Article: Beware of the writings of the Watchman

[aron]

Originally Posted by markpaul

I left without reading Rcv.

Some of the Rcv notes are good. Many of them, in fact. Many are awful, though.

Two examples: in the Revelation 2 and 3 letters to the seven Asian churches, the Rcv notes say that the source problem was that the seven churches were not "absolutely identical". I think this may have been during one of the "storms" or "rebellions" in the LC movement, where the church leaders wrote to Witness Lee promising to completely reject any differences among them.

But notice - the church is build of living stones, not bricks (bricks are of course absolutely identical). But stones are unique. Also notice that Babylon the Great has enforced outward uniformity: no one can buy or sell without the mark of the beast. So Lee's idea to make everyone absolutely identical (to what, one also wonders?) is completely off base.

Second example: in the Psalms, Lee said that David was being "natural" and writing according to "fallen human concepts". Most of the Psalms that were not quoted in the New Testament were rejected by Lee.

Why? Because David fought with people, instead of blessing them! He should have forgiven his enemies, and turned the other cheek! I am not kidding. So David should have gone out and apologized to Goliath? When the wolf and the bear came for the sheep, David should have offered a second sheep?

1 Samuel 17:33 Then Saul said to David, "You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are but a youth while he has been a warrior from his youth." 34 But David said to Saul, "Your servant was tending his father's sheep. When a lion or a bear came and took a lamb from the flock, 35 I went out after him and attacked him, and rescued it from his mouth; and when he rose up against me, I seized him by his beard and struck him and killed him.…

Etc etc. Probably 3/4 of the Psalms are rejected by Lee, and disparaged. If it wasn't cited so heavily by the NT he would have treated it worse. The Rcv treatment of the Psalms is ridiculous. Other books get this kind of treatment: James' epistle, the book of Job, some of Peter's epistle.

But Paul clearly told us that we struggle not against flesh and blood but spiritual forces. Yet Lee rejected this idea, or forgot about it, when covering the OT writings. Lee was clearly out of his league here: his lack of training, and outside counsel, was glaringly obvious. Yet in the LC everyone must be "positive" and "one with the apostle" so they sat there and passively listened to this amateurish garbage.

[markpaul]

Originally Posted by aron

Some of the Rcv notes are good. Many of them, in fact. Many are awful, though.

Thanks a lot! I fortunately haven't read Rcv and the notes then!

[aron]

Originally Posted by markpaul

Thanks a lot! I fortunately haven't read Rcv and the notes then!

Like WL's ministry, it is certainly superior to what I would have done, had I tried. But I didn't try.

So I don't want to seem to be some critic sniping from the sidelines. I doubt I would have done better.

But my point was that in putting out a new version of the Bible, the LSM as the personal publishing arm of the Bible teacher WL, and WL himself, were exposed as rank amateurs, and in way over their heads. Some of it is decent, some is mediocre, and some is frankly awful. They had absolutely no business in attempting a new English version of the Bible, except to 1) control the discussion in the flock and 2) sell something else to a captive market.

Sorry to be so blunt but some of it leads me to this conclusion. If you want more details see the thread "The Psalms are the Word of Christ". WL completely dropped the ball, and in so doing he shut off the flock from the words of life. This is frankly inexcusable.

(and I am not deviating from this thread. Watchman Nee's subjective mysticism gave WL the free reign to personalize the Bible to his own fancy).

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

But my point was that in putting out a new version of the Bible, the LSM as the personal publishing arm of the Bible teacher WL, and WL himself, were exposed as rank amateurs, and in way over their heads. Some of it is decent, some is mediocre, and some is frankly awful. They had absolutely no business in attempting a new English version of the Bible, except to 1) control the discussion in the flock and 2) sell something else to a captive market.

This is exactly right. WL and the LSM had absolutely no business producing a new version of the Bible. I think we could rest assured that any major translation had an exponentially larger number of scholarly resources put into the translation. WL and LSM have presumed that their work, done mostly by amateurs, represents the best available.

The RcV footnotes are just as big of an issue as the translation. WL is credited for ALL of the footnotes. Just by comparison, I opened my ESV study Bible and I see that there are six pages listing names of contributors for the study notes. What a difference that is.

What all this leads to is that there was no need for the RcV Bible in the way that it turned out. It comes as no surprise that there was an intention to control members' discussion and understanding of the scripture through the RcV footnotes.

[Ohio]

Freedom: The way that WL used his teaching of “God’s economy” was very crafty. First of all, his usage of that phrase took up a completely different meaning than what it actually means in the Bible.

In 1 Tim 1:3, the NIV renders Paul’s charge as being to “not teach false doctrines any longer”. In the RcV, a different rendering is used: “not teach different things”. Why is this significant? It is readily apparent that “false doctrine” has a much more precise meaning than “different things” What exactly does it mean to “teach different things”? Do you see what I’m getting at here? The phrase could mean just about anything.

Freedom is on to something here. Lee used this verse to make his own ministry the de facto standard for all N.T. ministries.

Whether we understand Paul's final word in I Tim. 1.3, the Greek word ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, to be “not teach false doctrines any longer” or as the RecVers renders “not teach different things,” is really not much different semantically. Both translations pass muster. The crucial question we must ask is "different than what?" Paul makes it clear in context that he is referring to Jewish things, which he had battled throughout his entire ministry. Timothy knew this all too well.

This word ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν could be anglicized "hetero-doctrining" or better "teaching differently." We use the words orthodox and heterodox teachings to refer to accepted and not accepted teachings. So Lee in his RecVers is not wrong per se, but where he was wrong, and so very wrong, was to establish in the hearts of the faithful, that his teaching and his teaching alone was the de facto standard by which every ministry must be compared. Even the Psalmists and James must defer to his ministry, and thus be critiqued as substandard and thus different.

Let's talk about what this means to his adherents, especially those aberrant blendeds in Anaheim who are now running the show. For Lee and company the word "differently" takes on the narrowest of all possible meanings. Instead of referring to the common faith (Titus 1.4) acceptable to all the apostles, and summarized in I Cor 15.1-3

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.

Lee's connotation, however, and often repeated, was "different in taste, different in feeling, different in sense, different in flavor, different in smell, different in appearance, etc." Even Titus Chu, who similarly had a Chinese accent like Lee, could not pass the necessary "smell" test. Hence he was quarantined as a rebellious leper, and will remain in isolation until long after he is buried.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Freedom is on to something here.

I agree. In the myopic, self-obsessed world of the LC, whatever Lee wasn't thinking or speaking today was "different teaching" and was to be shunned. Didn't matter if today's speaking was different than "early Lee" or from "early Nee" or from Christian orthodoxy for that matter. Even scripture could be "different teaching" if it didn't line up with today's version of "God's economy."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Let's talk about what this means to his adherents, especially those aberrant blendeds in Anaheim who are now running the show. For Lee and company the word "differently" takes on the narrowest of all possible meanings. Instead of referring to the common faith (Titus 1.4) acceptable to all the apostles, and summarized in I Cor 15.1-3

Lee's connotation, however, and often repeated, was "different in taste, different in feeling, different in sense, different in flavor, different in smell, different in appearance, etc." Even Titus Chu, who similarly had a Chinese accent like Lee, could not pass the necessary "smell" test. Hence he was quarantined as a rebellious leper, and will remain in isolation until long after he is buried.

The ministry quietly replaced the standard of the common faith, because it was viewed as the only ministry on earth that encompassed all the items of "truth".

WL implied that everyone else had somehow compromised the truth. Thus to turn away from Lee's ministry was equated as turning away from the faith itself.

This is why it is so very dangerous for any group to think that they have something that others don't have.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

. . . because it was viewed as the only ministry on earth that encompassed all the items of "truth". . . .

This has always been a completely hollow claim by the LCM over the years. And the reason is that theirs is such a narrow view of the scripture, the Christian life, the teachings of Jesus (and of Paul, Lee's favorite, even over Christ).

For example, any teaching that limits "God's economy" to "dispensing" then insists that only God's economy should be taught has effectively dismissed huge swatches of teaching in scripture. It is almost a theological scorched earth policy.

Jesus: "You've heard it said (concerning adultery) . . . but I say (harder rules)"
Lee: "We are free from the law." "The law is terminated."

Yeah. There's all the truth of the scripture.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

WL implied that everyone else had somehow compromised the truth. Thus to turn away from Lee's ministry was equated as turning away from the faith itself.

Lee's subjective truth was implied to be received as factual. Because of the subjective truth, you can see where an "Us versus Them" mindset comes in. If you don't agree with Lee's subjective truth as being fact, you could see where the phrase comes in, "those who aren't with us are against us". Those of who ignored LSM's quarantines were deemed as being against them because of not being partial towards LSM in the matter. There's no middle ground.

[markpaul]

Originally Posted by aron

Like WL's ministry, it is certainly superior to what I would have done, had I tried. But I didn't try.

So I don't want to seem to be some critic sniping from the sidelines. I doubt I would have done better.

But my point was that in putting out a new version of the Bible, the LSM as the personal publishing arm of the Bible teacher WL, and WL himself, were exposed as rank amateurs, and in way over their heads. Some of it is decent, some is mediocre, and some is frankly awful. They had absolutely no business in attempting a new English version of the Bible, except to 1) control the discussion in the flock and 2) sell something else to a captive market.

Sorry to be so blunt but some of it leads me to this conclusion. If you want more details see the thread "The Psalms are the Word of Christ". WL completely dropped the ball, and in so doing he shut off the flock from the words of life. This is frankly inexcusable.

(and I am not deviating from this thread. Watchman Nee's subjective mysticism gave WL the free reign to personalize the Bible to his own fancy).

What I was trying to say in previous is I had similar Chinese culture background, if I had read them I would have been trapped too (my faith is not strong enough to resist those misleading). I may add more to against his teachings on those you mentioned later to discuss with you on this topic.

[markpaul]

I have to admit that my English is not good. In present situation, my English expression may be heard impolite (I’m certain my English expressions are not the same as native English speakers expect to other native English speaker). If I did offend you, please forgive me and point out them to me and I would be very happy to correct them. In the same time, I’m not trying to offend Chinese reader by often mentioning Chinese culture. I’m not trying to say the negative parts of Chinese culture. The reason I often mention Chinese Culture is simply because my Chinese culture background. As far as I know, western culture has its own flaw to deviate from Christian faith (I learned from persons in USA with western background). Because I don’t have western culture background thus I don’t like to mention those. Actually I’m a sinner. My sinful nature often leads me to sin against God. I’m struggling with that. When I say negative aspects of Nee or Lee’s Chinese culture stuff, I’m included automatically. I say those stuff to confess my sins so that Jesus’ blood to cover me, cleanse me and wash me. Thanks in advance for your understanding!

[aron]

Originally Posted by markpaul

I’m not trying to offend Chinese reader by often mentioning Chinese culture. I’m not trying to say the negative parts of Chinese culture. The reason I often mention Chinese Culture is simply because my Chinese culture background. As far as I know, western culture has its own flaw to deviate from Christian faith (I learned from persons in USA with western background). Because I don’t have western culture background thus I don’t like to mention those. Actually I’m a sinner. My sinful nature often leads me to sin against God. I’m struggling with that. When I say negative aspects of Nee or Lee’s Chinese culture stuff, I’m included automatically. I say those stuff to confess my sins so that Jesus’ blood to cover me, cleanse me and wash me.

I don't think Watchman Nee disparaged (disrespected) Western culture, nor did he think Chinese culture was superior. I also do not disrespect Asian culture, nor do I think Western culture is better or more advanced.

The danger is in underestimating how much our "home culture" affects our thinking and understanding. And I believe Nee and Lee both missed this.

So when I point out the effect of Chinese culture on Watchman Nee's thinking or his 'normal' church life arrangement (the so-called Little Flock movement), it is not to say that it's inferior to a Western model of church, or defective. But I am pointing out that there is a cultural effect in place. And if we don't see it, it can hurt us. We are all sinners.

I believe that this is also what you are saying here.

[markpaul]

Originally Posted by aron

I don't think Watchman Nee disparaged (disrespected) Western culture, nor did he think Chinese culture was superior. I also do not disrespect Asian culture, nor do I think Western culture is better or more advanced.

The danger is in underestimating how much our "home culture" affects our thinking and understanding. And I believe Nee and Lee both missed this.

So when I point out the effect of Chinese culture on Watchman Nee's thinking or his 'normal' church life arrangement (the so-called Little Flock movement), it is not to say that it's inferior to a Western model of church, or defective. But I am pointing out that there is a cultural effect in place. And if we don't see it, it can hurt us. We are all sinners.

I believe that this is also what you are saying here.

What I'm saying is because my English is not good, I cannot express myself accurately. I don't like Chinese readers have an impression I just attack Chinese culture here. What I'm doing is trying to turn to Jesus Christ by confessing or exposing the conflict between Chinese culture and Christian faith existed in Nee or Lee and also existing in me if I mention Chinese culture too often without saying Christian faith simultaneously.

[markpaul]

Originally Posted by aron

Like WL's ministry, it is certainly superior to what I would have done, had I tried. But I didn't try.

So I don't want to seem to be some critic sniping from the sidelines. I doubt I would have done better.

But my point was that in putting out a new version of the Bible, the LSM as the personal publishing arm of the Bible teacher WL, and WL himself, were exposed as rank amateurs, and in way over their heads. Some of it is decent, some is mediocre, and some is frankly awful. They had absolutely no business in attempting a new English version of the Bible, except to 1) control the discussion in the flock and 2) sell something else to a captive market.

Sorry to be so blunt but some of it leads me to this conclusion. If you want more details see the thread "The Psalms are the Word of Christ". WL completely dropped the ball, and in so doing he shut off the flock from the words of life. This is frankly inexcusable.

(and I am not deviating from this thread. Watchman Nee's subjective mysticism gave WL the free reign to personalize the Bible to his own fancy).

As I mentioned before, with the Bible basis, I believe the Bible is complete and closed to be modified (the verses I cited says neither to be added nor to be taken away). Other verses to support above observation are Hebrews 13:8 says “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” Hebrews 6:4-6 says “4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.” All these are consistent each other to show the revelation was finished more than 1900 years ago.
On the Old Testament part, it is appealing to argue that “the parts were not quoted in the New Testament should be rejected.” But with the fact that the Old Testament was finished before Jesus’ first Advent tells me that the argument is flaw because Jesus or His Apostles never mentioned (correct me if you found opposite) the rejection claim before Apostle John wrote down the Revelation. If Jesus sent Lee (here I assume that Lee was humble himself said Jesus revealed the idea) to correct the “error” after about 1900 years, I would doubt Jesus’ deity. If Lee said those things with authority like Jesus did (Matthew 7:29), then I would face the same problem as Jews: either accept Lee is Christ or forsake Lee. Since Lee died many years, I don’t think I can accept Lee is Christ.

[aron]

Originally Posted by markpaul

On the Old Testament part, it is appealing to argue that “the parts were not quoted in the New Testament should be rejected.” But with the fact that the Old Testament was finished before Jesus’ first Advent tells me that the argument is flaw because Jesus or His Apostles never mentioned (correct me if you found opposite) the rejection claim before Apostle John wrote down the Revelation.

Lee did not reject them outright. But he did disparage them. He said they were "low" and "natural" and "fallen men's concepts". This is partway to the Eastern Lightning heresy to reject the Bible and create new "speaking from God."

And there is no precedent in New Testament scripture for treating the Old Testament writings the way that Witness Lee did. None.

And we treated Witness Lee's speaking as if it came from God, and the Old Testament prophet's word as if it were the natural concept of fallen humans. A very dangerous turn of events.

[markpaul]

Originally Posted by aron

Lee did not reject them outright. But he did disparage them. He said they were "low" and "natural" and "fallen men's concepts". This is partway to the Eastern Lightning heresy to reject the Bible and create new "speaking from God."

And there is no precedent in New Testament scripture for treating the Old Testament writings the way that Witness Lee did. None.

And we treated Witness Lee's speaking as if it came from God, and the Old Testament prophet's word as if it were the natural concept of fallen humans. A very dangerous turn of events.

This is all the more dangerous to me because I would be misled to a direction not to God under the cover of Bible by the trick Lee did. I think it's almost impossible for an ordinary Christian to have perspective to see his or her Christian leader is leading him/her to a direction not directing to God.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by markpaul

This is all the more dangerous to me because I would be misled to a direction not to God under the cover of Bible by the trick Lee did. I think it's almost impossible for an ordinary Christian to have perspective to see his or her Christian leader is leading him/her to a direction not directing to God.

The way that WL used his teaching of “God’s economy” was very crafty. First of all, his usage of that phrase took up a completely different meaning than what it actually means in the Bible.

In 1 Tim 1:3, the NIV renders Paul’s charge as being to “not teach false doctrines any longer”. In the RcV, a different rendering is used: “not teach different things”. Why is this significant? It is readily apparent that “false doctrine” has a much more precise meaning than “different things” What exactly does it mean to “teach different things”? Do you see what I’m getting at here? The phrase could mean just about anything.

WL took advantage of this. He also told everyone that “doctrines kill”. He took the emphasis off of doctrine and placed it upon the idea of “different things”, which he so presumed to define. Eventually, the notion within the LC became that to “teach different things” is to teach anything not taught or endorsed by LSM. The worst of this was when WL began dismissing entire books of the Bible.

In 1 Tim 1:4 (NIV), teaching false doctrine is put in contrast to “advancing God’s work”. It’s a simple charge, I think we all can understand what Paul was trying to convey here. Other renderings of “God’s economy” in verse 4 include: “the stewardship from God” and “godly edifying”. These other translations seem more meaningful, at least to me. Therefore, I think WL’s focus on the word ‘economy’ allowed him to take an idea that perhaps had some esoteric undertones when compared to the more well-known phrases, and he ran with it. In essence, he made a huge deal out of a simple matter and eventually constructed it into a false doctrine, trying to assign a meaning that had nothing to do whatsoever with the context of these verses.

[markpaul]

Originally Posted by aron

Second example: in the Psalms, Lee said that David was being "natural" and writing according to "fallen human concepts". Most of the Psalms that were not quoted in the New Testament were rejected by Lee.

Why? Because David fought with people, instead of blessing them! He should have forgiven his enemies, and turned the other cheek! I am not kidding. So David should have gone out and apologized to Goliath? When the wolf and the bear came for the sheep, David should have offered a second sheep?

Could you tell me whether Lee applied above teaching (or similar practice) in his life? I would like to check an idea and discuss with you later. Thanks.

[aron]

Originally Posted by markpaul

Could you tell me whether Lee applied above teaching (or similar practice) in his life? I would like to check an idea and discuss with you later. Thanks.

I would say the answer is "no".

If you look at the Chinese principle of reciprocity, or Guanxi, if you give something then you are owed something back. Jesus taught to give when you get nothing back and you will be rewarded in heaven. Witness Lee would not do that, nor would he allow his followers to obey this teaching. I was there in the FTTA (Full-time Training, Anaheim [California]) and they were clear about this.

Second, if you break the set of social expectations of Guanxi, it is an unforgivable offense. Jesus taught to forgive. But if you violate the cultural norms of Guanxi in the LC you are never forgiven.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi

Guanxi largely originates from the Chinese social philosophy of Confucianism, which stresses the importance of associating oneself with others in a hierarchical manner, in order to maintain social and economic order. Particularly, there is an emphasis on implicit mutual obligations, reciprocity, and trust, which are the foundations of guanxi and guanxi networks.

Third, Witness Lee would never "lose face" to anyone. Anyone who caused him to "lose face" would never be forgiven in the LC. "You are finished", they said.

So this tells me that Witness Lee never overcame his native Chinese culture.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

So this tells me that Witness Lee never overcame his native Chinese culture.

If he could not overcome his native culture, then he certainly was not the MOTA. Compare to Saul who became Paul and how he overcame his Jewish culture.

[markpaul]

Originally Posted by HERn

If he could not overcome his native culture, then he certainly was not the MOTA.

Great observation!

[markpaul]

Originally Posted by aron

If you look at the Chinese principle of reciprocity, or Guanxi, if you give something then you are owed something back. Jesus taught to give when you get nothing back and you will be rewarded in heaven. Witness Lee would not do that, nor would he allow his followers to obey this teaching. I was there in the FTTA (Full-time Training, Anaheim [California]) and they were clear about this.

That's great! You understand Lee well (at least much better than I). This is a great opportunity for me to eliminate (or cleanse) Lee's effect (heretical teachings) latent in me by discussing with you. I'll discuss with you later. Thanks.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

If you look at the Chinese principle of reciprocity, or Guanxi, if you give something then you are owed something back. Jesus taught to give when you get nothing back and you will be rewarded in heaven. Witness Lee would not do that, nor would he allow his followers to obey this teaching. I was there in the FTTA (Full-time Training, Anaheim [California]) and they were clear about this.

Second, if you break the set of social expectations of Guanxi, it is an unforgivable offense. Jesus taught to forgive. But if you violate the cultural norms of Guanxi in the LC you are never forgiven.

The following quote is something I posted on another thread, but I think it applies here too:

I brought the recovery to the United States, and you received it. You are the result of my work. Should I not expect that you all would be one with me, cooperating with me to promote the Lord's recovery? What is wrong with this?

Witness Lee, The Eldership and the God-Ordained Way, Volume 1, pg. 86

WL made it clear that he expected an attitude of reciprocity within the LC. Everyone was supposed to feel "indebted" to him, and this was supposed to be repaid through loyalty to him and his ministry office.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The following quote is something I posted on another thread, but I think it applies here too:

I brought the recovery to the United States, and you received it. You are the result of my work. Should I not expect that you all would be one with me, cooperating with me to promote the Lord's recovery? What is wrong with this? -- Witness Lee, The Eldership and the God-Ordained Way, Volume 1, pg. 86

WL made it clear that he expected an attitude of reciprocity within the LC. Everyone was supposed to feel "indebted" to him, and this was supposed to be repaid through loyalty to him and his ministry office.

This is a very accurate observation, Freedom.

I left in 2005 during the ugly fighting that surrounded the GLA quarantines. Basically the question presented to each and every brother and sister was this:

Who do you belong to? Whose fruit are you? Who raised you up? To whom do you owe your allegiance? Are you Witness Lee's fruit or are you Titus Chu's fruit? To whom do you owe your life?

I decided that when there is no good answer, then the question must be wrong. Like the Corinthians of old, I was neither "of Lee" nor was I "of Chu." (I Cor 1.12-13, 3:4-5) They were not crucified for me. I am of Christ, and it is now time for me to leave, because the apostle Paul would call all of these men "fleshly."

[markpaul]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I decided that when there is no good answer, then the question must be wrong. Like the Corinthians of old, I was neither "of Lee" nor was I "of Chu." (I Cor 1.12-13, 3:4-5) They were not crucified for me. I am of Christ, and it is now time for me to leave, because the apostle Paul would call all of these men "fleshly."

This is a great decision!

[markpaul]

Recently, I’m trying to figure out why I could not find out the message Nee or Lee found such as MOTA or “becoming God” etc in the same (or similar) version of Bible. I assumed at beginning I was too stupid to understand the high vision (hopefully this is the correct word, please correct it directly I don’t feel “lose face” because you cannot see me anyway [joke]), but afterwards I realized I didn’t stand at the similar position (or angle) to understand things. When ordinary Christians like me read Bible usually do it with reverence and seriousness to hope for learning things to instruct their life. But when big figures like Nee or Lee read they might use Bible as reference to find some useful things to help them make rules for their kingdom so that they could rule over ordinary Christians who would enter their kingdom. Following link is about Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. Its leader was Hong Xiuquan who claimed was the second son of God and the younger brother of Jesus (see the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Heavenly_Kingdom). You may find similar phenomenon. Maybe I'm wrong totally (I hope). Could you help me to escape from above view?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

WL made it clear that he expected an attitude of reciprocity within the LC. Everyone was supposed to feel "indebted" to him, and this was supposed to be repaid through loyalty to him and his ministry office.

I suppose that's where BP and RG drafted the Pledge of Allegiance for elders to sign their names with WL's ministry as indispensable.
Well, there's an expression "don't through out the baby with the bathwater."
What's the baby and what is the bathwater in regard to Lee's ministry?

[markpaul]

Originally Posted by Freedom

WL made it clear that he expected an attitude of reciprocity within the LC. Everyone was supposed to feel "indebted" to him, and this was supposed to be repaid through loyalty to him and his ministry office.

I think this is great observation!

[markpaul]

Originally Posted by aron

If you look at the Chinese principle of reciprocity, or Guanxi, if you give something then you are owed something back. Jesus taught to give when you get nothing back and you will be rewarded in heaven. Witness Lee would not do that, nor would he allow his followers to obey this teaching. I was there in the FTTA (Full-time Training, Anaheim [California]) and they were clear about this.

Second, if you break the set of social expectations of Guanxi, it is an unforgivable offense. Jesus taught to forgive. But if you violate the cultural norms of Guanxi in the LC you are never forgiven.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi

Guanxi largely originates from the Chinese social philosophy of Confucianism, which stresses the importance of associating oneself with others in a hierarchical manner, in order to maintain social and economic order. Particularly, there is an emphasis on implicit mutual obligations, reciprocity, and trust, which are the foundations of guanxi and guanxi networks.

Third, Witness Lee would never "lose face" to anyone. Anyone who caused him to "lose face" would never be forgiven in the LC. "You are finished", they said.

So this tells me that Witness Lee never overcame his native Chinese culture.

Yes, Guanxi is one of factors. This Guanxi is for ordinary people. But I also noticed both of Nee and Lee were builders of the LC churches, they might think those were their private properties like other Chinese built enterprises or even worse like Chinese Emperor built his kingdom. In their mind, they were policy maker but they were not necessary to obey it (that’s for others). In this sense, their position is higher than Moses, while ordinary Christians consider the churches were commonwealth. In other words, Nee or Lee thought those were “my” churches but LCers (at least some of them) thought “ours”. That’s the possible reason I would suggest. What do you think?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

I would say the answer is "no".

If you look at the Chinese principle of reciprocity, or Guanxi, if you give something then you are owed something back. Jesus taught to give when you get nothing back and you will be rewarded in heaven. Witness Lee would not do that, nor would he allow his followers to obey this teaching. I was there in the FTTA (Full-time Training, Anaheim [California]) and they were clear about this.

Second, if you break the set of social expectations of Guanxi, it is an unforgivable offense. Jesus taught to forgive. But if you violate the cultural norms of Guanxi in the LC you are never forgiven.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi

Guanxi largely originates from the Chinese social philosophy of Confucianism, which stresses the importance of associating oneself with others in a hierarchical manner, in order to maintain social and economic order. Particularly, there is an emphasis on implicit mutual obligations, reciprocity, and trust, which are the foundations of guanxi and guanxi networks.

Third, Witness Lee would never "lose face" to anyone. Anyone who caused him to "lose face" would never be forgiven in the LC. "You are finished", they said.

So this tells me that Witness Lee never overcame his native Chinese culture.

These verses from Luke chapter 6:31-34 sums up Lee's culture of reciprocity which didn't stop with Lee. The blendeds have carried on the tradition of reciprocity:

Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.
If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

These verses from Luke chapter 6:31-34 sums up Lee's culture of reciprocity which didn't stop with Lee. The blendeds have carried on the tradition of reciprocity:

Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.
If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount.

The LC made a big deal about being according to the Bible, and condemned every other group as deviating from the Bible.

Yet one can see that the Bible was abandoned in the LC wherever it came into conflct with LC culture. An example is above, quoted by Terry: in contrast to what was clearly written in the Bible, we were never permitted to squander precious resources (time, attention, money, care) on those who could not repay us. Instead, we were to go after the "good building material", especially young college students.

The widows, orphans, weak, sick and lame were ignored. Why? Because the LC leadership didn't think they would "receive back the same amount", in human terms. Suddenly heavenly principles, spelled out by Jesus Himself, were ignored, because they conflicted with LC culture.

Again, one can trace the roots of this phenomenology back to Watchman Nee himself. Nee's subjective mysticism elevated his experience above the safe counsel of the flock, and which eventually led his followers out of the Bible itself. First you leave the flock, then you leave the Bible.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

The LC made a big deal about being according to the Bible, and condemned every other group as deviating from the Bible.

Yet one can see that the Bible was abandoned in the LC wherever it came into conflct with LC culture. An example is above, quoted by Terry: in contrast to what was clearly written in the Bible, we were never permitted to squander precious resources (time, attention, money, care) on those who could not repay us. Instead, we were to go after the "good building material", especially young college students.

The widows, orphans, weak, sick and lame were ignored. Why? Because the LC leadership didn't think they would "receive back the same amount", in human terms. Suddenly heavenly principles, spelled out by Jesus Himself, were ignored, because they conflicted with LC culture.

Again, one can trace the roots of this phenomenology back to Watchman Nee himself. Nee's subjective mysticism elevated his experience above the safe counsel of the flock, and which eventually led his followers out of the Bible itself. First you leave the flock, then you leave the Bible.

I was in a locality for a while where there was care for the widows and down and out, but none of the elders had been to the full-time training. It's the elders who have been to the training starting with that in Taiwan in the 80's that corrupted the saints, I think.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

I was in a locality for a while where there was care for the widows and down and out, but none of the elders had been to the full-time training. It's the elders who have been to the training starting with that in Taiwan in the 80's that corrupted the saints, I think.

I agree.

Left alone, many of the LC elders were caring shepherds.

Twice I migrated to help start new churches. The beginning times were wonderful -- many answered prayers, full of brotherly love, focused only on the Lord, etc. Both were later severely damaged by outside manipulations. In both churches, the leading minister became sought after by both Anaheim and Cleveland. Both headquaters laid claim to their "rights" as indentured servants. Eventually both brothers were beaten up pretty badly, and both churches paid the high price of being spoils of war. Both churches lost wonderful ministers and shepherds.

Neither HQ cared at all for the well being of the brothers and sisters I knew and loved, rather they cared only that the church was in their "camp."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

I was in a locality for a while where there was care for the widows and down and out, but none of the elders had been to the full-time training. It's the elders who have been to the training starting with that in Taiwan in the 80's that corrupted the saints, I think.

I think most of the LC elders in the area I'm from attended the FTTT. That says a lot by itself. At any rate, I think they do care, but they also know very well where their political allegiances must lie. That is more important than caring for anyone.

What truly disgusts me is any notion that someone is worth the effort more than someone else. It all goes back to simple parables like the Good Samaritan.

I know that at some point, WL started insisting that all the YP get college degrees, using the examples of Moses and Paul to infer that an education is necessary to be 'useful'. Maybe what he said was with good intentions, but the end result has been that there is an utter lack of care for anyone who doesn't fit a very narrow profile.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

I was in a locality for a while where there was care for the widows and down and out, but none of the elders had been to the full-time training.

There were indeed localities where elders heeded Jesus' dictum and encouraged care for those unable to repay in this age, but those elders were going "against the tide", to re-phrase Angus Kinnear.

The tide in the LC was a tide of convention, convenience, and culture. In other words, expedience: everything for the "building up" was entirely of and for this age, fully human in motive and expression. But in its insistence that it was fully divine, and not like the "fallen" and "twisted" and "corrupted" expressions of dreaded "Christianity", it became the worst of all, and the least like heaven.

"As in heaven, so on earth" - not a chance. Where's the love? Where's the respect, attention, care, intrinsic to every creature, especially those made in God's image? No, it became all about "good building material" and uplifting "the ministry".

Look at James: "...if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, "You sit here in a good place," and you say to the poor man, "You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool," have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives?…"

Probably not coincidental that Lee despised so much of James' epistle. It exposed the human element as seen in distinction-making aspects of his church-building scheme.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The LC hypocrisy is sad..

Yes it is hypocrisy, because what the LC condemns others for is like a gnat compared to the camel in their eyes. And it is sad.

Originally Posted by aron

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi

Guanxi largely originates from the Chinese social philosophy of Confucianism, which stresses the importance of associating oneself with others in a hierarchical manner, in order to maintain social and economic order. Particularly, there is an emphasis on implicit mutual obligations, reciprocity, and trust, which are the foundations of guanxi and guanxi networks.

Witness Lee never overcame his native Chinese culture.

I remember a testimony of a brother named Don Rutledge. He said that the Chinese brothers didn't have much use for him, until they found out that he was "tight" with Witness Lee. Suddenly their attitude totally changed and they became quite respectful, even solicitous of him, because they'd found out his position on the Guanxi network.

Actually there's nothing wrong with this - human organizations build and maintain ''social and economic order'', to quote Wikipedia, this way. This is indeed the proverbial "way of the gentiles"; it's just a Chinese variant. But to think that this is the heavenly way, and all others are fallen, earthly, dark, deformed, Satanic etc is just the most idiotic, self-willed culturally-myopic blindness imaginable. You'd think someone reasonably intelligent like Lee was would pick up on it. But he was removed from any objective critique, and thus the error could grow and grow and grow, until it really was the elephant in the room. It crushes everything in its path, and everyone sits around all day wondering why the furniture is always broken. Is it the materials? The glue? The stitching?

No; an elephant just sat on it. Like the one yesterday, and the day before...

[markpaul]

Originally Posted by aron

Second example: in the Psalms, Lee said that David was being "natural" and writing according to "fallen human concepts". Most of the Psalms that were not quoted in the New Testament were rejected by Lee.

Why? Because David fought with people, instead of blessing them! He should have forgiven his enemies, and turned the other cheek! I am not kidding. So David should have gone out and apologized to Goliath? When the wolf and the bear came for the sheep, David should have offered a second sheep?

I’m sorry I realized I’ve missed a Chinese cultural factor in previous discussion about Lee. When I was in China mainland, I observed Chinese teachers (tutors) taught things with authority like the knowledge invented by them (at least in primary and middle school). Besides this, we studied most of knowledge satisfied with reciting or writing down not for application. Even if someone learns knowledge for application, it would be assumed students not teacher applies them. Therefore, if a teacher teaches ethnical topics, he/she may give students teachings sound very high standard for talking in their daily life so that they may not be despised by their folks. These practices contradict to Jesus’ teaching (Matthew 23:1-4). So small Christians like me would expect big figures like Nee or Lee (at least they were Bible teachers) follow Jesus’ teaching (opposite to scribes). But quite possibly, Lee followed Chinese cultural tradition behaved like scribes. That’s why I was interested in whether Lee applied his above teaching.
Anyway, if Lee did apply, I apologize for my bad mouth and confess my sins to Jesus.
On the other hand, I myself affected by above culture factor. When I talk with other brothers or sisters in Church life or daily life, I more or less speak in a way like an authority. May Jesus’ blood cover my sins, cleanse me and wash me.

[Freedom]

I’m sorry I realized I’ve missed a Chinese cultural factor in previous discussion about Lee. When I was in China mainland, I observed Chinese teachers (tutors) taught things with authority like the knowledge invented by them (at least in primary and middle school). Besides this, we studied most of knowledge satisfied with reciting or writing down not for application. Even if someone learns knowledge for application, it would be assumed students not teacher applies them. Therefore, if a teacher teaches ethnical topics, he/she may give students teachings sound very high standard for talking in their daily life so that they may not be despised by their folks. These practices contradict to Jesus’ teaching (Matthew 23:1-4). So small Christians like me would expect big figures like Nee or Lee (at least they were Bible teachers) follow Jesus’ teaching (opposite to scribes). But quite possibly, Lee followed Chinese cultural tradition behaved like scribes. That’s why I was interested in whether Lee applied his above teaching.
Anyway, if Lee did apply, I apologize for my bad mouth and confess my sins to Jesus.
On the other hand, I myself affected by above culture factor. When I talk with other brothers or sisters in Church life or daily life, I more or less speak in a way like an authority. May Jesus’ blood cover my sins, cleanse me and wash me.

It's hard to know what WL actually applied in his personal life. That is a only a guess to those of us who didn't know him. My own view of WL is formed from what he spoke in his ministry, and also the writings of former members, that most LC members have never read.

It does seem like WL viewed himself as the teacher and everyone else as his pupils. For rank and file members to call the teacher into question would have been unthinkable. Actually, when WL was eventually called out for not staying true to what he had spoken, he made the following statement: "None of you is perfected. Who can say that he is perfected? So you are not qualified to criticize what I am doing." WL didn't like anyone attempting to hold him accountable, and that has the obvious implication that he didn't practice what he preached.

[markpaul]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's hard to know what WL actually applied in his personal life. That is a only a guess to those of us who didn't know him. My own view of WL is formed from what he spoke in his ministry, and also the writings of former members, that most LC members have never read.

It does seem like WL viewed himself as the teacher and everyone else as his pupils. For rank and file members to call the teacher into question would have been unthinkable. Actually, when WL was eventually called out for not staying true to what he had spoken, he made the following statement: "None of you is perfected. Who can say that he is perfected? So you are not qualified to criticize what I am doing." WL didn't like anyone attempting to hold him accountable, and that has the obvious implication that he didn't practice what he preached.

I see. Thanks.
According to my observation, the teacher wants his pupils remember what he taught. If a pupil raises a question, he would definitely give you an answer then he want you remember his answer and doesn’t allow you express your understanding or opinion. The statement you mentioned is typical excuse for a Chinese teacher or leader not to accept any opinion other than his own.