The LCS Factor

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

In what little I have heard from Titus, I think his view of Witness Lee falls somewhere between the two (as does the BB's I think). Furthermore, the root of the disagreements between Chu and BB have little to nothing to do with their over-all view of Lee. The BBs simply want Chu to "do Lee" their way and present Lee their way....Titus has always chosen to do Lee and present Lee in his own way. I don't believe that they disagree on the end, just the means to that end. In some respects all I see from Titus Chu is a "re-packaging" of Lee's ministry with a little bit of personal spin to make it his own. This apparently infuriates the BBs and other non GLAers...why I don't know because Chu is one of the most close imitators of Witness Lee I have ever seen...and I have seen a lot.

The BB/CB disagreements over how each side plans to "do-Lee," was simply a "smokescreen" for a power struggle. The BB's used the One Pub Bull to force TC and the GLA into subjection. This is part of what Igzy means by idolatry by submission. I never saw or heard TC venerate WL, any more than exhortations to "stay close" to his ministry as an older servant of the Lord. TC actively received from the ministry of WL from 1953-1997, so it's hard to see any critic not saying that, "Titus Chu is a "re-packaging" of Lee's ministry with a little bit of personal spin to make it his own." Pretty harsh for one who admits to "what little I have heard from Titus."

UntoHim, you parsed my post long and hard, yet I still don't see any support for the notion that TC and the GLA are all idolaters guilty by association.

[Suannehill]

Originally Posted by Ohio;3766...

[B

UntoHim,[/B] you parsed my post long and hard, yet I still don't see any support for the notion that TC and the GLA are all idolaters guilty by association.

Well, I've been a GLAer for over 30 years. This gives me some ground (not THE ground) to speak.
I pondered this precise thing for weeks.
I did not participate in the Lee worship, and cringed when it began. I even spoke to the worst offenders. HOWEVER, I remained in fellowship with them. Does this mean that because I stayed... I participated in the deed?
Am I just as guilty for not walking away? Or was I keeping the oneness of the Faith by ignoring nonsense and still remaining in fellowship? I'm not being flip...I actually talk to the Lord about this.
Sue

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Suannehill

Well, I've been a GLAer for over 30 years. This gives me some ground (not THE ground) to speak.
I pondered this precise thing for weeks.
I did not participate in the Lee worship, and cringed when it began. I even spoke to the worst offenders. HOWEVER, I remained in fellowship with them. Does this mean that because I stayed... I participated in the deed?
Am I just as guilty for not walking away? Or was I keeping the oneness of the Faith by ignoring nonsense and still remaining in fellowship? I'm not being flip...I actually talk to the Lord about this.
Sue

And I'll post a word on this point.

One time, at a training in Irving, I and another couple of brothers were instructed on how to pick up all the little bits of notebook paper that might have fallen along the pathway from brother Lee's apartment door to the podium, as a matter of service. We laughed among ourselves. We picked up paper. And we were disturbed about the veneration of this old Chinese fellow as a little Pope.

Did I participate in the idolatrous worship of Lee by picking up the trash?

Absolutely not.

Firstly, I did it as to the Lord.

Secondly, the bits of paper would eventually need to be picked up by someone, regardless of whether a Holy Man would soon pass that way or not.

Thirdly, we did not have the place in that setting to explain to the leading serving one how silly he sounded in his concern that the pathway appear perfect for His Worship's passage.

Finally, we realized that to the extent that there were those who may have held such a warped view, they appeared to our observation to be a distinct minority and most everyone we enjoyed fellowship with handled Christ pretty purely, at least as far as they had the light to do so.

I don't doubt that I could spin this little story up into an "I will not eat meat forever" mandate if I wanted to. I could say how, upon realization that some might perceive my paper-picking-up to be the Idolatry of Lee, I should have declined to do so for his conscience's sake (not mine, of course, as Paul clearly teaches concerning idols). But we had no clear leading not to pick up paper and so, the meeting hall was cleaned at least along that pathway and we did not worship any false god while doing so.

I haven't talked to those two brothers about this in all the years since.
I wonder if they remember that day as well as I do...

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Suannehill

Well, I've been a GLAer for over 30 years. This gives me some ground (not THE ground) to speak.

Gotta love it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Suannehill

I pondered this precise thing for weeks.
I did not participate in the Lee worship, and cringed when it began. I even spoke to the worst offenders. HOWEVER, I remained in fellowship with them. Does this mean that because I stayed... I participated in the deed?
Am I just as guilty for not walking away? Or was I keeping the oneness of the Faith by ignoring nonsense and still remaining in fellowship? I'm not being flip...I actually talk to the Lord about this.
Sue

I think it depends on what you mean by "remain in fellowship." If you continue to fully support the program, thinking that "oneness" trumps all, I believe that is an extreme which will produce all the problems we've been talking about.

"Oneness" is the "Golden Rule" of LSM-LCers. But their extreme insistence on "oneness" (as defined by them) cannot be correct since it has no provision for reform. In fact it is guaranteed to squelch most genuine reform, since history has shown time and time again that most genuine reform does not come from established leaders.

If you mean by "remain in fellowship" simply preserving a relationship with the believers as much as you can, I think that is proper and right. Most of us wouldn't reject fellowship with Catholics.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

"Oneness" is the "Golden Rule" of LSM-LCers. But their extreme insistence on "oneness" (as defined by them) cannot be correct since it has no provision for reform. In fact it is guaranteed to squelch most genuine reform, since history has shown time and time again that most genuine reform does not come from established leaders.

I have thought about this many times, and I believe it is perhaps the saddest thing about the future of the LC's. Their kind of oneness and view of "the ministry" precludes any opportunity for God to speak to them. They will listen to change from neither outsiders nor insiders. There are just no avenues open to them for reform.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They will listen to change from neither outsiders nor insiders

Yikes! Now just WHO does this remind you of? This is the kind of mindset that develops when people hear nothing but the constant harping that all outsiders are opposers and all insiders who disagree are rebellious. This did not happen over night.

There are just no avenues open to them for reform.

Oh there is an avenue all right, it just does not have any off-ramps. When a group proclaims "we are the Lord's Recovery!" then why would there be any other avenues? Who would want to get off of such a glorious path?

[Thankful Jane]

Dear Ohio,

Sorry for the delayed response.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I am more and more convinced that this matter of "guilt by association" has no merit in the age of grace. Israel is a pattern for our admonition, but the N.T. provides no basis for this. We are no longer judged by our parents bad behavior.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I still see no judgment upon all of Israel for the sin of one. This story is similar to Corinth. The whole church suffered thru the sin of one, but Paul's admonition was to purge out the old leaven, via godly fellowship with the offender, who did repent and was restored. Joshua was forced to examine Israel, and the idolator was judged by fire. Let's be careful not to misapply this type. If we judge all Israel because of the sin of one, then all Israel should be burnt with fire. If we judge all the church in like manner, will there be enough firewood in the world?

What? I don’t see “godly fellowship with the offender” in Corinthians. (Which verses show this?) I just see that he was put away from fellowship by the majority. I also see that Paul delivered him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit could be saved in the day of Christ Jesus. I guess you could call that “godly fellowship” if you wanted to do so. He did repent, but it took a lot more than some kind of conversation with him.

I see that some have been arguing using the phrase “guilt by association” as if I had used this phrase; however, I think that it was you introduced it.

I guess you considered it was “guilt by association” when God judged the Israelites and 36 of them died in battle because of the sin of another (Achan), whom they were associated with by virtue of being part of the children of Israel. You said this idea was frightening to you. It is healthy for God’s judgment to strike a chord of fear in us. The Ai story also makes it clear that it wasn’t men on some kind of a witch hunt that found Achan, but it was God Who directed them to Achan. God is the one who pointed out the idolater. So this is not a story about man’s misjudgment, but God’s righteous actions through men who were willing to walk in the light with Him.

The real judgment that the children of Israel experienced at Ai was that they were defeated by their enemies. God was not with them in battle. Why not? Because of the sin of one person among them—sin that no one apparently knew about except for God. Their defeat was His way of telling everyone something was wrong. I didn’t write this story, God did. I guess He wasn’t afraid of sobering us by it.

Shouldn’t defeat by our enemies concern us? When we see the enemy prevailing, shouldn’t we humbly pray for God’s light on the situation and not start defendimg ourselves as innocent? The norm is blessing and victory, not cursing and defeat.

The children of Israel were warned in advance they would lose God’s blessing if they served other gods. They were told they would experience pestilence, the sword, famine, and beasts devouring them. God told them what the loss of blessing would look like, so that they would recognize when they had offended Him.

Many, many, years ago, we in the Local Churches began to suffer defeat at the hands of the devil. It has continued for decades. We lost the blessing and were put to shame repeatedly. Yet, we did nothing but press on blindly in our sin. We believed we were following God because we were absolutely following our leadership (a false belief taught by the men who were leading us), but the defeats among us were screaming otherwise. Instead of looking in the mirror, our leaders re-characterized our defeats by saying these were “attacks by the enemy.” We all nodded our heads and said “Amen.”

Originally Posted by Ohio

This matter of "guilt by association" frankly scares me, and that's why I have protested repeatedly. History is replete with martyrs slain by well-intentioned religious folks who felt they were serving God. I know this seems extreme, but an O.T. story was cited which ended in holocaust. (see Joshua 7.15) The RCC has used this same story to justify their diabolical schemes via slaughter of whole villages and prison inquisitions. How far do we carry out O.T. stories?

Again, the point is how does God see our situation? Have we suffered defeat by the enemy or not? Loss of marriages; our second generation turning away from God and living sinful, immoral lives; untimely deaths, lawsuits against Christian brothers; brother hating brother; boasting in riches; etc. When all is said and done, it really doesn’t matter what we say, but what God says. If I or others say that the reason for such loss of blessing is our serving other gods, do you really consider such a statement to be the same as the crimes of holocaust or inquisitions? Don’t you think that is a bit of exaggeration? Isn’t there at least a possibility that God might consider our behavior (bowing to others voices and commands) to be idolatrous?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Let me propose another thought for this story, based on the patterns of the N.T. All prospering congregations of believers have healthy oversight by elders. One of their roles at times is to examine the church in prayer and fellowship and seek the Lord for any reason that they are short of the Lord's blessing. Just as Joshua sought the Lord in prayer, the Lord may wait until some do this before He exposes some matter. Our Lord has a heart of love and blessing towards His people, but neither is He mocked.

The problem in the LC is that there was not healthy oversight and there was never any admission that the blessing was lost. If anyone dared suggest that this might have happened, then they and those in their tent who were targeted as the troublemakers... been there, done that... i.e., if you name a problem, you are the problem. (To me, this is similar to what has happened in the resistance shown to this topic on this thread.)

Originally Posted by Ohio

The tragedy of the LC's for decades was to look to Anaheim for the way of blessing and for the reasons for which there was no blessing. This has robbed the Lord of His rightful place as the Head of the church and the Son of Man walking in her midst. Anaheim became a rival to God's own Son. The "ministry" became a rival to His word. Hence, very little blessing exists in the LC's, to the point that some would even say there is a kind of curse upon them.

How is this different than what I said? The O.T. cursings and blessings were directly tied to God’s children having other gods. The ministry and leadership hierarchy among us took the place of God’s word and His direct headship over each of us; hence, it was another god. Some may claim now that they never submitted. I ask, then, where were their voices of objection in the past? Silence is consent. Silence is the equivalent of bowing and it produces culpability. If we saw the problem and were silent, we had part in closing the door on blessing and opening the door to cursing. We share responsibility for our being run over by every kind of evil. I believe that even now, many people ex-LSM folks still value the teachings of the ministry more than the pure Word of God. They treasure the ministry and still have it hidden under their tents.

Thankful Jane

[Thankful Jane]

Dear Toledo,

I am sorry for taking so long to respond to your last post.

Originally Posted by Toledo

So it's okay to make a general slur and insult on a wide group of people, then claim it doesn't apply to some of the individuals you included...? I'm sure you didn't mean this as ungraciously as it sounds.

I don’t know what you mean by my “general slur and insult on a wide group of people.” I have a hard time responding to things like this without knowing exactly what you are referring to.

Originally Posted by Toledo

To be fair, I was very much a young brother while WL was still alive. I had very few dealings directly with him. Except for keeping the rules of his various trainings, I cannot say that he ever made any particular demands on me.

Originally Posted by Toledo

And, yes, I appreciated his teachings, even as I appreciated the teachings of Lewis Sperry Chafer that were remarkably similar.

I, too, was young while I was under his ministry and I never had any direct dealings with Lee either, but I did submit to his control through the leaders where I was. The example of Lee’s training which you mentioned is a good one. W. Lee called it “training” and told us that this was different from the church. By this it seems he found a way to legitimize our submission to his dictates. His public behavior at the trainings was less than Christian on many occasions as he mercilessly berated people in front of others. Our willing submission eventually carried over into the “church.”

I sat quietly and watched at the trainings, praying I would never find myself in his gun sights. Of course, we were free to not attend—but only if we didn’t care about being “absolute” and if we didn’t mind facing the raised eyebrows of our vigilant leaders who were “watching over” the flock. On one hand, I didn’t want to come under their scrutiny, so I paid the price to go and submitted to the legitimized abuse. On the other, I also believed what I had been taught by our leaders--that God would meet us there and that WL had God’s up-to-date speaking. How could I miss out on that? Everyone else I knew who went to the trainings believed the same way. If they didn’t believe this, I never heard them say so.

I assume you submitted to his training rules, which included not leaving our seats before break time. If God himself had told you to get up and go to the restroom when your bladder was bursting, would you have done so? Pardon the graphic question, but it makes the point. What kind of Christian would hold that many people in bondage to their chairs under penalty of rebuke (or a mark against you that could lead to expulsion from the training) if they had to get up and go? I knew of some who were on the verge of being violently ill from waiting for the clock to move to the position which allowed them to get out of their seat and run for the restroom. I found myself in that condition a number of times and once I was unable to get through the long restroom line before our break time was up between morning meetings, and I had to return to my chair for an additional hour of torture. This was Christian treatment? I used to hope and pray that my assigned seat would be near the restroom!

I’m glad to hear that you read other materials. Did you ever share L. S. Chafer’s teachings in the meetings of the Local Church or mention him publicly (while still in an LSM church)?

Originally Posted by Toledo

I cannot recall ever being asked to do anything against God's word. However, I realize that time is both a balm and an anesthetic -- maybe I have forgotten or have hidden away some lapse of conscience. Do you, perhaps, have an example that may refresh my memory. I am not at all sure of what you mean.

Did you sign the letter with approx. 400 other elders that stated that the leading of W. Lee was “indispensable to our oneness”? That would be to do something against God’s word. Only one person is indispensable to Christian oneness and it isn’t W. Lee. Also, did you support or participate in the lawsuit endeavors?

Thankful Jane

[Ohio]

Dear Ohio, Sorry for the delayed response.

Thankful Jane, apologies accepted.

What? I don’t see “godly fellowship with the offender” in Corinthians. (Which verses show this?) I just see that he was put away from fellowship by the majority. I also see that Paul delivered him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit could be saved in the day of Christ Jesus. I guess you could call that “godly fellowship” if you wanted to do so. He did repent, but it took a lot more than some kind of conversation with him.

Gal 6.1, Brothers, even if a man is overtaken in some offense, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of meekness." We also know that the brother was repentant and Paul encouraged the Corinthians in his second letter to restore the brother and to "confirm your love to him." 2 Cor 2.1-11 I encourage you to read these verses. They are the "flip side" of the verse "purge out the old leaven."

TJ, it's sad that the Texas brothers never presented a pattern of "godly fellowship" to the flock. Instead they have only presented a rotten example of ruthless humiliations and quarantines.

I see that some have been arguing using the phrase “guilt by association” as if I had used this phrase; however, I think that it was you introduced it. I guess you considered it was “guilt by association” when God judged the Israelites and 36 of them died in battle because of the sin of another (Achan), whom they were associated with by virtue of being part of the children of Israel. You said this idea was frightening to you. It is healthy for God’s judgment to strike a chord of fear in us. The Ai story also makes it clear that it wasn’t men on some kind of a witch hunt that found Achan, but it was God Who directed them to Achan. God is the one who pointed out the idolater. So this is not a story about man’s misjudgment, but God’s righteous actions through men who were willing to walk in the light with Him.

I may have introduced this specific phrase, or its alternate "broad brush," but it was not me who said, "Then I don't think you have gotten it yet. Everyone was brought into the idolatry (me included). All you have to do is study history (including the history of Israel) to see that it is not just the leaders who are held responsible. The whole congregation is held responsible." Other things have been said that lumps all together as idolators. This is what I have protested.

The real judgment that the children of Israel experienced at Ai was that they were defeated by their enemies. God was not with them in battle. Why not? Because of the sin of one person among them—sin that no one apparently knew about except for God. Their defeat was His way of telling everyone something was wrong. I didn’t write this story, God did. I guess He wasn’t afraid of sobering us by it.

Not all Israel suffered discipline at Ai. 2 or 3 thousand were sent to fight by Joshua, and only 36 were smitten. Let me suggest that the real reason that they lost the battle was they didn't seek the Lord first. There were other times this also happened -- when the enemies disguised themselves, for example. After they lost that skirmish, then did seek the Lord and the "accursed thing" was exposed. God often uses our failures to bring us seeking to Himself, not with the goal of judging us, or worse -- judging us all.

Shouldn’t defeat by our enemies concern us? When we see the enemy prevailing, shouldn’t we humbly pray for God’s light on the situation and not start defending ourselves as innocent? The norm is blessing and victory, not cursing and defeat. The children of Israel were warned in advance they would lose God’s blessing if they served other gods. They were told they would experience pestilence, the sword, famine, and beasts devouring them. God told them what the loss of blessing would look like, so that they would recognize when they had offended Him.

Yes, a hearty Amen, we should humbly pray.

But ... we should ask what is on the Lord's heart, and not assume that others are guilty of idolatry.

Also, the age has changed. This is the church age, the age of grace. I am not judged just for being part of the LC's based on something done at a publishing house in Calfornia.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Again, the point is how does God see our situation? Have we suffered defeat by the enemy or not? Loss of marriages; our second generation turning away from God and living sinful, immoral lives; untimely deaths, lawsuits against Christian brothers; brother hating brother; boasting in riches; etc. When all is said and done, it really doesn’t matter what we say, but what God says.

Your description sounds exactly like Laodicea in Rev 3. I would say it is a "perfect fit." The arrogant pride, the exclusivism and elitism all bear the rotten fruits that you enumerated. And ... what does God say to them? He did not mention idolatry. He did rebuke them. He admonished them to buy from Him. And He waited outside the door until some invited Him in.

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

If I or others say that the reason for such loss of blessing is our serving other gods, do you really consider such a statement to be the same as the crimes of holocaust or inquisitions? Don’t you think that is a bit of exaggeration? Isn’t there at least a possibility that God might consider our behavior (bowing to others voices and commands) to be idolatrous?

I mentioned holocaust because that was how the story in Joshua ended. You likened the LC situation to that story in Joshua 7. If we are all idolators like that one in the story, shouldn't all our fate be the same? It's not me who is exaggerating here. How far are you pushing the analogy? He was burned alive. Should we all suffer the same judgment?

If I "listen" to the "voices and commands" of others who are elders and ministers, then have I become an idolator? I don't think so. Since when is to "listen to" the same as to "bow down to?" What scripture supports that? I have protested every such assertion on this thread. Don't you think if there was, "at least a possibility that God might consider our behavior (bowing to others voices and commands) to be idolatrous," He would tell us in plain words?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

The problem in the LC is that there was not healthy oversight and there was never any admission that the blessing was lost. If anyone dared suggest that this might have happened, then they and those in their tent who were targeted as the troublemakers... been there, done that... i.e., if you name a problem, you are the problem. (To me, this is similar to what has happened in the resistance shown to this topic on this thread.)

Much of the oversight was not healthy because it did not come from the local elders, but rather from a headquarters. The loss of blessing gnawed at me for years, all the while I kept believing endless broken promises. And, yes ... problems are not received warmly.

But ... your reference to the resistance to the topic of idolatry on this thread has no merit.
.................................................. ..................................................


Originally Posted by Ohio: The tragedy of the LC's for decades was to look to Anaheim for the way of blessing and for the reasons for which there was no blessing. This has robbed the Lord of His rightful place as the Head of the church and the Son of Man walking in her midst. Anaheim became a rival to God's own Son. The "ministry" became a rival to His word. Hence, very little blessing exists in the LC's, to the point that some would even say there is a kind of curse upon them.

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

How is this different than what I said? The O.T. cursings and blessings were directly tied to God’s children having other gods. The ministry and leadership hierarchy among us took the place of God’s word and His direct headship over each of us; hence, it was another god.

This was the exact same situation the Lord Jesus faced in His earthly ministry. The Pharisees made void the word of God. They robbed God of His rightful place. But the begging question is this -- why didn't the Lord call this idolatry. He had ample opportunity. He was in Jerusalem rebuking them for a whole week. His "woe to you"s were fairly extensive. Why did the Lord not tell the Pharisees that they had "another god?" He called them vipers and cemeteries. Obviously he was not pulling any punches. Could He simply have forgotten what he had written in times past about idolatry?
.................................................. ..................................................

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Some may claim now that they never submitted. I ask, then, where were their voices of objection in the past? Silence is consent. Silence is the equivalent of bowing and it produces culpability. If we saw the problem and were silent, we had part in closing the door on blessing and opening the door to cursing. We share responsibility for our being run over by every kind of evil. I believe that even now, many people ex-LSM folks still value the teachings of the ministry more than the pure Word of God. They treasure the ministry and still have it hidden under their tents. Thankful Jane

Whoa! Slow down here. "Silence is consent. Silence is the equivalent of bowing?" Consent to what? Bowing down to who?

In conclusion, I can not say it any better than ol' brother Toledo: "I both respect and appreciate your beliefs. I do not agree with you, but it is obvious that you have spent much time before the Lord in prayer, and much time searching through the bible. I do not agree with your interpretation of the scriptures -- you add a lot to the plain word of the bible. However, I respect your right to do so. Our oneness is based upon the Spirit and the divine life that we share, not upon our doctrinal agreement."