It's a Sham

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by JJ

I should have added that the positive things I mentioned all happened in the late 1970's and early 1980's, and thus are "ancient history"... not a good commentary for today,

I would agree. In the 70's I wouldn't trade the childhood I had being raised in the local church environment. As a young Christian in the mid-80's I was helped by personal testimonies of one's daily walk through the week. Not relevant for the present local church environment which I'd characterize as "ministry churches".

[aron]

Lee said that there could only be one apostle per age, and he was the current MOTA. Either the statement was true or he was a fraud.

For the first part -- 'one ministry/apostle per age' -- I see no biblical support. If Paul was MOTA, then what was John doing? Where do you see John or Peter confessing subservience to Paul, and/or Paul demanding (or implying) its necessity? And why was the 'Apocalypse' written, post-Paul, by John and not by Timothy or Titus? And what, for example, of Wesley vis-a-vis Edwards? Which one of them was MOTA? And why is it that neither of them seemed to care, yet God moved mightily?

But suppose we accept the first part and try to go on, to find that, "Witness Lee has God's current (and sole) oracle."

There are enough data points to strongly suggest that if there were in fact a true and clear MOTA, then WL wasn't it, but defrauded the flock with false claims.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Daystar showed avarice, opacity (money-laundering) and tight operational control, and if we look around we find there already was a behavioral pattern: tennis rackets, chairs, suits, "Let's go Linko!" &c. Rainbow booklets and gold bars. Merchandize and move on; leave the wreckage behind and 'sail on'.

Second, the Philip Lee affair(s): there are multiple, re-enforcing accounts from various ones involved. Per Paul's epistolary directives, WL wasn't even qualified to be church elder much less MOTA.

Third, look at treatment of scripture, a la Psalms, Job, 1 Peter, Jude, James &c. WL clearly and repeatedly departed from NT and subsequent church reception of scripture. According to his so-called revelation of 'God's economy', a not inconsiderable amount of scriptural text was merely 'fallen concepts' and 'natural thinking', not indicative of Christ (but WL claimed to be free from any such conceits.)

Folks, if someone comes to you claiming to be an apostle, much less 'the' apostle, and says to follow his so-called revelations, rather than scripture and the clear pattern of apostolic and church reception of scripture, run away. Run away fast.

[leastofthese]

Is there a ministry book or article that talks more about Lee's theory of MOTA?

[aron]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Is there a ministry book or article that talks more about Lee's theory of MOTA?

Good question. By my memory Lee said that nobody else had any light. His ministry required absolute primacy. Anyone who didn't subsume their gifts were deemed independent, rebellious, and divisive.

As I wrote earlier, there's no record of this in the NT.

Eventually MOTA was formalized by his lieutenants sometime in the mid-90s. I'm not sure of the documentation they provided.

But WL's oft-asserted idea that God can only do one thing at a time is patently absurd. Look at Wesley and Edwards- which of them assumed primacy? They would have laughed at the notion.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Is there a ministry book or article that talks more about Lee's theory of MOTA?

Here is a DCP article: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Age, that explains the whole concept.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Here is a DCP article: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Age, that explains the whole concept.

Yes, do read that article.

It's a sham.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Here is a DCP article: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Age, that explains the whole concept.

Oh my goodness. It's been a while since I've read this article. Thanks for posting Koinonia. From a different perspective it's a concept essential for their church model to work. I would venture to say the concept behind the church model isn't the problem, it's too many Christians are lacking "the vision".

On another note from a historical perspective in the Local Churches 1986 and 1948 were important years. In 1986 that's the year of the "pledge of allegiance" and the Linko promotion. Whatever happened to the money intended for Linko? There's never been transparency regarding LSM financials and when few control the finances, one cannot assume those controlling the finances are exempt from temptation. Which is why oversight is always needed.
After being put out for a number of years, Watchman Nee resumes his ministry in 1948. Some may say how Nee changed direction of his ministry in 1948 was in part to China's social situation. May be true. I have considered the emphasis on deputy authority hierarchy was so he would never experience being put out of the church again.

[askseek]

I came back for some more reading this weekend. There are many important facets to better understand the LC and our own experiences in it, and thankfully the documents and threads here provide a variety of perspectives. I doubt any one person could sufficiently cover it all. No MOTAs here

Let me restate my "sham" claim, hopefully more clearly than my original post:

Witness Lee was a delusional, puffed-up fraud. His skewed teachings and cult of personality and domineering power trips and corrupt nepotism resulted in an exclusivist, dysfunctional Local Church system. His loyal lieutenants now run the system in the same manner.

But that doesn't mean the sum total of hundreds of thousands of people's experience in the Local Church was/is a sham. No, certainly not, as JJ pointed out in post #3 and I agreed in post #5.

I was born into the LC and left about 10 years ago in my mid-20s. This included a year in FTTA. From my first confession and baptism in a junior high Summer School of Truth onwards there were plenty of times of genuine seeking and enjoyment. No doubt the sham teachings and devious leadership system played an important role in my life, but there were plenty of other important factors in my life, including some helpful teaching and care from others in the system.

I've had a lot of lessons to learn since I left the LC, and my perspective is certainly different than it was a decade ago. Knowing the real history of WL and the LC is another useful lesson, as I now can better assess my own past, including what I mentioned in post #4. Plus there are other systems out there, both religious and secular, with similarities to the LC system. So it's also helpful for navigating these land mines.

[JJ]

AskSeek: your post about TLR being "a sham" expressed what some here have concluded. I've been wrestling with questions about TLR for 32 years (after a "storm" in my local church divided and scattered "the saints" there, and broke my heart). The answers are both simple and complex. After two years of participating in this forum, I see that opinions here vary quite a bit.

My own opinion is that there is a need to consider TLR's "ways", all the way back to its "roots" in "Exclusive Brethren" teachings and practices as well as the in-compassionate and legalistic shepherding of M.E. Barber, learn from the good and drop the bad.

I like what "The Concerned Brothers" have been saying http://www.concernedbrothers.com

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes, do read that article.

It's a sham.

The idea of one specially-chosen human vessel for God's current speaking or leading or 'up-to-date truth' was entirely based on self-serving human logic, not on either scripture nor common Christian experience. It's a scam, perpetrated upon the body of believers, to trap a few of the weak and gullible ones.

It flies against the repeated counsel of scripture: Proverbs says three times that in many advisors is prudence, wisdom, success, and safety. By stark contrast, in the LSM & LC all revelation supposedly comes from one vessel, and if that vessel fails, there's no safeguard.

Even the pope has a college of cardinals! Look at the fellows in this "one unique revelation and one chosen revelatory vessel per age" idea: the Unification Church, the Rastafarians, the Mormons etc. Not good company.

Originally Posted by askseek

Plus there are other systems out there, both religious and secular, with similarities to the LC system. So it's also helpful for navigating these land mines.

Not to mention Eastern Lightning, Three Grades of Servants, etc.

Now, Jesus was arguably the model for the benign despot - nobody taught Jesus - Jesus taught everyone else. But the critical difference between Jesus and Paul, Luther, Darby, and Nee and Lee (and any of us) is that Jesus lived a sinless life, placed that perfect life on the cross for our sins, and rose three days later to eternal reign and glory. That didn't happen to Paul, Luther, Darby, or Nee. Or Sun Myung-Moon or Haile Selassie, for that matter.

No; the 'uncovered truths' of Nee and later Lee were in retrospect entirely ad hoc and meant to fit whatever the days' exigencies were. Look at the role women, for example: Dora Yu was a 'lionness' of the Little Flock but would have no place in the Recovery today. Why? Because she was expedient. Her value came and went. The only enduring 'truth' in women's functioning was toward the acquisition of temporal human power. She was useful, an used, but once the Foreigners were removed, she was discarded. Along with Peace Wang, Ruth Lee etc. Similarly, Mary MacDonough was used to 'recover the three parts of man' but wouldn't be able to give a message on it today.

http://www.tripartiteman.org/historical/mcdonough.html

Not to mention Jessie Penn-Lewis, Madame Guyon, and so forth. None of them would get an inch of space today. But they were at one point useful for the Cause.

Likewise, Leland Wang was used and discarded. Wang was the elder brother that Nee famously chafed under, whilst both were in Barber's tutelage. Then Wang bought the hall used for the first independent SCA gatherings. Once Nee removed him, on perceived doctrinal differences, Nee suddenly 'recovered the truth' of Authority and Submission. Nice timing. Once Nee was Top Dog, he codified it with supposed revelation.

Then Lee lifted Nee up as the singular "Seer of the Divine Revelation", and himself as "closest co-worker", which meant he was next in line as Guru. The whole thing is a self-serving sham.