It's a Sham

[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

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by 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

Everyone's experience in the LC/LSM is different.
When I first came to the LC in the mid 70s, we used the KJ and NASB. The RCV was just beginning with Romans and Hebrews as the first RCV books we used to study.

For me, my salvation through the Blood of Jesus was solidified. I don't take the Precious Blood of Jesus or His Holy Name for granted.

I did not understand the meaning of sanctification/consecration back then but I was because of the communal living and the ongoing fellowship. After I left and my personal walk deepened I learned the true meaning of sanctification.

My experience in the power of the Holy Name of Jesus Christ, the Power of the Blood of Jesus and the Power of Sanctification were established there.

Forever I will be grateful for my foundation. But that is not true for others.

[askseek]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Everyone's experience in the LC/LSM is different.
When I first came to the LC in the mid 70s, we used the KJ and NASB. The RCV was just beginning with Romans and Hebrews as the first RCV books we used to study.

For me, my salvation through the Blood of Jesus was solidified. I don't take the Precious Blood of Jesus or His Holy Name for granted.

I did not understand the meaning of sanctification/consecration back then but I was because of the communal living and the ongoing fellowship. After I left and my personal walk deepened I learned the true meaning of sanctification.

My experience in the power of the Holy Name of Jesus Christ, the Power of the Blood of Jesus and the Power of Sanctification were established there.

Forever I will be grateful for my foundation. But that is not true for others.

Thanks for your testimony. It's encouraging for me.

I'm not bitter about my LC history or anything in my past, and am grateful for a number of things. My faith situation is quite different from yours, though.

These past few weeks have gotten me to reconsider belief in the Bible after years of being agnostic. A pretty comfortable agnostic for the most part, but there are times it's a struggle to have a sense of meaning. I've learned a lot in recent years about the history of religion and beliefs in general, which includes a history of the ancient Biblical times and peoples.

I still have my skepticisms, but I'm somewhat open to some sort of belief in Jesus. Not sure what that really would mean at this point.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by askseek

Thanks for your testimony. It's encouraging for me.

I'm not bitter about my LC history or anything in my past, and am grateful for a number of things. My faith situation is quite different from yours, though.

These past few weeks have gotten me to reconsider belief in the Bible after years of being agnostic. A pretty comfortable agnostic for the most part, but there are times it's a struggle to have a sense of meaning. I've learned a lot in recent years about the history of religion and beliefs in general, which includes a history of the ancient Biblical times and peoples.

I still have my skepticisms, but I'm somewhat open to some sort of belief in Jesus. Not sure what that really would mean at this point.

Talk to Jesus as you would a friend. He wants a real relationship with you not a religious one. I may know the Word of God but that includes me yelling at Him when I get frustrated. I always end up apologizing to Him and hold a conversation with Him about my frustration.

Last month I was so unhappy for several week's. One night I told Jesus how tired I was of being so unhappy. That night He gave me a dream. I was laughing and having so much fun in the dream that when I woke up I no longer was unhappy. That dark cloud over me has proofed and I am no longer unhappy.

Thank You LORD Jesus for removing that dark cloud that was oppressing me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 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

JJ, you are so right. I too could never reconcile the many blatant Christian contradictions I found in the Recovery and especially with WL, until I studied Brethren history, especially J.N.Darby. One quote by a Brethren historian was quite helpful during my time of "wrestling" with these anomalies. F. Roy Coad basically said that with Darby there was so much good to speak of, and yet so much more wrong.

One must begin to apprehend this difficult conundrum in order to properly assess Witness Lee and LSM. Who can deny that he spoke many wonderful things and did much work for the Lord. Yet WL also felt he was above the law, and did many things a Christian minister should never have done. He thought far more highly of himself than he ought, based on these numerous false teachings of Deputy Authority, the Recovery paradigm, the ground of locality, oneness, Minister of the Age, the Work, etc.

After seeing the sad plight of so many ex-members who had forsaken the faith, I decided a better understanding of Lee for ex-members was to identify all the sources of leaven in his ministry. Like how the Apostle Paul admonishes us to "prove the will of God," and to "test all things, hold on to the good." Jesus Himself counseled the disciples not to reject the entire O.T. dispensation, but to beware of the "leaven of the Pharisees," and to "search the scriptures" because they always point to Christ.

For example, I would never reject the worship of God by calling on the name of the Lord. The Bible and Christian history is filled with the record of other men of God who have done so. But the public show we witnessed of "let's all stand and call on the Lord 5 times" must be utterly discarded. Like the Lord's word about the Pharisee praying in public to make show, we should all go to our "closet." It's not some "thing" to do. After visiting numerous non-LC churches, I learned that many dear believers call on the Lord from the heart, yet without fanfare.

So let me ask, "who has got the real thing?"

[askseek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

F. Roy Coad basically said that with Darby there was so much good to speak of, and yet so much more wrong.

After seeing the sad plight of so many ex-members who had forsaken the faith, I decided a better understanding of Lee for ex-members was to identify all the sources of leaven in his ministry. Like how the Apostle Paul admonishes us to "prove the will of God," and to "test all things, hold on to the good." Jesus Himself counseled the disciples not to reject the entire O.T. dispensation, but to beware of the "leaven of the Pharisees," and to "search the scriptures" because they always point to Christ.

For example, I would never reject the worship of God by calling on the name of the Lord. The Bible and Christian history is filled with the record of other men of God who have done so. But the public show we witnessed of "let's all stand and call on the Lord 5 times" must be utterly discarded. Like the Lord's word about the Pharisee praying in public to make show, we should all go to our "closet." It's not some "thing" to do. After visiting numerous non-LC churches, I learned that many dear believers call on the Lord from the heart, yet without fanfare.

So let me ask, "who has got the real thing?"

That's a good example about calling but not in a repetitious or even out loud manner. Similar to what I just posted about the nuance of "ministry" so too there can be different ways of what "calling on the name" could mean and a variety of practice. I don't recall anywhere in the NT it's spelled out in a "do this" sort of way except Jesus instructing the disciples to "pray in this manner". And it's the famous "Our Father" prayer, short and to-the-point because "He already knows what you need before you ask him." It's refreshing for me to read that.

My question for you is regarding "leaven" in Witness Lee's teaching, what about "a little leaven leavens the whole lump"? At this point I'm in a detox frame of mind and thus not open to the teachings of WL, including RcV with its non-optional outlines. But I could see how others may want to pick and choose.

As for your question of the real thing... if you find out please let me know

[askseek]

And thanks aron for several informative posts that really drove the point home.

But thankfully you also provided some healthy contrast, like in #11:
Jesus repeatedly said that the safe position is to take the least position. Those who preemptively elevate themselves above their station get put down.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by askseek

That's a good example about calling but not in a repetitious or even out loud manner. Similar to what I just posted about the nuance of "ministry" so too there can be different ways of what "calling on the name" could mean and a variety of practice. I don't recall anywhere in the NT it's spelled out in a "do this" sort of way except Jesus instructing the disciples to "pray in this manner". And it's the famous "Our Father" prayer, short and to-the-point because "He already knows what you need before you ask him." It's refreshing for me to read that.

My question for you is regarding "leaven" in Witness Lee's teaching, what about "a little leaven leavens the whole lump"? At this point I'm in a detox frame of mind and thus not open to the teachings of WL, including RcV with its non-optional outlines. But I could see how others may want to pick and choose.

As for your question of the real thing... if you find out please let me know

The "real thing" is Jesus. Sounds passe, but there's no other simple answer.

askseek, if you seek Him, you will find Him. We have His word about that.

If we create performance out of worship, and lives filled with regulations, then we will feel caged up, and long for freedom. LC religious formulas did more damage than good.

Yes, the leaven leavens the whole lump, but it can also be purged out. I gave an example of calling the Lord's name. I have successfully purged out the leaven, without discarding the lump. I felt it was extremely worthwhile to do this in order to keep my love for Jesus.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The "real thing" is Jesus. Sounds passe, but there's no other simple answer.

askseek, if you seek Him, you will find Him. We have His word about that.

If we create performance out of worship, and lives filled with regulations, then we will feel caged up, and long for freedom. LC religious formulas did more damage than good.

Yes, the leaven leavens the whole lump, but it can also be purged out. I gave an example of calling the Lord's name. I have successfully purged out the leaven, without discarding the lump. I felt it was extremely worthwhile to do this in order to keep my love for Jesus.

You can't blame the Recovery or Witness Lee for your failure to use your spirit when calling on the name of the Lord, or approaching this in a religious way. In the recovery there has never been a time when calling on the Lord was stated to be a religious ritual, neither is it stated as such in all of Witness Lee's writings. That is your interpretation of the practice because you were under the grip of a religious spirit yourself.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You can't blame the Recovery or Witness Lee for your failure to use your spirit when calling on the name of the Lord, or approaching this in a religious way. In the recovery there has never been a time when calling on the Lord was stated to be a religious ritual, neither is it stated as such in all of Witness Lee's writings. That is your interpretation of the practice because you were under the grip of a religious spirit yourself.

Your post is a sham.

The ministry of Witness Lee has a long history of always blaming others for his own failed programs and practices.

Witness Lee had the audacity to declare that those who lost their life savings in that Daystar luxury motor home debacle had also lost their spiritual virginity. Though LSM went on to possess millions in cash with vast real estate holdings, they never went back to make right all the money they swindled.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You can't blame the Recovery or Witness Lee for your failure to use your spirit when calling on the name of the Lord, or approaching this in a religious way. In the recovery there has never been a time when calling on the Lord was stated to be a religious ritual, neither is it stated as such in all of Witness Lee's writings. That is your interpretation of the practice because you were under the grip of a religious spirit yourself.

Evangelical, your judgmentalism is showing.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Ohio

JJ

So let me ask, "who has got the real thing?"

Every believer does. Jesus, he's the real thing. Coke (and we) had it wrong thinking it was something else

[askseek]

Originally Posted by 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

Thanks for sharing about wrestling with these issues for 32 years. "The answers are both simple and complex" is a very helpful to hear.

And from your link I read the "Opening Words" document. I like that they cover the nuance of the word "ministry", something I haven't thought about:

The matter of one ministry has been strongly emphasized since Brother Lee's departure. This
emphasis has been very confusing to many saints because there are several meanings to the term
‘ministry’ which have not been clearly differentiated. These meanings include (1) the one New
Testament ministry initiated by the Lord, (2) the different individual ministries that are part of
this one ministry e.g. the ministries of the apostles Peter, Paul and John, and others, (3) the
personal ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, (4) the ministries of other workers, (5)
the work of ministry of the saints, (6) Living Stream Ministry (LSM) and (7) "The Ministry," a
magazine published by LSM. The failure to differentiate these items has led many saints to
equate in their own mind Living Stream Ministry with the New Testament Ministry, and to
consider that the co-workers who serve in the Living Stream Ministry are the only ones who
carry out the New Testament Ministry.

[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.

[aron]

To me, lately it's all come down to one question: is the human experience at its core a competetive one, or a co-operative one? Based on that outlook, one will choose the path. And I have no doubt in my mind, which way Jesus was pointing us.

In the LC, words like "fellowship" and "oneness" were entirely predicated upon exclusivity toward one ministry and its constant critique of all others as fallen, deformed, dark, twisted, devilish, satanic, babylonian etc. We were "God's best". This striving for primacy against one's fellows flies against everything in the gospels and beyond them.

And I was so mesmerised by this system, that when the FTTA trainer told us "don't waste your time" with the sick, the indigent, the widows and orphans, and instead focus our attentions, efforts and energies on those who could repay us in this age, the so-called "good building material", I kept soldiering on. Even though I knew in my heart that the ministry's programme directives were absolutely contrary to the gospel message given us by the very witnesses of Jesus. The Hive Mind had taken over, and its present 'truths' had swamped the eternal gospel.

I thank God for pulling me out of that place.