History, Not Hagiography - "Great Leap Forward" "The God-Ordaned Way" TOMES

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Nigel Tomes

Conclusion
Twenty years have elapsed since Bro. W. Lee unveiled, “the God-ordained Way,” designed to bring sustained increase. His “New Way” was guaranteed to double church membership yearly. He promised a48 “church can be doubled yearly. A local church of 100 saints could increase to 100,000 in ten years. This means that this church will increase 1,000 times in ten years.” Yet, despite the saints’ and churches’ best efforts, these expectations were not realized. Why? The “New Way’s” failure has not been adequately addressed. Some components (e.g. door-knocking, instant bathtub baptisms) were simply discarded, “swept under the rug.” The Recovery’s leadership has not assumed responsibility. Consequently churches and saints who “bought into the program,” with its promised results, experienced a profound sense of personal defeat; they had failed to produce abundant lasting fruit. Even today churches and saints are impacted. Only an adequate evaluation will bring a sense of closure, allowing them to move forward.

Our evaluation of “the God-ordained Way” has been forthright, but fair. Some may see this as an attack on Bro. Witness Lee; they are mistaken. It is not. Brother Lee has a long history as a servant of the Lord with numerous accomplishments. The 100-day revival in Chefoo, China; the 1947-8 revival which restored Watchman Nee’s ministry; the spectacular 1950s growth in Taiwan and the rapid increase during the “Jesus Movement” in North America are a few of his notable achievements in Christian work. Moreover, Bro. W. Lee’s 1991 decision to spread the Recovery to Russia and Eastern Europe after the USSR’s fall was clearly vindicated by the Lord. However, it’s time to admit that his “New Way,” launched in the 1980s, was not one of his greatest triumphs. Even the Apostle Paul failed when he regressed to Judaic vows (Acts 21). Evidently no servant of the Lord has an entirely unblemished record of service. Brother W. Lee is not an exception. That standard of perfection was only attained by One—our Lord Jesus Christ.

Since Nigel wrote this article, it's been more like 25 years since the New Way. Even if localities try to revert back to the practice of door knocking, what is the motive?
Is it to add to the local churches or is it bring people to the Lord? It's relatively easier to bring people to the Lord, but to the local churches there have been Northwest elders that have said:

• If you're not here for brother Lee and his ministry, then you might as well not be here.
• The recovery is not for everybody
• It takes a special calling to be in the recovery

Point being if brothers own up to the fact the local churches are narrow, it is being imaginative to think local churches could grow at the same rate as bringing people to salvation.

I have heard the criticism of Billy Graham over the years. Why is he such a successful evangelist for generations? On one hand you can say he's not going beyond his measure. On the other hand he's not telling people where he thinks their home church should be.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Since Nigel wrote this article, it's been more like 25 years since the New Way. Even if localities try to revert back to the practice of door knocking, what is the motive?
Is it to add to the local churches or is it bring people to the Lord? It's relatively easier to bring people to the Lord, but to the local churches there have been Northwest elders that have said:

• If you're not here for brother Lee and his ministry, then you might as well not be here.
• The recovery is not for everybody
• It takes a special calling to be in the recovery

Point being if brothers own up to the fact the local churches are narrow, it is being imaginative to think local churches could grow at the same rate as bringing people to salvation.

I have heard the criticism of Billy Graham over the years. Why is he such a successful evangelist for generations? On one hand you can say he's not going beyond his measure. On the other hand he's not telling people where he thinks their home church should be.

A big problem in the LC is that they are still trying to practice the new way. Whenever the issue of the increase comes up or they try to address things like a lack of shepherding, guess what the brothers do? They go back to Lee's ministry on the new way and see what he says regarding how to do those things. Obviously the failures happen time and time again.

What really gets me is given all the failures, it is still promoted as they only way. WL's projections and statistics still seem to get everyone excited and hyped up. It's like no one can stop for a minute and realize that the new way didn't and doesn't work like it's supposed to.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Whenever the issue of the increase comes up or they try to address things like a lack of shepherding, guess what the brothers do? They go back to Lee's ministry on the new way and see what he says regarding how to do those things.

Have the brothers ever considered the lack of increase is due to a spiritual condition of not taking care of sinfulness. Corporately there is much to confess and repent for.
No new flow or new cart is going to be a resolution.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

A big problem in the LC is that they are still trying to practice the new way. Whenever the issue of the increase comes up or they try to address things like a lack of shepherding, guess what the brothers do? They go back to Lee's ministry on the new way and see what he says regarding how to do those things.

As I quote Nigel in this article, In the 1980s the Recovery’s “one trumpet” promoted the New Way, emphasizing numbers and rapid growth. However, as the Recovery entered the 1990s, Bro. W. Lee’s tune changed dramatically. He now emphasized the Recovery was a “narrow way” which couldn’t expect rapid increase! In 1992, only 6 years after launching the “New Way,” he declared,32 “We have to realize that the way we take in following the Lord cannot have a high rate of increase. The way we are taking is really a narrow way.”

Freedom, maybe the brothers missed when Witness Lee changed his tune regarding the new way and the emphasis on numbers and rapid growth?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

As I quote Nigel in this article, In the 1980s the Recovery’s “one trumpet” promoted the New Way, emphasizing numbers and rapid growth. However, as the Recovery entered the 1990s, Bro. W. Lee’s tune changed dramatically. He now emphasized the Recovery was a “narrow way” which couldn’t expect rapid increase! In 1992, only 6 years after launching the “New Way,” he declared,32 “We have to realize that the way we take in following the Lord cannot have a high rate of increase. The way we are taking is really a narrow way.”

Freedom, maybe the brothers missed when Witness Lee changed his tune regarding the new way and the emphasis on numbers and rapid growth?

This is so true. I went to the FTTT during the peak of the "New Way," and the blended trainer minions had a huge chart on display, constantly calling it's figures "Brother Lee's." It showed dramatic projections of growth world wide until the year 2000 when the whole earth would be saved. None of us dared to question the statistics, or that would have been "blowing cold winds" on the Lord's move.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

As I quote Nigel in this article, In the 1980s the Recovery’s “one trumpet” promoted the New Way, emphasizing numbers and rapid growth. However, as the Recovery entered the 1990s, Bro. W. Lee’s tune changed dramatically. He now emphasized the Recovery was a “narrow way” which couldn’t expect rapid increase! In 1992, only 6 years after launching the “New Way,” he declared,32 “We have to realize that the way we take in following the Lord cannot have a high rate of increase. The way we are taking is really a narrow way.”

Freedom, maybe the brothers missed when Witness Lee changed his tune regarding the new way and the emphasis on numbers and rapid growth?

This is where a big contradiction in the LC lies. Ironically, WL was correct when he said that they can't expect a big increase. He was also correct in saying that the way they are taking is narrow (exclusive). Obvious, from a leadership standpoint, increase is necessary for survival of any group. Any time a group doesn't have increase, it should be of concern. When Lee talked about not being able to expect a big increase, I take that to be his excuse for the failure of the "great leap forward".

Before the new way started, I think Lee was correct in identifying that there wasn't a good increase. His problem is that he didn't take into consideration the real reasons the LC was lacking in increase. Thus the new way was something developed in the absence of reason and meaningful feedback. The result was something that might have sounded good on paper, but didn't work as promised.

I think the reason brothers still try to implement the new way is because they realize the increase is lacking. So they go read things that Lee said and get all excited about his projections. The reason they never see past Lee's projections is because the failures are blamed on LC members rather than flaws in Lee's teachings. Multiple times I have heard the old "if everyone brings one person to the Lord within the next year, the church will double in a year". It sounds reasonable, but in actuality it is simply not feasible. Even Christian groups with the best rates of increase don't double every year.

I used to think that people were just waiting to be introduced to the LC, that it would be exactly what they needed. This is indeed the view that LC leaders push, that we have exactly what everyone else needs. Imagine how surprised I was when I first read the words of Sherman Robertson to Steve Isitt: "Not everyone belongs in the Lord's Recovery." That is a completely different view of what "the Recovery" really is. On the one hand you have LC leaders who talk about "conquering the whole earth", and on the other hand, you have those who talk about the LC being "narrow" and not for everyone. Well, you can't have it both ways. That's what it really comes down to. If the LC is really something for everyone, then there shouldn't be any exclusivity or sectarian attitudes. Those attitudes just prove there will never be any significant increase within the LC.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I used to think that people were just waiting to be introduced to the LC, that it would be exactly what they needed. This is indeed the view that LC leaders push, that we have exactly what everyone else needs. Imagine how surprised I was when I first read the words of Sherman Robertson to Steve Isitt: "Not everyone belongs in the Lord's Recovery." That is a completely different view of what "the Recovery" really is. On the one hand you have LC leaders who talk about "conquering the whole earth", and on the other hand, you have those who talk about the LC being "narrow" and not for everyone. Well, you can't have it both ways. That's what it really comes down to. If the LC is really something for everyone, then there shouldn't be any exclusivity or sectarian attitudes. Those attitudes just prove there will never be any significant increase within the LC.

On the mark. If the local churches are for everyone, there shouldn't be any exclusive or sectarian attitudes.
From what I've seen and in my experience it's community churches that are for everyone.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

On the mark. If the local churches are for everyone, there shouldn't be any exclusive or sectarian attitudes.
From what I've seen and in my experience it's community churches that are for everyone.

At various points in time, significant pressure was placed upon me to bring "new ones" to meetings. I even remember a meeting where a brother seemed to imply that if we didn't have "new ones" to bring to home meetings that we might as well not go to home meetings. It was actually not long after that I decided I might as well not attend the home meetings. That kind of attitude was of great frustration to me.

It wasn't that I didn't want to invite people to meetings. The issue was that no matter how hard I tried, however hard we all tried, efforts at gaining people were futile. The LC that I'm from has put a lot of effort into trying to implement things like what WL said about shepherding, "vital groups", etc. It would seem that if we were doing everything that Lee said, then we could get the expected results. Not so.

I eventually got to the point where I realized the "new way" or "God ordained way" was a bunch of baloney. I accepted that it wasn't going to work. At the same time, I didn't intend to create any issue out of it, I would just go along with what they wanted. That was all fine until I noticed that leaders (both local and the BB's) liked to put blame on the saints for failure to get an increase and failure to implement things. I felt it wasn't fair and it was an attempt to ignore the larger problem at hand.

When I consider that there is also this attitude of "the recovery" not being for everyone or it being "narrow", it leads me to the conclusion that LC leadership is particularly dishonest. On the one hand, they still have these grandiose ideas that are put forth about an increase, on the other hand, they know every well that it's not going to happen.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I even remember a meeting where a brother seemed to imply that if we didn't have "new ones" to bring to home meetings that we might as well not go to home meetings.
The LC that I'm from has put a lot of effort into trying to implement things like what WL said about shepherding, "vital groups", etc. It would seem that if we were doing everything that Lee said, then we could get the expected results. Not so.

In the locality I last met with, I had just the opposite experience of being discouraged from inviting "new ones". The home meeting was considered at max capacity.
On the LC burden of shepherding, you need to focus on shepherding the ones already present. If the current members aren't being shepherded, the LC is at risk losing them to another fellowship as what happened with my family.