The Minister of the Age Examined

[Indiana]

http://www.makingstraightthewayofthe...geExamined.pdf

“However much the Lord may use a gifted person, however great his ministry may be the local church must not become his work.” Witness Lee 1964

May the younger people, the future leaders especially, become totally aware of the sins of their fathers and the bed of lies they have lain on comfortably for so many years.

The “new way” movement in the mid-1980s was planned and orchestrated by one gifted man who presented the blueprint to the elders for the churches to follow in a systematized fashion around the world. This huge step taken by the universal leader put “all” the churches into his hand to turn them to the left and to turn them to the right according to his thought and his feeling. Albeit, an ulterior motive also surfaced in accord with a latent propensity of Brother Lee’s which had initially caused the churches serious trouble in China and other places in the Far East.

[NewManLiving]

In the context of Acts chapter 9, Ananias is instructed by the Lord to go into the street and seek out Saul. Ananias is somewhat skeptical and reminds the Lord concerning Saul's reputation and authority to bind all those who call upon the Lord's name. The Lord reassures Ananias that Saul is an (not the) elect vessel to bear the Lord's name and to also suffer for His Name. The Lord does not distinguish Paul's election any different from our own by assigning to him the title: Apostle or Minister of the Age, having the One Vision of the Age. This is extra-biblical and is a thinly veiled nuance with no real substance.


In Corinthians, Paul speaks for himself and describes his calling and function. In 1:12 Paul shows deep concern about the strife and division taking place concerning the Corinthians' preference for one Apostle over the other. Because of this he calls them carnal and mere men. As was the case then and certainly is now, elevating an elect vessel to anything other than an elect vessel will bring about division. This has already taken place in the LSMLC first by Witness Lee elevating himself, then by his disciples continuing and enforcing this carnal practice.


So what does Paul have to say about himself? In verse 17 he tells us that Christ sent him to preach the glad tidings or gospel concerning the cross of the Christ. He never mentions anything about the Vision of the Age, nor does he claim himself to be The Apostle of the Age. As a matter of fact from eternity there is only one Vision and one Minister - Christ Himself. Paul knew this well! Paul tells us in 3:5 that he and Apollos are simply ministering servants through whom you have believed. Paul planted and Apollos watered; but it is God who gives the growth. However the planter and the waterer are one; but each shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God's fellow-workman; are God's husbandry, God's building. According to the grace of God which has been given to me as a wise master architect have laid the foundation, but another builds upon it.


Now those who are familiar with Paul know that he often uses analogies to make his point. For example, the Greeks were very enthusiastic for the games so Paul often used words like running, racing, fighting, wrestling, crown, prize and reward to clarify and emphasize his message. The same is true here. Corinth is known for the Corinthian order, the last developed of the three principal orders of Greek and Roman architecture. Paul never identifies himself as being the unique master-builder of the age, but rather provides insight as to his care and precision in laying the unique solid foundation of the Christ. Paul also goes on to tell us that others build upon this foundation; he cautions those building that they will face trial by fire to prove their labor and the material they use to build. The material must also be Christ Himself!


In verse 11 we see that no other foundation can man lay besides that which is already laid. There is no other unique anything in any age; past, present or to come, but Christ Himself. Unfortunately in the LSMLC today, there is another foundation, another vision, and a special vessel - building with wood, hay and stubble. May the Lord have mercy on all of us.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

In the context of Acts chapter 9, Ananias is instructed by the Lord to go into the street and seek out Saul. Ananias is somewhat skeptical and reminds the Lord concerning Saul's reputation and authority to bind all those who call upon the Lord's name. The Lord reassures Ananias that Saul is an (not the) elect vessel to bear the Lord's name and to also suffer for His Name. The Lord does not distinguish Paul's election any different from our own by assigning to him the title: Apostle or Minister of the Age, having the One Vision of the Age. This is extra-biblical and is a thinly veiled nuance with no real substance.


In Corinthians, Paul speaks for himself and describes his calling and function. In 1:12 Paul shows deep concern about the strife and division taking place concerning the Corinthians' preference for one Apostle over the other. Because of this he calls them carnal and mere men. As was the case then and certainly is now, elevating an elect vessel to anything other than an elect vessel will bring about division. This has already taken place in the LSMLC first by Witness Lee elevating himself, then by his disciples continuing and enforcing this carnal practice.


So what does Paul have to say about himself? In verse 17 he tells us that Christ sent him to preach the glad tidings or gospel concerning the cross of the Christ. He never mentions anything about the Vision of the Age, nor does he claim himself to be The Apostle of the Age. As a matter of fact from eternity there is only one Vision and one Minister - Christ Himself. Paul knew this well! Paul tells us in 3:5 that he and Apollos are simply ministering servants through whom you have believed. Paul planted and Apollos watered; but it is God who gives the growth. However the planter and the waterer are one; but each shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God's fellow-workman; are God's husbandry, God's building. According to the grace of God which has been given to me as a wise master architect have laid the foundation, but another builds upon it.


Now those who are familiar with Paul know that he often uses analogies to make his point. For example, the Greeks were very enthusiastic for the games so Paul often used words like running, racing, fighting, wrestling, crown, prize and reward to clarify and emphasize his message. The same is true here. Corinth is known for the Corinthian order, the last developed of the three principal orders of Greek and Roman architecture. Paul never identifies himself as being the unique master-builder of the age, but rather provides insight as to his care and precision in laying the unique solid foundation of the Christ. Paul also goes on to tell us that others build upon this foundation; he cautions those building that they will face trial by fire to prove their labor and the material they use to build. The material must also be Christ Himself!


In verse 11 we see that no other foundation can man lay besides that which is already laid. There is no other unique anything in any age; past, present or to come, but Christ Himself. Unfortunately in the LSMLC today, there is another foundation, another vision, and a special vessel - building with wood, hay and stubble. May the Lord have mercy on all of us.

Thanks NML, that was very good and helps me better understand Paul's function.

Just wondering why you prayed for God to have mercy on all of us? I'm no longer in the recovery, are you still part of it?

[NewManLiving]

No I am no longer in the LC, but all of us need the Lord's mercy at all times. I know I certainly do. It is so easy to be deceived.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

Just wondering why you prayed for God to have mercy on all of us? I'm no longer in the recovery, are you still part of it?

Whether we agree or disagree with our brothers and sisters in the recovery, they're still our brothers and sisters. We need to reject the "Us versus Them" mentality that was created in the local churches. However that attitude is not consistent with Jesus' words in the gospels:

John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is for us. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward. Mark 9:38-41

[TLFisher]

This summed up my thoughts of LSM having been more of a family business than a non-profit:

“The Living Stream Ministry office was established in Anaheim in 1974.
Outwardly, it seemed that John Ingalls and Samuel Chang were in charge, but
actually it was members of the Lee family who ran the office. Philip Lee was the manager and a daughter-in-law of Witness Lee handled the books.”

Then there was the telephone exchange between Witness Lee and Sal Benoit (1978?) I have changed the text to red noting Witness Lee's response to Sal.

"The matter of the, that the Living Stream Ministry ….
Yeah.
We know that we make all our training …
Right.
checks to the Living Stream Ministry ….
Right.
And I just want to know if some of the money, if it has ever gone to the paying of the Daystar loans or losses. . . .
(chuckling)
that we’ve had in the past.
Well, Sal, I will say this is not your business."

Rest of the transcript can be read at:
http://www.laymansfellowship.com/pub...-PhoneCall.pdf

My point is Witness Lee telling Sal it's none of his business whether or not money given to LSM had gone to repaying Daystar loans or losses. Serious lack of transparency.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Terry

Whether we agree or disagree with our brothers and sisters in the recovery, they're still our brothers and sisters. We need to reject the "Us versus Them" mentality that was created in the local churches. However that attitude is not consistent with Jesus' words in the gospels:

John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is for us. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward. Mark 9:38-41

To me individual believers will always be "us", while the LSM religious system will always be "them". Right now, for my sanity and the spiritual health of my family it must be this way. Someday maybe I'll arrive at a more mature viewpoint.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

In the context of Acts chapter 9, Ananias is instructed by the Lord to go into the street and seek out Saul. Ananias is somewhat skeptical and reminds the Lord concerning Saul's reputation and authority to bind all those who call upon the Lord's name. The Lord reassures Ananias that Saul is an (not the) elect vessel to bear the Lord's name and to also suffer for His Name. The Lord does not distinguish Paul's election any different from our own by assigning to him the title: Apostle or Minister of the Age, having the One Vision of the Age. This is extra-biblical and is a thinly veiled nuance with no real substance.


In Corinthians, Paul speaks for himself and describes his calling and function. In 1:12 Paul shows deep concern about the strife and division taking place concerning the Corinthians' preference for one Apostle over the other. Because of this he calls them carnal and mere men. As was the case then and certainly is now, elevating an elect vessel to anything other than an elect vessel will bring about division. This has already taken place in the LSMLC first by Witness Lee elevating himself, then by his disciples continuing and enforcing this carnal practice.



In verse 11 we see that no other foundation can man lay besides that which is already laid. There is no other unique anything in any age; past, present or to come, but Christ Himself. Unfortunately in the LSMLC today, there is another foundation, another vision, and a special vessel - building with wood, hay and stubble. May the Lord have mercy on all of us.

This word, to me, sums up the problem of inordinately lifting up a member of the Body:

NML's comment _"elevating an elect vessel to anything other than an elect vessel will bring about division. This has already taken place in the LSMLC first by Witness Lee elevating himself, then by his disciples continuing and enforcing this carnal practice".

Add to that the mixed motive involved, and it becomes a travesty.

[TLFisher]

1) “At the beginning of the year Witness Lee arrived in Taipei and he began the reconstruction of the church in Taipei. He got rid of all the senior elders in the church and assigned 46 new elders. Later on he increased that number to about 80. Lee called them baby elders.
2) he re-initiated family fellowship
3) he started to push the construction of a large assembly hall and asked people to donate money to a large piece of land in Linco, which he had bought in great haste.
4) Toward end of November Lee discontinued the centralized Sunday
assembly in Taipei and in turn told people to plant small groups and read truth
lessons and that this practice is to be implemented in all the churches across
Taiwan.
5) During the winter training in the U.S. he pushed for people to donate
money for the large assembly hall in Linco and asked the members in the U.S.
and Canada to give the donations to the Living Stream Ministry; that is, to Philip Lee, who was supposed to carry the money to the church in Taipei. But later during a construction moratorium in Linco the plan for this large assembly hall 18 was stopped. The sum of money collected at the deacon station (LSM), was never forwarded to the church in Taipei. Neither was the money returned to all the members in the U. S. and in Canada who donated the money. The deacon station (LSM) never gave a report as to how the money was handled, the money just disappeared.”
Pages 17-18

Where did the money go? I could never recall Living Stream being transparent. I wouldn't be surprised if there were two sets of books. One unofficial and accurate and another official and cooked for government consumption.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

Where did the money go? I wouldn't be surprised if there were two sets of books. One unofficial and accurate and another official and cooked for government consumption.

I doubt the unofficial one was accurate, either. Which is one reason WL's businesses were failures; he forgot his training as an accountant and became convinced he was God's Deputy.

It would be interesting to see all the "rates of return" WL promised the saints, over the years. They were all fantastic, and absurd. I remember hearing something like, "If each one of you would gain two new ones in a year, then in ten years we'll have 150,000 saints, and the Lord will return in 22 years" or some such. He was always tossing out provocative numbers which had no basis in actual human experience.

So schemes like Linco, Daystar, etc were all similarly fantastic, and unrealistic. People were essentially promised the moon, and they got little or nothing, after sons Timothy and/or Philip Lee got their cut.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Indiana

an ulterior motive also surfaced in accord with a latent propensity of Brother Lee’s which had initially caused the churches serious trouble in China and other places in the Far East.

If you step back and connect the dots, you can see this latent propensity emerge consistently and repeatedly in his actions. Theology bowed to ministry, and ministry bowed to business, and business bowed to family. None of this was particularly novel, actually, coming from his culture. The man lived long enough, and did enough activity in front of many, that there's a clear record showing the answer to the Mystery of [Witness Lee's] Human Life.

Look at what happened when Dong's followers asked about the funds for the Estancia his son was running for his Arvore da Vida ministry. "None of your business. It is a black box." I wonder if anyone ever even dared to ask Chu about his practical affairs. And Lee's conversation with Sal Benoit, likewise. "I am above the law; I'm accountable only to God."

But all of us have latent propensities. What of mine? Am I pure as the driven snow? Hardly. We all need to take Lee and the Blendeds, and likewise Chu in Cleveland and Dong in Brasil, as warnings to ourselves. "Take heed of yourselves" lest you likewise fall into self-obsessed delusionary worlds.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

If you step back and connect the dots, you can see this latent propensity emerge consistently and repeatedly in his actions. Theology bowed to ministry, and ministry bowed to business, and business bowed to family. None of this was particularly novel, actually, coming from his culture. The man lived long enough, and did enough activity in front of many, that there's a clear record showing the answer to the Mystery of [Witness Lee's] Human Life.

Look at what happened when Dong's followers asked about the funds for the Estancia his son was running for his Arvore da Vida ministry. "None of your business. It is a black box." I wonder if anyone ever even dared to ask Chu about his practical affairs. And Lee's conversation with Sal Benoit, likewise. "I am above the law; I'm accountable only to God."

But all of us have latent propensities. What of mine? Am I pure as the driven snow? Hardly. We all need to take Lee and the Blendeds, and likewise Chu in Cleveland and Dong in Brasil, as warnings to ourselves. "Take heed of yourselves" lest you likewise fall into self-obsessed delusionary worlds.

All of these empires were built on the backs of God's children, convincing them they were serving God, and, of course, His "chosen vessel."

TC used to constantly preach to GLA leaders that "we all had a ministry," but none of us could "use the church" to build up our ministry. What? How does this work? Did you not "use the church" to build up your own ministry empire?

Ohhh, now I understand, you don't allow any "competition" in the house of God. All the money, all the volunteers, and all the full-time workers "belong" to TC.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did you [TC] not "use the church" to build up your own ministry empire? ... All the money, all the volunteers, and all the full-time workers "belong" to TC.

Did TC run a "black box" operation, hermetically sealed from view? Or was/is he transparent about the disposition of monies flowing about?

Here is a view, close-up, of Dong Yu Lan's Black Box:

Originally Posted by aron

[A testimony of an Ex-Donguisto]

In this period of nearly 10 years of association with the "church in Brasilia" and the regional and international work, I dove even deeper into the service.

Since 94 I was already involved with:

- Conferences for Youth, local, regional, national and international;

- I sold my only property he owned in Rio de Janeiro to buy land and build a small apartment in the condominium resort Tree of Life (qq there was no document, it was all for the church, the owner acquired a usage assignment)

- Project Coordination: I wanted to participate in all endeavors as Expobook (one Outreach Project with bus transformed into libraries); CEAPE emerged (Improvement Center for Propagation of the Gospel), which I have prepared almost all of the 80 lessons, a Herculean task within the WN and WL publications; School of the Gospel, which I was the mastermind in order to care for young people and adolescents and to prepare them to preach the gospel and to behave as citizens; Books unions, which established quotas to members, however, almost went bankrupt, and there was no qq voluntary return, but "consider as offering" But qdo it was presented, it was like "a business or investment that could turn a profit."

- In the early 2000s, due to the success of the School of the Gospel, we promote visiting every city in the state of Goiás, in a project called "Summer 2000", ie all summer to Christ this summer. We occupy our holiday with teams of satellite towns and Planning.

During the period I was still working, the reconciliation of my work in PR and responsibilities of a brother "Responsible and Cooperator" made me a real balancing act.

I had a phobia of wanting to do everything.

I actually believed was promoting the return of the Lord Jesus, introducing people reached the "Restoration of the Lord."

Came the obsession to "conquer the land" for Christ.

In 2000 I took the lead in evangelizing Project in Africa, where I devoted most of my time over 10 years.

I personally scoured 25 countries, and coordinated congregations and workers in over 40 countries, while being visited 52 of the 54 countries of the continent.

Within the movement I progressed and came to be considered a leader and international cooperative, and participated in various activities and events for several countries, mainly in the United States. There I met the main leadership of the International Local Church Movement, also known as Living Stream Ministry (LSM), which is a religious institution and Editorial founded to promote the ministry of its supreme leader, Witness Lee, a WN follower, known for their Bible studies and forceful criticism of evangelical and denominational Christianity.

The Local Church Movement led by Dong Yu Lan in Brazil and South America was considered part of the Ministry of Witness Lee, from the arrival of DYL here until the death of Witness Lee in 1997.

But from WL's death, the relationship between the leadership of LSM and DYL, which has never been good, has been deteriorating to the total disruption of these movements and their congregations in 2005 and officially in 2009, when a Letter of Quarantine has been published the DYL.

I participated actively in this process of separation of the LSM with DYL, mainly because he considered extremely idolatrous WL Movement, centralized and authoritarian. These deviations were notorious and affected the consciousness of the brothers, particularly those that related internationally. There was an expectation, at least on my part, that in this break, the Local Church movement in Brazil and South America could fix their deviations, and bring his teachings to their practice.

Almost simultaneously, and as the work progressed in Africa and was successful, problems with the DYL leadership began to arise and develop, either in the teaching field, and in practice. In addition I began to question the Movement administration.

Although he was considered a leader, he did not participate in its management, but the Work in Africa, which I managed, is the movement of people and resources. At the time it was granted a Power of Attorney by the Association Tree of Life, for we function as a branch in Brasilia, with the specific purpose of supporting evangelization in Africa.

I thought up there, that all he was doing was by God and for God, but my conscience was becoming more sensitive, because of the inconsistencies I found, particularly in increasing promotion ladder, in your institution, and in business that arose with argument to sustain the work.

In 2008 I moved to São Paulo, in a maneuver exhausting logistics, which seriously compromised my family budget and care for my children. There are several versions on this topic, however, at that time I felt that I should approach the DYL leadership to try to somehow positively influence Movement direction. (some movement advocates said I had gone to SP to give a kind of "coup in DYL" qta imagination!)

At that time I had invested everything he had, property, family, and career on the belief that this movement was an expression of the restored church on earth. Would not it be logical that in the face of difficulties, I simply depart. I really wanted to make "the church" into something that rewards the dedication of the people.

The story is long. Facebook's Notes address in particular this disruption process. I am attaching some files that seek to describe a sequence of events.

Then came the administrative issue and the fear of legal responsibility.

In São Paulo I took note of a Warrant Search and Seizure, which was issued (later halted), due to a Concealment Process Goods and Money Laundering Association against the Tree of Life (AAV).

Were evident signs of administrative irregularities, particularly in resort Tree of Life, where a son of DYL managed an Engineering Company, which at the time was the only one to carry out works at Estancia (meeting place of the Congregations, an auditorium, accommodation, houses and hotel).

The ghost of being a mere orange, providing credibility to the operations, which at least seemed unethical by the Movement summit, began to haunt me.

I worried about being corresponsabilizado for something I lived, but not adequately met, and certainly not agree.

After the episode of the Warrant I went to the resort to talk to one of the main leaders of the Movement, who lived there (Ezra Ma, the chief marketer of Dong Yu Lan).

Surely it was clear what occurred there. So I argued with him in front of irregularities, what should be our position?

We should just sit on the 1st row and make clear to the brothers who were approving all that was done?

I told him to all the letters that I would not be Orange Movement, and that if there were any irregular or unethical situation, as such Engineering Company that had the monopoly of the works of EAV, so that the situation be corrected because they do not should expect from me what solidarity was not fair and legal.

He claimed not to know anything, but "the administration of EAV was a kind of black box, the Dong's exclusivity."
I argued that, if so, only after the crash is that we would know its contents. Finally we said goodbye. I think he got the message, they could not "trust" me administrative secrets...

To me, Lee and Dong were very similar in arranging things for personal benefit, and people either rose or fell according to their relation to the ascendancy of this minister's mercantilism, period.

Not sure how similar Chu was in this regard. He seemed a little less egregious in his rapaciousness for the things of the saints. Perhaps he just covered it better.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Did TC run a "black box" operation, hermetically sealed from view? Or was/is he transparent about the disposition of monies flowing about?

Not sure how similar Chu was in this regard. He seemed a little less egregious in his rapaciousness for the things of the saints. Perhaps he just covered it better.

Don't know if his transactions were transparent or not. Most of the LC's were transparent with annual business meetings and by-laws to adhere to, but TC ran his own ministry mostly independent of church oversight.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Don't know if his transactions were transparent or not. Most of the LC's were transparent with annual business meetings and by-laws to adhere to, but TC ran his own ministry mostly independent of church oversight.

Originally Posted by Ex Donguisto

Books unions, which established quotas to members, however, almost went bankrupt, and there was no voluntary return, but "consider as offering" But as it was presented, it was like "a business or investment that could turn a profit."

Did TC ever present the GLA members with profit-making and/or pyramid schemes? Seems that both Lee and Dong did this.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Did TC ever present the GLA members with profit-making and/or pyramid schemes? Seems that both Lee and Dong did this.

No investment schemes I am aware of, but used free church labor for his ministry, real estate, and farm. Supposedly it was to support other full-timer workers and trainees.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Don't know if his transactions were transparent or not. Most of the LC's were transparent with annual business meetings and by-laws to adhere to, but TC ran his own ministry mostly independent of church oversight.

But weren't the GLA business meetings like what we saw in Texas?

"All in favor of going on as we have been say 'amen'."

And probably not even having the option to disagree.

Of course, with leaders like we had in Texas, it could have simply been extreme here.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

"All in favor of going on as we have been say 'amen'."

And probably not even having the option to disagree.

Or like in Cuba: "Comrade Fidel was re-elected with 100% of the vote." And the options were...?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Or like in Cuba: "Comrade Fidel was re-elected with 100% of the vote." And the options were...?

Sounds also like many inner city precincts which have 100% voter turnout, and 100% of them voted for the Democrats. As they say, vote early and vote often!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

But weren't the GLA business meetings like what we saw in Texas?

Pretty much, that is until the quarantine hit town.

Got pretty contentious after that.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Pretty much, that is until the quarantine hit town.

Got pretty contentious after that.

At my first locality the brothers posted the budget on the church bulletin board regularly. At my last locality that was run by LSM full timers we got a financial statement maybe three times in 7 years or so. The local brothers were strongly influenced by the full timers in the regional church that "fellowshipped" with the others churches under the shepherding of the blended brother. For a group that claims no hierarchy, the LSM churches are about equal to the RCC.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

But weren't the GLA business meetings like what we saw in Texas?

"All in favor of going on as we have been say 'amen'."

And probably not even having the option to disagree.

Of course, with leaders like we had in Texas, it could have simply been extreme here.

Business meetings was essentially giving the rubber stamp to make it official. Much the same in Washington with the exception amen's were treated as voting 100%. No amen's were treated as not voting. Disagreement was not an available option.

[Indiana]

- Sent two days ago

Hello brother Kerry,

I had written to Bob Danker twice in the last couple of weeks but did not get a response from him. I had included your name initially in the writing since you had spoken specifically of Nigel Tomes with a surprising high level of condemnation of him and his writing on the "minister of the age". You were rather condescending to him, I felt, in defense of a teaching that many feel warrants scrutiny. I have approached the subject also, but differently. Below is the 2nd letter to Bob Danker.
.........................

From: steve isitt
Date: Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 3:07 PM
Subject: Invitation to Bob Danker for fellowship
To: Bob Danker <...........>

Hello brother Bob,

As I shared last week, I read your piece recently which was based on Witness Lee's book, The Vision of the Age. I sent you my response to what you have shared with many saints via the internet.

I am offering to you a new writing, The Minister of the Age Examined, as a base for our fellowship if you would like to correspond.

http://Www.makingstraightthewayofthe...geExamined.pdf

This fellowship has already been presented on the internet and is being discussed seriously due to its very indicting content. It begs a response from a serious-minded leader who is interested in truth only and a pure testimony.

Your brother in Christ,

Steve Isitt
.................................

- I hope also to hear from you, Kerry, that we might have meaningful discussion and fellowship in the light of truth, unto righteous investigation, determination, and condemnation of the sins at LSM. And of the polluting politics of our brothers in local church leadership practiced over several decades.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Hello brother Kerry,..I had included your name initially in the writing since you also spoke with a surprising high level of condemnation of Nigel Tomes and his consideration of the "minister of the age".

Hey Steve could you please provide a link where we can read what Kerry wrote about Nigel Tomes' "Minister of the Age"? I'm assuming your speaking of something that he spoke in public.

Thanks.

[Indiana]

Yes, UntoHim, I am looking for Kerry's writing, but had purposely not provided that link yet, so that focus can be on the points I have made to Bob and Kerry, including in the links,

I remember now that Kerry's word was added on to Bob Danker's article which DCP printed out and made available to the saints in the "local churches".

It might not be on the internet, as it is not included in Bob Danker's internet article. (And, this would make sense, if the intention was to limit its exposure to those they wish to educate without inviting further response after singling out Nigel.)

I will look for the printout too, it was a comparatively short word that Kerry gave, but quite dismissing of Nigel Tomes, and others, whose "underlying intention was motivated by their ambition for leadership..."

[Indiana]

http://onepub.robichaux.name/2006/02..._age.html#more

No unique minister of the age? Is that what Watchman Nee taught?

Kerry Robichaux

"The CBs reproduce a little article by N. Tomes in which he argues against the notion of a singular minister of the age. But has he proved anything at all? If the saints read carefully what he has to say and weigh his arguments soberly, I believe that they will see that he is trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

Tomes rejects the notion that the vision of the age and the ministry of the age can belong to a singular minister of the age. I believe that he agrees that there is a vision of the age and with it a ministry of the age; hence, Tomes takes exception to a singular minister of the age. He is certainly within his right to believe what he wants to believe, but I take exception to how he tries to persuade us of his personal belief. I am actually quite surprised at how he argues his point.

Before he wades too deep into the matter, he admits that “we should ask, Is this teaching according to the New Testament?” but he conveniently “defer[s] the question to another occasion.” Deflecting attention from an obvious authoritative source always raises a red flag when I read an argument, so I had to pause and consider why Tomes did not consider the issue from the perspective of the New Testament and be done with it. It seems to me that he could have spared himself a lot of effort if he could have shown that the notion of a singular minister of the age does not accord with the New Testament. Tomes (and the CBs who put him forth as their champion) elsewhere challenged the brothers to support their views by showing that their views are founded on the Scriptures. But here he conveniently lets himself off the same hook. Is there some double standard here? I think so. As his readers, what we should ask is, Why didn’t Tomes appeal to the New Testament on this occasion? Perhaps he realizes that he would have no support there. Or perhaps he remembers that Brother Lee already considered all these matters in light of the Scriptures and offered a Scriptural basis for it. Of course, Brother Lee could be wrong about it all, but Tomes would have to take exception with Brother Lee, and he probably does not want to be so bold.

Freeing himself from the requirement he places on others, Tomes instead appeals to Watchman Nee to buttress his claim: “Did Watchman Nee teach that there is one, unique ‘minister of the age’? Did Brother Nee see himself as the unique ‘minister of the age’?” (Tomes’s emphasis). Of course, we all respect Brother Nee, so I find his appeal to Brother Nee acceptable. I trust Brother Nee’s grasp of the truth and am always interested in hearing what Brother Nee has to say. I do not, however, trust Tomes’s grasp of what Brother Nee has to say, and therein lies the problem.

In response to his first question, Tomes offers two “supports.” In this note I will address only the first support. which is Brother Nee’s general comments on the matter: “In every age there is the ministry of that age,” and later in the same place, “Luther was a minister of his age. Darby was also a minister of his age” (Collected Works, vol. 57, p. 260). Then, Tomes argues:

“Note the indefinite article, ‘a minister of his age.’ The Chinese can also be rendered, ‘Luther was one minister of his age, Darby was also one minister of his age’ When directly addressing this issue, Brother Nee does not refer to either Luther or Darby as the unique ‘minister of the age.’ We cannot find a statement by Watchman Nee affirming one, unique ‘Minister of the Age.’” (Tomes’s emphasis)

I think that many of Tomes’s readers will find something creepy about his reasoning, even if they are not able to clearly put their finger on it. The fact is, Tomes is not being completely fair in his interpretation, because he fails to allow that the indefinite article is ambiguous here. If “in every age there is the ministry of that age,” then as we consider the various ministers across the ages (as Brother Nee does in the context), we could naturally refer to each as a minister of his age. If I say, “Luther was the minister of his age,” and “Darby was the minister of his age”; I could easily say in the same breath that each was a minister of his age: “Luther was a minister of his age. Darby was also a minister of his age.” The ambiguity of the English indefinite article in this context should prevent Tomes from wresting his particular meaning from Brother Nee’s words, but it doesn’t. Either it eludes him, or he is deluding others. It does not necessarily follow that because Watchman Nee used the indefinite article (or the quantifier in Chinese) here, the notion of the minister of the age “did not match his view of God’s recovery work throughout history and in his own era,” as he finally concludes. Brother Nee’s general comments, taken in isolation as given by Tomes, could go either way. His interpretation is not definitive at all, and even in their massaged form Brother Nee’s words do not make Tomes’s point. In their full context, Brother Nee’s words seem to have a different sense.

It may be helpful now to quote the entire portion that Tomes uses for his support. (This may be the best part of my post on the matter.) The quotation is from the online edition at http://www.ministrybooks.org/collected-works.cfm (click on vol. 57: “The Resumption of Watchman Nee’s Ministry,” then on link “27” for “Brokenness and Ministry [Chapter Twenty-Five]):

CONCERNING FOLLOWING THE MINISTRY OF THE AGE

Seeing the Ministry of the Age

Question: How should Jonathan in the Old Testament (Saul's son—1 Sam. 14:1-46) have chosen his way?

Watchman Nee: In the Old Testament both Solomon and David represented the Lord. The two persons represented the one ministry in two separate ways. In the Old Testament there were many ministries. After Moses, the judges were raised up. After that, there was Solomon, the kings, and the prophets. After the Israelites were taken into captivity, the vessels for the recovery were raised up. The Old Testament is filled with different kinds of ministries. In every age there is the ministry of that age. These ministries of the ages are different from the local ministers. Luther was a minister of his age. Darby was also a minister of his age. In every age the Lord has special things that He wants to accomplish. He has His own recoveries and His own works to do. The particular recovery and work that He does in one age is the ministry of that age.

Forsaking the Past Ministries

Jonathan stood between Saul and David. He was one man standing between two ministries. He should have followed the second ministry. However, because Jonathan's relationship with the first ministry was too deep, he could not disentangle himself. In order to catch up with the ministry of the age, there is the need for us to see the vision. Michal was married to David, yet she did not see anything. She only saw David's condition before God, and she could not tolerate it. As a result, she was left behind (2 Sam. 6:16, 20-23).

All Being a Matter of God's Mercy

It is God's mercy that a person can see and come into contact with the ministry of that age. Yet it is altogether a different thing for a man to take up the courage to forsake the past ministry. It is a precious thing to see, and it is a blessed thing to come into contact with something. Yet whether or not one can set aside his past ministry is entirely up to God's mercy.

This is the entire piece on the ministry of the age, taken from a series of apparently unrelated questions and answers posed to Brother Nee during a co-workers’ meeting in April 1948. In reading the entire piece, we are able to make some interesting observations about what Brother Nee taught concerning the ministry of the age and the ministers of the age. First, he indicates that there is one ministry in the Old Testament. Then, he points out that various persons represented the one ministry in different ways. But it is interesting to note that in substantiating this from the biblical record, he gives chronological examples: “After Moses, the judges…”; “after that,...Solomon, the kings, and the prophets”; “after the Israelites were taken into captivity, the vessels for the recovery….” Each example shows that for each age there was a ministry of the age, and for each ministry of the age there was a representative person of that ministry of the age. In answer to the question, “How should Jonathan in the Old Testament have chosen his way?” Brother Nee expresses the ministries of the two ages that Jonathan stood between in terms of the persons who represent each: “Jonathan stood between Saul and David. He was one man standing between two ministries. He should have followed the second ministry.” In Jonathan’s case, the ministry of the age was changing, and each ministry of its respective age was represented by a unique person—Saul, then David. Would we say then that Brother Nee did not believe that there was a unique representative of the ministry of the age in each age? Certainly there were others at the time of Saul and David of whom it could be said that they too represented the ministry of their age. But Brother Nee inserts an important qualifier here: “These ministries of the ages are different from the local ministers.” Tomes conveniently omits this sentence in his quotation of the portion, but Brother Nee mentions this because indeed he wishes to make a distinction between the local ministers and the one representative of the ministry of the age. He then goes on to single out particular individuals in church history as representatives of the ministries of the ages: “Luther was a minister of his age. Darby was also a minister of his age.” Why would he single out in this context Luther and Darby as ministers of their ages unless he wanted to show that even in the long history of the church there are certain ministers that singly represent the ministry in their particular ages? We need not be scholars of church history to know that there were others teaching justification by faith in the sixteenth century (e.g., Philip Melancthon, Andreas Osiander, etc.), but as Brother Nee says elsewhere, and as Tomes allows Brother Nee to say in quoting him, “the truth of justification by faith…was Luther’s particular recovery” (Collected Works, vol. 11, p. 845). I think it is absolutely fair to say that Brother Nee believed that Luther was the single and unique representative of the ministry of his age and, in that sense, was the minister of his age.

Tomes titles his argument “One, Unique ‘Minister of the Age’? — What Did Watchman Nee Teach?” But the first part of his argument is only a very narrow presentation of the exact wording of Brother Nee’s comments on the matter, wrenched from their full context and pressed into an interpretation that stands at odds with the whole point that Brother Nee is trying to make. After reading the entire portion, I come away with a view of what Watchman Nee taught on the matter that is quite different from what Tomes wants us to believe. If I read the entire portion, I understand Brother Nee to be saying that if Jonathan had followed the one unique David, he would have been properly aligned with the ministry of the age, because David was uniquely the representative of the ministry of his age. In that sense, he was the minister of his age. I do not believe that the notion of a unique minister of the age is foreign to Brother Nee’s thought and teaching at all, even if in these narrow portions we are not able to find the exact term with the definite article. To build a case upon the lack of a definite article is pedantic in view of the full text of Brother Nee’s comments.

After considering Tomes’s argument and the CBs reliance thereon, one has to ask: Why are these brothers arguing against a singular minister of the age? What is driving them? Well, think about it. If there is no singular minister of the age, then there must be other ministers of the age, in their mind. And who might those be? Where are these other ministers of the age? To be the—or assuming arguendo, a—minister of the age, one must be speaking the vision of the age. It is a simple matter: If you are speaking the vision of the age, if you are in the ministry of the age, then, yes, you are a minister of the age, even if you are not the minister of the age. That is so obvious that you really don’t need to post it on a Web site. But I believe that at the base of their argument is the intention to promote one or more of their local ministers as ministers of the age and to find for them some larger audience than they now have. The problem is, their local ministers are not being accepted as ministers of the age (except among small pockets of saints here and there), because they do not minister according to the vision of the age. This necessarily disqualifies them from being ministers of the age. Even if Tomes et al. could establish that Brother Nee did not teach that in each age there is the minister of the age, there is still the simple fact that it is the vision of the age that makes ministers of the age what they are. Proving the possibility of more than one minister of the age doesn’t prove that any particular teacher is a minister of the age, which, I believe, is the actual implication to be drawn from Tomes’s argument.

Posted by Kerry S. Robichaux on February 12, 2006 8:00 PM


Dear Bro. Kerry:
I was born in China and am very well respected in my Chinese language. The kind of playing with the words "a" to "one" is puzzling, to say the least.

The antagonist obviously was criticizing Bro. Watchman Nee by implying that there was another minister of the age besides Saul and David; that was Samuel, whom Watchman Nee purposely did not mention.
This kind of debate is really wasting valuable time of the Lord. How are we going to redeem it?
John T. C. Kan

[Ohio]

Kerry Robichaux made this comment about Tomes paper ...

I think that many of Tomes’s readers will find something creepy about his reasoning, even if they are not able to clearly put their finger on it.

Are you serious? To reject the MOTA heresy in the Recovery is "creepy" indeed.

The more we discuss certain topics, the more obvious it is that the Recovery is not built on a rock, but rather built on sinking sand, the sinking sand of some blind belief in Lee as the consummate MOTA, and whatever he taught was binding truth.

[Freedom]

The CBs reproduce a little article by N. Tomes in which he argues against the notion of a singular minister of the age. But has he proved anything at all? If the saints read carefully what he has to say and weigh his arguments soberly, I believe that they will see that he is trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

It's interesting that Kerry expects Nigel to 'disprove' the concept of there being a MOTA. Obviously with certain LC teachings, the burden of proof fell upon WL or now the current set of blendeds. They have failed to provide a reasonable argument for these teachings and instead resort to immature games of finger pointed.

I read through what Kerry wrote. It's funny how he could spend so much time criticizing Nigel or projecting certain motives onto him without addressing the substance of what was written.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

http://onepub.robichaux.name/2006/02..._age.html#more

No unique minister of the age?

Minister of the age? Here's what apostle Paul had to say:

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 1 Corinthians 12:4-5

[TLFisher]

From a historical background I could see the emphasis on John Darby being a MOTA based and Lee and Nee's background with the Exclusive Brethren. Just consider these others 19th century ministers. Each served the Lord, but none I believe would endorse such utter nonsense being spoken as "minister of the age".

DL Moody 1837-1899
Charles Spurgeon 1834-1892
Robert Chapman 1803-1902
Benjamin Newton 1807-1899
George Muller 1805-1898

[Freedom]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the time period when WL first began to speak about there being a MOTA the same point in time when he was making statements such as: "Lee must be famous"???

In other words, he needed to cover his tracks, and presenting himself as an infallible leader was the way that he went about that. With that in mind, anyone with the least bit of common sense should have realized what was going on. Some did, and they left.

For those who bought into the teaching (leaders in particular), I don't know how seriously they actually take the teaching, but I think that one of the following is probably true: 1) They know that WL was wrong and can't admit it or 2) They realized how to use certain teachings to their own advantage.

The blendeds are all intelligent men, who were unfortunately deceived by WL. I hope for their own sakes that they would be willing to evaluate these things objectively.

[NewManLiving]

Before he wades too deep into the matter, he admits that “we should ask, Is this teaching according to the New Testament?” but he conveniently “defer[s] the question to another occasion.” when I read an argument, so I had to pause and consider why Tomes did not consider the issue from the perspective of the New Testament and be done with it. It seems to me that he could have spared himself a lot of effort if he could have shown that the notion of a singular minister of the age does not accord with the New Testament. Tomes (and the CBs who put him forth as their champion) elsewhere challenged the brothers to support their views by showing that their views are founded on the Scriptures

In his response Kerry fails to show where the NT supports the concept of a MOTA. He turns around and does the same thing he just denounced. The only verses he offers are those from the OT along with WN/his interpretation. Anything can be extracted from the OT with a little imagination; For example, an interesting parallel can be made between Eli and his sons and WL and his sons. Would this make it true? The point is that today God speaks through His Son who has gifted the Church with Apostle(s). There is no indication that there was/is a MOTA. But there is a measure of Grace. Even Paul was careful not to abuse his authority as an Apostle. Is this the case in the LSMLC today?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The blendeds are all intelligent men, who were unfortunately deceived by WL. I hope for their own sakes that they would be willing to evaluate these things objectively.

Well I think the blendeds know what they did in the late 80's was wrong. They were factious, political, etc. Now the problem the blendeds have is with their conscience, how to go on and keep their reputations intact.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

In his response Kerry fails to show where the NT supports the concept of a MOTA. He turns around and does the same thing he just denounced. The only verses he offers are those from the OT along with WN/his interpretation. Anything can be extracted from the OT with a little imagination; For example, an interesting parallel can be made between Eli and his sons and WL and his sons. Would this make it true? The point is that today God speaks through His Son who has gifted the Church with Apostle(s). There is no indication that there was/is a MOTA. But there is a measure of Grace. Even Paul was careful not to abuse his authority as an Apostle. Is this the case in the LSMLC today?

The concept and the teachings concerning a MOTA (and a Deputy Authority) are a return to the Old Testament dispensation before Christ came. In those days Israel needed a deliverer and law giver like Moses, a judge like Samuel, a king like David, and a continuum of high priests to connect them with God. All of these were merely types of Christ who was to come. Once He came, all of those types were no longer needed.

On the night He was betrayed, He instituted a New Covenant, through His own body and blood. In saying "NEW," He has made the first old and growing decrepit and is near to disappearing. (Heb 8.13) Apparently not "old" enough, since Lee has once again attempted to resurrect these old leadership types which God longed to do away with the arrival of His Son.

Unfortunately the loyal members of the LC's were not satisfied with today's Moses, today's David, and today's High Priest. Like Israel crying out for a king (I Sam 8), they have rejected the Head, opting for a man, much the same as Catholics love their Pope. Likewise they have preferred the MOTA's teachings over those of the word of God.

They would, of course, strongly disagree, much as SheepDawg has done, calling this all "near-mindless HARANGUE," and insisting I "see someone who is professionally qualified to handle" all my issues.

[Indiana]

Kerry and Bob,

In 1964 Brother Lee spoke on the line of life and building that can be seen throughout the Old and New Testaments. In that scriptural unveiling of God's eternal purpose was enough basic vision to last our life time. The first book I read in the church life contained those messages, which were so biblically informative and illuminating for seeking believers, including me in 1972 (the year after I had migrated from Seattle to Indianapolis, when the Lord was moving and spreading in the local churches).


The last book I read was The Vision of the Age, this year, messages from 1986, which I had also seen on video then.

A comparison should be made of the scriptural basis and spiritual enlightenment found in the first book, compared to what we find in the second - a concocted vision of dubious worth.

As a former leader said, "We began with Christ as life for the building up of the church and we ended up with a man and a ministry." The Minister of the Age concept induced an intensified interest in brother Witness Lee and helped him produce ministry churches which is what people see prevailing today.

www.twoturmoils.com/ministrychurches.pdf

I wonder, Kerry, how you can deny this. And, would you deny this before God and man on this forum! And, stay here with us to cover many points of our interest and concern. As it is, no one has given an intelligent specific assessment of any writing I have put out in the last 15 years. And, I believe no one will do so. But you should if you can. But you can't do it, and neither can DCP.

Will you show up, Kerry, and give a defense for yourselves as leaders of "the local churches"? If you cannot, will you then stand out as one who summons up his integrity to admit that what I say has merit? And, that much of what you and others have stood for does not. Actually, the silence of all leaders around the globe has already spoken,



Vision of God’s Building -1964
http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?id=18A5CC



Vision of the Age - 1986
http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?id=19A5CF



Turning Away from the Vision to a Man and a Ministry - 2014
http://www.lordsrecovery.us/HidingHistoryNeeLeeEras.pdf



Steve Isitt

4-23-2016

[Cal]

The idea of a Minister of the Age is intended to be like a roach motel. Once you check in, it's hard to check out. Once you check your mind at the door, it's hard to take it back. This is why so many LCers have trouble leaving the group, because they were indoctrinated to believe that disagreeing with the minister was the worst thing they could do.

The doctrine robs you of your freedom to independently evaluate and discern the minister's doctrine and even the minister himself. However, if a person cannot discern the minister going forward, how can his initial discernment of him be trusted. To put his present discernment in question must put in question his recognition of the minister in the first place.

As an analogy, suppose a person came to the conclusion that the healthiest food came from a particular grocery store. Would the person be expected to shop at that store forever and never reconsider the store's fare? Of course this is ridiculous. The person would continue to evaluate the store on every visit.

The fact is, if a person is not capable of evaluating the minister going forward, then he was never capable of evaluating him in the first place. Thus by its very nature the doctrine doesn't add up. Of course, that fact is lost on the minds of those who checked them at the door of the minister's grocery store, and resigned themselves to shopping there forever and ever, no matter how the food tastes.

[Cal]

Minister of the Age = Roach Motel

The Minister of the Age doctrine serves one purpose: to compel people to continue to follow the minister. Its primary purpose is control, plain and simple.

There is no New Testament pattern to support this doctrine. In fact, the New Testament pattern is one of many ministers working in parallel, each with different emphases on the general theme of the gospel (e.g. Paul, John, Peter, James). There is no evidence that Paul was considered a MOTA. Even he himself did not so much as hint at such a claim. Although Paul had great confidence in his apostleship, he never claimed to have a unique position. He knew he had special experiences, in fact he probably believed he had experiences no one else had, but never used that to claim special status.

The whole idea of “ages” is also foreign to the New Testament. There is one age: the age of grace. This age began at Pentecost and continues to the present moment. There are no sub-ages. The idea, again, is simply a way to endow a certain minister or ministry with a special status.

Further there is no “vision of the (sub-) age.” The “vision,” if you want to call it that, is the vision of the gospel as put forth in the New Testament “once for all” (Jude 1:3). This vision is available to anyone who reads the NT. It does not require a special minister to discern. Certainly unquestioning loyalty to a minister who helps you see the “vision” is never asked of us in the Bible.

The LC's modus operandi has always been to erect false standards and then to declare themselves as the best examples of those standards. Thus the MOTA, the church of “practical oneness,” “those practicing God’s economy,” “those building the Church,” are all false standards, false ideals. It is not that they are totally wrong; it is that they are arbitrary as sweeping best standards for all Christian life and work.

It is like declaring a particular shade of blue as the only acceptable shade to call blue, and declaring all other shades as non-blue. But, for one, your vision of blue may not be the best definition of blue; and, two, there are in fact other shades of blue. The Bible never says we have the discernment to point to one type of practice and declare it the best for all everywhere. In fact, it tells us just the opposite. It says let each of us be fully persuaded in his or her own mind. This freedom must extend to decisions about whom we gather with and which ministers we follow. Insisting on a particular minister is a violation of Romans 14:5. If we do feel strongly that our way is the best we still must maintain the humility to genuinely respect the decisions of others. This is the Lord's way for us. The meek shall inherit the earth.

The LC doesn't see it this way and so resorts to improperly elevating the status of their figureheads and ideals, and improperly denigrating those of others. The stated purpose is unity, albeit through control. But such insistence on one minister, one practice, one publication, is not only abusive, it ironically produces division, as the LC's history has shown. An analogy might be a marriage. A husband and wife should be unified. But if the husband becomes so strident and insistent on having every single detail his way he will actually produce the opposite of unity. If the wife does manage to cooperate in this situation the result is not true unity anyway, because the husband hasn't participated. True unity means that everyone gives up something for the sake of unity. Unrelenting insistence on one’s own way, whether by family leaders or church leaders, is more a sign of egotism than principle.

The MOTA doctrine, then, is a exercise in egotism to the purpose of controlling well-meaning followers. It is a violation of trust and leadership.

Roaches don’t go into roach motels to get trapped, they go in because the motels seem attractive. The roaches are probably initially pleased with the abundance of tasty, sticky food. But in the end, they are just trapped bugs, and the roach motel has served its purpose.

[NewManLiving]

Paul certainly had his measure of grace and he knew it. He also knew that God balanced him by providing a "Thorn" to keep him from exalting himself.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

Well I think the blendeds know what they did in the late 80's was wrong. They were factious, political, etc. Now the problem the blendeds have is with their conscience, how to go on and keep their reputations intact.

Intentional or unintentional, Kerry had a role to play in the later 80's turmoil by creating a misunderstanding. As we know with LSM/LC leadership there is no concept of misunderstandings.

Following is from Speaking the Truth in Love pages 14-16:

"Over a period of eleven years, from 1974 to 1984, I had worked together with other brothers on the preparation of the text for the Recovery Version of the New Testament. During the greater part of that time, and up to the completion, my co-workers were Bill Duane and Albert Knoch. We worked by ourselves in direct conjunction with Brother Witness Lee, presenting to him our work on each book. Anything to do with the text, any revisions or alterations, were accomplished in direct consultation with Brother Lee. After that he delivered it to the Living Stream Office for all the processes of printing and publication. Hence, in all this work we had no contact whatever with the office.
After the entire New Testament was completed, we anticipated the time when a thorough revision would be made to strengthen various weaknesses in the translation, and to make it more concordant, accurate, and readable. We were informed, however, that the work of revision would be totally headed up by the Living Stream Ministry Office, that is, by its general manager Philip Lee. From past experience and observation we knew that such a relationship would be fraught with great difficulties, and we were full of apprehension. But we had no choice. A room was prepared in the LSM office for this work, and the date for the commencement of the work was set for October 15th.
Kerry Robichaux, a full-time employee of the LSM office was appointed to work with us as a special consultant. he had an advanced degree in linguistics, specializing in Greek; so he was considered a valuable asset to the work. Moreover, he had assisted Brother Lee along with others on the work of the Chinese Recovery Version in Taipei. A Chinese-speaking brother was also appointed to work with us, checking all our work to see that the English revision conformed to the Chinese Recovery Version, which was to be the universal base of other language versions.
On Thursday, October 15, we sat down together in our new facility for the first time and endeavored to lay some groundwork regarding the principles under which we would operate. It was not long before we clashed with Kerry over the guidelines, but we managed to get through and go on. The second day, October 16th, Kerry mentioned some matters regarding the daily schedule which he had received from Philip Lee, with whom he was in continual contact. There was some difficulty over that due to our prior understanding, and Bill Duane proposed that I should be the one to maintain contact with Philip, and not allow room for confusion by both Kerry and I bringing announcements from the office. Relating to the confusion, Bill added, “We should not give any ground for the devil to come in and frustrate our work.” Kerry was not happy with Bill’s proposal, but we managed to finish the session and arrange to come back the following week.
To my utter amazement I was informed the following day by Godfred, who received a telephone call from Philip, that our work was being immediately terminated, and the translation would be moved to Texas. Kerry had reported what Bill Duane had said to Philip Lee, and Philip blew up, totally misinterpreting what Bill Duane had said, and calling his father in Taiwan to report the whole affair. He believed that Bill had referred to him, Philip Lee, as the Devil, when he said, “We should not give any ground for the devil to come in.” Using a Chinese proverb, he said that if you treat the dog evilly, then in effect you render the same treatment to the dog’s master, signifying Brother Lee. If you call the general manager of the LSM the Devil, then you call his boss, Brother Lee the same. By this twist of facts and logic, Philip concluded that we were attacking both him and his father. Godfred was appalled and totally disgusted with Philip Lee’s reaction and the way the whole affair was being handled. He was outraged, more so than me, considering that we who had been so closely and deeply involved in the work for years and burdened for its final completion were so abruptly being relieved of our responsibility and replaced. He pointed out to me that this was an example of Philip’s untenable, growing influence over the work and over his father.
Early in the morning on the following day, the Lord’s Day, Brother Lee called me from Taiwan, and said that he had learned of the problem. He ordered us to stop the work for a week and not continue for a week to allow time to pray and consider what to do. He asked me to pray too. I told Brother Lee over the phone what actually had happened and that it was not at all as he had heard. In any case, Brother Lee felt that to keep the peace there had better be a change. A few days later he had called again to say that he had made the final decision: the work would be moved to Irving, Texas, just as Godfred had been told by Philip Lee. Kerry and others would work there and send their drafts to me, and I would personally render the final review. I acquiesced to this arrangement. It seemed clear that Bill Duane was being excluded from any part in the work. Brother Lee also advised me to use my time to render more help to the church in Anaheim, a matter for which I told him I was burdened.
Fairly speaking, given the parameters of the work under which we were expected to labor, i.e.. the ministry office environment with Philip Lee in charge, it would have definitely been necessary sooner or later to make some rearrangement. There would inevitably be friction and unpleasant eruptions. From the beginning I could foresee nothing else. Therefore for the work to continue in peace Brother Lee would eventually be forced to take some sort of action. I am thankful that it occurred sooner rather than later. For me the burden of the work under such conditions would have been a great strain on my health, and I was not ready to sacrifice my life in that way.
(Some brothers have recently asserted that I should have used the opportunity of Brother Lee’s telephone calls from Taiwan to share with him over the phone our deep concerns. This I would never do. Such grave considerations required face to face encounters.)

Bill Duane was utterly revulsed upon learning of Philip Lee’s reaction and the way the matter was handled. Under such conditions he was happy to be relieved of any further involvement, but saddened that the translation work came to such a conclusion.
I continued in the work on the revision, polishing the drafts from Texas and passing them on to Brother Lee, for over a year. Eventually, toward the end of 1988, I felt I should withdraw, and tendered a letter of resignation to Brother Lee on December 3rd. That brought to a close a major era in my life and work."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

Paul certainly had his measure of grace and he knew it. He also knew that God balanced him by providing a "Thorn" to keep him from exalting himself.

Interesting that sometimes the most ungracious people are those with supposedly a large "measure of grace."

[Ohio]

Kerry had reported what Bill Duane had said to Philip Lee, and Philip blew up, totally misinterpreting what Bill Duane had said, and calling his father in Taiwan to report the whole affair. He believed that Bill had referred to him, Philip Lee, as the Devil, when he said, “We should not give any ground for the devil to come in.”

Using a Chinese proverb, he said that if you treat the dog evilly, then in effect you render the same treatment to the dog’s master, signifying Brother Lee. If you call the general manager of the LSM the Devil, then you call his boss, Brother Lee the same. By this twist of facts and logic, Philip concluded that we were attacking both him and his father.

Godfred was appalled and totally disgusted with Philip Lee’s reaction and the way the whole affair was being handled. He was outraged, more so than me, considering that we who had been so closely and deeply involved in the work for years and burdened for its final completion were so abruptly being relieved of our responsibility and replaced. He pointed out to me that this was an example of Philip’s untenable, growing influence over the work and over his father.

I have read this story several times, and I think it is absolutely telling concerning all those mentioned. Here we have Kerry, Phillip, Witness, Godfred, Bill, and John.

Knowing who he was dealing with, Bill Duane the translator tried to smooth over the tension, not allowing Satan to come in. But Kerry the upstart sycophant took advantage of his comment to report back to his boss. Phillip Lee, the notoriously hot-tempered manager, apparently without a decent bone in his body, twisted the story completely with his cross-pond tirade to daddy in Taipei.

Most notable to me was Witness Lee, supposedly the wise, loving and mature minister, who allows nepotism to rule his ministry over righteousness, believing gross distortions, breaking every principle in scripture, dumps the brother who was at his side a quarter century. Then Godfred, Anaheim's upright and gifted elder, who full well knew the (lack of) character in LSM's Office Manager, rightly indignant about the course of events, attempted to protect them from further harm. And beloved brother John Ingalls who was there in the beginning and watched the nature of the Recovery change before his eyes, now beginning to accept the sovereignty of God and prepare for his own departure.

It was learning the true events of this part of our history that caused me to lose respect for Lee and his hand-picked blended successors.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Knowing who he was dealing with, Bill Duane the translator tried to smooth over the tension, not allowing Satan to come in. But Kerry the upstart sycophant took advantage of his comment to report back to his boss. Phillip Lee, the notoriously hot-tempered manager, apparently without a decent bone in his body, twisted the story completely with his cross-pond tirade to daddy in Taipei.

Presumably, Kerry like most LC brothers are quote familiar with the phrase "not allowing Satan to come In". I cannot say the same for Philip who by the nature of his character wasn't a believer at that time. (If he ever received the Lord, that only Philip and God knows.)
There was no need of Kerry to say anything to Philip. Having been reporting to Philip directly, Kerry should have been intricately familiar with Philip's disposition. By comparison, 1500 miles away in Bellevue, Washington there were designated brother or brothers who were the only ones to communicate directly with Philip Lee.
Having been reporting to Philip directly, Kerry must had known Philip would receive what Bill said literally.
Could it be Kerry anticipated how Philip would respond to such a comment?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Presumably, Kerry like most LC brothers are quote familiar with the phrase "not allowing Satan to come In".

I guess the lesson to be learned here is that long before Kerry was well-known as an LC "scholar", he was backstabbing others and stepping on their shoes in order to climb his way to the top of the ladder.

Many LCers know how to use certain phrases/concepts to their advantage. For example, if there is a small argument, the first to accuse the other of being "negative" is going to win. Likewise, purposely misunderstanding someone, and then accusing them of ill motives is a tactic that I've seen employed in the LC time and time again.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I guess the lesson to be learned here is that long before Kerry was well-known as an LC "scholar", he was backstabbing others and stepping on their shoes in order to climb his way to the top of the ladder.

Many LCers know how to use certain phrases/concepts to their advantage. For example, if there is a small argument, the first to accuse the other of being "negative" is going to win. Likewise, purposely misunderstanding someone, and then accusing them of ill motives is a tactic that I've seen employed in the LC time and time again.

I'm so glad to be out of that backstabbing snake pit.