SPLIT THREAD - Control and Addiction in the Local Church

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by djohnson

Ohio I think you are missing the point i.e. getting lost in among the trees and missing the forest.

Was the audience forced to go and listen to Chen or did they voluntarily assemble?

DJ, the audience here gathered to break bread, remember the Lord, and worship Him. Instead they got an ambassador from LSM neutralizing any legitimate concerns they might have had from their brothers and sisters in Christ whom they used to assemble with, and attacking those brothers who formerly their leaders.

We are on different wavelengths here DJ -- as we have many times before -- so I see no reason to continue in this "forest."

[UntoHim]

In regards to these "re-take the ground" meetings in Toronto (the ones that Minoru Chen spoke at), those who attended knew fully well what was going on. Those with "legitimate concerns" (about outside control as a matter of fact) had a pretty good idea that they would be better off just staying with the original Church in Toronto, which after all never stopped meeting. It was the ones who didn't mind being "controlled" by the LSM that ended up splitting away. It was their choice. They went to this meeting of the "LSM/Local Church of Witness Lee" knowingly and willfully. There were nothing but thunderous and appreciative "AMENS!" to everything Minoru had to say. One of the recordings captured Minoru emphasizing how "the LSM does not control anybody"

-

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Exactly my point UntoHim: they went knowingly and willingly to hear Chen's babble and no doubt "amened" him after every other sentence.

OBW if I change my mind about something I changed my mind. For example: the communist tried to systematically indoctrinate Nee to denounce Christ. He would not change his mind about it even after 20 years of imprisonment. Some others in the same circumstances did. They recanted their faith in Christ. Ultimately it was the individual's personal choice even in those dire circumstances. Surely in a free society like those enjoyed in America, Canada, etc one cannot claim that someone else "controlled" them and "forced" them into certain behaviors. This is a cowardly and irresponsible claim. Even secular jurisprudence will not accept this as a legitimate defence.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by djohnson

Exactly my point UntoHim: they went knowingly and willingly to hear Chen's babble and no doubt "amened" him after every other sentence.

OBW if I change my mind about something I changed my mind. For example: the communist tried to systematically indoctrinate Nee to denounce Christ. He would not change his mind about it even after 20 years of imprisonment. Some others in the same circumstances did. They recanted their faith in Christ. Ultimately it was the individual's personal choice even in those dire circumstances. Surely in a free society like those enjoyed in America, Canada, etc one cannot claim that someone else "controlled" them and "forced" them into certain behaviors. This is a cowardly and irresponsible claim. Even secular jurisprudence will not accept this as a legitimate defence.

Yes, if you change your mind, it is you that does the changing. And yes, if you have principles and someone causes you to make microscopic changes to those principles, it is you that does the changing. And if they manage to get you to make microscopic change after microscopic change until your principles no longer reflect anything like what they previously did, then you are still the one who changed your own principles. And if you are truly happy with your new principles relative to the old ones, then so be it.

So how do you deal with purely mental addictions? Are they not controlling? Maybe you have never been the type to become addicted to anything. But many people are. And under the right circumstances, almost all of us are.

There is at least one form of alcoholism that is not about physical addiction, but purely mental and emotional. Surely if it is just mental and/or emotional then anyone should be able to simply walk away from it. Right? If you say "right" then you are even more ignorant than your statement that making such a claim is "cowardly and irresponsible."

The depth of your ignorance is further established when you try to define control in terms of whether or not a court would allow it as a reasonable defense. Reasonable defenses are typically based upon established precedence and in this kind of thing, science. If you are certain that science would not back such a defense, and that some court might allow it to be considered, then you are stuck with the notion that nothing changes. In any case, whether or not something is true is not determined by its admissibility in court or whether it could be an allowed defense. Courts do not decide truth. They decide legality. For example, a gun found in an illegal search may be inadmissible in a trial that ultimately finds the party that is actually responsible for murder "not guilty" simply because the prosecutor was unable to sufficiently establish the link between the perpetrator and the crime. He is then legally free to leave unfettered, but he is still guilty of the crime. Laws do not regulate or determine truth.

And when you belittle by saying that claiming control is "cowardly and irresponsible" you are attempting to control this conversation. And unlike some who might back away and let the sound of authority sway them — sort of like so many of the LC membership does with respect to the words of Lee — I am not so easily swayed. It is almost as if you are trying to control this aspect of the conversation by claiming that it can't happen. "Master is tricksy!"

And the question that has been hovering for a couple of days now: Where does eliminating any consideration of any kind of control from this discussion take us? I have some possibilities. First, it makes all those who follow Lee and the LC out to simply be morons who willingly think and do stupid things. In fact, it simply makes everyone who ever was a part of the LC long enough to have intentionally stayed for some period out to have been that kind of moron, at least in the past, and therefore puts a question mark over their current judgment. Last, it leaves only the true outsiders — those who were never actually part of the LC even if they did attend a few times — as the only reasonable people on the forum.

Funny, the only such person that I have seen around here like that lately is you. Oh, I guess you knew that. You have already established that position without this new attack. You have already stated fairly straight-out that anyone who was ever an elder in the LC can never be trusted and will always be the enemy. You have suggested that people from within the LC cannot change it for the better. They should just disband and disappear.

It seems that you are more interested in an argument than in truth. "Management" may not ever ban you outright for this kind of stupid behavior, but if it persists, then some of us probably will on an individual basis. It should be quite an insult to find yourself in the same place as Steward on the other forum. Quite a few just got tired of her nonsense and turned her off.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

OBW if you'll read my posts carefully instead of fabricating notions that I'm trying to "control" this thread then you'd realize that I readily accept the idea that some in the Lee church are addicted to him and his ministry. In fact on another thread I introduced the idea. You'll also note that the idea was considered highly controversial and rejected by many. (Denial is not only a river in Egypt as they say.)

Also note that I was discussing jurisprudence not court procedures. With few exceptions e.g. self defense, insanity, etc. one cannot murder someone and claim: "My pastor made me do it". And even: "The devil made me do it" won't fly. Of course if someone does truly believe this kind of thing then the court might rule them insane.

[Cal]

dj,

If control were not possible then no one would ever seek to control anyone because their efforts would always be futile. But we know that such efforts are not always futitle. So attempts to control are sometime successful, therefore controlling sometimes works.

Controlling does require consent. But the question is, would the consent have occurred if the controller had not taken certain steps to see that it did?

Did the Nazi's control the Jews? Of course. But you would say that no one held a gun to LCers' heads. But as Kevin Costner said in Open Range, "There are things that gnaw at a man worse than dying." Like being judged unworthy by the Lord, for example.

You are simply hung up on the semantics of the word control. How about replacing it with "influence for self-serving purposes?" Would you agree that is possible? That's what people mean by control in this context.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Yes Igzy I would agree that "influence for self-serving purposes" is possible in a free society as the advertising industry well knows. But ultimately we are responsible for our actions regardless of the influences.

You mention the tragedy of Jews under Nazi occupation of Europe. An example of real control with police power to impose the will of leaders on to innocents. And to systematically incarcerate them without due process of law. Even in such a horrific context some came out of the camps and went on to lead productive and healthy lives e.g. Elie Wiesel, Vicktor Frankl, etc. Others did not fare so well. Those who moved on and did well admit that it was their choice to do so even after such a dehumanizing experience.

[UntoHim]

We do not need to get into theoretical examples or point to the extremes of the Nazis when discussing this matter of control in the Local Church. Those of us who were active members while Witness Lee was around know fully well just how he controlled his followers. (albeit the "why" he controlled is a little fuzzy)

I brought up the matter of "The vision of the church". As I noted, Lee even referred to it as a "controlling vision". For the most part, Local Churchers knowingly and willfully submit to this controlling vision. Why? Because they are told that this is the "God ordained way". Back in the day we heard a lot of talk that it was "God's eternal purpose". Who would not want to be controlled by God's eternal purpose? What Christian would not want to follow the "God ordained way"? This is one of the main reasons that the Local Church draws mostly from the ranks of people who are already Christians - because, after all, what Christian would not want to hop on board to God’s eternal purpose and be the ones to “bring the Lord back” and “give him the bride”? These kinds of concepts are something that unbelievers don’t get excited about, much less be controlled by (at least not initially)

Originally Posted by OBW

And the question that has been hovering for a couple of days now: Where does eliminating any consideration of any kind of control from this discussion take us?

I don’t think djohnson is “eliminating any consideration of any kind of control” (he can correct me if I’m wrong)…I think what he is saying is that we (LCers) voluntarily submitted to being controlled. If this is what he is saying then I agree. However I think it is worth noting that Witness Lee did not simply walk up to the podium and announce that he was some controlling false apostle who was going to lead us into false religion. God’s enemy is much smarter then that (and so was Lee for that matter).

-

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I don’t think djohnson is “eliminating any consideration of any kind of control” (he can correct me if I’m wrong)…I think what he is saying is that we (LCers) voluntarily submitted to being controlled. If this is what he is saying then I agree. However I think it is worth noting that Witness Lee did not simply walk up to the podium and announce that he was some controlling false apostle who was going to lead us into false religion. God’s enemy is much smarter then that (and so was Lee for that matter).

I agree. But the way it is being presented by DJ is to say that it simply is not control. Unless I have forgotten some of the details, no one put guns to the heads of the faithful in Jonestown. Yet to suggest that the members of what had been a relatively prominent ministry in California (SF area?) who now “willingly” drank poison and died did so entirely of free will is nonsense. The control of the will is far more sinister than the control of the body via shackles or threat of violence or death. And you generally cannot cause someone to commit suicide by threatening to kill them if they do not. The threat is pointless. If you are going to die anyway, let the evil ones do it on their own.

But slow erosion of the natural defenses of the mind against illogic, error, and even harm is control even if the state of the person is to have a will to do exactly what their controller wants.

No one ever starts by admitting that they are going to control your mind, will, pocketbook, and even actions. No one would step to the microphone and say that they are going to teach you things that directly contradict the agreed authority on the subject (in this case, scripture) and that you will stand up and applaud them for it. If they did, you would stand up and walk out.

No. They use tricks of argument, logical errors that are most-times easy to miss. They get you to focus so much on one part of the “authority” that you miss the other parts that would make their argument false. It is seldom in big steps. Instead, it is little bit by little bit. Like the frog in the kettle. I do not like to assert absolutely that Lee came to the US with impure motives. But there is something about the progression of his time in the US, beginning as benignly as he did. He gained acceptance as merely a wise teacher. Slowly he worked to be seen as someone who’s word on anything would be trusted. Then he sent Max out to stir things up, then he tossed Max out. (There were lesser things that only those in some areas saw.) Then the lawsuits. (There’s a twist of scripture.) Read the transcripts of Lee’s answers concerning him being an apostle and other such things. The nuanced wording that could not be pinned down. Many of his answers technically did not answer the questions. Those first lawsuits were barely over before he was being exalted, and he admitted he liked it. Was that something new? Who knows.

Then came the direct speaking about “the ministry” and the status of the one who brought it. He never directly said he was the one, but it was a thinly-veiled claim to Apostleship. Then the Oracle. His teachings became “high peaks.” And as Ohio said elsewhere, coming to the pure Word of God turned from battle cry to “a must to avoid.” The scripture could only be understood as interpreted by Lee. So HWMR and other materials spoken/written by Lee, or recompiled by the BBs from Lee became the source of spiritual knowledge. Scripture became a footnote to Lee’s words. Only the snippet that would support his words was used.

Am I wrong about fearing our own understanding of scripture? When we were having the one serious discussion with my parents about the LC about 3 years ago, my mother said, in so many words, that we could not be so certain about what scripture said. She all but said that you just have to call on the Lord and trust him, which in the context of the other things said that evening, meant that you trust what the “brothers,” especially Lee, told you.

We left the Assemblies of God at the end of 1972 because we had already been seeing more and then came across the LC. Now they can’t see for themselves that the error in the LC is greater than the AOG ever was. But they will not look on their own outside of what the LC says.

Yes, they allowed it. But it is a subtle form of control. And to deny it is to whitewash the actions taken by those who have used it to their personal and financial advantage. It is spiritual fraud. And people who are defrauded typically set themselves up for it. That doesn't make them responsible.