The Local Church of Witness Lee

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The "historical revisionism" by LSM is a different subject, however, it brings up an interesting point. When the "Local Church of Witness Lee" article was published, brother like John So were still in the LC saying things how they "knew nothing except to absorb everything of the ministry." The article also cites a testimony by Gene Ford, whom I understand to have left the LC in the late 70's. At the time, such statements were viewed by people like the Passantinos as red flags, and rightly so.

When CRI retracted their former position on the LC, why didn't they take into consideration that many of the brothers who said these peculiar statements have long since left?

Speaking of historical revisionism, the word attachment is from a CRI article around 1989. How convenient Phillip Lee disappears from LSM history, but not CRI.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Speaking of historical revisionism, the word attachment is from a CRI article around 1989. How convenient Phillip Lee disappears from LSM history, but not CRI.

I never heard the name Phillip Lee until I started reading things on the internet. I do find it ironic that CRI could mention him, and 30 years later have no concern that he simply "disappeared" from LC history. Neither did they have the interest to look into the matter from the perspective of the present. Perhaps the answer to that question lies in the article itself:

Referring to opposing books that were written against the sect, the pamphlet Reconsideration of the Vision states: "Although they did not state the truth in its entirety, many of their observations regarding Mr. X were accurate and not fabricated from their imaginations. Due to the fact that the points in question were deleted from the written publications of Mr. X's ministry, verifications cannot be made. However, numerous cassettes and videos bear witness to the observations of the so-called opposers.

It would not surprise me at all that LSM had this practice of removing questionable things from WL's publications even back then. We know this is a present practice and it is apparent that CRI was aware of this practice back in the 80's. It should be shocking to anyone that wants to take their research seriously that they did not take these things into consideration.

[Freedom]

One other thing I wanted to mention is that I have read the article before. Back when I was doing some research of my own in regards to this article and the CRI, I came across an interesting article by Elliot Miller regarding many problems he had with William M. Alnor. According to Miller, there were a lot of problems with the "Turmoil in the Local Church" article. He says the following:

In the Fall 1988 issue (Alnor’s second as news editor), the lead story, “Turmoil in the Local Church,” was so filled with problems that I had to step in and rewrite it, and my name appears before Alnor’s in the byline. Nonetheless, a misrepresentation of Local Church elder John Ingalls still made it into the article because it was based on an interview Alnor conducted with him that I had no direct way of cross-checking. Alnor reported that “Ingalls said the church [in Anaheim] has not achieved a complete break with [sect leader Witness] Lee,” and this required a clarification in the following issue that “the church in Anaheim has not broken with Witness Lee, nor does it wish to.” When I brought Ingalls’s objection to Alnor’s attention Alnor replied that he believed Ingalls’s concerns were “semantic in nature.” I pointed out to him that his use of the word achieved “could easily be read as meaning the church is pursuing or considering a complete break with Lee.”
Breaking The Silence: Alnor as News Editor
http://www.equip.org/articles/breaki...istian-books-2

So it appears that even back in the 80's, CRI had problems with the accuracy of their research. I find it particularly ironic that in order for the CRI to admit that they misrepresented what JI said, it contradicts the image the BB's would wish to portray of him. In my mind Alnor's misrepresentation of what JI said is the exact picture that has been portrayed of him by LC leadership. That might be why I have never heard anyone in the LC mention this article by Elliot Miller.

[Nell]

Freedom,

There is a legacy thread on this forum started by Thankful Jane titled "Can the Local Church Leadership Say 'We Were Wrong' ". TJ responds to the CRI article "We Were Wrong" by Elliot Miller and to the LC Leadership.

What This Letter Is and What It Is Not
It is important to understand from the outset what this letter is and what it is not.
It is:
 Some commentary on the articles about the LC in the Journal (vol. 32, no. 06)
 An argument against and condemnation of the systemic bad practices of the LC leadership
 Evidence that supports my argument, mostly firsthand, obtained during 20 years of experience in the LC and 20 years recovering from that experience after leaving the LC
 A criticism of a few specific LC teachings
 A painstakingly prepared document, as one piece of evidence for the record
 A call for Bill Buntain, Dan Sady, Dan Towle, and Benson Phillips to repent publicly and in writing for their sin against me
 A call for Benson Phillips to come together with me and my family before a number of third parties (believers) in order for them to investigate and make a judgment before the, Lord, for the record, concerning Benson Phillips having publicly borne false witness against me over a period of three decades (Deut. 19:15)
(This open letter is dated May 2, 2010, and to date, this call has gone unheeded...no surprise there.)

It is not:
 A complete analysis of the CRI Journal article about the LC
 The result of an exhaustive, academic study by an independent party
 An exhaustive analysis and critique of all of Witness Lee‘s teachings
 An exhaustive analysis of LC practice
 A condemnation of everything about the LCs

Excellent read.

Nell

[TLFisher]

On Page 380 you can see the seed of an emphasis of deputy authority that exists to this day from an excerpt of Angus Kinnear's biography on Watchman Nee:

Witness Lee was careful. of course, to disown the concept of "organization."....But he exhorted everyone in the church to be submissive. "Do nothing without first asking," he urged. "Since the Fall, man does as he pleases. Here there is order. Here there is authority. The Church is a place of strict discipline."

[UntoHim]

This is an article that appeared in the L.A. Times around the time in question. (1/7/1989)

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This is an article that appeared in the L.A. Times around the time in question. (1/7/1989)

Thanks for providing this article UntoHim. This must be the article my professor (when attending University of La Verne) was referring to regarding the turmoil in the Local Churches.

So Witness Lee said we are so free in our thinking? Maybe, if we are not free with our opinions and concepts.