Guru Papers

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

It will be interesting to observe the power plays when RK, EM and others start receding.

I'm inclined to think that as the blendeds slowly disappear, members will struggle with an identity crisis. Who should they follow? What were they following? Who will lead them on? Those are all questions they will be forced to answer, as did members who where there when Lee passed on.

In a movement that is formed around a guru and is held together by the guru, it's continual existence is dependent upon the existence of that person. There was an LC leader who referred to the Chinese proverb "when the tree falls, the monkeys scatter" as a supposed 'proof' that the LC wasn't centered around Lee. Actually, the reason the LC is still in existence is because Lee had a "blendedfold intensified" continuation. They had enough credibility among members to assume his position. And even despite that, there was still somewhat of a mini identity crisis that still happened.

I really don't believe that the blendeds have any successor 'group' in mind. Of course they could put anyone they want up at the podium if that became necessary, but whose to say members will follow their appointed successors? The rank and file consider themselves to be dumb sheep, so they need a leader. If there isn't anyone filling those shoes who has credibility among members, then the LC will cease to exist as we know it.

[HERn]

The blendeds must be thinking of who can take over. Whoever it is will need to be uncompromising, faithful to Lee, disparaging of Christianity, and able to write nonsensical outlines using obtuse references to the bible. The body of Christ is much bigger than the sect known as the lords recovery.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

The blendeds must be thinking of who can take over. Whoever it is will need to be uncompromising, faithful to Lee, disparaging of Christianity, and able to write nonsensical outlines using obtuse references to the bible. The body of Christ is much bigger than the sect known as the lords recovery.

The blindeds know they will have to name a group of successors eventually, but in the meantime, as Ron has said - they ain't stepping aside for nobody.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

. . . as Ron has said - they ain't stepping aside for nobody.

Whatever happened to thinking of others more highly than yourselves? Oh, I know, it disappeared on the Local Ground. The LG was a trojan horse to get you to accept a human cultural ethos centered upon the deification of one of its own. Without the elevation of one of the flock to God-Man status, untouchable and unquestionable, who'd be in charge? Chaos would reign! No, Good Order in the Church is predicated upon Authority and Submission. And in a Normal Christian Church this must be absolute.

All that other stuff, you know, brotherly love, compassion, confessing to one another, mutuality, respecting the gifts of each one member. . . ? It must either be subsumed by Today's Vision, or waved away as irrelevant. Sail on!

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by aron

Whatever happened to thinking of others more highly than yourselves? Oh, I know, it disappeared on the Local Ground. The LG was a trojan horse to get you to accept a human cultural ethos centered upon the deification of one of its own. Without the elevation of one of the flock to God-Man status, untouchable and unquestionable, who'd be in charge? Chaos would reign! No, Good Order in the Church is predicated upon Authority and Submission. And in a Normal Christian Church this must be absolute.

This one's pretty brash.... even for our brother aron!

To my dear brothers and sisters in the Local Churches: You may want to resist the temptation to consider this as simply the ramblings of a bitter former LC member turned "opposer", and instead file this under the "truth hurts" category. Oh, maybe it's something in between the two of these extremes, but an honest evaluation by sober people, both within and out of the Movement, points mostly to the objective truth in what aron has posted.

About 38 years ago the Local Church put out a pamphlet entitled "Beliefs and Practices of The Local Churches". An electronic version is published here:
http://www.localchurches.org/beliefs/faq.html

Under the frequently asked questions area you will find this:

Who is your leader?
Our unique leader is Christ. We have no official, permanent, organized human leadership. Furthermore, there is no hierarchy of any kind and no worldwide leader. We regard no person as infallible, and we do not follow anyone blindly. On the contrary, we follow only those whose teaching and practice is in accordance with the truth of God’s Word.

I still remember, as a young college student, kind of cringing inside upon seeing this statement published. I mean, the objective reality was so different than what is stated here that it was almost embarrassing. Well, in less than a decade's time, Witness Lee was declared to be "The one apostle with the one ministry for the age" - "The one Master Builder" - "The Commander in Chief" - and some LSM trainers boasted: "even if Witness Lee is wrong, he is right!" and the worst of all, one mindless minion declared Lee to be "the fourth member of the trinity"!

Of course the Local Church movement is now partly populated with a large segment of young people who were not even born when these pompous proclamations went forth from the faithful, true believers. However, my dear friends, make no mistake, the Movement is now directed and controlled by people who absolutely believe and subscribe to these preposterous notions.

***Any Local Church elder, co-worker or LSM/DCP official who wants to dispute this is more than welcome to come and set us straight. Your retort will be promptly and prominently featured on the forum's main page. I did have a special module entitled "Soapbox of the saints" posted prominently on the forum for several months. We got almost 1,000 hits/views on this module, but not one LC member took advantage of the opportunity to sock it to us. Maybe you brothers taking the lead in the Local Churches and Living Stream Ministry can break the ice?

-

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ;49347

About 38 years ago the Local Church put out a pamphlet entitled "Beliefs and Practices of The Local Churches". An electronic version is published here:
http://www.localchurches.org/beliefs/faq.html

Under the frequently asked questions area you will find this:

Who is your leader?
Our unique leader is Christ. We have no official, permanent, organized human leadership. Furthermore, there is no hierarchy of any kind and no worldwide leader. We regard no person as infallible, and we do not follow anyone blindly. On the contrary, we follow only those whose teaching and practice is in accordance with the truth of God’s Word.

Based on LC orthopraxy, the above is strictly for public consumption. Otherwise why is fear of man so prevalent so unhindered in the local churches. Someone doesn't agree with brother Maximum, he's disfellowshipped or subjected to some trivial discipline.

"We regard no person as infallible, and we do not follow anyone blindly. " LC practices contradict the statement.

[JJ]

I also noticed the following statement in the Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches pamphlet, which I remember believing when it came out.

I'd like other long time LCers to weigh in on whether this is true practice or not.

"All who have saving faith in the Lord Jesus are welcome to all our meetings, especially the Lord’s table, where we testify of the oneness of the Body of Christ. Although we must, for conscience' sake, stand apart from organized religion, we do not stand apart from our brothers and sisters in Christ. In faithfulness to the Lord, we stand on the unique ground of the church for the sake of the Lord’s testimony. But we do not take this stand with a narrow, exclusive, or sectarian spirit. On the contrary, we take our stand on behalf of the whole Body; we receive all believers even as the Lord has received us."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

About 38 years ago the Local Church put out a pamphlet entitled "Beliefs and Practices of The Local Churches". An electronic version is published here:
http://www.localchurches.org/beliefs/faq.html

Back in 2003-04, TC had all the GLA LC's get this booklet and read it together as a reminder of our supposed "mission statement."

Comparing that booklet to LSM-dominated LC's is just a joke.

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

About 38 years ago the Local Church put out a pamphlet entitled "Beliefs and Practices of The Local Churches". An electronic version is published here:
http://www.localchurches.org/beliefs/faq.html

Under the frequently asked questions area you will find this:

Who is your leader?
Our unique leader is Christ. We have no official, permanent, organized human leadership. Furthermore, there is no hierarchy of any kind and no worldwide leader. We regard no person as infallible, and we do not follow anyone blindly. On the contrary, we follow only those whose teaching and practice is in accordance with the truth of God’s Word.

Originally Posted by Freedom

as Ron has said - they ain't stepping aside for nobody.

So if there's no leader, and RK says that he won't step aside for anyone, why should anyone else step aside for him? And, why did he insist that TC and DYL step aside for the Blendeds? And why did RK and BP and many others step aside for WL?

This is an organization whose leaders say anything at any given moment, and who cares if it matches itself, or matches the Bible, or even makes sense, because the "oracle" can say whatever it needs to say. I guess. . . that's the central organizing principle: "I'm God's Deputy and whatever I say goes. I've got the Red Phone to the throne in heaven. I've got the 'mantle'." Not really much different from Leslie Gore singing, "It's my party and I'll cry if I want to."

But thankfully the Deputy God is such a Transformed and Humble Bondslave of Jesus Christ. If the Deputy God had ambition, wow that would be just terrible!

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

So if there's no leader, and RK says that he won't step aside for anyone, why should anyone else step aside for him? And, why did he insist that TC and DYL step aside for the Blendeds? And why did RK and BP and many others step aside for WL?

This is an organization whose leaders say anything at any given moment, and who cares if it matches itself, or matches the Bible, or even makes sense, because the "oracle" can say whatever it needs to say. I guess. . . that's the central organizing principle: "I'm God's Deputy and whatever I say goes. I've got the Red Phone to the throne in heaven. I've got the 'mantle'." Not really much different from Leslie Gore singing, "It's my party and I'll cry if I want to."

LC leaders have long since learned that they have the ability to say whatever they want, and expect little to no push-back. It all started with WL. Some days he was a humble bondservant, other days he brazenly claimed a MOTA status. The story was always changing, and his successors learned how to play the game.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I'm inclined to think that as the blendeds slowly disappear, members will struggle with an identity crisis. Who should they follow? What were they following? Who will lead them on? Those are all questions they will be forced to answer, as did members who where there when Lee passed on.

In a movement that is formed around a guru and is held together by the guru, it's continual existence is dependent upon the existence of that person. There was an LC leader who referred to the Chinese proverb "when the tree falls, the monkeys scatter" as a supposed 'proof' that the LC wasn't centered around Lee. Actually, the reason the LC is still in existence is because Lee had a "blendedfold intensified" continuation. They had enough credibility among members to assume his position. And even despite that, there was still somewhat of a mini identity crisis that still happened.

I really don't believe that the blendeds have any successor 'group' in mind. Of course they could put anyone they want up at the podium if that became necessary, but whose to say members will follow their appointed successors? The rank and file consider themselves to be dumb sheep, so they need a leader. If there isn't anyone filling those shoes who has credibility among members, then the LC will cease to exist as we know it.

This will be an interesting shift to watch here over the next period of time. As far as the "speaking blendeds" I believe the pool is smaller as several of them have been afflicted in their physical health to the point where they cannot give long messages anymore, and the ones still well enough just speak more messages instead to compensate. I am only aware in recent times of one addition to the typical group of brothers who speak messages. I just can't imagine there are many clamoring to take on that role, but stranger things have happened.

Who will lead them on, indeed? What on earth will be the glue that holds them together?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

This will be an interesting shift to watch here over the next period of time. As far as the "speaking blendeds" I believe the pool is smaller as several of them have been afflicted in their physical health to the point where they cannot give long messages anymore, and the ones still well enough just speak more messages instead to compensate. I am only aware in recent times of one addition to the typical group of brothers who speak messages. I just can't imagine there are many clamoring to take on that role, but stranger things have happened.

Who will lead them on, indeed? What on earth will be the glue that holds them together?

I think it's some degree of the nature of being a Guru, or Deputy God as LC called it, that only one person in the room can exhibit charisma, and the rest must devote themselves to promoting the Guru. This particular brand probably was helped by being Asian in parent culture, in which absolute deference to the Maximum Leader had a built-in expectation.

But it brings another problem - what of the next generation? Once the Guru is gone, then the Bureaucrats take over, who manage the organisation. Their authority is in direct relation to former associations with greatness. I can expect that at some point, whether the LC expands or diminishes, there will be one or two old-timers who will stand at the dais and say, "I was there with Brother Lee", and their association will guarantee them an audience. But how big of an audience if they have no native charisma? Clearly Nee and Lee had it. Once they're gone only Bureaucrats are left. Not a particularly great draw. And then more time passes, and it's left to the Caretakers of the memory of the Bureaucrats of their Guru's Charisma. Even less compelling.

But nobody is allowed Charisma, because that would be "ambition", that would be "drawing others after oneself". Only the Guru could do that without suspicion, without the taint of ambition. I'll never forget the first meeting when Brother Lee passed: "The age of Spiritual Giants is over, it is now the age of Small Potatoes". It was too clear: only the Guru was allowed greatness.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I think it's some degree of the nature of being a Guru, or Deputy God as LC called it, that only one person in the room can exhibit charisma, and the rest must devote themselves to promoting the Guru.

Actually, those others with charisma were perceived as rivals and excommunicated.

Those without charisma then grabbed an office they had no ability to fill.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Actually, those others with charisma were perceived as rivals and excommunicated.

Those without charisma then grabbed an office they had no ability to fill.

This points to something I've been appreciating recently, and noting on this forum. I've been repeatedly bringing up the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, because to me this establishes his "charisma",* or status, on a permanent basis. Jesus got crowds of followers initially because of his works and the transformative power of his teachings. His words brought light to what had been dark, and obscure, and uncertain. Suddenly, a great light shined. Suddenly, there was a bona fide Great Person, of whom it was said "his sandals I'm not worthy to untie". And the resurrection sealed all this special-ness, and made it permanent, unchangeable forever, "in this age and in the ages to come" (Eph 1:20,21; 2:7).

I note this because the guru-builders will use Jesus as a stepping-stone to their own claim to charisma. They point to the continuation of great leaders, and prophets... the lineage of charisma supposedly runs thus: Moses, Jesus, Peter, Paul, Luther, Darby, Nee, Lee [Chu, Dong...]… with others, it might be Moses, then Jesus, then Joseph Smith, then Brigham Young. Or, Moses, then Jesus, then Mohammed. Or, Moses then Jesus then Mary Baker Eddy, or then Elisabeth Claire Prophet, or Sun Myung Moon or Haile Selassie whomever the Last Prophet is deemed to be, the Last Holder of Charisma who ushers in the New Age..

My point is that Jesus stands alone. He stands above the flock because God raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand, and gave him a name above every name, both in this age and that which is to come. Witness Lee and Mary Baker Eddy and Brigham Young got mausoleums and reflecting pools and fountains. Jesus, in resurrection, walks in the midst of the seven golden lamp stands. He alone got the charisma, the Christ-hood. The rest of us have to wait for the Bema, and should presume nothing until that time, other than "I am the least of all."

Now it should be noted that Peter had 'charism' by associating with and leading the promotion of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Thousands gathered and were saved. Cripples and sick people laid in Peter's way that his shadow might pass over them. But NT writers Luke and Paul take pains to show that Peter (and James) do not have some permanent Untouchable status. And Peter even affirms this, and his connection with Jesus the Nazarene, by saying that leaders should lead by humility, service, and love, not by lording over the flock. Jesus alone has elevated status. Jesus alone is Lord. Everyone else has to wait for the Bema. Jesus alone has passed the veil. Anyone else who makes such presumptions, while yet in the flesh of sin, is deluded and is in danger of leading astray the elect.

If people say that I'm a deluded follower of Jesus I say, Yes, Amen. And I receive and join with the other deluded ones. Praise the Lord! But I name no other, as scripture says there's no other name given whereby we may be saved.

*Here I define 'charisma' in the religious sense, as in a divinely conferred status, authority, and power. Jesus by definition (Messiah, Christ, Lord, High Priest, King, Saviour) had all of this in spades.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Jesus got crowds of followers initially because of his works and the transformative power of his teachings. His words brought light to what had been dark, and obscure, and uncertain. Suddenly, a great light shined. Suddenly, there was a bona fide Great Person, of whom it was said "his sandals I'm not worthy to untie". And the resurrection sealed all this special-ness, and made it permanent, unchangeable forever, "in this age and in the ages to come" (Eph 1:20,21; 2:7).

I note this because the guru-builders will use Jesus as a stepping-stone to their own claim to charisma.

My point is that Jesus stands alone.

As further confirmation of aron's points here, remember what happened on the mountain, with Jesus, Moses, and Elijah? (Matthew 17)

[Weighingin]

Originally Posted by Ohio

As further confirmation of aron's points here, remember what happened on the mountain, with Jesus, Moses, and Elijah? (Matthew 17)

I recall how WL would talk about the principle of incarnation using where Paul said not I but the Lord and so on. So I thought that must apply to his speaking too. This was added to what we had been taught about Noah, deputy authority, questioning the MOTA is in the principle of questioning Moses and other teachings in which I thought I had the realization that to disagree was to disagree with God Himself.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

It brings another problem - what of the next generation? Once the Guru is gone, then the Bureaucrats take over, who manage the organisation... Clearly Nee and Lee had it. Once they're gone only Bureaucrats are left. Not a particularly great draw... But nobody is allowed Charisma, because that would be "ambition", that would be "drawing others after oneself". Only the Guru could do that without suspicion, without the taint of ambition.

The Guru is allowed Charisma, even trades in it, but brooks no peers, who'd be deemed "ambitious" and "rebellious" and so forth. But when the Guru's gone where's the person that holds it all together? Again, "Christ, only Christ" is the LC refrain, but it's the Christ in a set of books. It's a conceptual Christ - the Body-Christ. The Ministry-Christ. The Processed-Christ. Mere concepts that when examined critically show the strains of inconsistency. The Bureaucrats try to prop up the teachings but the Charisma is a memory, fading.

Now here's Deuteronomy 33:2 -
“The LORD came from Sinai,
And dawned on them from Seir;
He shone forth from Mount Paran,
And He came from among ten thousand holy ones;
At His right hand was a flaming fire, a law, for them.” (AMP)

The LORD "dawned" and "shone forth". At His right hand was the Word as flaming fire. Even the "ten thousand holy ones" has strong association of light. "The Son of Man will come with the glory of the Father and the glory of the holy angels". There is the repetitive presentation of out-spilling divine light, in sheer transcendence such that Moses came down glowing.

Now, what Guru can compete with that? John said, "We beheld his glory" - do you think John held up Paul as MOTA, as "today's Moses", after that sight? Or do you think Paul ever held himself thus, versus the twelve? Jesus held all Charisma. He is our Lord and there is no other.

In the way John presents Jesus in the first chapter of the fourth gospel, as the Logos Light of God, we may sense why the Baptist said he wasn't worthy to touch his shoe (v. 27). When we see the incomparable greatness of his being, we're saved - saved from dreaming of our own greatness, and from submitting our will to the demands of a Guru (and there are many out there, clamoring for our attention and our souls). The Guru says that subsuming our souls into his will bring salvation. That only works with Jesus.