How Can This Forum Improve?

[UntoHim]

First of all a hardy and heartfelt thanks to all who have participated on the Forum for the past year.

I'm opening up this thread for input and suggestions on how the Forum can be improved.

There are also some goals I would like to set.

One would be to see some participation by current Local Church members. We all know the reasons why most are not participating. What I would like to see is for us to give them reasons TO participate.

I also would like some help from some of you tech savvy brothers and sisters on how the Forum may get some increased exposure out there in cyberspace. This would include increased exposure on the various search engines. Also I like some ideas on the best way to integrate the Forum with some of the social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

[TLFisher]

I like what UntoHim is trying to do in fostering communication. I would ask is it possible to bridge the gap without sacrficing integrity? We know the mindset of touching the past is akin to the "Tree of Knowledge". Still it is not possible to sacrifice integrity by looking the other way relating to sins. I ask, is it possible to have dialogue objectively? This would be my first and foremost goal on this forum in relation to brothers and sisters currently meeting in the Local Churches. Past experiences has indicated otherwise; a subjective reaction when questions related to history or practices are asked. At best the response given is "be one with the brothers". Which may illustrate concerns have merit, but not to the point of breaking one accord with the blended brothers.

As far as improvements go, I'd like to see easier thread navigation. Perhaps not having so much content threads are located under.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

First of all a hardy and heartfelt thanks to all who have participated on the Forum for the past year.

I'm opening up this thread for input and suggestions on how the Forum can be improved.

"Hardy" is what a plant is, that helps it to survive cold winters, heat and drought. "Hearty" is what kind of thanks we give; it means like 'unstinted'. Genuine and full.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

"Hardy" is what a plant is, that helps it to survive cold winters, heat and drought. "Hearty" is what kind of thanks we give; it means like 'unstinted'. Genuine and full.

And a hearty thanks for the grammar lesson! Not being of the hearty (strike that, I mean) hardy variety of spellers, I can use all the help I can get!

Originally Posted by Terry

I like what UntoHim is trying to do in fostering communication. I would ask is it possible to bridge the gap without sacrficing integrity? We know the mindset of touching the past is akin to the "Tree of Knowledge". Still it is not possible to sacrifice integrity by looking the other way relating to sins. I ask, is it possible to have dialogue objectively? This would be my first and foremost goal on this forum in relation to brothers and sisters currently meeting in the Local Churches. Past experiences has indicated otherwise; a subjective reaction when questions related to history or practices are asked. At best the response given is "be one with the brothers". Which may illustrate concerns have merit, but not to the point of breaking one accord with the blended brothers.

As far as improvements go, I'd like to see easier thread navigation. Perhaps not having so much content threads are located under.

Thanks Terry. I think you bring up a lot of good points here. You are so right about "past experiences". One of the things I would like to see happen right here on this forum is to see some current members take a chance, come out on a limb, and break the cycle of ignoring their brothers and sisters in Christ.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

We know the mindset of touching the past is akin to the "Tree of Knowledge".

According to Lee. It was his way of avoiding the truth.

But I do not think that anything in scripture actually suggests that we should avoid the truth due to any reference to this pre-fall tree or the fall itself. In fact, it would seem that knowing the right path is very important in the scripture

The whole thing is a flight of fancy. An imaginary construct. He may have come upon it honestly, but it served him well over the years as he caused so many to refuse biblical directives to righteousness and holiness when it was his or his family's unrighteousness involved. A system in which you do not act according to righteous knowledge, but refrain from it in favor of awaiting more dispensing. And using the lack of dispensing as an excuse for unrighteousness and the TOKOGAE as a cause to ignore the unrighteousness that remains.

"Study to show yourself approved." Somehow I don't think this verse aligns with Lee's assault on knowledge. So who wins — Lee or scripture?

[OBW]

Now, having responded to an off-topic comment, I will weigh in on the topic.

I'm not sure that the answer to participation is in sections devoted to Local Church-friendly posts. That may be OK.

But the problem I see is in how we deal with some of the LRC people that do come.

It is a forum violation to "out" the identity of another forum member. Yet we feel quite OK with arguing about how someone is using a different moniker here than in the Bereans forum. So what. Get over it. I did it too. The fact that you don't like the way that someone is posting should be dealt with in terms of the arguments, not the person. And while we have generally not been dishing out ad hominems, we often are too focused on perceived motives than on what is said. If you can't deal with what is said, then study it until you can. Or until you change your mind.

And if they truly violate some forum rule, then deal with it. Otherwise, stick to the arguments.

If you want to direct a topic at someone, don't presume or demand that they agree with you to do so. It is antagonistic. And useless at much of anything.

Admit that the forum is not completely open. It took too long to evict the irrelevant posting of those "my writing is scripture" guys a few months back. Don't ask for permission to evict profane and inflammatory posts, especially after sufficient warnings. And don't cower to the soft-hearted who just want to let everybody do whatever.

And for those of us that think we are dong it mostly right, some of us need to quit being offended that someone disagrees. The nature of the discussion is "argument." Not dispute, but an interchange of ideas well formed and grounded in something that we tend to agree is a sound base for truth. There is interpretation, so we don't always agree on everything. Lay out your reasons for your positions. Don't presume that disagreement is personal. It is OK to agree to disagree. And a point being made due to "your" position (specifically against it) may be useful for others in the forum even if you do not think you the point is correct. But engage the disagreement in terms of the discussion, not in terms of your emotions and feelings.

While spiritual things are not always discoverable within logic and reason, the discussions should be logical and reasonable. Be sure that you are actually responding to what has been said. And be sure that you are saying what you mean to say. Do not presume that a response that says "you" means a personal attack. It may only be an identifier as to who made the particular statement. And when someone says that you said "X" and you just demand where it was said, beware that you may find that a directed response to a previous post may indeed show that you did. It is better to be a little humble and admit that you may have misspoke, or been unclear. Clarify. It may get tedious. And you may discover that someone simply does not want to understand. Or is trying to obfuscate things. Better to ignore them than just go ballistic. (I say that when I am not going ballistic.)

Last, the discussion of what it right or wrong about the teachings of any particular person cannot be based upon what they said. It is clearly about what they said. But if they are the foundation upon which their correctness or incorrectness is based, there is no discussion. All arguments are circular and we might as well go away. Lee is not right or wrong based solely upon Lee (or Nee, for that matter). There must be something outside of them that is relied upon to test them. That is mainly scripture. We can refer to other writers, but those must be tied to scripture or we are just arguing one secondary against another without reference to the primary source.

For this reason, we must discuss the teachings and doctrines meticulously. At this point, there is a tremendous lack of prior information because the old Bereans site is closed. It is still available for reference (at least I have managed to get into it about 2 out of 5 times I tried). But there is no certainty that it will remain. We need to stop relying on what has gone before. If it isn't in this forum, it might as well not exist. It is time to get theological. I would agree that most of the LRC's problems are practical and therefore, their orthopraxy, as well as all of the storms, cover-ups, etc., are extremely relevant. But while there is an orthodox core, the reason that the orthopraxy is so messed-up is that there is a serious problem with defining what is the main thing. And what is the way to read the Bible. It is too much like being handed a thick manual of how to reread so many words and phrases that what is important becomes unimportant and what is unimportant (or not there) become preeminent. It is a system of error that takes too many away from the real charge we have concerning our life here and now. It is replacing righteousness with "in your spirit." It replaces obedience with abiding and getting dispensing. It paralyzes too many, yet makes them certain that they are God's best and that all others are deficient, even harlot daughters of the Whore of Babylon.

Simply having areas designated for the posting of untouched "pro LRC" material seems to undermine the very purpose of the discussion — unless it is implicitly for the purpose of giving material for immediate discussion of the "current" issues. The LRC has plenty of sites with their own things. And you can be sure that if you go to one of them and post something negative, you will be booted off. I feel that other than as a reference for the ongoing discussions, postings that are strictly advertisements for the LSM/LRC should be deleted. Same for any other kind of ministry. There have been too many others allowed in the past. Anyone can make a recommendation. But when threads are created that only tangentially have a link to Nee, Lee, or the LRC, then post copious quantities of material from another ministry and spend most of their time directing us toward following that, it should also be deleted.

I'm not even sure that the things you link on the sides are entirely appropriate. Links to the online LSM and RecV are good for sources materials. But advertising the next conference? Not sure it should be done. It opens the forum to advertisement for any conference.

[OBW]

Unto,

One more thing. I believe that you can track sources of posts (URL). Take a little more time (if possible) and refuse to repost more than 2 or 3 for any particular "unregistered" guest. Unregistered has become a place to hide. A place where one unregistered can deny having made any statement because there are other unregistereds.

In fact, it should become policy that only greetings or personal testimonies will be allowed as "unregistered." Any involvement in active discussion should be registered. It takes the burden off of you and moves the discussion along more smoothly.

[77150]

Originally Posted by OBW

Unto,

One more thing. I believe that you can track sources of posts (URL). Take a little more time (if possible) and refuse to repost more than 2 or 3 for any particular "unregistered" guest. Unregistered has become a place to hide. A place where one unregistered can deny having made any statement because there are other unregistereds.

In fact, it should become policy that only greetings or personal testimonies will be allowed as "unregistered." Any involvement in active discussion should be registered. It takes the burden off of you and moves the discussion along more smoothly.

Since this probably refers to me (in part, there are definitely others posting as unregistered) I will comment. When you post without having registered you are required to read those letters and numbers and type them in. So if you wrote Guest 1 but wrote in the letters and numbers incorrectly it erases your name as Guest 1 and puts in unregistered and a new set of letters and numbers. So there were several times when I was posting as "unregistered" when I had put in Guest 1 but it got deleted. Once I realized this was happening it happened less.

Second, the only reason I registered was because I had been sucked into a discussion and felt that to respond to Igzy I needed to start a new thread.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would agree that most of the LRC's problems are practical and therefore, their orthopraxy, as well as all of the storms, cover-ups, etc., are extremely relevant. But while there is an orthodox core, the reason that the orthopraxy is so messed-up is that there is a serious problem with defining what is the main thing. And what is the way to read the Bible. It is too much like being handed a thick manual of how to reread so many words and phrases that what is important becomes unimportant and what is unimportant (or not there) become preeminent. It is a system of error that takes too many away from the real charge we have concerning our life here and now. It is replacing righteousness with "in your spirit." It replaces obedience with abiding and getting dispensing. It paralyzes too many, yet makes them certain that they are God's best and that all others are deficient, even harlot daughters of the Whore of Babylon.

Thank you OBW for these excellent points. You put into words just what the local churches and their allegiance to the LSM (Living Stream Ministry) have done. As a result many people have suffered at the hands of those who idolize Witness Lee and “the ministry” with his so-called life study messages that apparently continue to be read as the basis of worship in the present local church meetings worldwide. Because of such there is a real need for an open forum that can expose such works and protect others (especially idealistic young college students) from being lured into the local churches/LSM.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by 77150

Since this probably refers to me (in part, there are definitely others posting as unregistered) I will comment. When you post without having registered you are required to read those letters and numbers and type them in. So if you wrote Guest 1 but wrote in the letters and numbers incorrectly it erases your name as Guest 1 and puts in unregistered and a new set of letters and numbers. So there were several times when I was posting as "unregistered" when I had put in Guest 1 but it got deleted. Once I realized this was happening it happened less.

Second, the only reason I registered was because I had been sucked into a discussion and felt that to respond to Igzy I needed to start a new thread.

Sorry. I was not making any particular statement concerning any particular person. I just note that there have been concerns raised that conversations between members and undefined "Unregistered" people have been problematic. And the delays in posting due to the moderator's required intervention is a problem even if everyone chooses a consistent temporary name and manages to get it right every time.

And, as I have suggested that a little more moderator intervention might be required anyway, not burdening him/her with too much hands-on work with unregistereds is preferred. I do believe that engaging in the discussions implies membership and should be reflected in actually becoming a member. Monikers need not be revealing. Like 77150. A number might be meaningful to someone, but not likely to anyone else. Same for many of the kinds of monikers found here. They are only as revealing as the users desires to make them.

[77150]

Originally Posted by OBW

Sorry. I was not making any particular statement concerning any particular person. I just note that there have been concerns raised that conversations between members and undefined "Unregistered" people have been problematic. And the delays in posting due to the moderator's required intervention is a problem even if everyone chooses a consistent temporary name and manages to get it right every time.

And, as I have suggested that a little more moderator intervention might be required anyway, not burdening him/her with too much hands-on work with unregistereds is preferred. I do believe that engaging in the discussions implies membership and should be reflected in actually becoming a member. Monikers need not be revealing. Like 77150. A number might be meaningful to someone, but not likely to anyone else. Same for many of the kinds of monikers found here. They are only as revealing as the users desires to make them.

I have already tried to explain the moniker. If you use a phone keypad it spells PS 150, is that more meaningful to you?

[UntoHim]

Thanks for all the input, however, what I am really looking for is not commentary on the inner workings and past history of the Forum, but rather how it can be improved and even more "accommodating" for the participation of current LC members. There are plenty of threads already in place where we can take jabs at the teachings, practices and history of the movement, what I am looking for here is a way forward, for the future, vis-a-vis the encouragement of participation of current members. I never envisioned the Forum to be simply a gathering place for former members, although that is one of the main reasons, and I think the Forum has served that purpose well. I think it is high time that we fulfill the statement on the header banner "a community of former AND CURRENT members". I know this will take some "accommodating" by many of us oldies-but-goodies (translate: crusty, set-in-our-ways and jaded but well-meaning) And by accommodating I do NOT mean that we sacrifice the truth in any way, shape or form. That would be a great disservice to all concerned, and even to God Himself.

Originally Posted by OBW

Simply having areas designated for the posting of untouched "pro LRC" material seems to undermine the very purpose of the discussion — unless it is implicitly for the purpose of giving material for immediate discussion of the "current" issues.

I did want to quickly address this concern. I have no intention of allowing entire threads for the promotion of "pro LC" material. As noted, the LSM already has ample Internet sites for this. I would like to see some threads set up, and moderated in such a manner that would put current members on "equal footing". This may involve allowing current members to initiate and moderate such threads. The way that many of the Forum threads are set up, we are asking current members to jump right into a shark tank with absolutely no protection. After all, who in their right mind would do that? I have more to say regarding this but it will have to wait for later today.

[77150]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Thanks for all the input, however, what I am really looking for is not commentary on the inner workings and past history of the Forum, but rather how it can be improved and even more "accommodating" for the participation of current LC members...

I think it would be more accommodating if it created a unique "unregistered" instead of a generic one. Or better yet if it required you to put in a name instead of assigning "unregistered" automatically. I expect many people find this site and might be interested in saying something even if they are not ready to go to the hassle of registering. These would most likely be those who are looking up the LC for reasons other than being a past member, perhaps a new member or a relative or friend of a new member.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 77150

I have already tried to explain the moniker. If you use a phone keypad it spells PS 150, is that more meaningful to you?

I would never have guessed. Clever mix of letters and numbers to fool the most astute. I guess that was just way beyond my pay grade. Try dialing it. Sounds like a British ambulance.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I would like to see some threads set up, and moderated in such a manner that would put current members on "equal footing". This may involve allowing current members to initiate and moderate such threads. The way that many of the Forum threads are set up, we are asking current members to jump right into a shark tank with absolutely no protection. After all, who in their right mind would do that? I have more to say regarding this but it will have to wait for later today.

I wouldn't want the forum used to parrot LSM publications, but rather current LC attendees to step up and speak according to their conscience and convictions (i.e. not relying on what "the brother's say").

[OBW]

Originally Posted by 77150

I have already tried to explain the moniker. If you use a phone keypad it spells PS 150, is that more meaningful to you?

That's fine. Once again, I was not talking about you or your moniker. Instead, I was simply noting that it can be as revealing or covering as anyone desires.

There was previously an "11of101" which someone suggested (and correctly, I believe) that it was binary and in decimal would be 3 of 5. Cute. Interesting. A great moniker. And not revealing unless there is something special that some would understand "3 of 5" to mean. I sure don't get it. That is fine.

And I am fairly sure that whatever Unto requires for joining, even the things that are not revealed to anyone else, remains unknown to anyone but him. And I'm also fairly confident that what he does see is not stored in memory for the purpose of treating people differently. If anyone is overly accepting of what occurs here, it is our moderator. (I'm not complaining. Just an observation.)

[77150]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I would never have guessed. Clever mix of letters and numbers to fool the most astute. I guess that was just way beyond my pay grade. Try dialing it. Sounds like a British ambulance.

Every month I have to come up with numerical passwords, so this makes it a lot easier for me to do that, and then the verse itself can remind me of my PW.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 77150

Every month I have to come up with numerical passwords, so this makes it a lot easier for me to do that, and then the verse itself can remind me of my PW.

I have my own methods for remembering username's and password's, but I think yours is better, since they bring you to the Lord.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

One would be to see some participation by current Local Church members. We all know the reasons why most are not participating. What I would like to see is for us to give them reasons TO participate.

Do current LC members have First Amendment rights now?

Nell

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Nell

Do current LC members have First Amendment rights now?

Nell

In the United States? Of course! However if they choose to exercise their freedom of speech, elders may and ask them to meet somewhere else. So there is an environment where your receiving is conditional; based on that you do not express concerns on matters, issues, or persons. That your speaking is positive and affirming and not rebuking or correcting.
Here is an environment where there is freedom to exercise speech within the guidelines of the forum. There's no expectation we need to agree with one another and in many cases, we do not.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

First of all a hardy and heartfelt thanks to all who have participated on the Forum for the past year.
I'm opening up this thread for input and suggestions on how the Forum can be improved.

Hey, I really liked that thread discussing "becoming one flesh" and "becoming one spirit" by 7715. Do you have any more threads like that?

I'm a member of the LC; however, not very active currently due to personal responsibilities. I'm hoping to be more active in the future when time permits.

I have been reading this forum for a while. I find much of what is on here very informative. Regarding our past history, I had no idea what was happening behind the scenes until I stumbled on this site. I grew up the in LC and was fed all the "good" side of the LC. So I do appreciate seeing the other side of things. I am not stumbled by all this, but saddened.

Back to the question asked in this thread: "how to get more current LC members to post?" I think this forum *mostly* caters to non-members, ex-members, or members thinking about leaving. Of course members part of DCP will always look around here as well as part of their project.

Most current positive LC members will be reluctant to post because they feel this is a very negative site towards their own group that they dearly hold to. Regardless how *right* you may be about LC and Witness Lee's negative past, it does not necessarily mean all the local LCs are bad. The Roman Catholic Church as a whole has a very sad and negative history; however, that doesn't meant all Catholic Churches locally are bad have abusive authorities. There are many LC church members just minding their own business, enjoying their church life, and do not feel they are being controlled by LSM as some of you claim. I think many may be offended by the content on this site, regardless how truthful it may be. if you would like more current LC members to participate, my suggestion is for the discussion here to be more balanced. It needs to be more sympathetic towards current members. I understand that you are attacking the "LC system" and leaders and not the people; however people still may perceive that they are being attacked. Why would someone want to participate in a forum that is hostile towards them? Anyways, just my 2 cents.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Current LC Member

If you would like more current LC members to participate, my suggestion is for the discussion here to be more balanced. It needs to be more sympathetic towards current members. I understand that you are attacking the "LC system" and leaders and not the people; however people still may perceive that they are being attacked. Why would someone want to participate in a forum that is hostile towards them? Anyways, just my 2 cents.

Current LC Member,
Thank you very much for your post!
Please consider registering, it will make participation a whole lot easier.

I hear what you are saying about "more balanced". The problem is that it's kind of a "catch 22" situation. The Forum will never seem balanced until some current members come and post! At various times I have posted an open invitation for current members to come and participate, and even become a moderator. This Forum was originally conceived as a venue for communication between current and former members and also the general public. It is very unfortunate that very few current LC members have chosen to take advantage of this forum.

We are very much aware that the Forum is being monitored by a number of Movement leaders, including those at the DCP. This is an OPEN FORUM and any of these brothers are more than welcome to come and register as a member and participate in the discussions. In fact I have sent emails to a number of LSM brothers inviting them to come participate in the Forum. I got ZERO response. Of course it doesn't help when certain LSM speakers discourage current LC members from even reading the Forum.

I will talk to the current Admin (Igzy) about posting another open invitation at the top of the page. He has some technical experience which may help in this matter.

Thanks again for posting and please consider registering and participating in the discussions.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Current LC Member

I'm a member of the LC; however, not very active currently due to personal responsibilities. I'm hoping to be more active in the future when time permits.

I have been reading this forum for a while. I find much of what is on here very informative. Regarding our past history, I had no idea what was happening behind the scenes until I stumbled on this site. I grew up the in LC and was fed all the "good" side of the LC. So I do appreciate seeing the other side of things. I am not stumbled by all this, but saddened.

Back to the question asked in this thread: "how to get more current LC members to post?" I think this forum *mostly* caters to non-members, ex-members, or members thinking about leaving. Of course members part of DCP will always look around here as well as part of their project.

Most current positive LC members will be reluctant to post because they feel this is a very negative site towards their own group that they dearly hold to. Regardless how *right* you may be about LC and Witness Lee's negative past, it does not necessarily mean all the local LCs are bad. The Roman Catholic Church as a whole has a very sad and negative history; however, that doesn't meant all Catholic Churches locally are bad have abusive authorities. There are many LC church members just minding their own business, enjoying their church life, and do not feel they are being controlled by LSM as some of you claim. I think many may be offended by the content on this site, regardless how truthful it may be. if you would like more current LC members to participate, my suggestion is for the discussion here to be more balanced. It needs to be more sympathetic towards current members. I understand that you are attacking the "LC system" and leaders and not the people; however people still may perceive that they are being attacked. Why would someone want to participate in a forum that is hostile towards them? Anyways, just my 2 cents.

Current LC Member, what you say is true. From time to time, however, we have had current members post on the forum speaking of their positive experiences, and refuting those of us who speak "negatively."

I found these LC forums in 2005 as the split between the Great Lakes area and Anaheim became immanent. I stumbled across the old Bereans forum while researching Brethren history. The Lord gave me the desire to study their history because it so paralleled our own. I still believe that understanding John Darby and the 19th century Brethren is crucial to really knowing Witness Lee and the Recovery.

I left the LC due to the abuse of authority in the leadership of my LC where I had served for many years. Too many bad habits were learned from Titus Chu when it came to how full-timers treated the brothers. It was shortly after I stopped serving that I found on-line and read John Ingall's account of the so-called "rebellion" of the late 80's, and I finally learned what really happened. Eventually I discovered that ministry abuses were systemic to the Recovery.

Today I have many friends and family in the various factions which exist in the aftermath of the recent quarantines in the Great Lakes area. Columbus, where I once lived, now has 3 LC's. Most other cities in the region now have 2 LC's, one favorable to Anaheim and one to Cleveland. Some places, or perhaps individual brothers, have distanced themselves from both headquarters. I am not here to tell any brother where and how to pursue the Lord.

But, Current LC Member, perhaps you have not witnessed the tragedy of current Recovery leaders using obscure Christian teachings and principles of now deceased ministers to steal and kill and destroy brothers and sisters in the various LC's around me. When all the infighting, backbiting, and hypocrisy was going on, I had no choice but to examine, perhaps for the first time, all the various teachings and practices unique to us. That is why I started posting here.

Hi Ohio,

Trust me. I have witnessed enough. And I don't doubt what you've experienced I never gave you my whole background. I came from the Great Lakes area, so I know what I saw. I even experienced it some of it first-hand.

My post above does not indicate that there are no abusive authorities at all in the LC. But that in situations where there is no storm, many Local Churches are not as described here. Of course there are many members that feel abused, but there are many more members who have not experienced what you described. Again going back to the thread: if you want more current members to participate in this forum, then you also have to consider those who have never seen this side. How can you convince them when they feel you are attacking them?

You don't need to convince me. But I'm speaking about the rest. The person who started this thread mentioned that they would like more current LC members to participate. But what's in it for them, those who have no idea and no experience of all that is posted on the forum? That's my question. Unless, the goal is to attract more current LC member who are already on the verge leaving organization.

One more reason why current members may be hesitant to participate (other than the negativity toward the LC organization) is that this site may be seen as not "kosher" by the leaders and many other. Maybe their conscience bothers them when they read this site. This site doesn't bother me, but I can see how it may bother many. Again, I'm looking at things from point of the view of current LC members.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Current LC Member

. Again going back to the thread: if you want more current members to participate in this forum, then you also have to consider those who have never seen this side. How can you convince them when they feel you are attacking them?

But what's in it for them, those who have no idea and no experience of all that is posted on the forum? That's my question.

One more reason why current members may be hesitant to participate (other than the negativity toward the LC organization) is that this site may be seen as not "kosher" by the leaders and many other.

My question is: why wouldn't members have an idea of the history of the organization they are involved with? What's the big secret? Because it is purposely hidden by the coworkers and elders. It is covered up. They only want them to know the positive side of things. It's Pollyanna. When a church system cannot honestly tell both sides of their history that says a lot about them.

[Truth]

Thanks for inviting me to register. I am Current LC member, now registered as Truth.

I agree. All organizations should truthfully tell their history. However, you have to remember that the leaders' own view of their history is warped. So they think they are telling the truth when they are not. As an example, just look at the story of John Ingalls that perpetuates within the LC. If I hadn't know, I may have passed on the same story to others about how he was involved in a conspiracy. Now that we have the internet, we are all responsible for proper research before passing on falsehood.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Current LC Member

My post above does not indicate that there are no abusive authorities at all in the LC. But that in situations where there is no storm, many Local Churches are not as described here. Of course there are many members that feel abused, but there are many more members who have not experienced what you described. Again going back to the thread: if you want more current members to participate in this forum, then you also have to consider those who have never seen this side. How can you convince them when they feel you are attacking them?

You don't need to convince me. But I'm speaking about the rest. The person who started this thread mentioned that they would like more current LC members to participate. But what's in it for them, those who have no idea and no experience of all that is posted on the forum? That's my question. Unless, the goal is to attract more current LC member who are already on the verge leaving organization.

Current LC member, the Recovery has lost much of its standing as a testimony of Jesus. This forum provides some recent history and unique insider insight into the events which caused this to occur. The information here will not be for those members who are content with an exclusive diet of WL's teachings, regurgitated by the Blendeds, whoever they are. Those however who have nagging questions about its vast claims and its broken promises, like I did, mind find some valuable help here.

One way to attract LC members is by providing a non-confrontational environment. We definitely don't all agree with everything, but do endeavor to treat one another with Christian civility and respect. We left an environment where expressing heart-felt opinions was outlawed, and consequently the leadership existed without healthy and scriptural boundaries. As a result, many were hurt, and many more have left. Here, perhaps for the first time, they can discuss the issues which have bothered them.

[Truth]

Ohio, the purpose of attracting current LC members is much more clear to me now. It looks like you would like to provide a forum where current members who have issues with the LC but may not be able to voice within the organization.

I am more or less content with the LC I am in right now. However, I was interested in this site not so much because I have any issues with the LC as it is, but I really like hearing and discussing the other side of the LC history. As a member of the LC, to me it is important to know the truth behind the history.

I think one reason why the LC likes to hide history may be due to the influence of the Chinese culture. Typically, the Chinese (as a nation and individually) do not like bring up the past if it is negative. Instead of admitting to wrongs, they tend to pretend things never happened. Witness Lee was Chinese, I'm sure this hiding thing is very much a part of who he was. Though at the end of his life, he did admit to mistakes he's made publicly, but still very general, no specific details.

[Cal]

Dear Truth,

Welcome!

I've seen these forums change over the years. Participants have grown and become more objective about their pasts. Four years ago you would have seen a lot of contention, sarcasm, arguments and outright accusation at the old BARM forum and even here. They updated the software at BARM and all the old posts went away. I don't know if those old posts were preserved anywhere. Some fretted about that, but honestly, some of those discussions were so contentious that it may have been a good thing that we started over here. There is more than enough content here now to make up for what was there.

We are learning as we are going. Some of us carried the pain of our LC past with us for years and only through these forums were able to deal with it. So a lot of festered pain was worked out in public. That's not the prettiest thing to see, but I think it was the only way for some.

We are seeing a new type of LCer on these forums. It used to be black and white: the angry, hurt ex-member versus the holier-than-thou, close-minded current member. Now we are starting to see current members who are more aware of the facts (thanks to the Internet maybe?), more open-minded, but still more or less happy in the LC.

To those I would say there is no reason their churches cannot go on successfully, but at the same time become friendlier members of the larger Christian community. It's the exclusive superiority complex of the LCs that needs to be dropped, and what is killing them. Now, I know initially LCers have a hard time seeing themselves as exclusive, because they've been taught to play these mental games about "standing for all believers." But the fact is if you say only your group deserves the description of "church," you are exclusive. Period.

But we are here to help people realize these things, and we are not above learning ourselves. We are all growing together, and whether we like it or not (and I think we all like it, at least in theory) the Lord still wants us to arrive at the unity of the faith.

Igzy

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

Ohio, the purpose of attracting current LC members is much more clear to me now. It looks like you would like to provide a forum where current members who have issues with the LC but may not be able to voice within the organization.

I am more or less content with the LC I am in right now. However, I was interested in this site not so much because I have any issues with the LC as it is, but I really like hearing and discussing the other side of the LC history. As a member of the LC, to me it is important to know the truth behind the history.

I think one reason why the LC likes to hide history may be due to the influence of the Chinese culture. Typically, the Chinese (as a nation and individually) do not like bring up the past if it is negative. Instead of admitting to wrongs, they tend to pretend things never happened. Witness Lee was Chinese, I'm sure this hiding thing is very much a part of who he was. Though at the end of his life, he did admit to mistakes he's made publicly, but still very general, no specific details.

Apparently another part of Chinese culture is to protect one's children above all. It was common knowledge among LC workers and SoCal elders that "to touch Phillip is to touch Witness Lee himself." Perhaps WL's most serious error was to employ his profligate son as Office Manager, and then to protect him at all cost. Many a precious brother was sacrificed to preserve the Lee legacy.

I liken the recent scandal at Penn State to what happened at LSM years ago. Like the venerable JoePa, Brother Lee was never himself accused of sexual impropriety, but did orchestrate coverups which allowed problems to go on unchecked for years while more innocent victims were hurt. The facts have now proven that both knowingly lied, and used their reputations to subdue others in authority. Both WL and JoePA used their overly-elevated status of power and authority to silence all who brought sordid accusations against their "house" which in any way might damage their pristine images. In the end both suffered great loss by sacrificing righteousness and integrity for short term gains.

As one writer has said, "Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!", and Another who said, "What you have whispered in secret, shall be shouted from the housetops."

[Truth]

I have always been curious. Just imagine this. I know it probably will never happen. But just imagine for fun:

What if Brother Lee/Blend Brothers confessed to our past history publicly and apologized? I'm not talking about teaching here. I know there are many teachings in the LC that main-stream christianity disagree with. I'm talking just about history. What do you think will happen to the Recovery?

Short term cause & effect: Chaos? Some will leave the LC? Many will question its teachings?

Long term cause & effect: Will the LC actually gain more members. Will they be more accepted by other christians?

Run wild with your imagination. I like to see what you all think. Don't take this too seriously. This is just for fun. I'm just curious.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Truth

What if Brother Lee/Blend Brothers confessed to our past history publicly and apologized? I'm not talking about teaching here. I know there are many teachings in the LC that main-stream christianity disagree with. I'm talking just about history. What do you think will happen to the Recovery?

Short term cause & effect: Chaos? Some will leave the LC? Many will question its teachings?

Long term cause & effect: Will the LC actually gain more members. Will they be more accepted by other christians?

I'm not sure what the short or long term effects would be and they shouldn't be worried about it. As a stand-alone action they should apologize for the sake of their own integrity. Speaking for myself I certainly would have more respect for them if they did.

The Bible is full of negative history and we can learn from it and so is 2000+ years of the church's existence. But while not squarely facing their own sordid history they berate "Christianity" for it's negative history. So added to the lack of integrity is hypocrisy. And may I suggest after all the layers are striped away it is these two items that are really fundamentally problematic in the LC system especially among the coworkers and elders.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

I have always been curious. Just imagine this. I know it probably will never happen. But just imagine for fun:

What if Brother Lee/Blend Brothers confessed to our past history publicly and apologized? I'm not talking about teaching here. I know there are many teachings in the LC that main-stream christianity disagree with. I'm talking just about history. What do you think will happen to the Recovery?

Short term cause & effect: Chaos? Some will leave the LC? Many will question its teachings?

Long term cause & effect: Will the LC actually gain more members. Will they be more accepted by other christians?

Run wild with your imagination. I like to see what you all think. Don't take this too seriously. This is just for fun. I'm just curious.

And what if President Nixon would have come clean right way concerning the Watergate break-in?

Both the Bible and history teach us to confess and come clean immediately. The sooner the better. Something can only be rightly called a "mistake" when it is done accidentally, and without motive. Once a plan is conceived by the authorities to coverup wrongdoing, it can no longer be considered a "mistake." The actual crimes then begin to multiply exponentially. Eventually the point is reached where the lies become the "new truth," because they are repeatedly affirmed.

WL in his twilight did confess to something, but we will never know what it was. We do know that regarding John Ingalls and so many other wronged brothers, WL never "went to his brothers." That public apology may have been tearful and heartfelt, but it accomplished really nothing. His adherents are still debating what he really meant. Unfortunately WL passed on without any reconciliation with the brothers he was in conflict with, neither those on the receiving end of lawsuits, nor of quarantines.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Both the Bible and history teach us to confess and come clean immediately. The sooner the better. Something can only be rightly called a "mistake" when it is done accidentally, and without motive. Once a plan is conceived by the authorities to coverup wrongdoing, it can no longer be considered a "mistake." The actual crimes then begin to multiply exponentially. Eventually the point is reached where the lies become the "new truth," because they are repeatedly affirmed.

(My emphasis above.)

Very true and a point becoming obvious in the RC sex scandal as well. Finally an official in Philly was prosecuted and convicted not for committing the crime of sexual abuse with children but for covering it up for those under his supervision. It was purposeful and willful neglect of the innocent for the sake of an institution.

Until the elders and coworkers in the LC system are willing to squarely face the negative aspects of their own history the "new truth" will be the story inside their system. But because of forums like this their "new truth" will constantly be exposed for the lies that it is. And that is the power of having a communication medium they can't control and why they hate these kind of forums so much.

[Truth]

This is why I love the internet. Depends on how you use it. It is a 2-edged sword. It can tell the truth as well as tell a lie.

Because of the internet, it is difficult for any organization (whether political, religious, or other) to hide their activities. Thus the Chinese communists and the northern koreans ban the parts of the internet to prevent the truth from getting to their people.

If it weren't for the internet, many of us would never have known the truth. Perhaps, we still don't know the whole truth about what happened in the history of the LC. But we are much closer to it now than ever before. Thanks to the internet. Much of my confirmation of what has been written here in this forum is due to the fact that no one has come forward to refute the information. One the one hand it surprises me, on the other it just confirms that much of it is true.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

If it weren't for the internet, many of us would never have known the truth. Perhaps, we still don't know the whole truth about what happened in the history of the LC. But we are much closer to it now than ever before. Thanks to the internet. Much of my confirmation of what has been written here in this forum is due to the fact that no one has come forward to refute the information. One the one hand it surprises me, on the other it just confirms that much of it is true.

Good points. For me, searching for the truth of our history, the internet is like a courtroom with both sides stating their case. I am just one of the jurors, hashing it out with 11 others, trying to get to the bottom of things. According to the system of law, jurors should be "peers," and having been a member of the LC's for many years, I consider myself a qualified "peer." For years I heard only WL's side of events. I never got to hear the other side of the story. Real courts allow both sides to present their cases, with pointed cross-examinations.

Approximately 20 years ago the "prosecutors" at LSM presented their case. They had open meetings, brought forth numerous witnesses with the accused tried in absentia. Their public proceedings were recorded and distributed throughout the Recovery. Here in the Great Lakes area, we were informed that Titus Chu had "examined the evidence," and agreed with Witness Lee that all the accused (especially John Ingalls, the apparent ringleader) were guilty of conspiracy and rebellion against God's deputy authority. The "Letter of Eight" signed by Titus Chu, which severely reprimanded John Ingalls, was also circulated to all the churches.

Then in late 2005 / early 2006 I finally came across various writings of some of the "accused," namely John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, Albert Zehr, John So, Godfred, Al Knoch, etc. The defense of the accused was finally made known to this "juror." I had to weigh all the evidence based on my limited knowledge of each of the accused. I examined all the evidence I could find. I was also able to watch the "prosecutors" in action once again (except for WL) as they held their "kangaroo court" in Whistler, BC and prompted further lawsuits in Toronto, Mansfield, and Columbus.

Sorry to say, but I held John Ingalls and company in contempt for 15 years. I judged these brothers in my heart as "lepers" based solely on the reputations of Witness Lee and Titus Chu. Once I heard the whole story, my respect for these two ministers shrunk. It is just shameful what they did to John Ingalls and the other brothers.

If the Lord Jesus Himself exposed all the lies that were told to us 20 years ago, the Recovery would collapse like a house of cards, LSM would totally dissolve, and all those Blended brothers would hide their faces in shame.

[Truth]

I love the LCs individually, meaning I love meeting with the saints in the LCs and even WN and WL's ministry very much. That is why I am still a member. I would not want the LCs to collapse

I have so many friends who are genuine lovers of Christ in the LC, but they have no idea about its history. I would never bring up what is on this forum to them unless they were desirous to know. It would just spark a bad feeling in our relationship. They are enjoying and going on with the Lord in an innocent and pure way. I would not want to be the one to put stumbling block in their path by making known to them what they don't need to know. But if they are being abused by the leaders or are seeking a way out because of issues they are facing, then it would be a different story.

However, as much as I love the LCs individually, I hate the lies that is hiding behind the organization as a whole. And I don't agree that LSM has a lot of *hidden* control among the churches. And I don't like the way WL was elevated, and now the BB somewhat too.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Truth

Ohio, the purpose of attracting current LC members is much more clear to me now. It looks like you would like to provide a forum where current members who have issues with the LC but may not be able to voice within the organization.

I am more or less content with the LC I am in right now. However, I was interested in this site not so much because I have any issues with the LC as it is, but I really like hearing and discussing the other side of the LC history. As a member of the LC, to me it is important to know the truth behind the history.

I think one reason why the LC likes to hide history may be due to the influence of the Chinese culture. Typically, the Chinese (as a nation and individually) do not like bring up the past if it is negative. Instead of admitting to wrongs, they tend to pretend things never happened. Witness Lee was Chinese, I'm sure this hiding thing is very much a part of who he was. Though at the end of his life, he did admit to mistakes he's made publicly, but still very general, no specific details.

Whoever this brother is may he keep speaking. More voices like his need to be heard that come from within the Local Churches. On this particular point of Chinese culture influencing the leaders' hiding of LC history, the subject has yet to be addressed in full and with the impact needed to draw attention from where these deeply-rooted concepts thrive, in their strongholds of both Anaheim and Cleveland.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

However, as much as I love the LCs individually, I hate the lies that is hiding behind the organization as a whole. And I don't agree that LSM has a lot of *hidden* control among the churches. And I don't like the way WL was elevated, and now the BB somewhat too.

I understand your love for the LC's and the many precious saints in them. I agree with you that knowing our history is not every member's urgent need.

As for LSM's "hidden" control of the LC's, however, it is intricately intertwined with that history. In other words, what has happened in the past has set the stage for today's "puppet show." It appears like all the actors are moving of their own volition, when actually their movements have all been choreographed by past "training." For example, every single leader in the Recovery today has witnessed first hand what has happened to the likes of the John Ingalls' and Titus Chu's in the Recovery. No one would forget that. The boundaries of their teachings and leadership directions are thus clearly defined. There are enough "spies" in the Recovery to keep each and every "adventurous" new leader in line. Mandatory attendance at the "Feasts" ensures that.

Just as Israel killed all the prophets the Lord sent to them, there is no way for the Recovery to receive "course correction." Every single brother in the past who attempted reform, speaking his heart as a prophet for the Lord, was branded a rebel and banished.

Let me use a bad example to explain. Years ago I worked side-by-side with a Russian engineer, nominally Jewish, who was able to leave that communistic country during the Carter administration. He took advantage of a political opportunity to "volunteer" to emigrate, knowing that if it backfired, his life was basically over. He chose Columbus, Ohio because he read that Christopher Columbus discovered America. We spent much time discussing life in Russia. He relayed to me a very happy home life -- but, of course, he and his wife knew all the "rules." They never discussed problems in Russia, rather took advantage of "opportunities" to bad-mouth capitalism. They would never speak in front of their children a whole host of subjects, since, of course, the children were regularly "questioned" by their teachers at the state schools.

Such is a picture of life in a little "society" which requires fear to keep their members in line. A snapshot of every home appears blissful indeed, as long as the members behave. Watch what happens, however, when someone begins to talk about those "forbidden" subjects. One of those "forbidden" topics is why do we have to use the HWFMR on a regular basis.

[Truth]

I don't have a problem if LSM wanted to control the churches and bring them all under the "same" ministry. The Roman Catholic Church exercises such control, so does the Mormons, and so do many other religious groups (Christian and non-christian). But what bothers me is the hypocrisy. One the one hand they say that the LCs are autonomous, but on the other hand there is an undercurrent (very subtle) that forces the church to use LSM materials. This is where the control really is: it is through their ministry. The leaders are right when they say LSM does not control the churches (in a sense). This is true in 'paper' but not at heart. Sure, LSM is not one of the board of directors in "The Church in Portland" (I'm just using a really random locality for example). But LSM expects that "The Church in Portland" will use its material.

Don't get me wrong. I love what LSM publishes, because I love WN/WL's ministry. But I don't agree with forcing it on others. And I think if we are going to force it on the churches, then we should call ourselves LSM churches. This would be more truthful than saying we are just non-denominational local churches. I have no problem being called a LSM church, or a "Church that focuses on Lee's and Nee's teaching". I would feel more comfortable with that than hiding. I love WN/WL's ministry, so I belong to a group that pursues this ministry. What's wrong with that? Some of you would say that is not biblical...we should not follow a man. Let me tell you: I am not following a man. I will whole heartedly follow any man's ministry (in part or whole) if that man's ministry is part of the NT ministry as revealed in the Bible. However, I don't believe WL's ministry is the entire NT ministry or "The ministry". It is only a part of the NT ministry. And there is nothing wrong with meeting with a group that follows this ministry, which is part of the NT ministry. Why do we need to claim to be "The Local Church"? We just just a local church. One of many local churches in Los Angeles. Together with all the other Christians we are part of the church in Los Angeles. We are a no better church than any other churches in Los Angeles. We have our weaknesses and our strengths, as do all the other churches in the same city that may follow another ministry...a different ministry but still part of the same NT ministry.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Truth

I don't have a problem if LSM wanted to control the churches and bring them all under the "same" ministry.
...

Don't get me wrong. I love what LSM publishes, because I love WN/WL's ministry.
...

I love WN/WL's ministry, so I belong to a group that pursues this ministry. What's wrong with that?

Truth, if every LCer thought like you the movement would be on it's way to true recovery.

I do have one caveat. I don't think any church should focus on one ministry. Of course, the ministries of the leaders of that church are going to naturally have emphasis. But I think a healthy church would be open to many ministries, past and present. Otherwise, it's hard to see the errors in a ministry.

I do think it's better to be an autonomous local church with no official affilations with any ministries, at least non-local ones. Better, that is, than being an LSM church or a Rick Warren church or whatever. But I agree with your point that the first thing is to at least be non-hypocritical about what your church really is. Otherwise, change is nigh impossible if you can't be honest about what you are.

Also, you say you love Lee's ministry. But do you realize that he taught strongly that we should not recognize any other churches others than his? He didn't put it in those terms, but effectively that's what he meant. I've never seen once in the history of the Recovery that any non-LSM-affiliated church was ever recognized as a true church. The exclusivity of the LC churches comes straight from Lee. So obviously some of his ministry is quite unhealthy.

[Truth]

Igzy: I love much of what WN/WL's minstry teaches. However, I never said I agreed with everything in their ministry. It would take months if we were to discuss which items I agreed with and with items I disagreed with.

Yes, ideally a church should be non-denominational and embrace all ministries that are part of the NT ministry, not just one ministry. But this is hard to do in practice. When it comes to administration on which materials to use in a church, I'm sure not everyone will agree. So that is why I think it is ok if you enjoy a particular ministry and would like to pursue with those who enjoy the same ministry. I'm also ok if you would like to be part of a church that pursues multiple ministries. There is no hard rule in the bible which ministry you need to pursue. As long as the ministry helps you to love the Lord and love other Christians. And we really shouldn't divide over ministry. I don't considering meeting with a group that emphasizing on a particular ministry is divisive.

I'm not for division. But sometimes in the name of trying too hard to be one, we end up dividing, as you see in the example of LC. Being broad and tolerant of one another is the key. Don't we all believe in the same Christ?

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Truth

...

I don't considering meeting with a group that emphasizing on a particular ministry is divisive.

I'm not for division. But sometimes in the name of trying too hard to be one, we end up dividing, as you see in the example of LC. Being broad and tolerant of one another is the key. Don't we all believe in the same Christ?

Just clarifying one of my sentences I wrote earlier:

I don't consider it divisive to meet with a group that pursues a particular ministry.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Truth

Igzy: I love much of what WN/WL's minstry teaches. However, I never said I agreed with everything in their ministry. It would take months if we were to discuss which items I agreed with and with items I disagreed with.

Yes, ideally a church should be non-denominational and embrace all ministries that are part of the NT ministry, not just one ministry. But this is hard to do in practice. When it comes to administration on which materials to use in a church, I'm sure not everyone will agree. So that is why I think it is ok if you enjoy a particular ministry and would like to pursue with those who enjoy the same ministry. I'm also ok if you would like to be part of a church that pursues multiple ministries. There is no hard rule in the bible which ministry you need to pursue. As long as the ministry helps you to love the Lord and love other Christians. And we really shouldn't divide over ministry. I don't considering meeting with a group that emphasizing on a particular ministry is divisive.

I'm not for division. But sometimes in the name of trying too hard to be one, we end up dividing, as you see in the example of LC. Being broad and tolerant of one another is the key. Don't we all believe in the same Christ?

I go along with your thoughts here. Obviously, evangelical churches are going to emphasize evangelical ministries, and so forth.

The problem comes in when you start to think that you don't need any other ministries. Now, here's fact--Benson Phillips is on record declaring that there is nothing in "Christianity" teaching (that wasn't also in Recovery teaching) that is worthwhile. In others words, he believes other churches and teachers have nothing to offer the LCs. I heard him say this kind of thing first hand.

Do you believe this? How does it make you feel that one of the main leaders of the movement you are in has such a mindset? Do you "love" it when this kind of speaking comes out of LSM?

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Do you believe this? How does it make you feel that one of the main leaders of the movement you are in has such a mindset? Do you "love" it when this kind of speaking comes out of LSM?

Of course I don't love this. I don't agree with this. When I hear this kind of speaking, my brain turns off. Luckily, I don't hear this in my group meeting and in my local church. I think you hear this more when you go to the "7-feasts", which I don't attend much of anymore. I not only do not agree with forcing WL/WN's ministry on the churches, I also do not agree with elevating one's ministry above another. Who is to say one ministry is better than another? All genuine ministries are part of the same NT ministry. There should be no competition between ministries. This is ridiculous. What is the point of competing against one another? Are we not brothers and sisters? Shouldn't we be fighting against Satan instead of against one another?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Truth

Of course I don't love this. I don't agree with this. When I hear this kind of speaking, my brain turns off. Luckily, I don't hear this in my group meeting and in my local church. I think you hear this more when you go to the "7-feasts", which I don't attend much of anymore. I not only do not agree with forcing WL/WN's ministry on the churches, I also do not agree with elevating one's ministry above another. Who is to say one ministry is better than another? All genuine ministries are part of the same NT ministry. There should be no competition between ministries. This is ridiculous. What is the point of competing against one another? Are we not brothers and sisters? Shouldn't we be fighting against Satan instead of against one another?

Well said, bro. I hope this kind of thinking prevails.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Truth

But what bothers me is the hypocrisy. One the one hand they say that the LCs are autonomous, but on the other hand there is an undercurrent (very subtle) that forces the church to use LSM materials. This is where the control really is: it is through their ministry.

Don't get me wrong. I love what LSM publishes, because I love WN/WL's ministry. But I don't agree with forcing it on others. And I think if we are going to force it on the churches, then we should call ourselves LSM churches. This would be more truthful than saying we are just non-denominational local churches.

This is exactly right. They control through the imposition of their curriculum on the churches i.e. they control the content of the churches to the exclusion of all other ministries. BUT IMHO it is not so subtle. One of the reasons they excommunicated Titus Chu was he was publishing his own materials without coming under their umbrella and getting it approved by LSM.

Like you suggest if they were honest they would call themselves the LSM churches. Another alternative would be the Witness Lee churches. These designations more accurately describe what they really are about without pretense.

What they are asking all Christians in Portland to do (to use your example) is:

1. Meet with them in order to be a legitimate church
2. Acknowledge and come under the authority of the elders appointed by Witness Lee or the Anaheim Politburo.
3. Accept that the sole ministry allowed in "The Church in Portland" will be that of the LSM.

A real "The Church in Portland" would never look anything like the above. And I don't know many Christians who will swallow this sort of arrangement and especially those from a Protestant background. It is the antithesis of their tradition.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

There should be no competition between ministries. This is ridiculous. What is the point of competing against one another? Are we not brothers and sisters? Shouldn't we be fighting against Satan instead of against one another?

When LSM quarantined Titus Chu and Great Lakes churches supporting him, I got a little crazy about this point. We had lost sight of who our enemy was! Listen to Witness Lee and one would think that Christianity was our enemy. Talk to the Blendeds and one would think that Titus Chu and Nigel Tomes were the enemy. Our predecessors, the Plymouth Brethren, became that way also. To them, public enemy No. 1 was George Muller.

This is why I began to consider LSM the "ministry of condemnation."

[Truth]

I was not impressed...with either sides. Titus's case was definitely different from John Ingalls. John had no intention of overthrowing WL. Titus clearly did not want to work with the BB. Even before the quarantine, I heard him many times make fun of the BB and FTTA. He was holding his own 9-month training (doing the same thing as the BB in the FFTA), so there was no reason why he should make fun of FTTA, unless he wanted to elevate his own work above the BB.

Anyways, I was not not impressed with either sides during the storm. Both sides and their supporters did some really nasty things to each other. At that time I knew nothing of John Ingalls's story (and others' such as John So, etc...), so I was very much on the BB side. Still, even knowing what I know today, I'm not sure if I would chose Titus over the BB. Titus has abused his authority just as much as WL and the BB.

I guess I ended up choosing neither sides. I just moved away to a locality outside of the midwest, not affected by the chaos. I'm glad I moved away. Who knows? If I didn't move away, maybe I would have fought on LSM's side and said some nasty things to the other side...and I would have regretted today. Today, I still have very good friends on both sides. If I had participated in the fight, I might have lost some of these precious friends on Titus's side.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Truth

I was not impressed...with either sides. Titus's case was definitely different from John Ingalls. John had no intention of overthrowing WL. Titus clearly did not want to work with the BB. Even before the quarantine, I heard him many times make fun of the BB and FTTA. He was holding his own 9-month training (doing the same thing as the BB in the FFTA), so there was no reason why he should make fun of FTTA, unless he wanted to elevate his own work above the BB.

Anyways, I was not not impressed with either sides during the storm. Both sides and their supporters did some really nasty things to each other. At that time I knew nothing of John Ingalls's story (and others' such as John So, etc...), so I was very much on the BB side. Still, even knowing what I know today, I'm not sure if I would chose Titus over the BB. Titus has abused his authority just as much as WL and the BB.

I guess I ended up choosing neither sides. I just moved away to a locality outside of the midwest, not affected by the chaos. I'm glad I moved away. Who knows? If I didn't move away, maybe I would have fought on LSM's side and said some nasty things to the other side...and I would have regretted today. Today, I still have very good friends on both sides. If I had participated in the fight, I might have lost some of these precious friends on Titus's side.

The thing that struck me the most during the recent "storm" was that no one seemed to get it if you weren't taking "sides" and yet were nevertheless disagreeing with them...

Thing is - one could not be a fan of Titus at all, at yet still disagree with the BBs. Those on the other "side" however, bought into the BBs entirely. Titus didn't make a claim that the BBs were inferior - only that they weren't "it." He didn't either make a claim that he was "it." Different ministers ministering according to the portion they were given. The fact that Titus started the 10 month labor is not a "competition" with the FTT. If time and again you see young people return from the FTT, beginning with zeal but then falling flat in the day-to-day afterwards - you might want to address that too. That does not mean the 10 month labor was the answer. But neither does it have to be seen as "competition" (that presumes a posture). It could very well just, well, trying something in light of a recognized situation.

That said - I don't hold a brief for Titus. I haven't heard him speak for close to 14 years now. Nothing I'm saying comes from any knowledge of his thoughts. They are simply "possible." Yet such "possibilities" and freedoms never seemed to be any part of the "one with the minister of the age" sort of thinking.

The difference was the absolute "one with the ministry" and oppressive stance the BBs took versus the "to each according to his conscience" stance taken by the Great Lakes brothers.

While one might take issue with Titus in particular, this point shouldn't be lost in that. And in that sense, the issue was not unlike the 1980s "storm" as regards concerns over overbearing and faith-stealing meddling of "authority doctrines".

Thoughts?

In Love,

Peter

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

I was not impressed...with either sides. Titus's case was definitely different from John Ingalls. John had no intention of overthrowing WL. Titus clearly did not want to work with the BB. Even before the quarantine, I heard him many times make fun of the BB and FTTA. He was holding his own 9-month training (doing the same thing as the BB in the FFTA), so there was no reason why he should make fun of FTTA, unless he wanted to elevate his own work above the BB.

Anyways, I was not not impressed with either sides during the storm. Both sides and their supporters did some really nasty things to each other. At that time I knew nothing of John Ingalls's story (and others' such as John So, etc...), so I was very much on the BB side. Still, even knowing what I know today, I'm not sure if I would chose Titus over the BB. Titus has abused his authority just as much as WL and the BB.

I guess I ended up choosing neither sides. I just moved away to a locality outside of the midwest, not affected by the chaos. I'm glad I moved away. Who knows? If I didn't move away, maybe I would have fought on LSM's side and said some nasty things to the other side...and I would have regretted today. Today, I still have very good friends on both sides. If I had participated in the fight, I might have lost some of these precious friends on Titus's side.

We're pretty much in agreement here, Truth.

Though I was exiting the program at the time of the Quarantine, I too was fairly convinced that neither side should have been supported. It was a "fist-fight" between 2 ministries, and no churches should have been dragged into it. Both sides felt they were only "standing for the truth," when actually both were again declaring "we are of men." Neither side presented an attractive alternative. Many brothers in the Great Lakes area felt Titus Chu was closer to the truths of the scripture in some regards, yet rejected him because of his over-bearing abuses of leadership.

On the positive side, many brothers were helped to be delivered from the entanglements of the Blendeds, yet once they became free, they realized that Cleveland was the same as Anaheim, and both were damaging their LC's.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

The thing that struck me the most during the recent "storm" was that no one seemed to get it if you weren't taking "sides" and yet were nevertheless disagreeing with them...

Thing is - one could not be a fan of Titus at all, at yet still disagree with the BBs. Those on the other "side" however, bought into the BBs entirely. Titus didn't make a claim that the BBs were inferior - only that they weren't "it."

Behind the scenes, Titus did regularly belittle the Blendeds. Besides WL, Titus never had a good thing to say about anyone in Anaheim. I heard him refer to some of the Blendeds as "naughty boys" and the like. All of TC's closest leaders were basically "poisoned" against the Blendeds. He had been sowing seeds of distrust long before WL passed away.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Behind the scenes, Titus did regularly belittle the Blendeds. Besides WL, Titus never had a good thing to say about anyone in Anaheim. I heard him refer to some of the Blendeds as "naughty boys" and the like. All of TC's closest leaders were basically "poisoned" against the Blendeds. He had been sowing seeds of distrust long before WL passed away.

Exactly! You got it right! I don't think many saints realize that Titus had been sowing seeds of distrust towards the BB among his own co-worker as much as a few years before WL passed away. In a sense, he brought the quarantine upon himself. He was testing the water to see how far he could go before the BB would do something against him openly. Titus wasn't scare. He had his own group of supporters.

By the way, all was much more obvious and known earlier among the Chinese speaking than among the English speaking. I knew all about his dislike of the Blendeds way BEFORE WL passed away.

In a sense, Titus totally deserved the quarantine. He wanted it. He knew it would come. He just didn't know when. He wanted to do his own work. He wanted to be separated from the Blendeds. I'm mentioning this because a lot of saints paint Titus as innocent. Poor Titus, he was quarantined! But they don't see that he spoke negatively against the BB behind their backs at least 10-20 years before the quarantine. He knew what he was doing when he made Cleveland his headquarters, just like WL and the BB made Anaheim their headquarters. I'm not justifying the BB's actions (that's a different story altogether). But for this post, I'm focusing in on Titus.

There is nothing wrong with doing your own work, having your own ministry. However, the way Titus was doing it by speaking negatively against the BB behind their backs, putting down their ministry... Hey, if I were the BB, I would have not been happy either.

As I said in previous posts, there is nothing wrong with having your own ministry. The problem is the competition. And Titus WAS competing against the BB for supporters and loyalists. There is no doubt in my mind about that!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

Exactly! You got it right! I don't think many saints realize that Titus had been sowing seeds of distrust towards the BB among his own co-worker as much as a few years before WL passed away. In a sense, he brought the quarantine upon himself. He was testing the water to see how far he could go before the BB would do something against him openly. Titus wasn't scare. He had his own group of supporters.

By the way, all was much more obvious and known earlier among the Chinese speaking than among the English speaking. I knew all about his dislike of the Blendeds way BEFORE WL passed away.

In a sense, Titus totally deserved the quarantine. He wanted it. He knew it would come. He just didn't know when. He wanted to do his own work. He wanted to be separated from the Blendeds. I'm mentioning this because a lot of saints paint Titus as innocent. Poor Titus, he was quarantined! But they don't see that he spoke negatively against the BB behind their backs at least 10-20 years before the quarantine. He knew what he was doing when he made Cleveland his headquarters, just like WL and the BB made Anaheim their headquarters. I'm not justifying the BB's actions (that's a different story altogether). But for this post, I'm focusing in on Titus.

There is nothing wrong with doing your own work, having your own ministry. However, the way Titus was doing it by speaking negatively against the BB behind their backs, putting down their ministry... Hey, if I were the BB, I would have not been happy either.

As I said in previous posts, there is nothing wrong with having your own ministry. The problem is the competition. And Titus WAS competing against the BB for supporters and loyalists. There is no doubt in my mind about that!

From the beginning I have said that all the backbiting leading up to and including the quarantine had nothing to do with the truths of the Bible. It was just a power struggle for control of the Recovery.

Titus Chu loved to portray himself around the world as the only brother under WL not playing politics, but the way he handled the John Ingalls quarantine proved otherwise. He knew John personally, and knew that all the conspiracy / rebellion talk was utter nonsense, and he knew that John had some very legitimate concerns about LSM and its management. Titus awas well aware of the character (or lack thereof) of Phillip Lee, and that one of the molested sisters was from the Cleveland area. Yet he played the hypocrite, signed that letter by Benson, and betrayed John Ingalls and all the other brothers who stuck their necks out for righteousness' sake.

Regarding the backstabbing rhetoric leading up to the quarantine, you are right that Titus knew what he was doing, but he also thought that many more brothers would support him. I'm sure of that. I doubt that he ever imagined Benjamen Chen in NYC would side with the Blendeds against him. He never thought Bill Barker and Jim Reetske in Chicago would flip-flop their support, since they were always on board against the Blendeds. He also expected more support in the Far East, especially Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, and S. Korea.

[Truth]

"Power struggle for control in the Recovery" was the exact phrase I was looking for. WL here is likened to the king of a kingdom. When he died, various sons (co-workers) of his wanted to be the successor. Titus was one of them.

Originally Posted by Ohio

He never thought Bill Barker and Jim Reetske in Chicago would flip-flop their support, since they were always on board against the Blendeds.

Anyone have any insight on what happened there?

A brother in faith

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Truth

I have always been curious. Just imagine this. I know it probably will never happen. But just imagine for fun:

What if Brother Lee/Blend Brothers confessed to our past history publicly and apologized? I'm not talking about teaching here. I know there are many teachings in the LC that main-stream christianity disagree with. I'm talking just about history. What do you think will happen to the Recovery?

Short term cause & effect: Chaos? Some will leave the LC? Many will question its teachings?

Long term cause & effect: Will the LC actually gain more members. Will they be more accepted by other christians?

I would liken in to the steroid scandal in baseball. Players who came clean about using steroids were embraced and able to continue their careers (Jason Giambi, Andy Pettite). While others who continued to deny any involvment with steroids where viewed with suspicion, mistrust, and found it difficult to continue their baseball careers (Barry Bonds).
The same applies to the recovery. The blended brothers had an excellent opportunity to come clean in 1997 over the Phillip Lee era, but as Chris Wilde indicated in a ten year old email, it would just open up too many wounds.
As you indicated in your post, what if?
I think many saints who had left the recovery are waiting for such a confession. There would be a short term increase in numbers among the local churches for those who had left.
As for the long term effect, it would be difficult to maintain based on the current format. Many who had left are accustomed to prophesying based upon their daily walk with Christ throughout the week. The Holy Word for Morning Revival would be too restricting to sustain returning former members of the local churches.
While some former members just want an assurance of being able to visit without any contempt towards them and their spouses.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Current LC Member

Back to the question asked in this thread: "how to get more current LC members to post?" I think this forum *mostly* caters to non-members, ex-members, or members thinking about leaving. Of course members part of DCP will always look around here as well as part of their project.

Most current positive LC members will be reluctant to post because they feel this is a very negative site towards their own group that they dearly hold to. Regardless how *right* you may be about LC and Witness Lee's negative past, it does not necessarily mean all the local LCs are bad. The Roman Catholic Church as a whole has a very sad and negative history; however, that doesn't meant all Catholic Churches locally are bad have abusive authorities. There are many LC church members just minding their own business, enjoying their church life, and do not feel they are being controlled by LSM as some of you claim. I think many may be offended by the content on this site, regardless how truthful it may be. if you would like more current LC members to participate, my suggestion is for the discussion here to be more balanced. It needs to be more sympathetic towards current members. I understand that you are attacking the "LC system" and leaders and not the people; however people still may perceive that they are being attacked. Why would someone want to participate in a forum that is hostile towards them? Anyways, just my 2 cents.

I think part of the problem is being able to set aside subjective feelings and being able to absorb different writings (Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, Speaking the Truth in Love, Bill Mallon's letter to Witness Lee, John So's report, David Wang writing on the Church in Rosemead) objectively. To do so equates to attacking the recovery.
How can you examine the past and have it not be considered an attack?
If this question can be answered, then I think there will be away to engage current local church members in dialogue.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Anyone have any insight on what happened there?

A brother in faith

I heard (read on the forum?) from David Canfield that Titus Chu severely rebuked Bill Barker in a leaders' meeting in front of others. It was something, I think, related to the Spanish speaking work in the Chicago area, and probably something Titus should never have got involved with. Bill Barker took offense, and Canfield felt that that affected his decision to switch allegiances.

The official word from Cleveland at the time of the flip-flop was that it was a "business decision." Chicago had a huge mortgage from the expansion of their meeting hall, with one of the goals to host huge conferences for Titus to speak at. At least one wealthy brother threatened to leave if Chicago sided with Cleveland.

Until that decision, both Barker and Reetske were against the one publication policy. Reetske in fact declared, "brothers have died for their right to publish." LSM, in an compromise agreement to garner support, agreed to allow Reetske to continue to publish his pamphlets on numerous topics.

After that decision was made, LSM felt it had the necessary support to proceed with the quarantine. They quickly moved into numerous GLA LC's to support the "faithful" in filing lawsuits to capture church real estate assets. Also, numerous full-time workers (almost a dozen in all) and their families left greater Chicago and moved to TC-friendly LC's in the region, shoring up support in preparation for battle.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Truth

As I said in previous posts, there is nothing wrong with having your own ministry. The problem is the competition.

Agreed! Problem is the competition. Having never been to the Great Lakes area, I have no frame of reference for Titus Chu and his ministry. My orientation is the southwest, northwest, and southern California. Gifted brothers who left wouldn't be welcome without approval from the blended brothers. Problem is their ministry. Couldn't have a competing ministry. Isn't that why "One Publication" became a pre-requisite. This is really something of the flesh. When we go and read the Book of Acts, there wasn't any competition.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

There is nothing wrong with doing your own work, having your own ministry. However, the way Titus was doing it by speaking negatively against the BB behind their backs, putting down their ministry... Hey, if I were the BB, I would have not been happy either.

As I said in previous posts, there is nothing wrong with having your own ministry. The problem is the competition. And Titus WAS competing against the BB for supporters and loyalists. There is no doubt in my mind about that!

Truth, you mentioned a noteworthy point. Only in the Recovery is a brother condemned for "doing his own work, and having his own ministry." No where in the Bible or the greater body of Christ is this matter frowned upon. Being from Ohio, I was well aware of both the work of Witness Lee and the work of Titus Chu, and how they were often at odds.

Both of these brothers refused to share their "glory" with another. Both regularly attacked potential rivals with these spurious charges, as if doing what the Bible instructs is now some how a "crime" worthy of quarantine. How strange and askew was the programed mindset in the Recovery!

In the Great Lakes area this became one of those ultimate contradictions. Titus would always charge the full-time brothers to "have your own ministry," yet would add a little footnote that these ministries could not be built "using the church." What? Is only Titus allowed to build up his ministry on the backs of the saints? How hypocritical is that? Tens of thousands of volunteer labor and hundreds of thousands of saints' monies have gone into building up his ministry, but no one else can "use" the church?

What was John Myer doing that got him "discharged" from the work in the Great Lakes area? Just "doing his own work, and having his own ministry." He was just doing what Titus was doing, with one exception -- I never once heard John badmouth Titus the way Titus badmouthed everyone else.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Truth

Exactly! You got it right! I don't think many saints realize that Titus had been sowing seeds of distrust towards the BB among his own co-worker as much as a few years before WL passed away. In a sense, he brought the quarantine upon himself. He was testing the water to see how far he could go before the BB would do something against him openly. Titus wasn't scare. He had his own group of supporters.

This is beside my point. I acknowledge the way I wrote my post was a (partial) defense of Titus (insofar as I said he was just for "liberty" and didn't acknowledge his belittling of the BBs).

That said, my biggest concern - indeed, one of the biggest reasons I began coming to this and the previous Bereans forum - was the kind of "authority" teachings which undergirded all the arguments. These teachings on "minister of the age" and even "vision of the age" in the particular LC iteration of it - has tremendous affects on how everyday LC members interact with their God and their fellow believers. They are tremendously insidious.

One can disagree with Titus and still have extremely angsty feelings about the kinds of arguments that founded the debate. And I mean "angst" in the sense meant by Kierkegaard: The profound and deep-seated spiritual condition of fearing that one is failing his responsibility to God.

These teachings operated/operate to steal away one's responsibility to God and hand it over to others.

Long after the debate over Titus and bed-sheets, such teachings will rear their head again in context after context.

It was no accident that the first major publications from the BBs after Witness Lee's death were "The Vision of the Age" and "Leadership in the Lord's Recovery."

It was innoculation.

Peter

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

This is beside my point. I acknowledge the way I wrote my post was a (partial) defense of Titus (insofar as I said he was just for "liberty" and didn't acknowledge his belittling of the BBs).

That said, my biggest concern - indeed, one of the biggest reasons I began coming to this and the previous Bereans forum - was the kind of "authority" teachings which undergirded all the arguments. These teachings on "minister of the age" and even "vision of the age" in the particular LC iteration of it - has tremendous affects on how everyday LC members interact with their God and their fellow believers. They are tremendously insidious.

One can disagree with Titus and still have extremely angsty feelings about the kinds of arguments that founded the debate. And I mean "angst" in the sense meant by Kierkegaard: The profound and deep-seated spiritual condition of fearing that one is failing his responsibility to God.

These teachings operated/operate to steal away one's responsibility to God and hand it over to others.

Long after the debate over Titus and bed-sheets, such teachings will rear their head again in context after context.

It was no accident that the first major publications from the BBs after Witness Lee's death were "The Vision of the Age" and "Leadership in the Lord's Recovery."

It was innoculation.

Peter

Titus may not have used the word "Minister of the Age" or "One publication", however he practiced the same things as the BB. Hiddenly, he only wanted his ministry to prevail. Not only he belittled the BB, he also belittled many of his other co-workers, including John Myers.

Titus felt he was the successor of WL not the BB.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

Titus may not have used the word "Minister of the Age" or "One publication", however he practiced the same things as the BB. Hiddenly, he only wanted his ministry to prevail. Not only he belittled the BB, he also belittled many of his other co-workers, including John Myers.

Titus felt he was the successor of WL not the BB.

I think the facts show this is accurate.

Many GLA leaders felt that Titus positively promoted a healthy return to the scriptures, and supported that. They saw the direction of the Blendeds to be following that of the exclusive Plymouth Brethren of old. Back in the late 90's, Titus and Jim Reetske of chicago actually visited some of the Taylor line of Brethren, and then reported on some of the strange legalisms they now promote in their sect. By implication, today's Blendeds were projected to follow their same twisted and tragic course.

A full-time worker with Titus told me that Titus told him privately that in Taiwan many saints were saying "Nee, Lee, Chu," after WL passed away. There is no question among Titus's supporters that he was more qualified than any of the Blendeds to lead the Recovery. I have always said that the Whistler quarantine had nothing to do with the Lord, the truth, or the Bible, it was just a political move to preempt their rival for control of the leadership. What sparked the Blendeds into action was Titus's travels around the world, in each place creating tensions between the saints concerning Anaheim. Had Titus been content to remain in the GLA, then the quarantine would never have occurred.

After the divisions occurred in the aftermath of Whistler, Titus returned to his controlling ways, as was evidenced with his treatment of John Myer and others. When resisting the Anaheim Blendeds, Titus cried for basic Christian liberties like the right to use contemporary worship music and the right to publish, but with John Myer, those cries for liberty and simple respect were discarded.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

A full-time worker with Titus told me that Titus told him privately that in Taiwan many saints were saying "Nee, Lee, Chu," after WL passed away. There is no question among Titus's supporters that he was more qualified than any of the Blendeds to lead the Recovery. I have always said that the Whistler quarantine had nothing to do with the Lord, the truth, or the Bible, it was just a political move to preempt their rival for control of the leadership. What sparked the Blendeds into action was Titus's travels around the world, in each place creating tensions between the saints concerning Anaheim. Had Titus been content to remain in the GLA, then the quarantine would never have occurred.

IMHO Witness Lee does not have a qualified successor. His status, esteem and accomplishments within the LC system context cannot be matched by anybody. The Anaheim Politburo is led by former editorial clerks who are very good at repeating Witness Lee messages and not much else. Titus Chu has very little influence outside the GLA and some select pockets of people here and there. Dong Yu Lan's influence is more or less limited to Brazil and other parts of South America.

Titus Chu could never call an international leaders conference and expect much attendance and neither could Dong Yu Lan. The Anaheim Politburo can because they are attached to LSM and just keep repeating whatever Witness Lee said. None of them alone could do it and collectively if they ever venture out past their Witness Lee repetition process I'm sure whatever status they enjoy will diminish quickly.

Witness Lee was an irreplaceable giant within the LC system. Not that he could not literally be replaced by others but he did not raise up and cultivate or bring in leaders that could do what he could do.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

IMHO Witness Lee does not have a qualified successor. His status, esteem and accomplishments within the LC system context cannot be matched by anybody. The Anaheim Politburo is led by former editorial clerks who are very good at repeating Witness Lee messages and not much else. Titus Chu has very little influence outside the GLA and some select pockets of people here and there. Dong Yu Lan's influence is more or less limited to Brazil and other parts of South America.

Titus Chu could never call an international leaders conference and expect much attendance and neither could Dong Yu Lan. The Anaheim Politburo can because they are attached to LSM and just keep repeating whatever Witness Lee said. None of them alone could do it and collectively if they ever venture out past their Witness Lee repetition process I'm sure whatever status they enjoy will diminish quickly.

Witness Lee was an irreplaceable giant within the LC system. Not that he could not literally be replaced by others but he did not raise up and cultivate or bring in leaders that could do what he could do.

Yep, I agree.

[OBW]

I can only agree if we stipulate that Lee was a giant in his own eyes and in the eyes of his followers.

Outside of that, Lee was a wannabe with a minor following that gave him a reasonably comfortable living. He was no giant in the general sense of the word. He was more like when the little doctor first appeared in "The Burbs." You first saw this growing shadow on the wall and presumed that some 7 foot tall giant was about the round the corner, only to have a rather small man appear moments later. Sort of like the man behind the curtain in the "Wizard of Oz." Just had a box full of trinkets and magic tricks — and the illusion of smoke an mirrors to make him seem larger-than-life.

He didn't have the fact of greatness. Just the appearance. (IMO)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Titus Chu has very little influence outside the GLA and some select pockets of people here and there.

Titus Chu could never call an international leaders conference and expect much attendance.

Witness Lee was an irreplaceable giant within the LC system.

I have to disagree with those comments about TC. His influence in the Far East is extensive. Whether he could match WL's talents is open for debate, but he could adequately replace WL.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I can only agree if we stipulate that Lee was a giant in his own eyes and in the eyes of his followers.

Outside of that, Lee was a wannabe with a minor following that gave him a reasonably comfortable living. He was no giant in the general sense of the word. He was more like when the little doctor first appeared in "The Burbs." You first saw this growing shadow on the wall and presumed that some 7 foot tall giant was about the round the corner, only to have a rather small man appear moments later. Sort of like the man behind the curtain in the "Wizard of Oz." Just had a box full of trinkets and magic tricks — and the illusion of smoke an mirrors to make him seem larger-than-life.

He didn't have the fact of greatness. Just the appearance. (IMO)

Hard to agree with this. WL was an immensely talented minister and leader. Had he never ventured into strange and obscure teachings, which only served to stir opposition and subsequent lawsuits, the impact would have been far greater. You are right, however, that his own sense of greatness never did serve him or any one else. Had he been content to be just a minister, and focus only the positive things of the gospel, his outreach could have influenced many a Christian. Unfortunately, however, the negative baggage over the years tended to grow faster than his ministry.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hard to agree with this. WL was an immensely talented minister and leader. Had he never ventured into strange and obscure teachings, which only served to stir opposition and subsequent lawsuits, the impact would have been far greater. You are right, however, that his own sense of greatness never did serve him or any one else. Had he been content to be just a minister, and focus only the positive things of the gospel, his outreach could have influenced many a Christian. Unfortunately, however, the negative baggage over the years tended to grow faster than his ministry.

Well said, Ohio.

The positive aspects of WL's ministry is enjoyable. Whenever I shared some of it with my Christian friends, they were also helped and impressed.

Unfortunately, the negative parts of his ministry has overshadowed and overpowered the positive parts. The BB are trying to bring the positive parts back through a "Kosher" LSM radio program. I'm not sure how much of it has helped. It will not be long before new members discover the negative. It is best to just renounce the negative parts of WL's ministry.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

Unfortunately, the negative parts of his ministry has overshadowed and overpowered the positive parts. The BB are trying to bring the positive parts back through a "Kosher" LSM radio program. I'm not sure how much of it has helped. It will not be long before new members discover the negative. It is best to just renounce the negative parts of WL's ministry.

Nigel Tomes wrote a great article about the Moravian Brethren after Zinzendorf passed away and the exclusive Plymouth Brethren after James Taylor passed away. To their credit the Moravian Brothers acknowledged the faults and shortcomings of Zinzendorf's ministry, rejected them, and the Lord continued to bless them. The Taylor Brethren refused to fess up to any wrongdoing, however, since after all, he was the Oracle of God, His Anointed Servant, which we all know cannot error.

[OBW]

I can buy "immensely talented leader." He had just about everything he needed to take people wherever he wanted. And it was despite the initial turn-off of trying to understand his heavily accented English

As for minister, it depends on whether it is important that his ministry be useful to anyone. And after much consideration, I have concluded that the only truly positive portions of his ministry were available elsewhere. So he could only be, as you said, a minister in a sea of ministers.

Never the minister. The things for which he was granted MOTA status are, for me, at best questionable. Which leaves me wondering why I would choose to wade through the questionable to discover what I could get off the shelf at Lifeway. Given time and scrutiny, we might find something somewhat unique of value.

But I think the most valuable thing of the LRC was the people and just getting out of the then-deadness of Christianity. Something that much of Christianity would do for itself just a little while later. Lee would say that it was just them learning from him. But that was wishful thinking. Most never heard of him. Only a few heard of Nee and they didn't really know much about him.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by OBW

I can only agree if we stipulate that Lee was a giant in his own eyes and in the eyes of his followers.

I agree. You'll note I mentioned within the LC system context. Outside of that limited world he was not well-received or respected because he was arrogant and exclusive towards others. Also as Ohio indicated some of his teachings were extreme or I would add: at minimum the way he communicated them was extreme.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have to disagree with those comments about TC. His influence in the Far East is extensive. Whether he could match WL's talents is open for debate, but he could adequately replace WL.

I beg to differ on this point. The Far East is a very very large place with thousands of coworkers and elders many of them older and more experienced than Titus Chu.

Titus Chu had a limited work with some young people in Taiwan for a period of time. He also went to South Korea - sent by Witness Lee and did some limited work there. Plus later he did some work on the Mainland of China.

Apparently his work both in Taiwan and South Korea ultimately caused problems among the local leadership and coworkers. We should not forget that he would be considered like a "boy" to many especially those like Chang Wu-Chen. And the way he behaves in the GLA it should not surprise us that he became persona non grata for many key leaders in the Far East.

I could not imagine Titus Chu replacing Witness Lee anywhere but in the GLA. He does not have the stature or esteem that Witness Lee enjoyed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

I beg to differ on this point. The Far East is a very very large place with thousands of coworkers and elders many of them older and more experienced than Titus Chu.

Titus Chu had a limited work with some young people in Taiwan for a period of time. He also went to South Korea - sent by Witness Lee and did some limited work there. Plus later he did some work on the Mainland of China.

Apparently his work both in Taiwan and South Korea ultimately caused problems among the local leadership and coworkers. We should not forget that he would be considered like a "boy" to many especially those like Chang Wu-Chen. And the way he behaves in the GLA it should not surprise us that he became persona non grata for many key leaders in the Far East.

What you say may be true, but do they look at the Blendeds with more respect?

Here's a serious problem with the mindset in most of the Recovery -- they have been trained for decades that "the Lord has always had one man for His move in every age."

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What you say may be true, but do they look at the Blendeds with more respect?

Here's a serious problem with the mindset in most of the Recovery -- they have been trained for decades that "the Lord has always had one man for His move in every age."

Yes that is the training for decades and a firm instilled belief which makes the Anaheim Politburo an oxymoronic entity.

As I mentioned previously I don't think that the Anaheim Politburo as a whole can replace Witness Lee and especially none of it's members individually. For this reason I don't think they do respect it but they tolerate it because it's attached to the LSM and is basically committed to publishing Witness Lee in writing and verbally repeating whatever he said. If they ever stopped doing this nobody would listen to them anymore. In and of themselves they have no status or esteem. It is all related to their attachment to Witness Lee. If you take Witness Lee out of the equation there's not much to the Anaheim Politburo.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Truth

Unfortunately, the negative parts of his ministry has overshadowed and overpowered the positive parts. The BB are trying to bring the positive parts back through a "Kosher" LSM radio program. I'm not sure how much of it has helped. It will not be long before new members discover the negative. It is best to just renounce the negative parts of WL's ministry.

Agreed. Personally I immensely appreciated The Practical Expression of the Church and Christ Versus Religion.
Truth, when you speak of a "Kosher" LSM radio program, do you mean to say something that is diluted to the extent it's content would be acceptable and not along the lines what I heard last Sunday morning?
The first being non-LSM churches being referred to as denominations.
The second a comment attributed to Benson last Friday night when speaking about the "One New Man" using a Korean church meeting in Anaheim next to the LSM campus as an example what the "One New Man" is not. True, if your assembly is tailored towards a certain langauge, Christians would be excluded who do not speak nor understand that particular "langauge". When I've heard of the ministry being referred to as a language, I think of how the early part of Witness Lee's ministry used to be. It used to be a general ministry for all believers. Not so anymore. What I have observed the ministry is for believers who have an aptitude for the lanaguage of the ministry.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Terry

What I have observed the ministry is for believers who have an aptitude for the lanaguage of the ministry.

Yes, this relates more to WL's later ministry. Instead of using words commonly understood by most people, WL uses a lot of jargon. Words like "Processed Consumated seven-fold intensifed Life-giving Spirit" are thrown around a lot (especially with the "high peak" truths). When you speak these words, you are "in". If you don't, you feel left out. Again I'm speaking more of what happens at the 7-feasts. In individual LCs and small home groups, this is not necessarily the case.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Terry

Truth, when you speak of a "Kosher" LSM radio program, do you mean to say something that is diluted to the extent it's content would be acceptable and not along the lines what I heard last Sunday morning?.

When I say "kosher", I mean the negative (condemning) part of the ministry is purposely left out. For example when they go through the Life-study of Revelation, they will leave out the part where WL says "Protestantism is demonic". Just listen to the LSM radio program, and you will understand what I mean. The broadcast archives are all here: http://www.lsmradio.com/rad_archives.html

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What you say may be true, but do they look at the Blendeds with more respect?

The BB get more respect only because they literally repeat word for word everything WL says. This way no one can accuse them of anything. This is how they gain their followers.

Titus tried to gain followers by being creative in his own ways. He failed miserably.

The BB have a much larger support base because they follow WL to the teeth. Without using WL's name to back every action they take, the BB would have no support. I agree with alwayslearning on this point.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

The second a comment attributed to Benson last Friday night when speaking about the "One New Man" using a Korean church meeting in Anaheim next to the LSM campus as an example what the "One New Man" is not. True, if your assembly is tailored towards a certain language, Christians would be excluded who do not speak nor understand that particular "language".

And to make that kind of statement is the ultimate in stupidity. Then every meeting in America that is in English excludes anyone who does not know English. That is what would happen to me if I went to any kind of church meeting in Mexico. But according to Benson, I would be excluding if I found some other non-Spanish speaking Americans in Guadalajara and held a meeting each week while on assignment there. (This has never happened for me.)

I am having a hard time believing that Benson actually is stupid enough to believe what he said. It is beginning to look more and more like he is intentionally creating a divide with statements he can hardly help but know are inflammatory and false.

[OBW]

And and add-on. It is hard to believe that there is not something screaming within many who heard Benson say this declaring it to be wrong. But way too many of them are accustomed to labeling that as Satan's attack. Or are too invested to do anything about it. Or have assumed that accepting some amount of nonsense is par for the course.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by OBW

And to make that kind of statement is the ultimate in stupidity. Then every meeting in America that is in English excludes anyone who does not know English. That is what would happen to me if I went to any kind of church meeting in Mexico. But according to Benson, I would be excluding if I found some other non-Spanish speaking Americans in Guadalajara and held a meeting each week while on assignment there. (This has never happened for me.)

I am having a hard time believing that Benson actually is stupid enough to believe what he said. It is beginning to look more and more like he is intentionally creating a divide with statements he can hardly help but know are inflammatory and false.

What is particularly odd to me about Benson's teaching is it directly contradicts a practice set up by Witness Lee: separate Chinese-speaking meetings with their own set of elders, etc. I'm not sure if this is still the way the LC system operates but if it is at minimum his remarks are hypocritical.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

Yes, this relates more to WL's later ministry. Instead of using words commonly understood by most people, WL uses a lot of jargon. Words like "Processed Consumated seven-fold intensifed Life-giving Spirit" are thrown around a lot (especially with the "high peak" truths). When you speak these words, you are "in". If you don't, you feel left out.

My wife and I used to regularly stay with a couple near Anaheim for the annual trainings. He was a computer professional, and all of us first contacted the Recovery in the early 70's. Gradually he reached the point where he felt grossly inferior because all the young people in the trainings could spew out high peak jargon so effortlessly. He got convinced that the Lord's move was wrapped up in the new language, so he contemplated quitting his job to attend the FTTA. This was in the late 90's, the last time I went out to Aneheim.

Looking back, how sad is that. Brother in the prime of life feels useless and deficient because college kids enunciate long-winded Lee-isms to a glowing audience. How many other precious brothers arrived at the same conclusions?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am having a hard time believing that Benson actually is stupid enough to believe what he said. It is beginning to look more and more like he is intentionally creating a divide with statements he can hardly help but know are inflammatory and false.

Astute observation.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

What is particularly odd to me about Benson's teaching is it directly contradicts a practice set up by Witness Lee: separate Chinese-speaking meetings with their own set of elders, etc. I'm not sure if this is still the way the LC system operates but if it is at minimum his remarks are hypocritical.

Not sure if Benson's word was to support the teaching of "One New Man". My point is as many people living in the US who learned English as a second, third, or fourth languages, they will understand better if the service is spoken in their native tongue. One churches locally is Ukranian. That's not to say you're unwelcome if you visit, but the service deilvered is Ukranian. If you happen to speak Ukranian, you'll understand. Same applies if the congregations was in Spanish, Chinese, or Tagalog.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Terry

Not sure if Benson's word was to support the teaching of "One New Man". My point is as many people living in the US who learned English as a second, third, or fourth languages, they will understand better if the service is spoken in their native tongue. One churches locally is Ukranian. That's not to say you're unwelcome if you visit, but the service deilvered is Ukranian. If you happen to speak Ukranian, you'll understand. Same applies if the congregations was in Spanish, Chinese, or Tagalog.

I have no problem with churches that cater to an specific ethic community. It allows people to hear the gospel and Christian teachings in a language they can readily understand. But it appears Benson has a problem with these kind of churches.

But anyway to your larger point IMHO Witness Lee never had a ministry that was "general" for all Christians. He taught the ground of locality fiercely and publicly denounced TAS when he wouldn't sign on to it. He controlled the churches by his appointment of elders that agreed with him and the removal of those that didn't. He used language and purposely provoked other Christians starting in the 1960s (at least in America). As time went on he kept the language game going until titles of his messages and outlines bordered on the ridiculous - as if he and his staff we trying to see how many multi-syllable words they can fit in a heading.

Eventually for the "average" Christian just trying to live a decent life and honor God and raise his family and do well in his career the whole thing becomes disconnected from his real world reality. (Like the computer programmer bro Ohio mentioned.) Who talks like that in real life? Who has time to get into pie-in-they-sky theological abstractions? Maybe the FTTA students and their teachers. They can have it! In my free time I'll be busy watching football and probably have a beer while I'm at it.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Truth

When I say "kosher", I mean the negative (condemning) part of the ministry is purposely left out. For example when they go through the Life-study of Revelation, they will leave out the part where WL says "Protestantism is demonic". Just listen to the LSM radio program, and you will understand what I mean. The broadcast archives are all here: http://www.lsmradio.com/rad_archives.html

Thanks. It was the unchecked "negative" part why I withdrew from meeting with the LC in my town.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Terry

Thanks. It was the unchecked "negative" part why I withdrew from meeting with the LC in my town.

I don't find that there is a lot of WL's negative/condemning ministry spoken in the LC's where there are a lot of new members. Most realize that this will drive them away.

There is some of WL's negative/condemning ministry spoken at the 7-feasts for sure. Because of this I am no longer interested in these conference/trainings. But I find that the church life in my locality very sweet. There is no atmosphere of condemnation, no feeling from the saints that they are superior over christians not in the LCs. There is just lots of enjoyment of Christ, caring for one another, and gaining new members. Sure, we mainly use WL/WN's ministry. But if a brother/sister spoke something from somewhere else, no one condemns. I wished it could be like this everywhere.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

What is particularly odd to me about Benson's teaching is it directly contradicts a practice set up by Witness Lee: separate Chinese-speaking meetings with their own set of elders, etc. I'm not sure if this is still the way the LC system operates but if it is at minimum his remarks are hypocritical.

You are right about the language hypocrisy. All foreign language churches were condemned as divisions in the body of Christ, and not a true testimony of Christ in the city. So the Anaheim Korean Church was condemned but the Korean-speaking-meetings in Anaheim were perfectly kosher. The key was to use the proper "politically-correct" terminology "Chinese-speaking" or "Korean-speaking" and God will magically bless you for being on the "proper ground."

It got a little comical during announcements. It was a "mortal" sin to just say "Chinese-meeting," so everyone was well rehearsed at saying "Chinese-speaking-meeting." After a while we would hear, "college-speaking-meetings." How weird is that? Did we really believe that all these correct "utterances" were the key to unlock Biblical blessings?

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are right about the language hypocrisy. All foreign language churches were condemned as divisions in the body of Christ, and not a true testimony of Christ in the city. So the Anaheim Korean Church was condemned but the Korean-speaking-meetings in Anaheim were perfectly kosher. The key was to use the proper "politically-correct" terminology "Chinese-speaking" or "Korean-speaking" and God will magically bless you for being on the "proper ground."

It got a little comical during announcements. It was a "mortal" sin to just say "Chinese-meeting," so everyone was well rehearsed at saying "Chinese-speaking-meeting." After a while we would hear, "college-speaking-meetings." How weird is that? Did we really believe that all these correct "utterances" were the key to unlock Biblical blessings?

I have never seen anything wrong with meeting as a Korean Church, Chinese Church, or Russian Church. These type of churches are necessary to meet the language needs of some Christians. If I was in China, I would do my best to join an America Church so that I can understand the services in my language. It just doesn't make sense to condemn a church for being language-based. This has nothing to do with violating the one-new man.

[OBW]

It seems that the only true command in scripture is to not forsake assembling together. That you have any kind of reason for meeting here v there is not commented upon. But if you are going to meet together, you should be on the "same page" with the others there — at least for the most part. That would seem to be the combined wisdom of Paul and the writer of Hebrews (who may or may not be Paul).

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The key was to use the proper "politically-correct" terminology "Chinese-speaking" or "Korean-speaking" and God will magically bless you for being on the "proper ground."

It got a little comical during announcements. It was a "mortal" sin to just say "Chinese-meeting," so everyone was well rehearsed at saying "Chinese-speaking-meeting."

LOL!

There was always a loophole around the ground of locality clause in the LC's canon law. Separate meetings, separate Lord's Tables, separate administrations based on language = OK if we do it but not the people next door at the Korean Church - they're obviously "not clear" about the ground.

Then there was always the loophole around having 2 or 3 or more LCs in one city because of divisions. Which one is the genuine article? Ask the Anaheim Politburo - they will put their stamp of approval on the real one. The rest are fakes...I guess? (Not that there's a headquarters or anything.)

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by OBW

But if you are going to meet together, you should be on the "same page" with the others there — at least for the most part. That would seem to be the combined wisdom of Paul and the writer of Hebrews (who may or may not be Paul).

I agree and it seems to me the starting point of the "same page" is the common faith i.e. the essentials. If a Korean Church is reaching out to the Korean people in my city with the gospel and sound Christian teaching to edify the believers who am to judge and condemn? They are on the "same page" together as a church and in fact I am on the same page as they are except I don't speak Korean so I meet elsewhere. Nothing wrong with that IMHO.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am having a hard time believing that Benson actually is stupid enough to believe what he said. It is beginning to look more and more like he is intentionally creating a divide with statements he can hardly help but know are inflammatory and false.

This is the LC way as taught by Witness Lee who used inflammatory remarks to purposely cause his listeners to get stirred up against an imaginary enemy i.e. all Christians in "Babylon".

And there could be yet another reason: there is "Korean-speaking" meeting under the umbrella of The Church in Anaheim (or elsewhere) and perhaps some there and maybe the leaders of that meeting are getting a little too independent for Benson's liking so he is using the Korean Church next door example as the subtext but is really talking to them and everyone else about them. Ahh...but that is mere speculation. Such things were never done in the LC!

[Peter Debelak]

In the midst of the "fermentation" of the split with the GLA, a blog got created (lordsarmy.xanga.com) which spit vitriole regarding the GLA leaders and which were parrots for Witness Lee.

I engaged with this blog because there were a lot of young people reading and attempting to learn about the tumult from it.

At one point someone asked why the vast majority of the "increase" in the local church were chinese. This set off a fire-storm of response. "there is no jew nor greek," and so on...

There was an utter lack of desire for self-reflection.

This was my feeble attempt to enter the foray:

It seems that on this site everyone is either in extreme attack mode or extreme defensive mode (which, in turn, becomes attack mode). That is understandable given the nature of the discussions at hand. However, recognizing that we all may be overly sensitive and may (possibly) read more into people's words than are meant, I would hope that we could take a step back in an effort to give one another the benefit of the doubt.

The discussion at hand is a precarious one. On one hand, in the one new man, there is no Jew and there is no Greek. (Col. 3:11). There is only Christ who is all in all. The Lord is Lord of all, with abounding riches for all who call on Him (Rom 10:12). On the other hand, when preaching the gospel, Paul became "all things to all men" in order to reach unbelievers with the gospel of Christ. Take a look at 1 Corinthians 9. He became a Jew to reach the Jews. He lived under the law to reach those who lived under the law. He became weak to reach the weak. He quoted Greek poets when speaking to the philosophers in Athens. (Acts 17) He had Timothy circumcised when traveling into Jewish regions because Timothy's father was a Greek. (Acts 16).

Yes, it is true that the gospel is just Christ Himself. But we should not say that as a slogan "We must preach Christ alone" in retort to those who would use "methods" or "culture" to reach people. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul was being extremely practical, not simply speaking "high truths." When he said he became all things to all men, it was a practical statement. He compares preaching the gospel to the training of an athlete. His "methods" were so that his preaching wasn't mere "shadowboxing." The phrase, "the gospel is just Christ Himself" is a true one, but if we are not reaching people, we might be "shadowboxing." What we think is "just Christ" may actually be our own unexamined practices, habits or culture.

As a little example, one friend I brought to a meeting (indeed, a diverse one!), said at the end: "The most amazing thing is that the whole group has the exact same intonation when they speak or read!" And its kind of true. Anyone who has spent a decent amount of time in our meetings (and especially the second generation) will know exactly when to pause in prayer for that "amen" from the group, they will be in perfect sync with eachother on where to pause when reading together, and so on... This is, of course, a stupid little example. I bring it up to note that we often pick up practices and preferences that are habits and cultural and which may or may not be "just Christ."

So, the question is this: is it even possible that we have certain unexamined habits or preferences that appeal to one cultural group more than another cultural group, which habits or preferences are more than "just Christ"??? Paul's example is that different practices, demeanor's or approaches will appeal to one group more than another. On one hand, we should seize on this fact in order to reach EVERYONE!!! On the other hand, we should be cautious of this fact and ask the Lord to expose our hearts and our unexamined assumptions about our own habits, preferences and practices - individually and as a group - that He might expose us where we may be turning some away by those unexamines practices and habits. Sometimes, what we assume is "just Christ" can be more than that. We should take a humbled position before the Lord, who is the Author and Perfector of faith. Any single cultural practice or preference (and I don't just mean racial culture) can be "worldly" in one context, "of Christ" in another context, and "neither here nor there" in yet another. They can be hinderances to Christ and they can be useful for the gospel. It depends on their source. And here's a tip: if you don't examine whether certain practices or habits (which we all have, including as a whole group - if you deny this, you're lying to yourself) are of our preference or whether they are of Christ, then you have no idea what their source is... A little examination (done in humility and love toward one another) under the Lord's light is ALWAYS in order...

Maybe we can all step back a bit and have a less black-and-white discussion (no pun intended).

In Love,

Peter

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

At one point someone asked why the vast majority of the "increase" in the local church were chinese. This set off a fire-storm of response. "there is no jew nor greek," and so on...

Perhaps because the leader of the Recovery is Chinese? Believe it or not, the leader has a huge influence on the culture of the group he/she leads.

I want to offer a heartfelt response to this question, to unburden something the Lord Himself has given me to speak.

Untohim, I know what the intent of your ministry here is, and I know you see that your vision has not entirely been met here. I understand where your heart is, and I know that you are well aware of the mountain of resistance you face within the individuals still within the LRC to hearing anything people here - people who have left the LRC - have to say. You might say, it takes a genuine miracle of God to open the eyes and the stopped up ears of people still within the LRC. And that statement itself is not an exaggeration, it is in fact entirely accurate.

The problem here, I firmly believe, is that we are trying by reason to persuade men of the error of their ways. We are using human resources to try to overcome what is in reality a spiritual problem: That problem being deadend spiritual senses. The senses of these people have been dulled, have been put to sleep, and they have been taught to submit to a "spiritual authority" apart from the Holy Spirit. My friend, you are trying to wake the dead. Only God can do that.

Human words, even genuine testimonies, published novels and cold-hard rational facts and evidence won't accomplish what I know you truly desire: Revival. Fellowship. Cleansing. Freedom for those for whom you obviously love and care.

If you really want to grow this ministry - to make it the effective outreach you sense it must become - then you don't need to dress it up. You don't need to make it easier to navigate for the tech savvy. You need to open it up.

There is a story I'm sure most of us have heard - about how the bankers taught their employees to recognize counterfeit currency by locking them in a room for 10 days and letting them handle nothing but the genuine article. They taught their people to identify fakes not by letting them handle fakes, but by letting them handle the real deal so much that the fakes, when they did encounter them, were obvious.

People in the LRC think they are fat with "life" - but those of us who made it through know exactly what they've been eating - and they're starving. Untohim, they need to be fed. They think they've been feasting on the meat of the "high-peak gospel", but they need the pure milk of the Word. They need the REAL Gospel. They need to see Christ as He truly is, and when they do, they will listen. He will beckon His own, the real sheep will know His voice. Do you love Him, Untohim? Then feed His Sheep.

This Forum should not be just for members and ex-members. It should have within it a welcoming element of common fellowship to ALL members of the Body of Christ. It should reach out to and embrance Brothers and Sisters everywhere. Should it minister specifically to the people who are in and who have left the LRC? Certainly brother, that's your burden - the Lord Himself gave it to you. But it's focus ought to be on the Word of God, by the hearing of which all men may be saved.

If you open it up in such a way, then brothers and sisters in Christ who do not know anything about the LRC will become aware of it. That awareness is valuable, because it may be that the Lord will put it on the hearts of His people to pray for those caught within the LRC. It may be, that this awareness with innoculate the innocent who may be otherwise caught up in it, and it may be that those still within it will finally listen and understand that you are hear not to corrupt and defile them, but out of a genuine love for them. That you, that we, are nothing to fear - and that the Lord Jesus Christ is far bigger than they have ever been taught He was.

Pray about it, Untohim.


Peace brother,

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If you really want to grow this ministry - to make it the effective outreach you sense it must become - then you don't need to dress it up. You don't need to make it easier to navigate for the tech savvy. You need to open it up.

This Forum should not be just for members and ex-members. It should have within it a welcoming element of common fellowship to ALL members of the Body of Christ. It should reach out to and embrance Brothers and Sisters everywhere. Should it minister specifically to the people who are in and who have left the LRC? Certainly brother, that's your burden - the Lord Himself gave it to you. But it's focus ought to be on the Word of God, by the hearing of which all men may be saved.

If you open it up in such a way, then brothers and sisters in Christ who do not know anything about the LRC will become aware of it. That awareness is valuable, because it may be that the Lord will put it on the hearts of His people to pray for those caught within the LRC. It may be, that this awareness with innoculate the innocent who may be otherwise caught up in it, and it may be that those still within it will finally listen and understand that you are hear not to corrupt and defile them, but out of a genuine love for them. That you, that we, are nothing to fear - and that the Lord Jesus Christ is far bigger than they have ever been taught He was.

I concur. Our discussion is and should be about God's salvation in His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, revealed in His word. Many of us have been through the Lord's Recovery churches and teachings, and our discussion often reflects that. But this forum could be bigger than "disaffected ex-members".

We are Christians first and foremost, and the discussion of our christian journeys should not be limited to that part of our journey which was unhealthily obsessed with the teachings of one man.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by aron

I concur. Our discussion is and should be about God's salvation in His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, revealed in His word. Many of us have been through the Lord's Recovery churches and teachings, and our discussion often reflects that. But this forum could be bigger than "disaffected ex-members".

We are Christians first and foremost, and the discussion of our christian journeys should not be limited to that part of our journey which was unhealthily obsessed with the teachings of one man.

Generally I agree with this but think there are plenty of websites out there discussing God's salvation, etc. There are only a few discussing the good, the bad and the ugly of the LC to counter the lopsided LC cheerleaders who have populated the web with dozens if not hundreds of websites promoting their church, LSM and Witness Lee.

If anything IMHO the expansion of this website's reach could be to Christians leaving or having already left toxic unhealthy totalitarian churches of any sort who need help from those who have gone through the ringer and lived to tell the tale. BTW, that's a lot of people!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The problem here, I firmly believe, is that we are trying by reason to persuade men of the error of their ways. We are using human resources to try to overcome what is in reality a spiritual problem: That problem being deadend spiritual senses. The senses of these people have been dulled, have been put to sleep, and they have been taught to submit to a "spiritual authority" apart from the Holy Spirit. My friend, you are trying to wake the dead. Only God can do that.

Let me start by saying that it is true that only God can wake the dead. Only God can open the eyes of our hearts.

But He does not generally do it directly. There are ways that He works through circumstances and through our words and deeds. I may get chastised a little for this, but when it says that the Word does not return void, I believe that there is some requirement that it actually be the Word, and not just some words that happen to be arranged in the same order as those found in scripture. If they are intentionally read wrong, misinterpreted, etc., then what is being taken in is not actually the Word.

I do not suppose that my feeble attempts at pointing to what I think is correct interpretation or reading makes it into the Word. But I do believe that if we do not speak, then only the "dumb idol" version of the words will be found in some cases. But if we speak concerning what is really there, then the words can become Word within the reader/listener. Given the number of times that I have seen die-hard LRC members scoff at the obvious and return with absolutely ridiculous readings of scripture, I do not presume that it is simply a matter of logic and intelligence. It still takes God. But, like the poor bankrupt guy who couldn't believe that God wouldn't let him win the lottery to pay off his bills, sometimes we have to cooperate and "buy a ticket." In this case, speak up. Put the sound arguments in front of them. Give the Spirit more than a miracle to work with.

Besides, scripture is not just some illogical thing that is only known in the "spirit." It speaks, even calls us to come together and reason. I realize that this was not a general statement about scripture, but I believe it is applicable. And Paul was not adverse to logic. Using examples and metaphors requires some level of logic to make a leap from picture to what is the intended meaning.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

People in the LRC think they are fat with "life" - but those of us who made it through know exactly what they've been eating - and they're starving. Untohim, they need to be fed. They think they've been feasting on the meat of the "high-peak gospel", but they need the pure milk of the Word. They need the REAL Gospel. They need to see Christ as He truly is, and when they do, they will listen. He will beckon His own, the real sheep will know His voice. Do you love Him, Untohim? Then feed His Sheep.

And at least one of the BBs openly said this in my presence many years ago (that would be in the early 80s). "We've built great fences, but the sheep are starving" (or something like that). I doubt he would say that now due to the judgment that would put on him.

But suggesting that this should just be another fellowship board is not the answer. It might bring a few more out to learn that we are not as bankrupt as they have been taught. Or will it. They will find a bunch of people who have varying progressing levels of tolerance for what the LRC teaches is "poor, poor Christianity," and even the "Whore of Babylon and her harlot daughters."

No, the only ones coming out here are coming to either combat the "evil" being said against the LRC, or those who want to learn more about what is wrong with it. Just feeding them is what the LRC has supposedly been doing. Or what they can/should be getting from intentional fellowship with people that they can actually see and speak with. Life is not just fellowship and "eating Jesus." It is living a normal life. It is also a mutual life with other Christians. It is not all of either. And every time Christians are together in some form is not necessarily a "meeting" in the sense of "church." It can be for other purposes without lowering our status as believers.

There is a time to laugh. A time to cry. A time for fellowship. A time for doctrine. A time for love and worship. A time for logic and reason.

And this forum is somewhat heavily for the last of these. Meetings of the church (in whatever form) are generally not. Neither is the time for "sweet fellowship."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The problem here, I firmly believe, is that we are trying by reason to persuade men of the error of their ways. We are using human resources to try to overcome what is in reality a spiritual problem: That problem being deadened spiritual senses. The senses of these people have been dulled, have been put to sleep, and they have been taught to submit to a "spiritual authority" apart from the Holy Spirit. My friend, you are trying to wake the dead. Only God can do that.

For years I wondered why things were not as we had been promised. I had nagging questions about whether we really were God's unique testimony on earth. If all that we were told was true, then why did we become so barren and stagnant? Is this the best God could do? And why did the leadership tend to destroy those who were doing well? Why so many storms and unexplained conflicts? Why? Why? Why?

Perhaps the initial work of the Holy Spirit within was to cause me to question all that I assumed to be true. I knew the Recovery had issues, but where I could I find answers? Had anyone ever left the Recovery without being judged by God? I needed to talk with someone who had successfully exited without being so "negative" that all my defenses engaged upon impact.

I definitely was not alone. The quarantine of Titus Chu seemed to awaken hundreds from varying degrees of slumber. People needed information. People needed to talk ... or listen to others talk. That's where this forum became so useful.

But for those, as you say, who are sleeping peacefully in the LC's, and do not have an "inner nag" bothering them, I have no delusions that a million forums would affect them. They have been successfully "inoculated" as they say, and if their spiritual needs are being met, then I am truly happy for them. There's no such thing as a perfect church; many are far worse than the Recovery; and some of the LC's are actually quite decent, as I have been told.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The problem here, I firmly believe, is that we are trying by reason to persuade men of the error of their ways. We are using human resources to try to overcome what is in reality a spiritual problem: That problem being deadend spiritual senses. The senses of these people have been dulled, have been put to sleep, and they have been taught to submit to a "spiritual authority" apart from the Holy Spirit. My friend, you are trying to wake the dead. Only God can do that.

Human words, even genuine testimonies, published novels and cold-hard rational facts and evidence won't accomplish what I know you truly desire: Revival. Fellowship. Cleansing. Freedom for those for whom you obviously love and care.

Thanks for your input.

Though I agree with some of the things you said, I'm not sure how you can know what I highlighted above is true. How do you know we are only using "human resources?" (You seem imply that's all we are using.) You are free to speak for yourself, but how can you speak for others on this matter?

I agree that trying to spiritually enlighten without God's help is doomed to fail. But I disagree that what we are doing here is without God's help, or that it is in any way a failure.

There was a time on these forums that I felt everyone was talking and no one was praying. A lot got said (and yelled) and not much changed. I don't think that any more. For one, I'm praying a lot more.

The issue is not "human tools" versus "spiritual things." The issue or question is, has the tool--website, iPhone app, written words, skilled argumentation, gospel campaign, or whatever-- been prayed over. So whether tools like this forum or other modern devices are spiritually useful depends on the spiritual attitude of those utilizing them in ministry. But all else being equal, a good website is better than a bad one. Surely only God can wake the dead. But God can use the tools we make to do so, and the condition of those tools does matter.

But I will say this: If we all prayed two words for every one word we typed we'd see better results. If that sums up what you were saying then I wholeheartedly agree.

[aron]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Generally I agree with this but there are plenty of websites out there discussing God's salvation, etc. There are only a few discussing the good, the bad and the ugly of the LC to counter the lopsided LC cheerleaders who have populated the web with dozens if not hundreds of websites promoting their church, LSM and Witness Lee.

Regarding what I underlined: discussing "God's salvation, etc" in what context? Were 'christianity', if I may use the word loosely, doing a good job at discussing God's salvation in Jesus Christ, then there wouldn't be so many of us christians lured into traps like Lee's "recovery church" in the first place. If our collective misson is to highlight what is wrong with the Lee church teachings and practices, I would argue that this might be more successfully carried out if it was presented as part of a larger, more compelling narrative. If we can't find one, or one can't find us, then our discussions are relegated to the fringe of the fringe.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

If anything IMHO the expansion of this website's reach could be to Christians leaving or having already left toxic unhealthy totalitarian churches of any sort who need help from those who have gone through the ringer and lived to tell the tale. BTW, that's a lot of people!

The underlined part, again, is what I am after. What is the tale we are telling, after our trip thru the Recovery ringer? I assume it at least somewhat references Jesus Christ? My argument is that the stronger we highlight Jesus Christ, the more the counterfeit organization(s) are laid bare. To just focus on "what is wrong" ends up looking like a bunch of ex-employees griping about their former boss. You marginalize yourself, and reduce the utility of your discussion.

Just thinking aloud; my thoughts here obviously bearing no more weight than anyone else's.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

My argument is that the stronger we highlight Jesus Christ, the more the counterfeit organization(s) are laid bare. To just focus on "what is wrong" ends up looking like a bunch of ex-employees griping about their former boss. You marginalize yourself, and reduce the utility of your discussion...

This is why, for example, I found the idea of "hierarchy" in church settings so interesting: it highlighted the contrast between the teachings and example of Jesus (to be the greatest, be the least) with actual practices and teachings in our respective organizations, Lee's Recovery Church included.

To me it represented an actual learning moment which transcended "local church discussions".

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by aron

If our collective misson is to highlight what is wrong with the Lee church teachings and practices, I would argue that this might be more successfully carried out if it was presented as part of a larger, more compelling narrative.

For many escape from the LC or any other such church is a very compelling narrative and interestingly enough some would say a break from all things "spiritual" including talk about God was a necessary stepping stone. Within the context of their own life they had to discover the distinction between the true God who is actually interested in them and their life vs. the god of the group who requires sacrifice for the sake of the group at all costs while their own identities and personalities are rendered insignificant.

Originally Posted by aron

The underlined part, again, is what I am after. What is the tale we are telling, after our trip thru the Recovery ringer? I assume it at least somewhat references Jesus Christ? My argument is that the stronger we highlight Jesus Christ, the more the counterfeit organization(s) are laid bare. To just focus on "what is wrong" ends up looking like a bunch of ex-employees griping about their former boss. You marginalize yourself, and reduce the utility of your discussion.

Of course it references Jesus Christ but not as a mere reference or talking point but rather a person in relationship with the ex-member as an individual human being in the nitty gritty context of their real lives. If the LC taught us anything it's that quantity of talking about God does not equal a quality relationship with Him. May I suggest the leaving of any church like the LC is not just about discovering who God really is but also discovering your own humanity.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But for those, as you say, who are sleeping peacefully in the LC's, and do not have an "inner nag" bothering them, I have no delusions that a million forums would affect them. They have been successfully "inoculated" as they say, and if their spiritual needs are being met, then I am truly happy for them. There's no such thing as a perfect church; many are far worse than the Recovery; and some of the LC's are actually quite decent, as I have been told.

Thank you for your post, Ohio. I really appreciate your perspective on things. I like your balanced point-of-views on the LCs.

It is very true. There are many issues with the LCs as a whole under the LSM organization; however they are definitely not the worst church to join out there. Also some of the LCs individually are pretty good if the leadership within that church does not impose or over-promote LSM's conferences, trainings, etc...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

This is why, for example, I found the idea of "hierarchy" in church settings so interesting: it highlighted the contrast between the teachings and example of Jesus (to be the greatest, be the least) with actual practices and teachings in our respective organizations, Lee's Recovery Church included.

To me it represented an actual learning moment which transcended "local church discussions".

One time I was told that a factoid is something repeated so often, that it is accepted as fact, as truth. That was an "aha" moment for me, as I was leaving the LC. Hierarchy, or lack thereof, was one such LC "factoid." We constantly stated that there was no hierarchy in the Recovery, that we were all just "brothers," but, of course, we all knew that some brothers were more "brother" than all other brothers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

Thank you for your post, Ohio. I really appreciate your perspective on things. I like your balanced point-of-views on the LCs.

It is very true. There are many issues with the LCs as a whole under the LSM organization; however they are definitely not the worst church to join out there. Also some of the LCs individually are pretty good if the leadership within that church does not impose or over-promote LSM's conferences, trainings, etc...

And I appreciate your perspective too. Not many can remain in the LC's with such candid honesty.

In my final years in the Recovery, I became uninterested in traveling to conferences in Anaheim or Cleveland. The ministry in Anaheim became quite tasteless, and the ministry in Cleveland became increasingly intolerable. I became more and more "local" in my churchlife service, seeing outside influences as more disruptive to the saints' walk. Receiving ministries from Anaheim or Cleveland were like two steps forward, and three steps backward.

When I was still serving in the LC, I would take my turn preparing to share to the church, which I really treasured and took seriously. The materials would always be the reviews of messages given in Cleveland or Anaheim HWFMR. I would struggle for days trying to find the anointing in those materials. Finally I would just go to the scriptures and the anointing inspiration would come.

Eventually the abusive ways in the Recovery had come home ... again. I fell victim more than once. Never could I obtain so much as an apology! I also saw others getting their share of abuse. My home church was no more a sanctuary, so I needed to leave, otherwise I, like you, might still have remained.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Were 'christianity', if I may use the word loosely, doing a good job at discussing God's salvation in Jesus Christ, then there wouldn't be so many of us christians lured into traps like Lee's "recovery church" in the first place.

I understand what you are saying. But at some level I am not sure that there is not a propensity for certain people to be more easily attracted to certain kinds of things, and others to other kinds of things. And sometimes, it is the fact that it is "different" that is the attraction. For the "seeking" Christian, anything that is not where I am might be attractive. And the more different from what I have seen before the greater the attraction.

Acknowledging that there are those whose sojourn in the LRC was by birth, or because they were with their spouse/family, most of us were looking for something more meaningful than what we were getting at the time in our various places. And, like I mentioned earlier, if you managed to come in contact with the LRC, there was an appeal due to the community. So if you didn't hear anything too radical too quickly, you got desensitized to the extremes in stages — like the frog in the kettle.

And while I do not simply say that the appealing things were wrong (they certainly were not for the most part), our propensity now is too often to use our experience with the LRC as a benchmark for anything Christian. After much consideration of the erroneous teachings, and the ways that even the culture allowed things to go awry, I am quite done with the LRC experience benchmark.

The feelings do not change the facts (a line from a supplement song). The song's follow-on was always "Jesus is Lord of all." And that is true. But the feelings also do not make things right. The camaraderie of the community does not overcome the poisonous teachings against our Christian brothers and sisters.

And if you can find the camaraderie and "feeling" in a wholesome environment, that is great. But that is not the goal of Christian fellowship. Or of the church. It is the propagation of the gospel and the building up of the believers. And the building up of the believers is not just church stuff. Or "spiritual" stuff. It is the change in lives in the "marketplace" — the mall, neighborhood, parks, at work, etc. And the change in lives is not exuberance. Or a lot of "calling on the Lord" — although that can happen. It surely is not in learning better and better teachings while using a more and more bizarre lexicon.

On the whole, a fairly sizable group of good Christians have been tricked into giving their lives to propagate a ministry. To defend separation from other Christians — and the denigration of those Christians.

One of our former participants here is still enamored with what he learned from "The Experience of Life." But if it does not change anything but our religious experience, I don't think it is the "life that is really life." That life changes everything, not just spiritual stuff. It doesn't just affect our worship and meetings. It affects our interaction with everyone. Even the heathen.

And if the fruit that James talks of is not found, it is not true faith or belief. And despite Lee's claims otherwise, I believe that reading Paul actually comes to the same conclusion — just in a different way.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But for those, as you say, who are sleeping peacefully in the LC's, and do not have an "inner nag" bothering them, I have no delusions that a million forums would affect them. They have been successfully "inoculated" as they say, and if their spiritual needs are being met, then I am truly happy for them. There's no such thing as a perfect church; many are far worse than the Recovery; and some of the LC's are actually quite decent, as I have been told.

I remember going to my mom's Catholic church about ten years ago. I was amazed to sense the presence of God there, right amongst the robes and candles and the liturgy of the Eucharist, and despite their checkered history. My sense then was that God is not bothered by strange trappings or bad history, but rather is intensely interested in hearts seeking to worship and serve him. And those were there.

So why shouldn't some LRCs, despite their checkered history and odd beliefs, experience a God who is faithful to be in the midst of those meeting in His name?

Despite our being taught to be wary of "systems," God knows that human beings gravitate toward them. Tell me of one church movement that is not in some way systematized. And if it isn't now, it will be. "Systems" were among those boogy-men we were taught to avoid. And, of course, the LRC, loathing systems, had no other choice than to deny being one, since avoiding becoming one was not an option.

[coalsoffire]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I remember going to my mom's Catholic church about ten years ago. I was amazed to sense the presence of God there, right amongst the robes and candles and the liturgy of the Eucharist, and despite their checkered history. My sense then was that God is not bothered by strange trappings or bad history, but rather is intensely interested in hearts seeking to worship and serve him. And those were there.

So why shouldn't some LRCs, despite their checkered history and odd beliefs, experience a God who is faithful to be in the midst of those meeting in His name?

Despite our being taught to be wary of "systems," God knows that human beings gravitate toward them. Tell me of one church movement that is not in some way systematized. And if it isn't now, it will be. "Systems" were among those boogy-men we were taught to avoid. And, of course, the LRC, loathing systems, had no other choice than to deny being one, since avoiding becoming one was not an option.

Awesome post! Amen!

I remember reading an introductory Buddhist book & realizing: My! Buddhism is just as systematized as Christianity! And later readings showed the misogyny of Buddhism as well. Hence my appreciation of Leonard Cohen's quote below. A quote, I might add, worthy of "pray-reading"!

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But for those, as you say, who are sleeping peacefully in the LC's, and do not have an "inner nag" bothering them, I have no delusions that a million forums would affect them. They have been successfully "inoculated" as they say, and if their spiritual needs are being met, then I am truly happy for them. There's no such thing as a perfect church; many are far worse than the Recovery; and some of the LC's are actually quite decent, as I have been told.

I have lived in both Cleveland and Anaheim. In both I have seen the "true believers (in the LC)" and the "true believers(in finding Christ)."

There are many I know, even neck deep in "LSM churches" who approach their faith quite simply. Enjoyment of Christ is not just a "pill" to eat - but an engagement with their savior in their life. The "church life" is not just "speaking the same thing" etc... but rather a mutual concern over the lives of their brothers and sisters. Sure, they are exposed to the arguments around "leadership" and "oneness" and "dissenting ones." But they keep doing what they were doing before the argument arose. Seeking to find CHrist in their lives and caring for those around them.

I will add that these ones I speak of are either 1) second generation who lost their faith, but then regained it through trevail; 2) first generation who found a way of living that completely awakened them in contrast to their former life.

I do not know many second generation who haven't had a crisis of faith - wherein they had to choose their faith - who are simple in this way. Most who persist in their faith simply based on upbringing generally care very much about the "elitist" type doctrines. I was guilty of this for many years. These seem to be the most zealous ones.

This is, of course, a very broad observation - but its borne out at least in this limited experience.

Point is, if people genuinely engage with God, it may not lead them out of a flawed situation - they might just find God right there in all His multifarious wisdom and varied grace.

My great uncle was a Lutheran scholar. He once explained that he knew all the ways in which the Lutheran church was not aligned with Scripture. He would write and speak to discuss these matters. But he couldn't leave. Because that's where, he said, God wanted Him.

None of this is to say that we don't speak out concerning error or abuse. You speak it out, but perhaps judgement is for Someone else.

Just some scattered thoughts...

Thanks all for these posts. Very encouraging.

Peter

[Truth]

Thanks for your post, Peter. I feel the same way. Sometimes finding Christ may not mean the same thing as finding another 'church'. The Lord may want us to stay where we are, in a degraded church life, and find Christ there and minister Christ to others there. There is no perfect church. We could be church-hopping forever and never find Christ. However, that is not to say that we should not seek to find another church if the Lord leads us to do so. Bottomline is we need to remember to find Christ wherever we are and meet with the church wherever the Lord leads. But the Lord may or may not lead us to the church of our choice.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

Sometimes finding Christ may not mean the same thing as finding another 'church'. The Lord may want us to stay where we are, in a degraded church life, and find Christ there and minister Christ to others there. There is no perfect church. We could be church-hopping forever and never find Christ.

It is simply dishonest and unfair to categorize every member in the LC's as mindless robots following the ministry like "lemmings over the cliff." (Fortunately for us, the more dogmatic forum posters have recently gone into remission.) Generalizations are like prejudices -- they pick the worst traits of a few, and then label the whole. God is not like that. He does not look on the outward, but on the heart.

When I entered the Recovery during the 70's, there was a continual cry to "come out of her My people," based on a prophetic verse concerning Babylon. At the time, it made so much sense that all of Christianity was fallen and degraded Babylon, and only the Recovery was the true testimony of the Lord. Much of the prideful arrogance that gets exhibited in the Recovery is rooted in that cry. Personally, as I entered the Recovery, I voiced nothing but contempt for the rest of the body of Christ.

Oh how things have changed. Witness Lee never had the absolute manifest godliness and lockup on the truth that he always led us to believe. Fact is the Recovery has at least as many problems as the rest of the body of Christ, maybe more. The expressly claimed exclusiveness of God's blessing and presence was nothing more than a myth. Yes, His Spirit was often with us, but He was also with all the other congregations too -- those dreaded denominations and despised free groups.

It's amazing to think back on how that exhortation in Revelation 18.4 affected me, and not for the better. How could I condemn all the systems in Christianity and not condemn the Christians too? Witness Lee (as John Darby before him) definitely used that verse for personal gain. That teaching was so unbalanced. Perhaps I was just worse than the other brothers around me. I can never forget the time after my first Revelation Training in Anaheim that I was talking to my dear mother about destroying her idols -- eventually the brother with me started kicking me under the table to stop it.

Why did we not take our cue from all the other churches in the New Testament? They all had their problems. None was perfect. Think about what was going on in Corinth! Yet the Apostles only exhorted the believers to overcome the difficulties and not to completely forsake those churches. The answers to their problems did not lie in the severity of God to forsake them, but in His love to shepherd them to greener pastures.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why did we not take our cue from all the other churches in the New Testament? They all had their problems. None was perfect. Think about what was going on in Corinth! Yet the Apostles only exhorted the believers to overcome the difficulties and not to completely forsake those churches. The answers to their problems did lie in the severity of God to forsake them, but in His love to shepherd them to greener pastures.

It's interesting that WL always interpreted things to mean you should come to or stay in his movement.

"Come out of her my people." To what? The Recovery, of course!

Then he twisted your correct teaching above to mean that you should stay in one of his churches through thick and thin, and no matter how much like "her" they became.

A self-serving double-standard? Well, yeah. But what traction that mindset has.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hierarchy, or lack thereof, was one such LC "factoid." We constantly stated that there was no hierarchy in the Recovery, that we were all just "brothers," but, of course, we all knew that some brothers were more "brother" than all other brothers.

Like "Animal Farm". All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. James chapter 2 had it right, I think: "Why do some of you brothers get a special chair at the front of the meeting?" What is your organizational mindset as you arrange yourselves? Is it of earth, or of heaven?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's interesting that WL always interpreted things to mean you should come to or stay in his movement.

"Come out of her my people." To what? The Recovery, of course!

Then he twisted your correct teaching above to mean that you should stay in one of his churches through thick and thin, and no matter how much like "her" they became.

A self-serving double-standard? Well, yeah. But what traction that mindset has.

I found the balancing corollary of "come out of her my people" to be "In whatever situation you found yourself when you were called, in this you should remain." 1 Corinthians 7:17,24

[Truth]

Originally Posted by aron

Like "Animal Farm". All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. James chapter 2 had it right, I think: "Why do some of you brothers get a special chair at the front of the meeting?" What is your organizational mindset as you arrange yourselves? Is it of earth, or of heaven?

I love that book. Funny that you mentioned it. More than one person new to the LC had mentioned to me that the Recovery reminds him/her of communism. They try to hard to make everyone *equal*, but we know that not all are equal.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Truth

More than one person new to the LC had mentioned to me that the Recovery reminds him/her of communism. They try to hard to make everyone *equal*, but we know that not all are equal.

Jesus didn't say all are equal. He said some have one, some have five, some have ten talents.

Paul didn't write that all are equal. Paul wrote that just as star differs from star in glory, so it is in the house of God.

So the LC "we are all small potatoes" doesn't work. Because some "small potato" invariably gets a podium up front and gets a special chair. Then if you become a rabid cheerleader for that "small potato" who is now God's mouthpiece, you move up and become a "co-worker" or a "blended one".

Et voila: hierarchy, and of the earthly sort.

In contrast, Jesus said, "If you want to be great, be the least."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

A full-time worker with Titus told me that Titus told him privately that in Taiwan many saints were saying "Nee, Lee, Chu," after WL passed away. There is no question among Titus's supporters that he was more qualified than any of the Blendeds to lead the Recovery. I have always said that the Whistler quarantine had nothing to do with the Lord, the truth, or the Bible, it was just a political move to preempt their rival for control of the leadership. What sparked the Blendeds into action was Titus's travels around the world, in each place creating tensions between the saints concerning Anaheim. Had Titus been content to remain in the GLA, then the quarantine would never have occurred.

Reading about the turmoil, there were assertions by the Blended brothers Witness Lee warned them about Titus Chu while he was still alive. Considering Titus's 10 month labors had gone on for decades, how come Witness Lee never did anything about Titus Chu? Assertions as the stand by the Blended brothers, I can only quote what Ron Kangas spoke in 2007:

"Who has all the information? There is a statement made about Brother Lee; you can’t ask Brother Lee about it. "

My analogy as I see what the Blended brothers wanted from Titus Chu would be like asking a skilled carpenter to reduce his work to sweeping up sawdust and scrap wood. Speaking from experience that is what an unskilled worker is asked to do.
As for Titus' supporters. Yes, I'm sure compared to the blended brothers Titus might be the most spiritually gifted in ministry. Of course you must consider many brothers who were just as gifted as Titus either left the LSM/lc or became persona non grata.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

My analogy as I see what the Blended brothers wanted from Titus Chu would be like asking a skilled carpenter to reduce his work to sweeping up sawdust and scrap wood. Speaking from experience that is what an unskilled worker is asked to do.

Many brothers did just that in order to remain a part of "God's N.T. Economy." They turned over their churches and their ministries to WL and the Blendeds to "do with them as they pleased." They got persuaded that this was pleasing to the Lord. Ones like PL wanted TC to be washing dishes in the kitchen in order "to transform him." That's what they did to Gene Ford for his "penance."

[Ohio]

Anyone else having trouble with the log in process?

Should we be logging in on the left side of the screen or the right? Is there a difference? After viewing a recent thread, it still shows bolded as if it still has unread posts.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Anyone else having trouble with the log in process?

Should we be logging in on the left side of the screen or the right? Is there a difference? After viewing a recent thread, it still shows bolded as if it still has unread posts.

I think that happens when someone edits a previous post.

[UntoHim]

Igzy may have a more accurate answer here, but I have had this happen recently as well. It has nothing to do with editing of a post. I believe it may have something to do with the cookie settings on your browser.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Anyone else having trouble with the log in process?

Should we be logging in on the left side of the screen or the right? Is there a difference? After viewing a recent thread, it still shows bolded as if it still has unread posts.

It doesn't matter. Both widgets work.

I think ZNP is right. The bolding means changes have been made since you last viewed the thread

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It doesn't matter. Both widgets work.

I think ZNP is right. The bolding means changes have been made since you last viewed the thread

Both widgets work, but not all the time, at least for me.

Even after I look at the thread, it still shows bolded, unless I close it and re-log on.

So ... I've been eating all the wrong cookies ... hmmm.

[OBW]

I read through all posts, or at least open every thread and peruse it. Then, once I have done them all, I hit the "refresh" button on the browser. At that point, no threads are shown in bold unless there have been posts during the time I was reading. Then those threads will move to the top and be bold. If they are all not bold, there is nothing new.

If you fail to click on the "remember me" box when logging in, after a short time, when you go back to the index to look at the next unread thread, you will find everything is not bold and you have to search to find the posts you have not yet read.

I also note that if I go into the PM section, it resets my cookies for the remainder of the forum (nothing is bold even if I have read none of it), so I always read the forum posts first, then go into the PM system if there are messages there.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Both widgets work, but not all the time, at least for me.

Even after I look at the thread, it still shows bolded, unless I close it and re-log on.

So ... I've been eating all the wrong cookies ... hmmm.

Are you still having this problem? When you first posted I had updated a post that was about 10 hours old with verse references.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Are you still having this problem? When you first posted I had updated a post that was about 10 hours old with verse references.

Yeah, something changed for me. I just logged in 3x using the left side, and it kept bouncing me out. Then I used the right side, and I'm in.

But once I read a thread, even thought no one else has posted or edited or is even on the thread, the thread still shows bolded as unread.

...................................

I just noticed something. When I leave a thread, and click on the thread link on the top of the page, then it shows that thread as read, which is great. When I click my bookmark, which is what I normally do when going back to the index, it does not update the thread as read. Seems odd. The only difference between the URL's is my bookmark has "www." Here are the two for comparison ...

Bookmark: http://www.localchurchdiscussions.co...etin/index.php (does not update index)

Internal Link: http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/index.php (does update index)

[seeking1]

With so many people passing through here looking for guidance, I thought it would be nice to have some sort of official statement or position from this site on what exactly is wrong with the teachings of Lee. Granted, the whole site is kind of dedicated to "what's wrong with Lee", but it would be nice to not have to wade through all the "pet peeves" and digressions that happen on threads. Just something short and concise, maybe even a numbered list. Put on a tab or something where no one can comment...My two cents!

Have a corner that serves healthy good food- i.e. Our God and savior and the truths in the bible. So that the confused, hurt, depressed, sick... are helped and set free to follow the Lord himself, and to have this 'corner' for body life.
Thank you Unto Him for your work so far. May The Lord bless more and more.

[Cal]

Hi seeking1,

There was once a mission statement on the board. I helped write it. But I'm not sure where it went. fEven so, it did not go into detail about defining what is wrong with the LCM. There are various opinions about this, and hardly anyone agrees completely.

The LCM's problems all stem from violating the liberty of Christians to follow their own consciences. The LCM's severe view of spiritual authority is the root of their problems. Once unquestioned following is expected in any social situation, problems can arise from everywhere. The natural checks and balances of humbly being open to the wisdom of others are lost, and from that springs errors, heresies, abuses, isolation, etc with no natural correcting agent at play.

So the LCM has a lot of errors, but most of these would have been nipped in the bud if (1) people had been respected to believe as they see fit and (2) to come and go as they see fit.

[seeking1]

Originally Posted by Igzy

There are various opinions about this, and hardly anyone agrees completely.

I kind of figured this,but there have to be a few key points that most of the regulars on the forum would agree with. Such as:

Originally Posted by Igzy

The LCM's problems all stem from violating the liberty of Christians to follow their own consciences. The LCM's severe view of spiritual authority is the root of their problems. Once unquestioned following is expected in any social situation, problems can arise from everywhere. The natural checks and balances of humbly being open to the wisdom of others are lost, and from that springs errors, heresies, abuses, isolation, etc with no natural correcting agent at play.

While I agree with the above statement, doesn't this also describe 99% of the churches that are out there? It is really sad that can say this kind of "matter of fact-ly" but, "Abuse of Authority" is happening everywhere.So, are there other clear-cut, wholesome points that are non-debatable within the "Local Church Discussions" community about the errors of Lee's teachings?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by seeking1

While I agree with the above statement, doesn't this also describe 99% of the churches that are out there? It is really sad that can say this kind of "matter of fact-ly" but, "Abuse of Authority" is happening everywhere.So, are there other clear-cut, wholesome points that are non-debatable within the "Local Church Discussions" community about the errors of Lee's teachings?

I think this is a very skewed view of Christianity. There are some cases of abuse of authority. They make big splashed in the news. But they are not the norm. But since we were taught that Christianity is this big bad place, we are still prone to paint the whole with the color of the one that is in the news. Just like the world loves to paint the whole with the color of the ones that appear marching in the streets hating somebody that they think is a sinner.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by seeking1

I kind of figured this,but there have to be a few key points that most of the regulars on the forum would agree with. Such as:



While I agree with the above statement, doesn't this also describe 99% of the churches that are out there? It is really sad that can say this kind of "matter of fact-ly" but, "Abuse of Authority" is happening everywhere.So, are there other clear-cut, wholesome points that are non-debatable within the "Local Church Discussions" community about the errors of Lee's teachings?

The above is like saying everyone is a criminal because everyone has at one time violated a traffic law. We are talking several magnitudes of degrees of difference here. A difference in degree eventually constitutes a difference in kind.

Name one other church that systematically drills into its members the fear that if you leave it you will be outside of God's will, outside of a legitimate church, stunted in spiritual growth and probably miss the God's rewards. Even the Catholics don't really teach this kind of thing anymore. Name one other church that essentially claims that the elders of its churches are the supreme spiritual authorities in the cities they represent.

99%? Maybe .01%


Another problem with the LCM is it has no built-in means of self-correction. In fact, it has just the opposite. It has a built-in means of NOT correcting. There is no accountability for the leadership. They have the power, that's it. Trying to correct them leads to be ostracized, or worse.

[seeking1]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think this is a very skewed view of Christianity. There are some cases of abuse of authority. They make big splashed in the news. But they are not the norm. But since we were taught that Christianity is this big bad place, we are still prone to paint the whole with the color of the one that is in the news. Just like the world loves to paint the whole with the color of the ones that appear marching in the streets hating somebody that they think is a sinner.

OBW, I wish you were right, I really do. However, I am not speaking from the LC position of Christianity=bad and I am not referring to the cases that "make big splashes in the news". I am referring to all that I have seen and heard in my own experience.

[seeking1]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The above is like saying everyone is a criminal because everyone has at one time violated a traffic law.

This is a stretch.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Name one other church that systematically drills into its members the fear that if you leave it you will be outside of God's will, outside of a legitimate church, stunted in spiritual growth and probably miss the God's rewards. Even the Catholics don't really teach this kind of thing anymore. Name one other church that essentially claims that the elders of its churches are the supreme spiritual authorities in the cities they represent.

Jehovah's Witness, Mormon's, Getfakys (or whatever the heck) Assembly, countless brands of independent protestant churches, and yes, the Catholic Church. You cannot be serious? I mean, sheesh, this stuff is going on all over the place! Ambitious men building ministries, wanting the preeminence. Drive around Cleveland, OH and you'll see "XYZ" Church meeting in a: storefront, old catholic church, old protestant church, and the leader will straight up tell that this is their show, and their the sheriff in those parts. Sure, it's all good while your on the fringes, but you start coming regularly and you better get on board or else be ostracized. One church in a storefront that I visited, I thought that I was attending a bible study but it turned out to be a 90 minute ranting and raving session for the "pastor", it was actually longer but I got up and left after 90 minutes. I think that the "pastor" felt insulted that I was leaving because when I was walking out he let out a very cold and sarcastic "thanks for coming brother".

So, like I said, I agree that the there is a some serious abuse of authority going on in the LC's but we will have to agree to disagree on exactly where on the "Abuse of Authority Spectrum" witness lee falls.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by seeking1

With so many people passing through here looking for guidance, I thought it would be nice to have some sort of official statement or position from this site on what exactly is wrong with the teachings of Lee. Granted, the whole site is kind of dedicated to "what's wrong with Lee", but it would be nice to not have to wade through all the "pet peeves" and digressions that happen on threads. Just something short and concise, maybe even a numbered list. Put on a tab or something where no one can comment...My two cents!

Thanks for this request seeking1. I have tried my best over the years to accomplish what you're speaking of here, but believe me when I say that it is much, much easier said than done! Among us former members, it seems that there are as many opinions on "what's wrong with Lee" as there are former members. Nonetheless, I have tried to establish enough sub-forums so that all the various concerns regarding the teachings, practices and history of the movement could be addressed is a relatively succinct manner.

While I would strongly disagree that "the whole site is kind of dedicated to what's wrong with Lee", I can understand how the casual observer could get discouraged wading through the various threads, which at times seem to degrade into a laundry list of pet peeves. What you might not understand, much less appreciate, is the fact that we are ALL still working through this process of seeking to understand our experiences in the Local Church. I myself was "in" the Local Churches for about 20 years, and now have been "out" for coming up on 20 years. I had many positive experiences and still believe many of them were 100% of God. But I also see many major issues with the teachings, practices and "hidden" history of the Movement.

Some us on the forum have felt to "major" in relating all of the various positive experiences they may have experienced in the Local Churches (and maybe "minor" in some of the negative), yet most of us have felt to major in relating many of the various issues we have with the teachings, practices and hidden history (while acknowledging the positive). Some try to strike a balance between the two. ALL ARE WELCOME! I have done my best to make this forum as a "safe and open" place for current LC members to come and participate in the dialogue. Not many have come. I know that many lurk, but I fear that the warnings from some LSM leaders (such as Ron Kangas) have discouraged them from registering and participating.

So, getting back to your original inquiry about having some sort of short, concise list "on what exactly is wrong with the teachings of Lee", I would open it up to all the members to help us out. Maybe a number of the members could make their own list and we could then try to incorporate the most common issues into a concise list. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to such an effort.

Thanks again for your thoughtful post.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Another problem with the LCM is it has no built-in means of self-correction. In fact, it has just the opposite. It has a built-in means of NOT correcting. There is no accountability for the leadership. They have the power, that's it. Trying to correct them leads to be ostracized, or worse.

That what Igzy posted is Deputy Authority teaching in application.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by seeking1

Jehovah's Witness, Mormon's, Getfakys (or whatever the heck) Assembly, countless brands of independent protestant churches, and yes, the Catholic Church. You cannot be serious? I mean, sheesh, this stuff is going on all over the place! Ambitious men building ministries, wanting the preeminence. Drive around Cleveland, OH and you'll see "XYZ" Church meeting in a: storefront, old catholic church, old protestant church, and the leader will straight up tell that this is their show, and their the sheriff in those parts. Sure, it's all good while your on the fringes, but you start coming regularly and you better get on board or else be ostracized. One church in a storefront that I visited, I thought that I was attending a bible study but it turned out to be a 90 minute ranting and raving session for the "pastor", it was actually longer but I got up and left after 90 minutes. I think that the "pastor" felt insulted that I was leaving because when I was walking out he let out a very cold and sarcastic "thanks for coming brother".

So, like I said, I agree that the there is a some serious abuse of authority going on in the LC's but we will have to agree to disagree on exactly where on the "Abuse of Authority Spectrum" witness lee falls.

If we are going to talk about abuse of authority, you have to go back to Jim Jones, David Koresh and several other really "out there" authoritarians. Not all of them are observed as so much, but they get their followers to do some really messed-up things.

And Westboro Baptist Church. But you can't point at the Baptists over it.

You mostly bring out the marginal to even questionably Christian, plus the RCC. And with the RCC, at some level they ask for the problem by thinking that inviting so many to fight their nature and then be put into positions with children or the opposite sex where they can be tempted so thoroughly. But even here, what you have is individual abuse of power, not wholesale abuse as a general pattern that is systemic.

Ambitious men will always do whatever they can to build their esteem and empire. Some will use religion. Hard to throw the Mormons in since there is such serious question as to whether they should be included within Christianity at all. And the JWs don't really accept Christ as God, so why do you want to include them. Besides, other than being quite different, what is the abuse? I haven't read anything systemic about them.

As for the RCC, it seems that the real authority thought they could nip the problem in the bud without exposing people. Do with the errant priests like they do with their parishioners. Send them to the confessionals, say a few Hail Mary's and sin no more. Let them know they were being watched. Send them to a new environment to start over. Make those affected happier by being rid of the problem. And to some extent they learned their lessons.

But even in the RCC, it is not as if the good priest was rare. Rather that the bad ones made the news.

Are you not seeing the whole of Christianity? Are you presuming that an independent assembly is simply a one-man show? Are you focused on what makes the news and nothing else? I know Cleveland is not like the Bible belt, but there are many churches. Pointing to a few is not an indictment on Christianity, but on those who fail (or fleece) those flocks.

Bernie Madoff was an investment advisor that stole millions (billions?). He was not the only swindler in the investment business. But does that make every Merrill Lynch office a bunch of thieves?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by seeking1

Jehovah's Witness, Mormon's, Getfakys (or whatever the heck) Assembly, countless brands of independent protestant churches, and yes, the Catholic Church. You cannot be serious? I mean, sheesh, this stuff is going on all over the place!

Here's a recent one, with a Acts 29 mega-church, that Christianity Today called one of America’s most influential megachurches:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...iscipline.html

Control, control, control ...

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Here's a recent one, with a Acts 29 mega-church, that Christianity Today called one of America’s most influential megachurches:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...iscipline.html

Control, control, control ...

This one is not as simple as the article displays it. Virtually all, including those within that church, have agreed that it went badly. But it was an honest attempt to help that somehow got mired in their own self-imposed rules of how to do it that went sideways. Not saying it was a great outcome. But the splash in the press is not consistent with what really happened. But added to what had already happened to the woman, it just was a royal screw-up.

And once again, an example does not a generality make.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by seeking1

Jehovah's Witness, Mormon's, Getfakys (or whatever the heck) Assembly, countless brands of independent protestant churches, and yes, the Catholic Church. You cannot be serious? I mean, sheesh, this stuff is going on all over the place! Ambitious men building ministries, wanting the preeminence. Drive around Cleveland, OH and you'll see "XYZ" Church meeting in a: storefront, old catholic church, old protestant church, and the leader will straight up tell that this is their show, and their the sheriff in those parts. Sure, it's all good while your on the fringes, but you start coming regularly and you better get on board or else be ostracized. One church in a storefront that I visited, I thought that I was attending a bible study but it turned out to be a 90 minute ranting and raving session for the "pastor", it was actually longer but I got up and left after 90 minutes. I think that the "pastor" felt insulted that I was leaving because when I was walking out he let out a very cold and sarcastic "thanks for coming brother".

So, like I said, I agree that the there is a some serious abuse of authority going on in the LC's but we will have to agree to disagree on exactly where on the "Abuse of Authority Spectrum" witness lee falls.

I didn't think we were talking about heretical groups. I thought we were talking about Christian groups. Anyway, yes there are many abusive groups. But when compared to the vast majority of people in healthy churches, the numbers of people affected are a drop in the bucket. My family is Catholic so the comparisons of the LCM with Catholicism are superficial. By and large, people's souls don't get shredded when they leave the Catholic church. I meet with a men's group and several of the guys are former Catholics. They don't lay awake at night agonizing about whether God is going to judge them for leaving like LCMers do.

If I were to paint a graph, Lee would be way at the extreme on the scale. You have to measure it based on the effect the guy had brainwashing his followers into being filled with fear for going another way. Lee has to be near the top if not at the top. I speak from experience. But I'm an old-timer; things might be different with the current generation.

In general, however, saying abuse is "everywhere" is a bit misleading. It is but it effects relatively few. The vast majority of believers are in benign, unabusive situations.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by seeking1

With so many people passing through here looking for guidance, I thought it would be nice to have some sort of official statement or position from this site on what exactly is wrong with the teachings of Lee. Granted, the whole site is kind of dedicated to "what's wrong with Lee", but it would be nice to not have to wade through all the "pet peeves" and digressions that happen on threads. Just something short and concise, maybe even a numbered list. Put on a tab or something where no one can comment...My two cents!

Seeking1,

In her book, The Thread of Gold, God's Purpose, the Cross and Me Jane Anderson ends her story with Chapter 24 titled "The Ax Laid to the Root". This chapter may help you with your question "What's wrong with Lee." The hard copy of this book, this chapter begins on p. 331. The Kindle version, p. 344.

The chapter discusses what Jane has identified as wrong beliefs which result in bad fruit. It's based on the verse "by their fruit you shall know them" because the proof of a wrong belief will be manifested by bad fruit.

You can download this book in pdf form at no cost by following this link.
http://www.thethreadofgold.com/PDFpa...readOfGold.pdf

Specifically:

Wrong beliefs about:
1. God's purpose for me
2. Witness Lee
3. The Local Ground
4. The One Accord
5. Authority and Submission

Resulted in bad fruit:
1. Damaged relationship with God
2. Damaged relationships with others

Wrong beliefs about:
1. "God's way" being "Divine Dispensing"
2. "God's purpose" being "God's Economy"
3. Calling on the Lord and Pray Reading

Resulted in bad fruit:
1. Wrong thoughts and behaviors.
2. A "Do-it-All" method.

It's a comprehensive list of Lee's teachings, and a good reference for the teaching and the fruit.

Note that this is not an "official" forum opinion. It's Jane's opinion.

Nell