LSM’s Deification Doctrine—Biblical or Blasphemous? Nigel Tomes

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This was a common sales pitch for Witness Lee. In order for TLR, by then steeped in stagnation, to accept such an extra-biblical teaching, Lee would dangle the carrot of revival before all the faithful. Who could resist such a temptation? Who in their right mind would resist the promise of such blessings? The "new way" had come and gone with only doctored statistics and little increase, but Lee convinced us all that the failure was due to a global conspiracy led by none other than John Ingalls.

Now that all these leperous rebels were properly disposed of, the road to revival was freshly paved. God had just revealed to our brother the final recovery "high peak crystal," which would bring in unprecedented revival, like the days of Elden Hall, consummating in the marriage of the Lamb, and the coming of the New Jerusalem.

Twenty five years later.

What? No revival? We lost Brazil and the GLA? We're going backwards. Ugh!

Blendeds: It's all your fault. You have become Laodicea. You never took brother Lee's word.

In the LC, there has been a cyclic pattern of bad idea/failure. The bad ideas abound, the failures are eminent. Again and again, before anyone had a chance to give what happened a second thought, it's onto the next "bright idea". The pattern repeats itself over and over again. Conveniently missing from the equation is a simple assessment of what has/hasn't worked.

The matter of deification needs to be considered in conjunction with the outcome (or lack thereof) of the "new way". As the dust was settling, WL was already onto the next thing. I think one distraction was the "Lord's move to Russia". I actually remember this as a kid, wondering why suddenly everyone was talking about Russia.

Of course the other distraction was when WL began talking about the "high peak". In a historical context, it is highly suspect that such things were marketed when they were, especially considering the unresolved situations that preceded this.

Why did leaders have such a strong reaction to writings such as what Indiana produced? It attempted to call into question the very things that leaders had hoped would go unnoticed. The new way left lots of unanswered question and broken promises. Why would members think the "high peak" would offer anything different? The fact of the matter is that everyone was accustomed to taking anything WL said at face value. If WL quickly moved on to something else, so did the rank and file. 25 years after the "high peak" was released, it is time for LC members to engage in an honest assesment of the "net added value" of WL final teachings. What is posted on this forum is in no way an 'attack' on what WL taught, rather it is a call for members to ask themselves this question.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Why did leaders have such a strong reaction to writings such as what Indiana produced? It attempted to call into question the very things that leaders had hoped would go unnoticed. The new way left lots of unanswered question and broken promises. Why would members think the "high peak" would offer anything different? The fact of the matter is that everyone was accustomed to taking anything WL said at face value. If WL quickly moved on to something else, so did the rank and file. 25 years after the "high peak" was released, it is time for LC members to engage in an honest assesment of the "net added value" of WL final teachings. What is posted on this forum is in no way an 'attack' on what WL taught, rather it is a call for members to ask themselves this question.

Why a strong reaction? Perhaps realizing the system is broken, but brothers want everyone to ignore "the elephant in the room". Just pretend the system is flawless and just go on positively.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the LC, there has been a cyclic pattern of bad idea/failure. The bad ideas abound, the failures are eminent. Again and again, before anyone had a chance to give what happened a second thought, it's onto the next "bright idea". The pattern repeats itself over and over again. Conveniently missing from the equation is a simple assessment of what has/hasn't worked.

The matter of deification needs to be considered in conjunction with the outcome (or lack thereof) of the "new way". As the dust was settling, WL was already onto the next thing. I think one distraction was the "Lord's move to Russia". I actually remember this as a kid, wondering why suddenly everyone was talking about Russia.

Of course the other distraction was when WL began talking about the "high peak". In a historical context, it is highly suspect that such things were marketed when they were, especially considering the unresolved situations that preceded this.

Why did leaders have such a strong reaction to writings such as what Indiana produced? It attempted to call into question the very things that leaders had hoped would go unnoticed. The new way left lots of unanswered question and broken promises. Why would members think the "high peak" would offer anything different? The fact of the matter is that everyone was accustomed to taking anything WL said at face value. If WL quickly moved on to something else, so did the rank and file. 25 years after the "high peak" was released, it is time for LC members to engage in an honest assesment of the "net added value" of WL final teachings. What is posted on this forum is in no way an 'attack' on what WL taught, rather it is a call for members to ask themselves this question.

For me the first step of getting free from WL and the LC was to realize that WL was not the MOTA, an apostle, or even a brother I would want to hang with. I think he was basically a highly intelligent deceptive man that behaved like a crook and swindler at times. The Spirit probably spoke to him just like He speaks to all of us...WL was convinced and was able to convince many strong-willed brothers that he was something special and different. Shame on all the blindeds and elders for propagating this lie that has now become a religious myth believed by those willingly deceived.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by HERn

For me the first step of getting free from WL and the LC was to realize that WL was not the MOTA, an apostle, or even a brother I would want to hang with. I think he was basically a highly intelligent deceptive man that behaved like a crook and swindler at times. The Spirit probably spoke to him just like He speaks to all of us...WL was convinced and was able to convince many strong-willed brothers that he was something special and different. Shame on all the blindeds and elders for propagating this lie that has now become a religious myth believed by those willingly deceived.

Agreed. MOTA concept is a root of evil.

History is filled with many spiritual and godly men who let it go to their head, became Napoleon-like rulers of the Church, and wouldn't let other godly men and scriptures balance them. MOTA concept breeds that.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by JJ

Agreed. MOTA concept is a root of evil.

History is filled with many spiritual and godly men who let it go to their head, became Napoleon-like rulers of the Church, and wouldn't let other godly men and scriptures balance them. MOTA concept breeds that.

A theory of mine is that the teachings of a 'MOTA' and deification go hand in hand. Shortly before focusing on the “high peak” (aka deification), WL made the claim to be the ‘MOTA’. John Ingalls’ testimony is as follows:
He referred to the title he has used for the Holy Spirit – "the all-inclusive Spirit of Christ as the consummation of the processed Triune God" – and asked who made such a title. Webster? he asked. Then he answered his own question, "That Lee! Lee has to be famous! Lee! Lee! Lee must have the credit! And if you listen to me, you do not listen to Lee, you listen to the very God in His oracle spoken by me." A little later in his message he said, "Going with God’s oracle, surely there is the deputy authority of God in this oracle. Whoever speaks for God, he surely has certain divine authority. I’m claiming this for Lee!"

So during the late 80’s, WL made it perfectly clear as to how he viewed himself and his own assumed importance. After the dust settled of the so-called 'turmoil', WL had already moved on to the high peak/deification. What is the link between these two prominent events in LC history? One thing is that WL had become more ‘bold’ in making known how he viewed himself. So why is this important? Those like Ron have failed to acknowledge that WL ever made such claims. Consider what Ron has stated:
“Brother Lee could not say it then, but we can say it today;... he was the minister of the age ...”

In other words, LC members live under the assumption that WL's "high peak" was simply the 'consummation' of WL's ministry and that the idea of WL being a ‘MOTA’ was something that all LC members recognized and agreed upon. This is what I think Ron intended to imply in a statement that is both false and disingenuous. Thus, WL’s self-inflated view is an aspect that must be taken into consideration when discussing his subsequent ministry after the late 80's.

Even if WL is to be given the benefit of the doubt, it doesn’t take much critical thought to realize the discrepancy between his own view of himself and others like the apostle Paul who considered his life as worth nothing (Acts 20:24). I’m even reluctant to make that comparison, because WL liked to try to compare himself to Paul.

So getting back to deification, WL’s ministry reflected his own self-inflated view - that us humans must become someone special. Maybe the whole notion might sound compelling to some, but if WL had expected the concept of deification to be taken seriously, then perhaps he could have started by taking Philippians 2 as a pattern. Jesus made himself a man of no reputation. One Bible version has the following heading for Phil chapter 2: Imitating Christ’s Humility. I believe that this is something that many Christians desire to learn how to do. Even the motto WWJD is not a bad standard to live by when you think about it. Isn't it interesting that LCers will mock the whole WWJD thing?

Maybe we will all fall short at imitating Jesus, but that is kinda the point. We only need to have the mind to do so. We are who we are, and we also know what Jesus wouldn't do. Jesus wouldn't declare that he must become famous or get all the credit. There's really not much else to say. LC leaders just choose to ignore it. Why? Because they don't take Jesus as their pattern. Their pattern is "Lee! Lee!" WL wasn't concerned at all with humility as he so brazenly admitted. It's no wonder LCers mock other Christians who take Phil 2:5 to heart.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

So getting back to deification, WL’s ministry reflected his own self-inflated view - that us humans must become someone special. Maybe the whole notion might sound compelling to some, but if WL had expected the concept of deification to be taken seriously, then perhaps he could have started by taking Philippians 2 as a pattern. Jesus made himself a man of no reputation. One Bible version has the following heading for Phil chapter 2: Imitating Christ’s Humility. I believe that this is something that many Christians desire to learn how to do. Even the motto WWJD is not a bad standard to live by when you think about it. Isn't it interesting that LCers will mock the whole WWJD thing?

Maybe we will all fall short at imitating Jesus, but that is kinda the point. We only need to have the mind to do so. We are who we are, and we also know what Jesus wouldn't do. Jesus wouldn't declare that he must become famous or get all the credit. There's really not much else to say. LC leaders just choose to ignore it. Why? Because they don't take Jesus as their pattern. Their pattern is "Lee! Lee!" WL wasn't concerned at all with humility as he so brazenly admitted. It's no wonder LCers mock other Christians who take Phil 2:5 to heart.

In the local churches there's a desire to be unique or have uniqueness. To set aside Lee and his ministry and settle for just Jesus, all uniqueness would be lost. They would be reduced to be being just like all other Christians; just a member of the Body. They cannot have that.
There needs to be uniqueness. Something that makes those meeting in the local churches more distinct that any other Christian fellowship. The deification doctrine helps create that distinction and separates the local churches as being superior in having the high peak teachings.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

A theory of mine is that the teachings of a 'MOTA' and deification go hand in hand. Shortly before focusing on the “high peak” (aka deification), WL made the claim to be the ‘MOTA’. John Ingalls’ testimony is as follows:
He referred to the title he has used for the Holy Spirit – "the all-inclusive Spirit of Christ as the consummation of the processed Triune God" – and asked who made such a title. Webster? he asked. Then he answered his own question, "That Lee! Lee has to be famous! Lee! Lee! Lee must have the credit! And if you listen to me, you do not listen to Lee, you listen to the very God in His oracle spoken by me." A little later in his message he said, "Going with God’s oracle, surely there is the deputy authority of God in this oracle. Whoever speaks for God, he surely has certain divine authority. I’m claiming this for Lee!"

So during the late 80’s, WL made it perfectly clear as to how he viewed himself and his own assumed importance. After the dust settled of the so-called 'turmoil', WL had already moved on to the high peak/deification. What is the link between these two prominent events in LC history? One thing is that WL had become more ‘bold’ in making known how he viewed himself. So why is this important? Those like Ron have failed to acknowledge that WL ever made such claims. Consider what Ron has stated:
“Brother Lee could not say it then, but we can say it today;... he was the minister of the age ...”

What Lee had to say is where Jeremiah 23:34-36 comes in. Of course the audio or video of this conference is not likely to see the light of day for anyone to verify what Lee actually said.

[Ohio]

JJ: MOTA concept is a root of evil.


Freedom: A theory of mine is that the teachings of a 'MOTA' and deification go hand in hand. Shortly before focusing on the “high peak” (aka deification), WL made the claim to be the ‘MOTA’.


Terry: In the local churches there's a desire to be unique or have uniqueness. To set aside Lee and his ministry and settle for just Jesus, all uniqueness would be lost.

The very concept of "Recovery," with all its implications, is fraught with dangers. Sure, it sounded so good when we first heard it, but consider the results.

For many of us, the LC meetings ignited or re-ignited our love for Jesus, which of course was wonderful. Immediately thereafter we were instructed that all of Christianity was degraded, and that we alone have left Babylon, like Israel of old. We alone were "recovered" to the proper ground, a recovery which began with the Protestant Reformation. Many gifted men of God were instrumental in those days like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Huss, Luther, Farel, Calvin, Erasmus, Zwingli, etc.

Why did Nee and Lee choose Luther? For me this was a huge factor in the corruption we see in the "Recovery." Why did any man needed to be identified as the beginner of the Lord's Recovery? Should not we have been instructed to only give glory to God, to the Man Jesus, to the moving of the Spirit, for all the great things He has done? In Nee's and Lee's version of church history, as soon as Luther was promoted, and later honored as the first MOTA, the stage props were all in place. Now we simply need to "fill in the blanks" until we arrived at our own version of 20th century MOTAs. How convenient, and how very self-serving.

This distorted view of church history has accomplished the following:

• Pride. Look at Laodicea. We are the best of the best. Exclusivism and elitism. All others are degraded and hopelessly divided. We alone are blessed. We alone are His testimony. Etc.
• MOTA. Deputy Authority. A man on earth who has replaced the pope, but is not the Head of the body either. All God's work, all the Son's speaking, and all the Spirit's moving must flow through him. He alone is without peer, and accountable to no one.
• Heresy. Errors. Teachings replace the Word of God. Novel teachings like deification are extolled as God's up-to-date revelation.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The very concept of "Recovery," with all its implications, is fraught with dangers. Sure, it sounded so good when we first heard it, but consider the results.

When I first encountered the movement, the point of emphasis was always "Christ and the Church." Who could argue with that? It was pure and uplifting.

Things slowly began to change, however. I was always a little bothered when the leading ones would effuse about how great Witness Lee was.

"Christ and the Church" steadily evolved into "Lee and the Recovery." "The Ministry" replaced Christ, and "the Recovery" for all our practical purposes was the Church. We went from a blessed and proper generality to an exclusiveness second to none.

Remember the book Animal Farm, the allegorical story about the beginnings of communism? It started out with "All animals are equal" (Christ and the Church) and ended with "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" (Lee and the Recovery). The transition happened slowly and subtly, and since it had the support of leadership no one could argue with it. The animals became more and more concerned that something was not quite right, but had no power to do anything about it. Near the end, the treacherous pigs in charge (ahem) saw Boxer, the strong, noble horse, as a threat, and had him shipped off to the glue factory.

It's easy to see the parallels. A lot of precious brothers and sisters were shipped to the glue factory.

[OBW]

We alone were "recovered" to the proper ground, a recovery which began with the Protestant Reformation. Many gifted men of God were instrumental in those days like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Huss, Luther, Farel, Calvin, Erasmus, Zwingli, etc.

Why did Nee and Lee choose Luther?

(Not challenging Ohio here. Just thinking out loud.)

I have been wondering whether the whole course of Christianity would have been different if Luther had allowed the then-normal course of discussion on issues to continue as it had. What if, rather than simply jumping ship when everything didn't go as wanted, the discussion had remained within the system that was at the time?

One answer is that changes would have been slower. But is that entirely bad or wrong? When we look at the little council in Jerusalem, was the decree that they came up with perfect? What if, rather than allowing for the ban on things strangled (is wringing a chicken's neck a form of strangling?) some of them had simply decided to part company with the rest and moved on because of it?

That is what Protestants have been doing for 500 years now. When the existing group within which someone finds themselves does not simply listen to "my" new thinking and change, "I" simply disassociate and start a new group.

Despite my current questions and thinking, I would not see that as a reason to simply return to the RCC (a historical return, not that I have ever been part of it). But maybe it gives us a reason to see the history of "recovery" in a different light. Maybe each of those persons in the list brought something that had been ignored to the table. But was the fact that they almost all tended to see those things as worthy of separating from others evidence that maybe the value of those things was not to the extreme that they made them out to be? Were any of them truly worth separating from others over?

I mean, what did Calvin really give us besides doctrines? Did the actual truth change? Did a lack of understanding things his way actually result in fewer Christians? Or just fewer that held to his doctrines? Are those that believe in Christ without having as typical Evangelical crisis event complete with a sinner's prayer unsaved? Are those who simply come to believe in Christ and follow deficient Christians? Are their simple prayers deficient because they are not full of grandiose clichéd quotes of scripture or sayings popular with "my" particular version of Christianity?

I realize that this is probably not directly about a deification doctrine. But at the same time, maybe having a more sober assessment of ourselves and our present groups would help us see such a "doctrine" as even more ridiculous than we already do. Maybe a more simple understanding of the Christian faith and life would put such a construct where it belongs — in the garbage heap.