"The Matter of Gaining African-Americans"

[aron]

Another comment, posted on this forum 3 years ago regarding Asian culture dominating the LC

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I'm neither Western nor Asian but I live in a Chinese community. I like these people. Though I believe I'll be always an outsider for them. Anyway, in three words, I'd describe the Chinese mentality as:

1) Subordination;
2) Collectiveness;
3) “Us” versus “Them” mentality. (Well, that is slightly more than one word )

Generally, the Chinese are also lack of creativity and tend to imitate or copy someone else's models and patterns.

BTW, can you guess whose quote is this: "The individual is subordinate to the organisation. The minority is subordinate to the majority. The lower level is subordinate to the higher level"...

That was Mao Tse-tung's quote but it pretty much sums up the LC's value system.

The problem is not Chinese culture. The problem is that we don't see it for what it is. Then we never deal with it, but ingrain it, and bury it. The fact that we don't face it can be seen in our activities to deal with its consequences. Like, for example, recruiting African-Americans, so we don't look so Chinese. 20 years ago it was recruiting "typical Americans", meaning college-educated Caucasian American males. We were told explicitly by LC FTTA trainers to go after these ones.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Another comment, posted on this forum 3 years ago regarding Asian culture dominating the LC.

Again Aron, these are generalizations,

Submissiveness, Collectiveness, Us vs Them

You are also describing the US Democrat Party. Hippie communes, and employers like Facebook, Google.

There really is no substance to these type arguments (Asian, Chinese). These are the worst of arguments because they attack a person's character based on their nationality, race, etc.

I find that disturbing. Disturbing not just because they are blatant arguments of fallacy, but because you keep advancing them so unabashedly.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

these are generalizations,

Submissiveness, Collectiveness, Us vs Them

There really is no substance to these type arguments (Asian, Chinese). These are the worst of arguments because they attack a person's character based on their nationality, race, etc.

I find that disturbing. Disturbing not just because they are blatant arguments of fallacy, but because you keep advancing them so unabashedly.

Drake, you missed the opportunity to mention another of your common dismissals, like "taken out of context."

For Drake, an unabashed supporter of all-things Witness Lee, to speak of "unsubstantiated generalizations" is truly incredible, when one sits back to consider all that really entails.

I spent thirty years being inundated with "unsubstantiated generalizations" coming from Anaheim about the whole of Christianity, or as I like to say "the greater body of Christ."

Irony. Hypocrisy. Denial. Deception. Take your pick.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

There really is no substance to these type arguments (Asian, Chinese). These are the worst of arguments because they attack a person's character based on their nationality, race, etc.

No substance? Please read the two quotes below and tell me that they have nothing to do with fallen human culture.

And there isn't anything wrong with being Chinese. It just isn't divine, is all, and it was sold to us if it were. Witness Lee was supposedly tranformed beyond fallen human culture. And nothing could be further from the truth.

Originally Posted by Bill Mallon

On Philip Lee

“A few months ago, after Bob Ellis returned from the training in Taipei, he gave this admonition to the elders at a meeting of elders from the South: Turn everything over to the office and the ministry; Philip and Brother Lee have big plans for this area; it is imperative for us to give our coordination to Philip and the office, and they need evidences that we will do anything they want; we have to coordinate with Philip, and if Philip beats us to the ground, we have to learn to get up and come back”. Bill Mallon, Atlanta, 1987 letter of resignation from the work, to Witness Lee

Originally Posted by Don Rutledge

On Daystar and Timothy Lee

“Starting around 1972, Witness Lee expressed a concern for the financial suffering of the migrating saints and their need to be able to purchase proper meeting places. I was in a meeting of visiting elders and co-workers in which he introduced the Daystar business. He shared that his son Timothy had approached him about a business and that the business seemed to Witness Lee to be ideal for us (the local churches). The brothers and sisters could invest money, earn a nice profit of around 35%, and generate significant profit for the support of the new churches. He then spoke of manufacturing only the finest product. We could produce the product in Taiwan, which would help the believers there with employment and sell the product in the USA. He spoke at length concerning how the members of the churches should only invest their surplus and that he felt very positive that this was of the Lord. The business consisted of manufacturing and selling an expensive motor home. This was certainly a very different meeting than anything I had ever attended. I and others left with our heads spinning. I was bothered and asked James Barber what was going on. He replied that Witness Lee was God’s anointed and I should be very careful about criticizing. He declared that even if Witness Lee was wrong, God would bless the endeavor.

Shortly after this meeting, Witness Lee was scheduled to come to Houston for a conference in late 1972. I planned to attend. By that time I had left teaching for a sales job. The night before the conference I had a dream. I was sitting in the living room of Ben McPherson in Houston with Witness Lee. The other brothers in the room were very clear to me, as was where they were sitting. Suddenly, Witness Lee turned to me and said he wanted me to work for him in Daystar. In the dream, the Lord made it very clear I was not to take the offer. The next night there we all were, sitting in exactly the right seats. Witness Lee turned to me and offered me a job. Thank the Lord for the warning. I never worked for Daystar and never invested a dime.” Don Rutledge, testimony

And for some reason or another God wants me to point out this obvious and inconvenient fact to Drake et al. These were the works of fallen human beings. No different from any other. Their thinking, their mindsets, their values, their behaviours were all shot through with fallen human culture. It's not about character, but about culture.

As I said earlier, the Bible makes it clear that godly men shouldn't set such children as Philip and Timothy Lee were upon the God's flock. But in this case fallen human culture demanded it. Guess what? Culture won.

And I do apologize for occasionally being impolite, and disrespectful. But the point remains.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by aron

Witness Lee was supposedly tranformed beyond fallen human culture. And nothing could be further from the truth.

Are you able to provide a source for this?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Are you able to provide a source for this?

How does one provide sources for something commonly "known" by all in the Recovery. Obviously LSM would not publish this in their books.

As far as written "proofs," the published letters and written accounts mentioned above should be sufficient evidence of LC mindset back in the day.

Another recollection of this can be found in the account Speaking The Truth in Love by John Ingalls concerning Titus Chu. This occurred during the height of conflicts back in the late '80's. Read his account for context.

The next morning Titus came with a totally different attitude and demeanor. It seemed that he took an adversarial position, and said rather decisively that now we have to cover some practical matters. He was very strong, telling me that I had damaged the Lord’s recovery by the conferences I had, and that I must not speak anything contrary to Brother Lee. He is the one carrying out the work, he said; we are his co-workers with him, and we should submit to him. He warned me that if I continued to speak as I did I would damage myself most of all, and he would have to take some action concerning me among the churches in the Midwest. Moreover, I would lose my field for ministry because the churches would not invite me. I was surprised to hear this, for that was of no concern to me and did not influence me at all. I feel that no faithful servant of the Lord should have such a consideration, but seek to simply and faithfully follow the Lord in all things, come what may. I was not ambitious to be welcomed everywhere, and was prepared to be rejected.

Before Titus left he urged me with much feeling to go to Brother Lee, to open myself to him, and to ask how he feels about me. I had no response at all to this, since I already had many sessions with Brother Lee, and I believed I knew what he felt about me. But because he kept repeating it, I said I would consider it. Titus returned to Cleveland and a couple of weeks later called me on the phone. I told him that I felt not to see Brother Lee as he had proposed, and he replied that that was all right and made no further mention of it. I was surprised at this, expecting that he would again urge me to see him. He wanted to assure me once more that he was standing with me – that seemed to be the main point of his call. It was a very brief conversation, lasting not more than two or three minutes.

I was surprised when nearly four months later I had received a letter from Titus, co-authored by James Reetzke (an elder in Chicago long known to me), dated February 12, 1989, in which Titus reproved me among other things for not taking his fellowship to see Brother Lee. The letter was full of rebuking and censuring concerning the conduct of the elders in Anaheim and contained this statement: "Is it not a fact that you brothers and the church in Anaheim owe him {Brother Lee} your existence?" I am grateful to Brother Lee for his love and service to the saints (including myself) in past years, and I thank the Lord for what we have received through his ministry, but we surely do not owe our existence to him – that is absurd. The source of whatever we are and have, physically or spiritually, is God and no one else.

Conversations like this provide strong evidence that Witness Lee was not just respected as an older brother, but even when matters of conscience and unrighteousness were on the table, all must submit to Lee, because not only was he "tranformed beyond fallen human culture," but even mature men of God "owed WL their very existence."

Witness Lee was more than just "transformed beyond fallen human culture," he was considered a demigod, and some even called him the "acting god."

[aron]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Are you able to provide a source for this?

Originally Posted by Ohio

How does one provide sources for something commonly "known" by all in the Recovery. Obviously LSM would not publish this in their books.

Conversations like this provide strong evidence that Witness Lee was not just respected as an older brother, but even when matters of conscience and unrighteousness were on the table, all must submit to Lee, because not only was he "tranformed beyond fallen human culture," but even mature men of God "owed WL their very existence."

Witness Lee was more than just "transformed beyond fallen human culture," he was considered a demigod, and some even called him the "acting god."

Ohio is right. They wouldn't dare print it. But they always spoke it. For example, one time, in a meeting, Ron Kangas told us that when he first heard Witness Lee speak, Ron thought, "No self". Somehow Witness Lee had passed beyond self. Just pure God was apparently flowing out of the man. No self. . . this is patently nonsense. Only Jesus should be placed here, beyond the fall. No one else. We have not yet been set before the Judgment Seat. Jesus alone dwells in pure light. None of us should talk this way.

But Ron and others were mesmerised, and then they spent the rest of their lives trying to convince everyone it was real. But it wasn't real. No one should claim that they've "laid hold", and you all know what I mean. Paul wouldn't claim this. Yet we all pretended that Lee had laid hold. Again, nonsense.

[aron]

And who has seen the quote where Samuel Chang was walking with someone when he said, "You have to watch out for Witness Lee's family." Then he clapped his hand over his mouth and said, "I shouldn't have said that. Please forget that I said that."

Why did he say that about the family? Because he knew: he knew what was there, and what was coming. Then, why did he say that he shouldn't have said that? Because he was Chinese. The Chinese way is, Hear no evil, speak no evil.

But Jesus' way is, Tell it to the church.

And what of the elders in Taiwan who knew of Lee's earlier financial shenanigans, when the American brothers came over in the mid-60s they just nodded and smiled? "Praise the Lord, brother!" Daystar was looming on the horizon, and Linko, and other schemes. Boondoggles. But they said nothing. It's not the Chinese way. That's how they maintain social stability. Say nothing wrong, don't make the other lose face. But this was at the expense of the truth, and look at the cost, eventually. We learned about Witness Lee the hard way.

Like Witness Lee told Sal Benoit, "You have now lost your virginity".

So, let's tell it to the church. Tell it to the African-Americans. Tell it to the Cubans, the Puerto-Ricans. Tell it to the Dutch and the Portuguese. Stay away from this group.

Originally Posted by Hope

Linko was something that the office came up with. It was presented as an example of the wonderful God ordained leadership of the recovery. After a lot of money was raised and spent on the property and many plans made and a great hub bub made, the brilliant office learned that the land had not been approved for development and was basically useless.

I never supported this project and the young BBs promoted it as a means to humble the elders. Minuro [Chen] gave a stirring speech at an elders coworkers meeting about how the elders would be blessed if they went to Linko and shoveled dirt. He promised that the Spirit would enliven you as you shoveled dirt and they would be greatly rewarded spiritually if they gave up being an elder and went to Linko to shovel dirt.

Just another boondoggle. Just another ridiculous project proposed by the office and the deputy authority. How things had changed!! Yet the Daystar fiasco was the beginning in the USA of one scheme after another which was divinely judged.

And what of the quote of Philip H. Lin, eventually author of Lee biography "Sacrifice and Sail on"? What was his quote - "I know you are right according to my conscience, but according to my culture I must support Brother Lee"? That was after he found out that Brother Lee's son had been caught molesting the help, and the church was thrust into turmoil. He still took his native culture over his God-given conscience, and still supported Brother Lee, and eventually even wrote an encomium of "God's humble servant".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Ohio is right. They wouldn't dare print it. But they always spoke it. For example, one time, in a meeting, Ron Kangas told us that when he first heard Witness Lee speak, Ron thought, "No self". Somehow Witness Lee had passed beyond self. Just pure God was apparently flowing out of the man. No self. . . this is patently nonsense. Only Jesus should be placed here, beyond the fall. No one else. We have not yet been set before the Judgment Seat. Jesus alone dwells in pure light. None of us should talk this way.

But Ron and others were mesmerised, and then they spent the rest of their lives trying to convince everyone it was real. But it wasn't real. No one should claim that they've "laid hold", and you all know what I mean. Paul wouldn't claim this. Yet we all pretended that Lee had laid hold. Again, nonsense.

I too was mesmerized (sic?) until I learned how much corruption and unrighteousness was covered up by Lee and his family.

Like the voice of the blood of Abel crying out from the ground, the voice of Lee's many victim's was also crying out.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Are you able to provide a source for this?

aint gonna happen.

Drake

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Are you able to provide a source for this?

The LC is full of folkloric anecdotes to this effect. Another one that comes to mind, besides Ron Kangas' "no self" story (which I have heard countless times) is the story repeated over and over again about Witness Lee eating cheese and crackers. The story goes that a Russian sister told Witness lee that she thought that Chinese people did not eat cheese, causing Witness Lee to heroically respond "Sister, I'm not Chinese."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

The LC is full of folkloric anecdotes to this effect. Another one that comes to mind, besides Ron Kangas' "no self" story (which I have heard countless times) is the story repeated over and over again about Witness Lee eating cheese and crackers. The story goes that a Russian sister told Witness lee that she thought that Chinese people did not eat cheese, causing Witness Lee to heroically respond "Sister, I'm not Chinese."

Lee chose to respond in a spiritual way to address a question from the natural man.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee chose to respond in a spiritual way to address a question from the natural man.

Witness Lee was "spiritual" about it--except when he wasn't. He often boasted about the spiritual truths coming forth from the "little Chinaman."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

No substance? Please read the two quotes below and tell me that they have nothing to do with fallen human culture.

And there isn't anything wrong with being Chinese. It just isn't divine, is all, and it was sold to us if it were. Witness Lee was supposedly tranformed beyond fallen human culture. And nothing could be further from the truth.





And for some reason or another God wants me to point out this obvious and inconvenient fact to Drake et al. These were the works of fallen human beings. No different from any other. Their thinking, their mindsets, their values, their behaviours were all shot through with fallen human culture. It's not about character, but about culture.

As I said earlier, the Bible makes it clear that godly men shouldn't set such children as Philip and Timothy Lee were upon the God's flock. But in this case fallen human culture demanded it. Guess what? Culture won.

And I do apologize for occasionally being impolite, and disrespectful. But the point remains.

More of the same...this still has nothing to do with Asian or Chinese culture.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

More of the same...this still has nothing to do with Asian or Chinese culture.

So Philip Lin saying, "I know in my conscience you brothers are right according to the truth, but according to my culture I must be loyal to Brother Lee" was not showing the LC being influenced by Chinese culture? Then what was driving Philip Lin, there? What does this story tell us?

And Witness Lee foisting his unspiritual sons upon the church was not fallen human culture? Then what was it? Merely poor character? Then why did a man with poor character get held up as God's oracle, with the ministry of the age? If it's not fallen human culture creating idols in its own image, then what is it?

I tried my best at an explanation that fit the facts at hand. You say it lacks. "No substance". Okay; what, then?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

Again Aron, these are generalizations,

Submissiveness, Collectiveness, Us vs Them

You are also describing the US Democrat Party. Hippie communes, and employers like Facebook, Google.

There really is no substance to these type arguments (Asian, Chinese). These are the worst of arguments because they attack a person's character based on their nationality, race, etc.

I find that disturbing. Disturbing not just because they are blatant arguments of fallacy, but because you keep advancing them so unabashedly.

Drake

Aron's post mentioning Chinese lacking creativity has little basis in fact.

One only has to look at the vast array of menu options in a Chinese restaurant versus a European one.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Aron's post mentioning Chinese lacking creativity has little basis in fact.

One only has to look at the vast array of menu options in a Chinese restaurant versus a European one.

Here is a fact: 41 of 43 high-profile scientific papers withdrawn because of plagiarism were from China. Copying is rampant in China. Watchman Nee's only written book was a uncredited copy of Jessie-Penn Lewis. The subsequent issues acknowledged as much in the publisher's preface to the second issue. The publisher said it was a cultural thing: in China, to copy someone is to show them honor. But according to Drake this doesn't show anything about Chinese culture in the LC. And, Witness Lee plagiarized Alford and Vincent, but this doesn't show anything to Drake, either.

Originally Posted by The Scientist March 2017

In 1999, China was responsible for 3.5 percent of scientific studies published globally, according to the journal-ranking database SCImago. By 2015, that number had leapt to 18 percent. Scientific output has exploded in the country alongside its flourishing economy and technological acceleration, leaving it second only to the U.S. in national research spending.

Growth, however, has not come without growing pains. In the late 1990s, three high-profile cases of plagiarism by Chinese researchers set into motion a national discussion over research integrity that continues today. Chinese academics warned at the time that if the country were to realize its potential as a research powerhouse, its institutions needed to crack down on dishonest research practices—not just plagiarism, but financial conflicts of interest and outright falsification.

Over the next two decades, Chinese government and academic institutions established ethics policies and educated students in how to avoid misconduct. But a string of high-profile retractions in 2015 raised doubts about the success of those efforts. In one widely publicized spate of retractions, BioMed Central pulled 43 papers for falsified peer review; 41 were written by researchers from China.

Scientific misconduct remains a thorn embedded in the side of China’s research enterprise, as a 2015 report from Nature Publishing Group observed. The country’s reputation for misconduct may well be harsher than is fair, given that misconduct is a problem found virtually everywhere. But the authors of the report write that the burden of this reputation “makes the need to tackle misconduct all the more important.”

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Here is a fact: 41 of 43 high-profile scientific papers withdrawn because of plagiarism were from China. Copying is rampant in China. Watchman Nee's only written book was a uncredited copy of Jessie-Penn Lewis. The subsequent issues acknowledged as much in the publisher's preface to the second issue. They said it was a cultural thing: in China, to copy someone is to show them honor. But according to Drake this doesn't show anything about Chinese culture in the LC.

But as Drake says, this doesn't show anything. But your remark about Chinese restaurants shows everything we need to know.

Confucian ideals play a part for sure but copying also occurs in the West too and in Western churches. Plagiarism does not show a lack of creativity or creative potential. Big American corporations do it all the time.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Confucian ideals play a part for sure but copying also occurs in the West too and in Western churches. Plagiarism does not show a lack of creativity or creative potential. Big American corporations do it all the time.

41 of 43 retractions were from China. But that doesn't show us anything, right? Everybody does it. Watchman Nee's 'Spiritual Man' was acknowledged by the publisher to be copying Penn-Lewis without attribution. But everyone does it, right? Even when the publisher himself says in the preface that it's culturally-driven. Doesn't mean anything at all. Right?

Okeay, got it. Thanks. Good to know where you come down on this one. I'm sure everyone was on pins and needles, waiting.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

41 of 43 retractions were from China. But that doesn't show us anything, right? Everybody does it. Watchman Nee's 'Spiritual Man' was acknowledged by the publisher to be copying Penn-Lewis without attribution. But everyone does it, right? Even when the publisher himself says in the preface that it's culturally-driven. Doesn't mean anything at all. Right?

Okeay, got it. Thanks. Good to know where you come down on this one. I'm sure everyone was on pins and needles, waiting.

You've presented one sample point only when we know that the publishing community is much larger than 43 papers.

Anyway did you read the story about the German spies stealing and giving Airbus's blueprints to American intelligence agencies?

One would be naive to think that only Chinese steal other people's work without credit. Every country undertakes industrial espionage.

And what about the German car companies cheating on pollution emissions tests?

And all the things which Europe gained by subversive means from China like gunpowder and porcelain...are Europeans that creative really?