Article: Beware of the writings of the Watchman

[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?

[aron]

Originally Posted by markpaul

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?

I am helped by Jesus' teaching: "Who wants to be great in heaven, be small on earth."

And

"Those who exalt themselves will be cast down; those who humble themselves will be lifted up."

And

"You know that those who are great in the Gentiles lord over them; but do not be like the Gentiles in this matter."

On earth the Great Ones lord it over the little ones. This is the way of the world. In the flock we should not elevate ourselves. I know there are "apostles, teachers, shepherds and evangelists", but even then we should prove all things. When some claim to be "super-apostles" (MOTA) like Lee they are most suspect.

And those who claim to be God incarnate have left the Christian faith behind and are in the throes of madness and delusion. That is my attitude and I think it is pretty common in the Christian flock.

markpaul,

There are a lot of Christians who have gone on before you; listen to them. They went before you for a reason: to show you what to do, and what not to do! Satan wants you to repeat the mistakes of others. God wants you to learn from others.

If anyone exalts himself or herself, before they stand at God's Judgment Seat, then they are most fooled.

2 Cor 5:10 "We all have to stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ" to answer for the things we do, both good and bad. Those who presume to be great on this earth, and in this age: I do not trust them.

Jesus is great, even the greatest of all. But He passed through death and resurrection. I have not, and you have not. So we are foolish to judge ourselves as better or worse than anyone else. Just take the least place, and don't trust those who elevate themselves above the flock.

Also, we were warned that "false Christs" will come. What do you think they will look like? I bet, a lot like the person Hong Xiuquan that you referenced. People who come among the flock, declaring, "I am great"; and "I am something".

Missionaries working with native Chinese speakers published a series of introductory Christian tracts, one of which Hong came across, though he apparently did not read at first. After Hong failed to pass the imperial examination that would have made him one of the scholar-officials, he had a delirious dream or a vision in which he was greeted by a golden-haired, bearded man who presented him with a sword, and a younger man whom he addressed as "Elder Brother."

This actually sounds a lot like the woman who claimed to be God incarnate in the Eastern Lightning cult. She failed her entrance exams, then she had a vision that she was actually God: in life, nature, and in the Godhead.

Who needs entrance exams when you are God? Gee, why didn't I think of that one? I could have saved myself a lot of trouble!

[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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

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.

Yeah ... It all started with the nightmare of the "Young Galileans."

[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.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

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.

The LC hypocrisy is sad. The whole system is now formed around recruiting college students and then sending them to the FTTA. Even having a college degree isn't enough in the LC. You have to go to the FTT for 2 years to truly be considered to be "useful". And now I hear that there is an extension program in Boston where you go another 1-2 years.

They must not see where this all is headed. By creating a special, elite class of members, the non-elite members feel neglected and worthless. I would surmise that at some point in the future, the LC is going to dwindle down to just those who have been to the FTT. Virtually all those I grew up with who didn't attend the FTT have left the LC. There is simply no way to feel "connected" when you know that you don't fit the mold.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

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.

As a disclaimer in many of my posts and rants, it's not directed at the general brothers and sisters in the local churches, but at elders, co-workers, etc who are deemed "responsible brothers" and as such are the ones promoting the system.
Aron, asked where is the love? Look no further than the verse in Luke 6:32

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.

This type of love is conditional and reciprocal. If you're one who loves the ministry LSM publishes and only expresses positivity, you'll be loved. Anything less, there's no love.

This LC practice is contrary to the Bible. Nine instances it is said to "love your neighbor as yourself". There's no conditions attached.

[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...