee it. And as such -and now I'm just beginning to make my point, Igzy- the second amendment has assumed proportions similar to those of the Scriptures, usurping them even. In effect, the second amendment, owing to a powerful gun lobby, is now almost absolute, unchallengeable, and indisputable.

But what happens when we whip out our 'glasses'? How does the second amendment fare when we adjust the tint of our lenses to allow for the glare? Let us read the second amendment as framed by the founding fathers and find out:

"a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [upon]"

I am reasonably confident that I don't need to teach you history, Igzy, but it is clear and evident that at the time that this document was worded, the founding fathers could not have imagined or envisioned the United States as it is today. The backdrop, as you must know, is the one of the war of independence against Britain which ended in 1776. Small bands of colonial settlers (farmers, blacksmiths, merchants, etc) organized into 'militias' and 'bearing arms' against his awful majesty, the king, were mainly to be given the credit for prevailing successfully against the formidable British Empire. They were applauded for this. It was only natural that a recognition of the pivotal role that the militias played in the fight for independence should be reflected in the constitution in order to safeguard the new state against future tyranny. To the minds of George Washington, et al, any possible future conflict would look very much like what they had just passed through. And who can blame them? But to us living in the present day, any idea of organizing into bands of armed militia to say, for example, defy and rise up against President Obama because of his 'tyrannical healthcare policies' and his 'wicked liberal views' appears simply ludicrous! In view, therefore, of the strict context in which the second amendment was conceived and penned down, one would have to unhappily conclude, that applied today, it is superfluous and unnecessary (Disclaimer: this may not be my own view, but it is certainly the view of many who stand opposed to the questionable right to bear arms).

That all said and done, my concern is not with guns and assault rifles, as you may have guessed. It is with Witness Lee and his ministry. We now have a context, -that has taken shape as never before- through which we can divine most of what motivated and drove him to write some of his teachings. There also seems to be now, possibly facilitated by the internet, a more frank and free discussion of who the man really was. This can serve to greatly inform anybody seeking to fathom his views. A quick look at Chinese culture, for example, especially as it stood in the first half of the 20th century -his formative years- not as it is today, can serve adequately to explain his dislike of confrontation, or his constant harping on about 'opinions', or even his unwillingness to deal with PL. We sometimes like to tear this man apart, but forget that after all he was Chinese. He was not an American. But this is all relatively common wisdom now. However, the principle I have outlined above can be used and applied universally, and especially in regard to taking apart his writings and spewing out the bones. I have noticed lately, when I'm perusing through his footnotes, how frequently -astonishingly so- he qualifies some interpretation of his of Scripture by phrases like 'this could mean' or 'this may signify' or 'surely this is'...etc...really..check it out. This had entirely escaped my notice before.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

I wonder if anyone remembers an issue of the Christian Research Institute journal with the headline "We Were Wrong" emblazoned across its December 2009 issue?

I remember that article but the CRI was wrong in the beginning and they were wrong then. I don't give much credence to their writings and neither did the LC if you recall, until the CRI changed their minds.

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

...

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

does it make any rational sense, to throw away everything that Witness Lee wrote and taught?

There was a book written in 1972, "The Ecclesiology of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee" by James Mo-Oi Cheung which provides a considerable amount of information of the history of the Little Flock under Nee and the transition to Lee. Certainly we would all disagree with some of the things written but what was clear...Witness Lee and company were heretical in transition...what I mean by that is they would propagate certain doctrines which were not scriptural and then change them as they were exposed. There were also a considerable number of problems with his teachings before he even stepped on US soil.

Cheung writes, "As Watchman Nee has become the symbol of unity in earlier days, Witness Lee has become the symbol of controversy and disunity." (p. 153) The Rev. Elisha Wu wrote, "The Little Flock Engages in the Struggle to Correct Heresy". Chan Tse Shin wrote, "An Open Letter to the Saints of the Assembly in Hong Kong....in the past decade Witness Lee and those who follow him have deviated substantially from the true light we saw and the spiritual path on which we walked....Their teachings have ...now become...heresies. They not only embrace these heretical ideas themselves but also effectively persuade the saints everywhere to accept them." (p. 156) There was a long list of "alleged" heresies of WL compared to what Nee taught as the true light in separate columns.

I have an old paper which was circulated, 1977, titled "The Response of Witness Lee & Local Churches To a Recent Meeting Held at Melodyland"
The articles included are as follows with the authors:
1. The Truth Concerning Witness Lee by Max Rapoport
2. The Truth Concerning the Local Church Not Being a Cult by John Rapp (Student at Melodyland School of Theology)
3. The Truth Concerning the Church by John Ingalls
4. The Truth Concerning Denominations by John H. Smith
5. The Truth Concerning the Historic Christian Church by Gene Ford
6. The Truth Concerning the Trinity by Bill Freeman
7. The Truth Concerning the Mingling by Bill Freeman
8. The Truth Concerning the Nature of Man by Ron Kangas
9. The Truth Concerning God Coming into Man by Ron Kangas
10. The Truth Concerning God Manifest in the Flesh by John Ingalls
11. The Truth Concerning the Study of the Bible by Bill Duane (Dallas Theological Seminary)
12. The Truth Concerning Pray-reading by David Matteson (Dallas Theological Seminary)
13. The Truth Concerning the Release of the Spirit by James A. Barber

Eugene C. Gruhler wrote an Introduction stating, "The teaching and person of Witness Lee were attacked and misrepresented..."

Francis Ball wrote the Conclusion ending with the statement, "Where today can one find a life and ministry so fruitful as this?

Guess what, many of these individuals were expunged from the LC and the problem with the doctrine of the Trinity and Mingling were nothing new among other issues.

This is just my opinion but I always thought that Angus Kinnear's translated books were far better of Nee than the ones translated from Hong Kong. It was WN NCL that got me hooked. I wonder if we didn't have Kinnear how the books would have looked and appealed to us or impacted the US.

My point in all of this is that you need to test whatever you have learned because WL and his cohorts have been like chameleons throughout the years and have changed their doctrines to meet rising criticism. Part of the problem for them is a result of WL's wide use of allegory to interpret scripture. "Spiritual" allegorism gives you the "feeling" that you have special "inner" knowledge that other Christians don't have and a feeling of being deeper and more spiritual than others. As far as I am concerned over time (not at once because I don't know if any of us could take it) dump all of it because I really don't know how you separate it out even though you said, "how it is impossible to accurately discern and dissect WL's writings..That has not been my experience. Quite the opposite. ". Blessed are the meek. Okay you are a better person than I. Peace be with you.. Just my opinion bro. pray about it!

[Mephibosheth2]

Originally Posted by Dave

There was a book written in 1972, "The Ecclesiology of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee" by James Mo-Oi Cheung which provides a considerable amount of information of the history of the Little Flock under Nee and the transition to Lee. Certainly we would all disagree with some of the things written but what was clear...Witness Lee and company were heretical in transition...what I mean by that is they would propagate certain doctrines which were not scriptural and then change them as they were exposed. There were also a considerable number of problems with his teachings before he even stepped on US soil.

Cheung writes, "As Watchman Nee has become the symbol of unity in earlier days, Witness Lee has become the symbol of controversy and disunity." (p. 153) The Rev. Elisha Wu wrote, "The Little Flock Engages in the Struggle to Correct Heresy". Chan Tse Shin wrote, "An Open Letter to the Saints of the Assembly in Hong Kong....in the past decade Witness Lee and those who follow him have deviated substantially from the true light we saw and the spiritual path on which we walked....Their teachings have ...now become...heresies. They not only embrace these heretical ideas themselves but also effectively persuade the saints everywhere to accept them." (p. 156) There was a long list of "alleged" heresies of WL compared to what Nee taught as the true light in separate columns.

This is the first time I've heard of a Chinese brother coming out openly and criticizing either Witness Lee or Watchman Nee, and that in 1972! Of course, there is the notable exception of Dr. Lily Hsu. I was of the view that the Chinese considered it bad form to point fingers at elders and notable people, and such. How can I get my hands on this book? What a good ole surprise...

...yes, and I will pray about it...I doubt that I am better than you, though, bro...I'm Mephibosheth, don't you know?...

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Dave

There was a book written in 1972, "The Ecclesiology of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee" by James Mo-Oi Cheung which provides a considerable amount of information of the history of the Little Flock under Nee and the transition to Lee. Certainly we would all disagree with some of the things written but what was clear...Witness Lee and company were heretical in transition...what I mean by that is they would propagate certain doctrines which were not scriptural and then change them as they were exposed. There were also a considerable number of problems with his teachings before he even stepped on US soil.

Cheung writes, "As Watchman Nee has become the symbol of unity in earlier days, Witness Lee has become the symbol of controversy and disunity." (p. 153) The Rev. Elisha Wu wrote, "The Little Flock Engages in the Struggle to Correct Heresy". Chan Tse Shin wrote, "An Open Letter to the Saints of the Assembly in Hong Kong....in the past decade Witness Lee and those who follow him have deviated substantially from the true light we saw and the spiritual path on which we walked....Their teachings have ...now become...heresies. They not only embrace these heretical ideas themselves but also effectively persuade the saints everywhere to accept them." (p. 156) There was a long list of "alleged" heresies of WL compared to what Nee taught as the true light in separate columns.

I thought you might find this interesting:

1973 - Christian Literature Crusade

Alleged inaccuracies in The Ecclesiology of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee by James Mo-Oi Cheung resulted in threats of legal action against Christian Literature Crusade by the Local Church. The book alleged that Witness Lee, among other things, taught heresy. Christian Literature Crusade recalled the book, apologized to Witness Lee, and agreed not to publish a revised edition.3 Interviews with the author and the publisher disclosed that the retraction was issued in the face of threatened legal action by Local Church officials and was not based solely upon the contents of the book. Their retraction, included as an appendix in the book, Understanding Watchman Nee by Dana Roberts (Logos), read as follows:

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Following publication of the book THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF WATCHMAN NEE AND WITNESS LEE by James Mo-Oi Cheung, we received personal visits and letters from associates of Witness Lee who asserted that he does not hold or teach some of the views that were attributed to him in the book. Accordingly, C.L.C. [Christian Literature Crusade] as publisher has taken the following actions:

1) Eight days after the book was first offered for sale, we removed the appendix in toto and rebound the remaining stock because of material in the appendix that we could not substantiate in light of the new information. 2) In mid-February we stopped all further sale of the book when it was brought to our attention that material which we could not substantiate was present in the body of the book as well. 3) We wrote a letter of apology to Mr. Witness Lee regarding imputations of heresy, etc., that the book contained. 4) We suspended publication of a revised and corrected edition of the book. 5) We issued a recall, for full credit, of all copies of the book sold. 6) We agreed that C.L.C. would not publish a revised edition of the book.

We feel that we owe all parties interested in this publication a fuller explanation of the reasons for the actions detailed above. The following statement is intended to be the vehicle by which the author and publisher acknowledge that items in the areas mentioned below should not, for lack of supporting evidence, have appeared in the book. At the same time we do not mean to suggest that all believers would agree to all the teachings of Witness Lee and his associates. Assertions by associates of Witness Lee that the book misrepresents him with respect to doctrine fall in these general areas:

1) Imputations of heresy to Witness Lee specifically in reference to his views on the blood of Jesus and the person and nature of Jesus Christ. 2) The claim that in matters of doctrine Witness Lee differs substantially from the views of Watchman Nee (differences are evidently much narrower than suggested by the book). 3) The inference that Witness Lee resorts to deliberate "twisting of Scripture" or "misuse of the Word." 4) The allegation that Witness Lee holds to a strict "baptismal regeneration" view of baptism.
In addition, the authorship of the book THE GLORIOUS CHURCH was incorrectly attributed to Witness Lee, whereas the author was in fact Watchman Nee. We want it to be known that it is not our policy to disseminate material concerning any person or persons that is known to be inaccurate. We sincerely regret feelings of offense created by the publication of this book, as well as any inconvenience caused by it subsequent recall and termination.

Sincerely in Christ, CHRISTIAN LITERATURE CRUSADE
A. Donald Fredlund Publications Secretary
James Mo-Oi Cheung Author
April 19, 1973

Source: Cult Awareness and Information Library. It is quite a treasure trove. This is page 2 of 15. Read it all.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Dave

My point in all of this is that you need to test whatever you have learned because WL and his cohorts have been like chameleons throughout the years and have changed their doctrines to meet rising criticism. Part of the problem for them is a result of WL's wide use of allegory to interpret scripture. "Spiritual" allegorism gives you the "feeling" that you have special "inner" knowledge that other Christians don't have and a feeling of being deeper and more spiritual than others.

Dave, let me give an example of the type of thing (I think) you're talking about. I grew up believing that gophers are a biblical metaphor for ambition. I believed this because Witness Lee taught it.

I just looked up "gopher" in the concordance at biblegateway.com. There is only one mention of the word "gopher" in the Bible. And it's not even about gophers. It's Genesis 6:14, where God commands Noah to make an ark of "gopher wood." Got the same result for several translations (including KJV, ASV, Darby, etc.). A few versions don't contain any mention of the word "gopher" at all (NIV, for instance, translates the verse as "cypress word," with a footnote on "cypress" indicating that the meaning of the Hebrew word is unclear.)

If I'm wrong, or if I'm missing something, someone please correct me. Because as far as I can tell, the teaching concerning "the gopher of ambition," that I learned from the ministry of Witness Lee, is not based on the Bible. Because gophers aren't in the Bible.

Should I be surprised? Does this even matter?