"The Matter of Gaining African-Americans"

[Koinonia]

April 13, 2016

Dear saints,

In fellowship with the co-workers in the Lord’s recovery, we invite the saints in the churches to join us for a conference on the weekend of May 6-8, 2016 in New York City. The burden of the conference is the gospel to all the nations (Matt. 24:14), with a view to gaining African-Americans and those of African descent for the Lord’s testimony. The saints who are African-American or of African descent are especially encouraged to attend and bring their friends, relatives, and colleagues with them to this time. All saints are invited to come, but the saints who are African-American and of African descent are especially needed in order for this burden to be carried out well in contacting, shepherding, and building up the new ones that we meet in the coming days.

The matter of gaining African-Americans has been a burden with a number of saints and co-workers for many years and has led to much prayer and fellowship. In fellowship with the co-workers, we felt the Lord’s leading to take this step of coming together for a conference to fellowship this burden and to labor within
the African and African-American communities. Though it seems that this burden is a matter of race, in fact, it is a matter of ratio. The current number of saints of African descent meeting in the churches in the Lord’s recovery in North America is very low, when compared to the number in the general population. Our burden is
to find a way to contact, labor among, and gain people of African descent both from the college campuses and from the community at large. This labor would include contacting students at those universities which have been historically Black (HBCU’s) or African-American in composition. We pray that the Lord would also gain families from these communities throughout the United States and Canada for His Body.

In the conference in Houston on the Labor Day weekend of September 2015, four matters were initiated: 1) gathering the saints who have a burden in this direction for prayer, coordination, and fellowship, 2) preaching the gospel of the kingdom to the nations, 3) being refreshed in the vision of Christ and the church, and 4) being encouraged in the practice of the God-ordained way. In the upcoming conference in New York, we will continue with these four matters, praying that the Lord would take a further step in gaining this group of people for His move and ultimate goal in this age—the building up of the Body of Christ, consummating in the New Jerusalem.

The conference schedule will be as follows: Friday, May 6, at 7:30 PM and Saturday, May 7 at 10 AM & 7:30 PM at P.S. 369 located at 387 State Street, Brooklyn, NY 11217; Lord’s Day, May 8, at 10 AM at the Jamaica Estates (Queens) hall of the church in New York City located at 87-60 Chevy Chase Street, Jamaica Estates, NY 11432. Detailed information regarding transportation, the availability of hospitality and hotel information will be included in a follow-up letter in a few days. All inquiries regarding this conference can be addressed to churchinnyc@gmail.com.

Please feel free to pass this notice on to any saints who would be burdened with this matter.

In His recovery,

Ricky Acosta, Allen Bayes, Scott Finnie, Clem Rogers, Steve Watts, Willie Wise

[Koinonia]

August 10, 2016

To: The churches in the Lord’s Recovery
Re: Labor Day Conference 2016—Houston, TX


Dear brothers,

We are happy to announce that a Labor Day Conference will be held in Houston, TX on September 2 through September 4, 2016. We would like to invite the brothers and sisters from many places to gather for this time of fellowship. We thank the Lord for His present speaking to the churches, and pray that He will use this conference to build up His Body, prepare His bride, and bring in the kingdom. The subject of the conference is “Four Great Emphases in the Lord’s Recovery for Carrying Out God’s Divine Economy” with a specific focus being to gain African-American and African peoples for the Lord’s testimony. We hope that many of the saints who are African-American or who are of African descent would come together for this fellowship. We also hope that any who are burdened by the Lord for this group of people would join us in the conference.

LOCATION: 6357 Windswept Lane, Houston, TX 77057

SCHEDULE: September 2, 2016
7:30pm, Message 1, Group Session, Corporate Sharing

September 3, 2016
9:00am, Message 2, Group Session, Corporate Sharing
12:00pm, Lunch Provided
5:30pm, Dinner Provided
7:00pm, Message 3, Group Session, Corporate Sharing

September 4, 2016
9:00am, The Lord’s Table
11:00am, Group Presentations and Overflow
12:00pm, Love Feast (conclusion to conference)


REGISTRATION: Registration is required by Monday, August 22, 2016, To register go to www.topstonebooks.com and click the “Register Now!” button at the top. You may also register via Email: register@topstonebooks.com

TRANSLATION: All meetings will be translated into Chinese, Korean, and Spanish. Please bring your own FM radio/headset.

CHILDCARE: Childcare will be provided for grades K through 6th during all meetings. Space will be provided for mothers to care for toddlers and babies.

EMAIL ADDRESSES FOR COMMUNICATIONS OR QUESTIONS:
Carlos Guttierez: carlos@topstonebooks.com
Neal Kader: neal@topstonebooks.com

May the Lord fulfill His word in Matthew 16:18: “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

In His recovery,

Allen Bayes, Scott Finnie, Clem Rogers, Bill Salassi, Steve Watts , Willie Wise

[Koinonia]

Gospel Conference in Atlanta, Georgia

In fellowship with the co-workers in the Lord’s recovery, all the saints are invited to attend a conference in Atlanta, Georgia on the weekend of May 5-7, 2017.

The general subject of the conference is “Living in the Reality of the Kingdom.” The burden of the conference is the gospel to all the nations, with particular attention to those of African descent for the Lord’s testimony of one new man.

Since this is a move of the Body under the direction of the Head, Christ, much prayer is needed by all the saints.

[UntoHim]

The following was a paper written by Nigel Tomes and published on the ConcernedBrothers.Com website in 2006.

BLACK SLAVERY AS ‘THE CURSE OF HAM’—
Bible Truth, Jewish Myth or Racist Apologetic?
“And Noah said ‘Cursed be Canaan! A slave of slaves, a slave to his brothers!
Blessed be God, the God of Shem, but Canaan shall be his slave.
God prosper Japheth…But Canaan shall be his slave’.” (Gen., 9:25-27 Message)

------------------------------

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by NigelTomes

The following was a paper written by Nigel Tomes and published on the ConcernedBrothers.Com website in 2006.

BLACK SLAVERY AS ‘THE CURSE OF HAM’—
Bible Truth, Jewish Myth or Racist Apologetic?
“And Noah said ‘Cursed be Canaan! A slave of slaves, a slave to his brothers!
Blessed be God, the God of Shem, but Canaan shall be his slave.
God prosper Japheth…But Canaan shall be his slave’.” (Gen., 9:25-27 Message)

------------------------------

I remember reading this paper a while back, and I was shocked to discover that WL taught this. What I was even more bothered about was to realize that I had read the LS of Genesis before and never given such talk any kind of thought.

I don't know of statements like these have really have any effect on any demographic ratios in the LC, but they certainly wouldn't help things any. Such statements made by Lee demand a retraction, yet LSM continues to publish it without a second thought.

[Koinonia]

We invite the brothers and sisters in the churches to join us for a conference on the weekend of May 5-7, 2017 in Atlanta, Georgia. The burden of the conference is the gospel to all the nations with a view to gaining African-Americans and those of African descent for the Lord’s testimony.

Matthew 24:14 – And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole inhabited earth for a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.

All saints are invited to come, but the saints in the churches who are of African descent are especially needed to carry out the work of contacting, shepherding, and building up the new ones that we will meet in the coming days. Hence, the saints who are of African descent are specifically encouraged to come and to bring their friends, relatives, and colleagues with them.

The matter of gaining African Americans has been a burden with many saints and co-workers for many years, and it has led to much prayer and fellowship. Beginning in 2013 some brothers began to pray more definitely for this burden. In the spring of 2015 a conference was held in Houston to fellowship this burden and to labor on the gospel for this beloved community of people. A second conference followed in New York City in May 2016 and a third in September of 2016 in Houston. The encouragement of the saints expressed through their testimonies after these gatherings confirmed that this was surely something under the Lord’s blessing.

Because this burden for the gospel is a move of the Body of Christ under the direction of the Head, Christ, all the saints are needed to pray and participate, regardless of ethnicity. Although it may seem that this burden is a matter of race, in fact, it is a matter of the ratio of African Americans currently meeting in the churches in North America (less than 1%) compared to the general population of African Americans in the United States of America (approximately 12.6%).

Our burden is to find a way to contact, labor among, and gain people of African descent both from the college campuses and from the community at large. We pray that the Lord would gain families from these communities throughout the United States and Canada for the expression of His Body, the preparation of the bride of Christ, and the advancement of the kingdom of God.

The general subject of the upcoming conference in Atlanta will be “Living in the Reality of the Kingdom of God” We pray that these messages will be a help to the saints and new believers to enjoy Christ as the reality of the kingdom.

The conference schedule will be as follows: Friday, May 5, at 7:30 PM; Saturday, May 6, at 10:00 AM & 7:30 PM; and Lord’s Day, May 7, at 10 AM. All conference meetings will be held at the meeting hall of the church in Atlanta, located at 2345 Shallowford Road, Atlanta, GA 30345. Detailed information regarding transportation, the availability of hospitality and hotel information will be included in a follow-up letter in a few days. All inquiries regarding this conference can be addressed to: churchinatlanta@gmail.com.

Please feel free to pass this notice on to any saints who would be burdened with this matter.

In His recovery,
Ricky Acosta, Allen Bayes, Scott Finnie, Clem Rogers, Steve Watts, Willie Wise


***For further general info and email subscription, click here.
***For Conference registration, hospitality request, maps, transportation info, and schedule, click here.

[Koinonia]

June 15, 2017

Dear saints,

In fellowship with the co-workers in the Lord’s recovery, we warmly invite all the saints in the churches to join us for a conference in Houston, Texas on the weekend of September 1-3, 2017. The burden of the conference is the gospel to all the nations (Matt. 24:14), with a view of reaching African Americans, as well as others of African descent, for the Lord’s testimony. All saints are invited to come, but the saints in the churches who are of African descent are especially needed to carry out the work of contacting, shepherding, and building up the new ones that we will meet in the coming days. Hence, the saints who are of African descent are specifically encouraged to come bringing their friends, relatives, and colleagues with them.

The matter of reaching African Americans has been a burden with many saints and co-workers in the Lord’s recovery for a number of years, and it has led to much prayer and fellowship among the churches. Beginning in 2013 some brothers began to pray more definitely for this burden and in the spring of 2015 a conference was held in Houston to fellowship this burden and to labor on the gospel for this beloved community of people. A second conference followed in New York City in May 2016 and a third in September of 2016 in Houston. In May of this year, the fourth conference was held in Atlanta, GA. More than 200 saints of African descent attended the conference along with 300 saints of other ethnicities providing a real taste of the one unique Body of Christ and the one new man. Sixty-six came to their first meeting on that weekend and a number of these live in and around the city of Atlanta. The encouragement of the saints expressed through their testimonies after these gatherings confirmed that this was surely something under the Lord’s blessing.

Because this burden for the gospel is a move of the Body of Christ under the direction of Christ the Head, all the saints are needed to pray and participate, regardless of ethnicity. Although it may seem that this burden is a matter of race, in fact, it is a matter of the ratio of African Americans currently meeting in the churches in North America (less than 1%) compared to the general population of African Americans in the United States of America (approximately 12.6%).

Our burden is to find a way to reach, contact, and reap a number of people of African descent both from the college campuses and from the community at large. We pray that the Lord would reap some families from these communities throughout the United States and Canada for the expression of His Body, the preparation of the bride of Christ, and the advancement of the kingdom of God.

The conference schedule will be as follows: Friday, September 1, at 7:30 PM; Saturday, September 2, at 10:00 AM & 7:30 PM; and Lord’s Day, September 3, at 9:30 AM. All conference meetings will be held at the meeting hall of the church in Houston, located at 6359 Windswept Lane, Houston, Texas 77057.Detailed information regarding transportation, the availability of hospitality, and hotel information will be included in a follow-up letter in a few days. All inquiries regarding this conference can be addressed to: churchinhouston@gmail.com

Please feel free to pass this notice on to any saints who would be burdened with this matter. We regret that this notice is late, but we hope that it could be passed on in a timely way so that the saints who attend could make the appropriate arrangements for travel and accommodations.

In His recovery,

Ricky Acosta, Allen Bayes, Scott Finnie
Clem Rogers, Steve Watts, Willie Wise

[ylhoff]

Wow. Just wow. Are there still only 25 black people in the LC and someone finally noticed? Did diversity and inclusion suddenly become part of the program? So tempted to show up and disrupt ... Life as a minority in the LC was always hell. They need to stay the heck away from this group. Or maybe they are running out of people to torture? Besides, if black people are recruited, they won't get to wear the amazing Sunday hats. The word REAP reminds me of mind rape. Now I'm mad.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by ylhoff

Wow. Just wow. Are there still only 25 black people in the LC and someone finally noticed? Did diversity and inclusion suddenly become part of the program? So tempted to show up and disrupt ... Life as a minority in the LC was always hell. They need to stay the heck away from this group. Or maybe they are running out of people to torture? Besides, if black people are recruited, they won't get to wear the amazing Sunday hats. The word REAP reminds me of mind rape. Now I'm mad.

It's interesting to me that this thread rarely gets any comments because this whole concept is quite remarkable. For one thing, it shows a blatant desperation on the part of LC leaders to publicize this campaign in the way that they are. Secondly, this kind of focus on race--on paper, at least--would never have been acceptable in earlier days. A specific work to outreach to African-Americans? If the LCs were actually "general" or "inclusive," this would never be an issue.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

It's interesting to me that this thread rarely gets any comments ...

I knew Clem Rogers, one of the first brothers I met, went to his wedding, fantastic experience of Christ. I also know Ricky Acosta and applaud his concern for the gospel. I didn't comment because what is wrong with Christians being concerned with the spread of the gospel?

Paul was given the gospel to the uncircumcision, Peter to the circumcision. Maybe Clem and Ricky have been given the gospel to the African Americans.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I knew Clem Rogers, one of the first brothers I met, went to his wedding, fantastic experience of Christ. I also know Ricky Acosta and applaud his concern for the gospel. I didn't comment because what is wrong with Christians being concerned with the spread of the gospel?

Paul was given the gospel to the uncircumcision, Peter to the circumcision. Maybe Clem and Ricky have been given the gospel to the African Americans.

I agree with this. However, the fact is that Witness Lee specifically and explicitly taught against carrying out a Christian work with any kind of racial emphasis. This is hypocrisy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

I agree with this. However, the fact is that Witness Lee specifically and explicitly taught against carrying out a Christian work with any kind of racial emphasis. This is hypocrisy.

Lee taught that?

What about his instruction to every LC back in the early 80's to carry out a work to Chinese immigrants?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee taught that?

What about his instruction to every LC back in the early 80's to carry out a work to Chinese immigrants?

That was a turning point. When he made that change, he recounted how he had resisted brothers' attempts at convincing him to begin a Chinese work (for many years) until he finally realized that they were losing too many Chinese immigrants to "the denominations."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

I agree with this. However, the fact is that Witness Lee specifically and explicitly taught against carrying out a Christian work with any kind of racial emphasis. This is hypocrisy.

Clem, Ricky, and Paul never taught that. Hypocrisy by who?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Clem, Ricky, and Paul never taught that. Hypocrisy by who?

Witness Lee taught it. So, it is hypocrisy for LC leaders to practice it now as a matter of convenience.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by NigelTomes

The following was a paper written by Nigel Tomes and published on the ConcernedBrothers.Com website in 2006.

BLACK SLAVERY AS ‘THE CURSE OF HAM’—
Bible Truth, Jewish Myth or Racist Apologetic?
“And Noah said ‘Cursed be Canaan! A slave of slaves, a slave to his brothers!
Blessed be God, the God of Shem, but Canaan shall be his slave.
God prosper Japheth…But Canaan shall be his slave’.” (Gen., 9:25-27 Message)

------------------------------

Nigel Tomes' article here on Black Slavery was so "hot" when it came out, that even the Concerned Brothers in the GLA didn't want to be associated with it.

Remember that simple paradigm that they had been operating under for many years under Titus Chu's leadership -- "Witness Lee good, Blended Brothers bad."

They were not ready to accept any part of "Witness Lee bad." So the Concerned Brothers website added a remote section, like our Alt-Views forum for these controversial writings.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nigel Tomes' article here on Black Slavery was so "hot" when it came out, that even the Concerned Brothers in the GLA didn't want to be associated with it.

Remember that simple paradigm that they had been operating under for many years under Titus Chu's leadership -- "Witness Lee good, Blended Brothers bad."

They were not ready to accept any part of "Witness Lee bad." So the Concerned Brothers website added a remote section, like our Alt-Views forum for these controversial writings.

Witness Lee was an idiot just like one of my Baptist cousins here in Kentucky, who said at a family gathering that America was being cursed by God because it is not following God's law concerning the curse on Ham that, blacks should be slaves.

And in the narrative, God does not curse Canaan. Only Noah does it. Which means nothing really ... except to the Jews against the Canaanites.

The most likely explanation of the curse on Canaan is that it was written by Jews to justify the Hebrews taking the land from the Canaanites.

Witness Lee was obviously a racist ... just like my cousin, that doesn't even try to hide his racism.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Witness Lee taught it. So, it is hypocrisy for LC leaders to practice it now as a matter of convenience.

Did Witness Lee also teach that you should be led by the Spirit?

Did Witness Lee also teach that you should repent of dead works?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Did Witness Lee also teach that you should be led by the Spirit?

Did Witness Lee also teach that you should repent of dead works?

Yes? And did he give his followers that liberty?

[Koinonia]

Also, ZNPanneah, this effort, as shown in all of these letters, is not about the gospel. It's about trying to get black people to join the LC.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Also, ZNPanneah, this effort, as shown in all of these letters, is not about the gospel. It's about trying to get black people to join the LC.

You sound incredibly judgmental.

11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.

12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You sound incredibly judgmental.

11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.

12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

It is what it is.

[UntoHim]

ZNP, please refrain from bating, being overly argumentative or ad hominens. Address the issues at hand and not the poster or his supposed motives. Everyone is just a poster on the open forum and is not being set up as some judge. In short...lighten up a bit bro.
-

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ylhoff

Wow. Just wow. Are there still only 25 black people in the LC and someone finally noticed? Did diversity and inclusion suddenly become part of the program? So tempted to show up and disrupt ... Life as a minority in the LC was always hell. They need to stay the heck away from this group. Or maybe they are running out of people to torture? Besides, if black people are recruited, they won't get to wear the amazing Sunday hats. The word REAP reminds me of mind rape. Now I'm mad.

Localities I met in over the years was sparse with African/African-American. Topic is probably one many people have thought about, but never expressed.
"Life as a minority in the LC was always hell." I would like to be enlightened by ylhoff's quote because I don't know. I had my own version of hell in the LC's which usually began with double-standards which is why any form of double-standards I have an emotional reaction towards whether it's social, political, or idealogical.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Also, ZNPanneah, this effort, as shown in all of these letters, is not about the gospel. It's about trying to get black people to join the LC.

Koinonia,

At best this is a terrible misunderstanding.

First, it is a desire to reflect the local demographics in the local churches. The membership in the USA should not be mostly Chinese just because Brother Lee and Brother Nee were from China. So a concerted effort to break that propensity is a noble thing. No one is suggesting to add unsaved people to the churches to increase the demographic mix.

Second, some localities already have a racial mix that largely reflects the local society. In London as an example, there are some districts that have far more than 25 in that district alone from the black race but overall the membership for all districts combined appears to reflect that of London. Of course, the churches in Africa would also.

Drake

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,

At best this is a terrible misunderstanding.

First, it is a desire to reflect the local demographics in the local churches. The membership in the USA should not be mostly Chinese just because Brother Lee and Brother Nee were from China. So a concerted effort to break that propensity is a noble thing. No one is suggesting to add unsaved people to the churches to increase the demographic mix.

Second, some localities already have a racial mix that largely reflects the local society. In London as an example, there are some districts that have far more than 25 in that district alone from the black race but overall the membership for all districts combined appears to reflect that of London. Of course, the churches in Africa would also.

Drake

Drake, I would agree with you on your post. I don't know about other countries, but from my experiences primarily on the west coast demographics has changed significantly since the mid-80's. Lack of a fair African-American representation was always present.
Something not many would be willing to concede is the cultural aspect. The local church culture is more attractive to Asians and Hispanics than it may be to African-Americans and Caucasians. It is represented as such in local church demographics. Honestly, before the demographics can change, the culture would need to change.

[aron]

Back in the early '90s Paul Hon used to get the college students to go after 'typical Americans', i.e. Caucasians, especially the males. A white male Caucasian was the high prize of the calling in Christ Jesus. Land a white Caucasian male in your LC boat and you were really something.

This was the same trainer who told us, "don't waste your time" with the poor, the old, the sick. Those who couldn't repay us in this age. Go after the 'good building material' - white college students, especially the males.

The nice thing about Paul Hon and Ray Graver and Benson Philips: nomumbo-jumbo. They always told us like it was. Witness Lee would speak the spiritual stuff from the podium, and that would get printed. Then the LC overlords would tell us what it really meant, if you were still a bit dull and couldn't read between the lines.

So I always appreciated that. And I always remember it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Back in the early '90s Paul Hon used to get the college students to go after 'typical Americans', i.e. Caucasians, especially the males. A white male Caucasian was the high prize of the calling in Christ Jesus. Land a white Caucasian male in your LC boat and you were really something.

This was the same trainer who told us, "don't waste your time" with the poor, the old, the sick. Those who couldn't repay us in this age. Go after the 'good building material' - white college students, especially the males.

The nice thing about Paul Hon and Ray Graver and Benson Philips: nomumbo-jumbo. They always told us like it was. Witness Lee would speak the spiritual stuff from the podium, and that would get printed. Then the LC overlords would tell us what it really meant, if you were still a bit dull and couldn't read between the lines.

So I always appreciated that. And I always remember it.

Like I always said, there were two ministries and two Lee's in TLR.

One we heard live and in color, the other one we had to buy and read in a book.

I'm serious here. The entire GLA quarantine a decade ago was a battle over "who is the real Witness Lee." We had reams and reams of quotes from his own books to prove that we were following Lee exactly according to his messages. The Blindeds in Anaheim, however, had a Lee who was live and in color. Their Lee was unedited, unpolished, and unprinted.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,

At best this is a terrible misunderstanding.

First, it is a desire to reflect the local demographics in the local churches. The membership in the USA should not be mostly Chinese just because Brother Lee and Brother Nee were from China. So a concerted effort to break that propensity is a noble thing. No one is suggesting to add unsaved people to the churches to increase the demographic mix.

Second, some localities already have a racial mix that largely reflects the local society. In London as an example, there are some districts that have far more than 25 in that district alone from the black race but overall the membership for all districts combined appears to reflect that of London. Of course, the churches in Africa would also.

Drake

Drake, the reason the LC is primarily Chinese is precisely because it is cultural, not "local."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, the reason the LC is primarily Chinese is precisely because it is cultural, not "local."

What's exactly local about any denomination that bears the name of another country?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What's exactly local about any denomination that bears the name of another country?

What international denomination besides the LC claims to be exactly local? It's the "bait and switch" here: the LC claim to be exactly local, then when you sign on, they say you have to see the Body. And then all these 'exactly local' churches are told to be exactly identical with the Big Boss in HQ. The exactly local churches turn out to be nothing local. A McDonald's franchise is probably more genuinely local. According to Witness Lee, the "Local Churches" are "absolutely identical" to one another, and "not having any individual distinctiveness." 1:20(1) RecV

No living stones, here. Rather, identical bricks. No distinctiveness. No eye, hand, or foot. Everyone's distinctiveness dissolved in the grey, faceless proletariat. Someone told of the obvious satisfaction on Witness Lee's face when he saw the masses in training in Taipei for the "New Move". Everyone looked identical. He was probably so fulfilled at that moment. Everyone facing him with their identical training uniforms on.

What's exactly local about that?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What's exactly local about any denomination that bears the name of another country?

Did someone say that?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, the reason the LC is primarily Chinese is precisely because it is cultural, not "local."

Is it primarily? What is your reference?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Did someone say that?

Well if a church which stands for locality is somehow cultural for being predominantly Chinese.

Then what do we call a group of white Americans meeting in a church which calls itself Eastern ....Orthodox (for example), or Roman. How come they are local when their culture is from another place?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well if a church which stands for locality is somehow cultural for being predominantly Chinese.

Then what do we call a group of white Americans meeting in a church which calls itself Eastern ....Orthodox (for example), or Roman. How come they are local when their culture is from another place?

Evangelical, I have never said any of this; so, I'm not sure what you are trying to argue.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Is it primarily? What is your reference?

30+ years of (recent) personal experience all over North America--which includes repeated exposure to LC leaders' own concerns over the "racial ratio" (Minoru Chen).

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

30+ years of (recent) personal experience all over North America--which includes repeated exposure to LC leaders' own concerns over the "racial ratio" (Minoru Chen).

So yours is a USA viewpoint. My USA viewpoint has been coast to coast and in the middle and if you had said those of Chinese descent were disproportionately higher than the demographics of the country I might have agreed. But I do not think Chinese folk represent the majority in the churches in the USA.

Maybe I am wrong but I would like to read the exact quote from Minoru to understand it. Where may I find it?

Drake

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

So yours is a USA viewpoint.

So? The LC is almost certainly majority Asian in a number of other Western countries too, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and some places in Europe (like France).

My USA viewpoint has been coast to coast and in the middle and if you had said those of Chinese descent were disproportionately higher than the demographics of the country I might have agreed. But I do not think Chinese folk represent the majority in the churches in the USA.

I disagree. In most the LC's largest population centers in the USA--Southern California, Northern California, Pacific Northwest, New York/New Jersey--it is certainly majority Asian (in many places, even vastly so), and the demographics are rapidly tilting in other places like Texas where you now have whole churches, like Plano and Richardson, that are almost entirely Asian only.

And for a look at "the next generation of the Lord's recovery," visit any YP conference or FTTA graduation (or any of the "seven feasts"), and the issue will become clear. I just looked at pictures of my FTTA graduating class from a decade ago, and the number is about 70% Asian (which includes me).

Maybe I am wrong but I would like to read the exact quote from Minoru to understand it. Where may I find it?

Drake

I don't know that this has ever been printed. Minoru Chen likes to talk a lot about this, though. And entire sections of the FTTA's "God-Ordained Way" class has been dedicated to the need to gain "typical Americans" for a very long time.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

I don't know that this has ever been printed. Minoru Chen likes to talk a lot about this, though. And entire sections of the FTTA's "God-Ordained Way" class has been dedicated to the need to gain "typical Americans" for a very long time.

Interesting to note that the quarantined GLA had one of the highest ratios of "typical Americans."

LSM just increased the Asian ratio by reducing the size of the denominator. So they shoot themselves in the foot and then decides to hold classes on "gun safety."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

the reason the LC is primarily Chinese is precisely because it is cultural, not "local."

I'll give an example of Chinese culture in the LC.

In Acts 15 there was a pressing issue, and the disciples gathered and talked. Eventually they got clear what was God's will for the situation... here's a relevant quote, from vv 6 & 7: "So the apostles and elders met to look into this matter. After much discussion, Peter got up and said to them,"

My question is, where in the LC do you see meetings with "much discussion"? The answer is, No-where. The LC/Chinese culture is not comfortable with much discussion; rather it's the Big Boss speaks and that's it. Discussion equals instability, so rule is by fiat and not by group consensus. Even when he's wrong, Big Boss (aka "Deputy God") is right. Social harmony depends on it. Chairman Mao remains untouchable in the PRC, even 40 years after his death. This is a [Chinese] culturally-driven imperative, not a [Communist] political one.

So when the LCs read the Bible, and see parts that don't fit their cultural model, they just read past it, ignoring it as though it weren't there. Probably most of us do this to some extent: the issue here is that this group thinks that they don't have any cultural blinders on, and everyone else is "darkened, deformed" etc and they alone have the "normal" church. But it's only normal to a certain cultural mind-set: theirs.

And they don't get it. And they don't get that just Asians, predominantly, are comfortable in this culture. And they wonder why their churches are 70% or 80% Asian, when the surrounding community is maybe 5% or 10% Asian. That's because LC culture drives away everyone but the Asians.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I'll give an example of Chinese culture in the LC....

Great points here.

But I should mention that the GLA did attempt an Acts 15 Discussion on numerous occasions. Five years after Lee's death, and 5 years before the Quarantines, top level representatives from both Anaheim and Cleveland did meet together and hash out what came to be known as the "Pnoenix Accord."

Unfortunately, it was only short lived.

[Drake]

Aron)"My question is, where in the LC do you see meetings with "much discussion"? The answer is, No-where"

I hate to disappoint you. This "much discussion" happens so often in a local church, between the local churches, and between the churches and the ministry that I am surprised your objection isn't more along the lines of "too much discussion".

You'll need to find some other material to shore up your "Chinese culture" argument.

Drake

[UntoHim]

The culture, atmosphere and overall dynamic of most movements of men, even Christian movements, generally follow that which was initiated and promoted by the founder(s). So it should be no surprise that a movement/sect/denomination founded and promoted by two Chinese men should largely reflect the native culture of these founders - Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. In this respect the Local Churches of Lee are no different than many Christian movements with a strong founder/leader. Of course not all movements with strong founders/leaders develop into what is commonly called "a personality cult" or "cult of personality". I say this not to relitigate the LC's status as a cult here on this thread, but rather just to point out that the native culture of a movement's founder has great potential to unduly influence the culture and dynamic of the movement itself.

Even the Local Church's walking, talking Amicus Brief, Hank Hanegraaff, makes no bones about calling the Local Church "a Chinese Christian movement" (or similar term). Of course you never heard Andrew Yu or Chris Wilde correct "The Bible Answer Man" on this conceptual faux pas....and we all know why, now don't we.

When all the dust settles, after we sort through all the Local Church mumbo-jumbo word games, we all know full well that their interest in "gaining African-Americans" is the very same interest that they have in gaining any person of any race, creed or color....they want more followers of the person and work of Witness Lee. They actually don't really try to hide this fact very much anymore. (I think this is to their credit)
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron)"My question is, where in the LC do you see meetings with "much discussion"? The answer is, No-where"
I hate to disappoint you. This "much discussion" happens so often in a local church, between the local churches, and between the churches and the ministry that I am surprised your objection isn't more along the lines of "too much discussion".
You'll need to find some other material to shore up your "Chinese culture" argument.

And LSM labeled all of this "discussion" a global rebellion, a conspiracy to overthrow the ministry.

[aron]

Drake, there's ample testimony on this forum & elsewhere that nobody could talk to Lee. They tried, in the wake of the New Way, and he complained they were "pouring ice water" on him. He expected Yes Men & no commentary.

So I categorically refute your statement.

However Ohio has corrected me. Once there was an attempt at discussion among peers, and it failed. TC wouldn't kowtow to BP & that was it. The Phoenix Accord, so-called, simply didn't match Oriental cultural expectations & it failed.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron)"My question is, where in the LC do you see meetings with "much discussion"? The answer is, No-where"

I hate to disappoint you. This "much discussion" happens so often in a local church, between the local churches, and between the churches and the ministry that I am surprised your objection isn't more along the lines of "too much discussion".

You'll need to find some other material to shore up your "Chinese culture" argument.

Drake

Have you ever taken time to read the writings of Steve Isitt. There was one in particular titled Hear The Cases. A brother wanted to have discussion, fellowship etc regarding an elder in his locality. They listened, but there was no discussion towards a resolution or a reconciliation.
Depending on an elder or co-worker, there may be discussion regarding an issue to a point, but not to the point of contradicting the blended co-workers. They won't go there.
If there's discussion, it's superficial in nature. Otherwise any discussion suggesting mistakes were made or critical of LSM leadership decisions, most do not want to get started in such talk and prefer to keep everything positive.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

The Phoenix Accord, so-called, simply didn't match Oriental cultural expectations & it failed.

At the time it appeared to be a resolution, but was reneged upon before the year was up.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Drake, there's ample testimony on this forum & elsewhere that nobody could talk to Lee. They tried, in the wake of the New Way, and he complained they were "pouring ice water" on him. He expected Yes Men & no commentary.

So I categorically refute your statement.

However Ohio has corrected me. Once there was an attempt at discussion among peers, and it failed. TC wouldn't kowtow to BP & that was it. The Phoenix Accord, so-called, simply didn't match Oriental cultural expectations & it failed.

aron,

You may categorically do whatever pleases you..... your Chinese culture "is not comfortable with much discussion" argument has no merit because I have sat in hours, days, weeks, and probably months worth of discussions about many things including with many of those of Chinese heritage.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Terry

Have you ever taken time to read the writings of Steve Isitt. There was one in particular titled Hear The Cases. A brother wanted to have discussion, fellowship etc regarding an elder in his locality. They listened, but there was no discussion towards a resolution or a reconciliation.
Depending on an elder or co-worker, there may be discussion regarding an issue to a point, but not to the point of contradicting the blended co-workers. They won't go there.
If there's discussion, it's superficial in nature. Otherwise any discussion suggesting mistakes were made or critical of LSM leadership decisions, most do not want to get started in such talk and prefer to keep everything positive.

Terry,

My experience is that resolution of things that are discussed or brought up in fellowship progress similar in fashion to that of a crab. Twenty feet to the left and twenty feet back to the right and the forward progress is about two feet. Said differently, one hour to the left, one hour to the right, and we agree on the topic for the next conference.

That is another reason why I categorically refute the explanation that its a "chinese" thing. There is an abundance of discussion, some might argue too much, and I think it might create perceptions as you have mentioned.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Drake, there's ample testimony on this forum & elsewhere that nobody could talk to Lee. They tried, in the wake of the New Way, and he complained they were "pouring ice water" on him. He expected Yes Men & no commentary.

So I categorically refute your statement.

However Ohio has corrected me. Once there was an attempt at discussion among peers, and it failed. TC wouldn't kowtow to BP & that was it. The Phoenix Accord, so-called, simply didn't match Oriental cultural expectations & it failed.

aron, you are right that TC never had such a discussion with WL. In fact, his comment, "WL is my spiritual father, and his mistakes are none of my business," is very Chinese.

When do some of these so-called WL "mistakes" cross the line into abuse, unrighteousness, and even criminal activity?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

aron,

You may categorically do whatever pleases you..... your Chinese culture "is not comfortable with much discussion" argument has no merit because I have sat in hours, days, weeks, and probably months worth of discussions about many things including with many of those of Chinese heritage.

Drake

Drake, of course, so did many of us. I worked and served along side Chinese brothers for years. That's not the point, and you know it. This is the kind of equivocation and double-talk which LSMers have mastered over the years.

We are talking here about legitimate concerns brought up by mature men of God concerning LSM leadership over many decades. The kind of "discussions" you too refuse to discuss.

[Koinonia]

Drake, the issue is what exactly you consider "discussion." There may be a lot of talk, but I have to agree with others that there really is no opportunity for disagreement with Witness Lee, Living Stream Ministry, the blended brothers, etc., etc.

In my experience, LC members rarely even view disagreement as legitimate. So, yes, there may be a lot of back-and-forth about different services, or how to take care of the young people, or which ministry book to read on Friday nights, etc. But cross a line to "discuss" something of substance related to anything deemed in any way controversial, and you will likely be branded "negative" or "opinionated" and be likened to "opposers" or "rebellious ones," etc. You may also be told that opinions are the embodiment of Satan (so don't express an opinion about anything) and that the serpent comes in the form of a question mark (so don't ask questions). Such an atmosphere is not conducive to real discussion.

[aron]

There is no mutuality in the LC. "Know who is in front of you and get in line". That was Watchman Nee's teaching and I never saw deviation from that. I was continually warned of such deviation, however, as tantamount to "independence" and "rebellion".

All individual personality must be subsumed by the Hive, else you are not "buildable"; no opinion or expression of self. Christ is everything. . . and what is Christ - to love one's neighbour? No, Christ is to be 'one' with HQ. In the LC they call it "practical oneness".

[aron]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

. . . the issue is what exactly you consider "discussion." There may be a lot of talk, but I have to agree with others that there really is no opportunity for disagreement with Witness Lee. . .

Anyone who's been there knows that words have different meanings in the LC. There's the Webster's meaning, or the OED, or some biblical lexicon, and then there's the meaning that it takes operationally in the LC. And if you don't get the "real" meaning, eventually a programme enforcer will set you straight, and dispense with the spiritual niceties. Words like "fellowship" and "coordination" only go so far. Eventually you will learn what is what.

When Witness Lee covered the Psalms, he told us that since David was violent, and expressed violent sentiments, wishing harm for his enemies, then the Psalms were perforce fallen human concepts, natural and so forth. Not from Christ, unto Christ, or to Christ's glory. Not the New Testament gospel of enjoyment of God's grace.

Okay, but why did David throw a stone at Goliath? Was he really supposed to turn the other cheek? Why did Abraham slaughter the kings in Genesis 14? Was he supposed to say, "Oh, Chederloamer, you got Lot, now here are my other cousins as well"? Would this be a picture of the coming Messiah, and foreshadow His teachings? Or Samuel and Agag - was Samuel supposed to forgive Agag?

And for that matter, why did Paul say, "we fight" against principalities and powers in Ephesians 6? Why the martial spirit, Paul? Didn't you hear about the gospel of peace, and grace? And, why did unclean spirits cry out with fear and ask Jesus if He was going to destroy them before their time?

All these questions may come to mind when hearing Witness Lee's exegetical treatment of Psalms. One person who was there told me he and a neighbour lowered their heads, looked askance at each other, and made faces as Lee made hash out of the scriptural text. But not one person said one word! Hundreds sitting there passively, and at the end of the sermon only "cheerleader" testimonies were allowed. Don't want to be "critical", or "negative", else you're marked in the LC.. . and then put out of their synagogue.

In such environment, where's latitude for discussion, as the word is used in "real" life? No-where. Only, "I enjoyed this point" and "I enjoyed that point". No actual examination to see if these things are so. You know, if you examine whether these things are so, there is always the possiblity that these things are not so (cf Acts 17:11). No possiblity to examine in thusly the LC.

Or, Witness Lee somehow made thousands of pages of biblical exposition in front of tens of thousands of people over a span of decades and never once made a single exegetical error? Pretty impressive, if so. But probably the truth is that none in the LC can be permitted to find the littlest thing wrong with his teachings, because once you pull on that tiny thread, the whole thing will collapse. The whole house is built on sand: "Witness Lee is always right".

But in the Asian mind, stability matters more than truth. So don't be negative. Don't say anything critical. In China today, if you criticise the Chairman, 40 years after his death, you will potentially cause the whole society to collapse. So criticism isn't allowed. And that isn't a bad thing, really. . . it's arguably a successful model. China has continued its Communist regime after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Albania, Czechoslovakia and many others. Social stability is proof that the cultural model works. But stability isn't necessarily biblical, or living, or real, and the "frozen few" in the LC are proof of that.

[Drake]

Aron)"But in the Asian mind, stability matters more than truth. So don't be negative. Don't say anything critical. In China today, if you criticise the Chairman, 40 years after his death, you will potentially cause the whole society to collapse. So criticism isn't allowed. And that isn't a bad thing, really. . . it's arguably a successful model. China has continued its Communist regime after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Albania, Czechoslovakia and many others. Social stability is proof that the cultural model works. But stability isn't necessarily biblical, or living, or real, and the "frozen few" in the LC are proof of that."

This is so over the top I don't know where to begin! Asian minds, Mao, Commies? What a tangled web you weave . Is that your compelling argument, Aron?

Let's weave a tale like yours but change the names and see if it still works for you:

Tale begins.....

Your post reflects German thinking, the kind of thinking that got that whole nation in hot water not so long ago. Although laws were passed in Germany post WWII to rid the nation of the doctrines of that mean little Bavarian, he still pops up as was evident in your post. His way of presenting truth is laid out out this way,

"Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side." (Mein Kampf, A.Hitler)

You may not even realize how that cultural-political way of thinking affected you and the way you present the truth. Yet the similarities are downright obvious to an objective viewer. This forum is your Hofbrauhaus, and an attentive "frozen few", stuck in the past, hanging on your ever "cultural" rantings and ravings is proof of that.

.... Tale ends.

Aron, is that compelling? Have you nothing more substantive to present? Anyone can do what you did. Why these wild meanderings about Asian thinking, mao, and commies? You obviously are intelligent and thoughtful so why not make compelling arguments instead?

Drake

[Drake]

Koinonia)"Drake, the issue is what exactly you consider "discussion." There may be a lot of talk, but I have to agree with others that there really is no opportunity for disagreement with Witness Lee, Living Stream Ministry, the blended brothers, etc., etc. "

Koinonia,

Apparently, many have disagreed with Witness Lee, objected to LSM, the blended brothers, etc. They whispered it, spoke it, shouted it, pulled the ministry books off the shelf, took their criticisms to the web, opened forums to discuss those objections, met with Brother Lee, met with each other, left, met separately, started their own ministry, wrote books, wrote defamatory books, accused them of being a cult, .....

There is plenty of opportunity for disagreement!

Rather, I think you mean to say that those who have disagreements do not last long in the company. Sometimes they leave of their own volition and sometimes they are facilitated out the door. Fair enough. Yet, there is plenty of opportunity to disagree. We're here aren't we?

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron, is that compelling? Have you nothing more substantive to present?

Well, they're compelling to me. "Don't criticize the Maximum Leader". Sound familiar? Coincidence? I don't think so. You obviously do.

A few years ago I was on a message board with some Local Churchers. I acknowledged a few good things that Lee had put forth. Then I pointed out a few things of his teachings that were clunkers. They said that I was speaking out of both sides of my mouth, alternately praising and slandering Witness Lee. I said, "Don't you have a magazine called "Affimation and Critique"? Why can you both Affirm and Critique the ideas you see in "Christianity", and I can't also both Affirm and Critique the teachings of Witness Lee?

They said, "No, Witness Lee is special. You can only Affirm him. No Critique allowed, there."

Oh. Thanks. Glad you made that clear.

No, actually they started to impugn me, that I was dark in my heart, that I had ambition to be something in the Local Church and when my ambitions were thwarted I became a well of bitterness. And so forth.

Oh. Thanks. I got a little psychoanalysis from them for free, just from putting Lee's teachings to the same scrutiny that he put others on. So to conclude - yes, it may just be coincidental that Nee's "Normal Church" model only appeals to the Chinese. Nevermind, then. . . just a coincidence.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yet, there is plenty of opportunity to disagree. We're here aren't we?

Drake

And notice where we are, here? Not in a meeting of the Local Church, but "in the world", where people have opinions, and voice them? Welcome aboard, Drake. Nice to have you join us.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

This is so over the top I don't know where to begin! Asian minds, Mao, Commies? What a tangled web you weave . Is that your compelling argument, Aron?

Not really, Drake.

Perhaps you missed a LC era called the NEW WAY. All sorts of slogans sourced in China hit the FTTT. Why do you think so many men of God Stateside were concerned? Have you ever read John Ingalls account of events? Have you ever considered why men of God would be appalled at FTTT sayings such as these:

1) “There is no need to pray about what to do; just follow the ministry.”
2) We don’t even need to think; we just do what we are told.”
3) “Follow Witness Lee blindly. Even if he’s wrong, he’s right.”
4) “If you leave the training, you’ll miss the kingdom.”
5) Our burden is to pick up Brother Lee’s teaching and way to make us all Witness Lees, like a Witness Lee duplication center.”
6) “To be one with the ministry is to be one with Brother Lee, the office, and Philip Lee.”
7) Since Christianity is in ruins, the Lord raised up the recovery; since the recovery is in ruins, the Lord raised up the FTTT.

An account of Brother Lee’s position was given by one of the leading trainers of the FTTT to a group of brothers in Dallas, Texas, in the summer of 1986, in the context of how to be one with the ministry. There are witnesses to confirm it. It goes as follows:

“The Father is number one, the Son is number two, the Spirit is number three, and Witness Lee is number four; and then there are those who are with Witness Lee.” A brother asked, “And who is number five”? The trainer replied, “It is not yet quite clear who number five is”, but pointing out “You brothers do not have access to brother Lee. I and another trainer do.

Are you trying to tell us that God had a bigger role in Philip Lee's life than Chinese culture rooted in Communism? By all accounts your former boss was an unbelieving, incorrigible tyrant.

But that's a discussion you refuse to go near.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

And notice where we are, here? Not in a meeting of the Local Church, but "in the world", where people have opinions, and voice them? Welcome aboard, Drake. Nice to have you join us.

Yes, of course, Aron ! Why "in the world" would you think a meeting of the local church is the best place to voice disagreements? That would be that opposite of the Apostle Paul's charge that there be no disagreements, to be of one mind, and one opinion.

Actually, I cannot think of a single Christian group that allows open dissent and disagreement in their meetings. What a chaotic mess that would be! Oh wait, that was already tried and failed in Anaheim when that series of open discussion meetings was allowed to spin out of control. Is that what you mean? If you prefer that kind of meeting why not start one yourself and let us know how you get on with all that dissent. Rather, our speaking in the meetings should not give uncertain sounds. 1Cor 14:6-9

Create your own A&C. What prevents you? Or you could just call it C if more appropriate. But, that is what this forum is about so you have your platform already. Just the A is missing but that doesn't really matter here. So you're good to go.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Create your own A&C. What prevents you? Or you could just call it C if more appropriate. But, that is what this forum is about so you have your platform already. Just the A is missing but that doesn't really matter here. So you're good to go.

Drake

Has LSM's A&C ever "confirmed" any work besides Hank Hankygraft's work "We Were Wrong?"

Years ago I remember reading a review of Dr. Philip Comfort's book on the Gospel of John. It is a great read, and should have been something A&C went out of their way to Affirm.

Instead they all but accused him of plagiarism, without citing any specifics.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia)"Drake, the issue is what exactly you consider "discussion." There may be a lot of talk, but I have to agree with others that there really is no opportunity for disagreement with Witness Lee, Living Stream Ministry, the blended brothers, etc., etc. "

Koinonia,

Apparently, many have disagreed with Witness Lee, objected to LSM, the blended brothers, etc. They whispered it, spoke it, shouted it, pulled the ministry books off the shelf, took their criticisms to the web, opened forums to discuss those objections, met with Brother Lee, met with each other, left, met separately, started their own ministry, wrote books, wrote defamatory books, accused them of being a cult, .....

There is plenty of opportunity for disagreement!

Rather, I think you mean to say that those who have disagreements do not last long in the company. Sometimes they leave of their own volition and sometimes they are facilitated out the door. Fair enough. Yet, there is plenty of opportunity to disagree. We're here aren't we?

Drake

Drake, of course there is opportunity for disagreement--but not within the Local Church. And that is why the Local Church is not really local. It is the Witness Lee group, with an (apparent) understanding among leaders and members that any issue with Witness Lee, his program, his ministry, his history, etc., is off limits. The basis of the Local Church today is a common understanding of the role, importance, and superiority of Witness Lee, his books, and his organization. And there is no room for discussion.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

“The Father is number one, the Son is number two, the Spirit is number three, and Witness Lee is number four; and then there are those who are with Witness Lee.”

According to Chinese cultural understandings and societal expectations, Witness Lee's sons Timothy and Philip were with him. Thus, they had access to the spoils of the ministry, i.e. the church - access to their monies & their bodies, if not their souls. You can't look at the clear patterns of behaviour & say it isn't so (unless you're Drake).

But Paul wrote that the elders of the church must have believing children. But Chinese culture trumped the Bible. Lee's profligate sons were allowed to belly up to the LC trough & help themselves.

And Witness Lee even admitted as much. He asked us, shouldn't a person be able to hire an unspiritual chef? He admitted Philip was unspiritual; yet he could still run roughshod over LC elders. Not because the Bible allowed it, but because Chinese culture expected it. So it happened.

But unfortunately Drake remains unconvinced. Seems he's a hard nut to crack.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

But unfortunately Drake remains unconvinced. Seems he's a hard nut to crack.

Perhaps I could recommend one of LSM's books -- The Breaking of the Outer Man and The Release of The Spirit.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes, of course, Aron ! Why "in the world" would you think a meeting of the local church is the best place to voice disagreements?

I don't think that aron said that a Local Church meeting was the best or the right place to voice concerns.

How about an elders' meeting?

Better yet a workers' meeting. That would absolutely be the right place!

Isn't that exactly what Ingalls, Mallon, and So many others attempted to do?

Didn't they prayerfully approach Witness Lee with their concerns? How many times they did that!

Read their accounts! They did everything scripturally, prayerfully, and appropriately!

Yet Lee and Sons accused them of a rebellious conspiracy, labeling them lepers.

[Drake]

Aron)"But unfortunately Drake remains unconvinced. Seems he's a hard nut to crack."

Unconvinced about what? Your all things "Chinese" hypothesis? Your generalizations about Asians, innuendo about likeness to Mao and communist organizations ?

Certainly I remain unconvinced! If you have valid arguments to make they are smothered under the cultural, political, and historical demagoguery you recite. At best those are ad hominem fallacies and perhaps something worse. Yep, I am solidly in the unconvinced column.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, of course there is opportunity for disagreement--but not within the Local Church. And that is why the Local Church is not really local. It is the Witness Lee group, with an (apparent) understanding among leaders and members that any issue with Witness Lee, his program, his ministry, his history, etc., is off limits. The basis of the Local Church today is a common understanding of the role, importance, and superiority of Witness Lee, his books, and his organization. And there is no room for discussion.

Okay Koinonia. Now here is something we can discuss and though we may agree to still disagree I hope we can at least acknowledge an understanding of each other's point of view.

I can see how you interpret it that way. It looks on the surface every bit the way you describe. It appears as if, using my own phrase here, there is some sort of allegiance to a man and his ministry in his and its own right. If others openly disagree they will eventually part ways from that ministry sooner or later. No room for discussion, full stop.

Now here is my point of view, my experience, and why the result may still seem the same to you but not to me.

When I came into the Lords Recovery forty years ago like most who came in around that time I was a Christian already. My testimony is recorded elsewhere in the vision thread. What I saw, what I experienced, the light and life, the care, the peace, etc. was way beyond anything I had experienced or saw up and till that point. In a word, I was gobsmacked. So I came in.

Shortly before I came in I had met Sal and some of the brothers involved in that first storm, then I came in, then the storm hit. I really liked those brothers, and when they left I had some serious soul searching with the Lord. How could they leave, what of their objections? I received a very clear speaking from the Lord to let the vision guide me, to keep pursuing life, light, peace and so I did.

And through the years the Lord has always been faithful to keep me focused on the most important thing in the Christian life. Perhaps you will not disagree with anything I said thus far. Now, as I progressed I learned some important lessons. First was that we are all men, we are all flawed, we are imperfect vessels. You, me, and Witness Lee. As a result, I never put a man on a pedestal. I never put a mans ministry on a pedestal. Was the ministry a wonderful discovery? Yes indeed. Was it flawless? Definitely not. However, I also learned another lesson, a more personal one.... I learned something about the fellowship of His sufferings and being conformed to His death. For me, I could sideline my differences, for instance, in teaching, I brought a bunch with me, to experience the sweet flow of His life. I watched brothers I respected leave, I saw all the failures, the sins, the turmoil, and each time the Lord reminded me where I came from, what I am, and the purpose to which I am called.

So it appears to you that I am all in for the man and his ministry and I am not really, I am all in for the Lords purpose and to the extent that man, failures and all, follows the Lord then I will follow his lead AND avoid his mistakes. And that is another lesson the Lord taught me.

Drake

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

So it appears to you that I am all in for the man and his ministry and I am not really, I am all in for the Lords purpose and to the extent that man, failures and all, follows the Lord then I will follow his lead AND avoid his mistakes. And that is another lesson the Lord taught me.

Drake

Sorry Drake, but the Church of Witness Lee doesn't allow for you to not be "all in for the man and his ministry" - the teachings, practice (both past and present), and history of the man and his "ministry" are faithful to this concept.

What happens if you were take Witness Lee out of your church? He (not Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Word of God) is the foundation of your church and your beliefs. This is such a chilling thought.

Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.

It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man.

Stop regarding man in whose nostrils is breath, for of what account is he?

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Okay Koinonia. Now here is something we can discuss and though we may agree to still disagree I hope we can at least acknowledge an understanding of each other's point of view....

Drake, I appreciate your response. Thank you for being genuine. I can appreciate your decisions and your feelings because I understand them.

The problem that I have is this--in the Local Church those who feel differently are not treated with such grace or consideration. You have referred to "the failures, the sins, the turmoil," and we all know some examples. How much failure, sin, and turmoil does there need to be before a line is crossed? If someone leaves or becomes disillusioned due to actual grievances, actual abuse, actual unrighteousness, is that ever legitimate?

The answer seems to be no--because LC leaders and members equate spiritual principles with earthly things like groups and ministries and leaders. They equate the church that Jesus is building with their group, and because of this, there is no legitimate reason for leaving the Local Church or being disillusioned. The Local Church is "the church." There is no legitimate reason for disagreeing with Witness Lee's ministry. Witness Lee's ministry is "the ministry." There is no legitimate reason for questioning the actions and decisions of Local Church leadership. Local Church leadership is "God's deputy authority." Witness Lee's way is "the God-ordained way."

I once asked a brother who was a prominent leader during the Philip Lee debacle why he was not bothered by the gross sexual immorality, abuse, and coverup--why he went along with all of it. He answered with (rare) candor that he was bothered, but that he had decided for his own sake to "go on," be "positive," and "eat the tree of life." I don't question his motives, and I don't expect him to deal with problems beyond his capacity, but is this really the legitimate response of everyone involved? Was John Ingalls really a "rebel," a "leper," worthy of "quarantine" and censure for trying to address these things? Do LC leaders give any consideration to his conscience, or the psychological turmoil he must have suffered to be shunned and slandered for attempting to address real scandal and moral disgrace? Was his motivation really to bring down Witness Lee? Or to replace Witness Lee? Or protect "one-man-speaking," etc., etc? Is there any room for a different viewpoint? Is there any room for sympathy and respect?

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim to be "the local church," yet function as the Witness Lee group, based on mutual agreement that Witness Lee's leadership (and his followers' leadership) is the only one legitimate. You cannot claim to be "the local church," yet equate "the ministry" (Witness Lee's ministry) with the reality of Jesus' church (the one He is building), which includes every real believer.

So, while I understand your decisions, at a certain point we have to grapple with reality, and the reality is that 50 years ago Witness Lee came to this country and taught that "the church in X" is not a name, but an acknowledgment of a spiritual reality--that all believers in a city are the church in that city, and that the basis for meeting together is an acknowledgment of what already exists in the eyes of God, and must be general, and not based on any other thing--any practice, any ministry, or any other interest, tie, or bond. Churches shouldn't follow ministries, or be divided by ministries.

Unfortunately, that has gone out the window. Somewhere along the line, it changed.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Drake

Apparently, many have disagreed with Witness Lee, objected to LSM, the blended brothers, etc. They whispered it, spoke it, shouted it, pulled the ministry books off the shelf, took their criticisms to the web, opened forums to discuss those objections, met with Brother Lee, met with each other, left, met separately, started their own ministry, wrote books, wrote defamatory books, accused them of being a cult, .....

Drake, except for one item I would agree all these things happened except what is this about defamatory books? What were these books and what was the outcome?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

The problem that I have is this--in the Local Church those who feel differently are not treated with such grace or consideration. You have referred to "the failures, the sins, the turmoil," and we all know some examples. How much failure, sin, and turmoil does there need to be before a line is crossed? If someone leaves or becomes disillusioned due to actual grievances, actual abuse, actual unrighteousness, is that ever legitimate?

Key word I see Koinonia is grace. How different it would be in the local churches had there been grace. From the late 70's to late 80's to the events just over a decade ago.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Now here is my point of view, my experience, and why the result may still seem the same to you but not to me.

When I came into the Lords Recovery forty years ago like most who came in around that time I was a Christian already. My testimony is recorded elsewhere in the vision thread. What I saw, what I experienced, the light and life, the care, the peace, etc. was way beyond anything I had experienced or saw up and till that point. In a word, I was gobsmacked. So I came in.

Shortly before I came in I had met Sal and some of the brothers involved in that first storm, then I came in, then the storm hit. I really liked those brothers, and when they left I had some serious soul searching with the Lord. How could they leave, what of their objections? I received a very clear speaking from the Lord to let the vision guide me, to keep pursuing life, light, peace and so I did.

Brother Drake, it all sounds so good and spiritual. Allow the "vision" to guide you, and to pursue life, and light, and peace. I can't say that any of that is wrong, but some crucial things are missing. What has actually guided you are only those Biblical teachings regularly emphasized in the Recovery.

But the Bible also has emphases not often stressed in the Recovery, especially not during their frequent storms. These are the matters of love and righteousness. Jesus told us the entire law was summed up by love, first towards God, and then to our neighbor. I never saw the love of God, nor brotherly love, nor love to our enemies displayed during these storms. In fact, love in the Recovery was only available to those who swore allegiance to Brother Lee.

Just as crucial is God's righteousness. Righteousness and justice are the foundation of God's throne. Our very salvation is built upon the solid rock of God's righteousness. So how do you expect other serious Christians in the Recovery, who value the righteousness of God, to also sweep under the rug all the criminal activities witnessed at LSM offices, so that they can continue to pursue so-called "life and peace." Is not the matter of righteousness and stumbling the children of God more important than how you happen to feel?

[Freedom]

Good points. Likewise, I have no intention to question those who have felt to look past things that concerned them. But by the same token, it can't be expected that everyone would have that kind of response to situations that are concerning.

As an analogy, there is a family in the LC that my family has been close to for many years. I came to discover that this family had been in a spiritually abusive situation in the LC where they first came in. Their response? They moved out of state and relocated to a different LC where they have been ever since. All fine and good except that most people wouldn't react that same way. Most people, if presented with that same kind of situation would have left.

This brings me to my point. The tragic legacy of the LC is that there are all kinds of people strewn along the wayside who were unable to look past the things of concern and unrightousnesss found in the LC. They did nothing wrong. Situations arose and they were forced to react. Some people have managed to survive all these years in the LC. Kudos to them. I just don't understand how they hold an expectation that others could achieve the same.

[aron]

Here's another observation, posted on this forum 3 years ago, regarding Asian culture in the LC

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I've been tooting this horn about the dichotomy between Eastern and Western cultures being at the root of the problems in the Recovery for years. Waking up to the realization that I had grown up in, and given my life to propagate, an incognito Chinese church was deeply disturbing, but the conviction only gets clearer as the years go by.

I stumbled in here today by chance. Wasn't even aware this forum existed. Reading this thread almost gave me goosebumps, to finally hear some traction for this understanding. In a discussion that I didn't personally initiate, no less. Actually, most of what I've had are monologues, not discussions. Nice to see that someone else can connect the dots.

Once you see this dichotomy clearly, I believe you'll recognize that nearly every gripe from disgruntled ex-members or frustrated current members has its roots in Asian cultural values that got institutionalized so deeply into the practices of the Local Churches that they create an atmosphere of expectations so rigid they are just as effective at enforcing conformity as posting a bouncer at the door, or a requiring a profession of doctrinal faith that one must sign in order to be fully received into the circle of fellowship. Some of the Asian cultural elements relate to standards of conduct that are pushed as if essential to the Christian life. Others elements are Eastern cultural values that make their way into doctrinal stances on minor truths, and then get stressed like major ones. The manifestations are numerous, but the root is the same. We (they) failed to distinguish between Lee's culture and his portion of Christ.

On the one hand, I believe this is the glaringly obvious "elephant in the room" that even the current leaders in the Recovery acknowledge has been wreaking havoc and hemorrhaging the life-blood of what, by all rights, should be a thriving organism. Whether they see the elephant for what it truly is or not is not for me to say, but I've been encouraged just to hear they acknowledge the problems it causes for them. And that encouragement is not rooted in cynicism toward them.

On the other hand, though, there is a reason why so many members can't see the elephant, and why the leaders (in my view) should be given some slack for failing to evict it. I bumped into it daily, got trampled by it with bothersome frequency, and wrestled with it on and off for over a decade before all the loose threads of my chronic frustrations got tied together by the common thread of Asian culture, at which point the resultant tapestry finally came together. It was a relief in the small sense that the puzzle finally got solved and yielded a coherent picture. But it was devastating at the same time -- my faith got rocked and my Christian life got shipwrecked by the disappointment. Blindness is not always willful, and the more painful the picture, the more innate subconscious defense mechanisms there are to prevent you from seeing it.

Plus, it's a complex picture, not a simple line-drawing. I blame no one for not being able to connect the dots without help. It took me about 30 pages even just to put my thoughts on the topic together when a brother asked me to connect the dots for him by giving detailed explanations rather than generalizations. It's like walking someone through calculus, when you can jump 5 steps at a time, but they need each little one spelled out for them separately in order to see the connections at first. I'll probably share pieces of that effort here as the discussion progresses, but I'm leery of becoming one more disgruntled bozo with an angry manifesto. (Sorry if that that offends anyone here; I trust most of you here, like me, have been there for a time, even if you've moved past that phase.)

For the record: I have no interest in WL, LC, or BB bashing. I bless the Lord for the privilege of growing up and giving my best years whole-heartedly to be receive what these people gained of Christ, and serve together with them.

[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

Here's another observation, posted on this forum 3 years ago, regarding Asian culture in the LC

No substance in that post, Aron.

[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".

[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.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Are you able to provide a source for this?

aint gonna happen.

Drake

[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.

[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."

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, I appreciate your response. Thank you for being genuine. I can appreciate your decisions and your feelings because I understand them.

The problem that I have is this--in the Local Church those who feel differently are not treated with such grace or consideration. You have referred to "the failures, the sins, the turmoil," and we all know some examples. How much failure, sin, and turmoil does there need to be before a line is crossed? If someone leaves or becomes disillusioned due to actual grievances, actual abuse, actual unrighteousness, is that ever legitimate?

The answer seems to be no--because LC leaders and members equate spiritual principles with earthly things like groups and ministries and leaders. They equate the church that Jesus is building with their group, and because of this, there is no legitimate reason for leaving the Local Church or being disillusioned. The Local Church is "the church." There is no legitimate reason for disagreeing with Witness Lee's ministry. Witness Lee's ministry is "the ministry." There is no legitimate reason for questioning the actions and decisions of Local Church leadership. Local Church leadership is "God's deputy authority." Witness Lee's way is "the God-ordained way."

I once asked a brother who was a prominent leader during the Philip Lee debacle why he was not bothered by the gross sexual immorality, abuse, and coverup--why he went along with all of it. He answered with (rare) candor that he was bothered, but that he had decided for his own sake to "go on," be "positive," and "eat the tree of life." I don't question his motives, and I don't expect him to deal with problems beyond his capacity, but is this really the legitimate response of everyone involved? Was John Ingalls really a "rebel," a "leper," worthy of "quarantine" and censure for trying to address these things? Do LC leaders give any consideration to his conscience, or the psychological turmoil he must have suffered to be shunned and slandered for attempting to address real scandal and moral disgrace? Was his motivation really to bring down Witness Lee? Or to replace Witness Lee? Or protect "one-man-speaking," etc., etc? Is there any room for a different viewpoint? Is there any room for sympathy and respect?

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim to be "the local church," yet function as the Witness Lee group, based on mutual agreement that Witness Lee's leadership (and his followers' leadership) is the only one legitimate. You cannot claim to be "the local church," yet equate "the ministry" (Witness Lee's ministry) with the reality of Jesus' church (the one He is building), which includes every real believer.

So, while I understand your decisions, at a certain point we have to grapple with reality, and the reality is that 50 years ago Witness Lee came to this country and taught that "the church in X" is not a name, but an acknowledgment of a spiritual reality--that all believers in a city are the church in that city, and that the basis for meeting together is an acknowledgment of what already exists in the eyes of God, and must be general, and not based on any other thing--any practice, any ministry, or any other interest, tie, or bond. Churches shouldn't follow ministries, or be divided by ministries.

Unfortunately, that has gone out the window. Somewhere along the line, it changed.

Brother Drake, did you read my response to you here?

[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.

[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.”

[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?

[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."

[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.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

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

Did you ever realize that Christ rarely gave a straight answer to anyone? When asked if he was the Son of God Christ did not say "oh yes I am actually, I'm the second person of the Trinity, the son of the Father, God from God and light from light". He said "what do you think?".

Because of the lack of straight answers from Christ, makes it easier for muslims and such to claim that Christ never said he was God's Son.

Your natural man sounds confused like this verse:

John 6:42 They were asking, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then can He say, 'I have come down from heaven?'"

Even Christ showed himself as the son of man and the son of God.

[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?

[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.

[Ohio]

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.

Yes, aron, there were many money-grabbing boondoggles to enrich the Lee family and their ministry at LSM.

But what is more troubling to me, and to others, was the ulterior motives behind all the so-called ways, new ways, and movements coming out of LSM. That was a total dominance by Lee and company. They used Linko to humble the elders. They used the FTTT to humble all the workers and elders. Like the Judaizers of old they desired to bring all under their subjection, in order to make a good show. You will never find this in their books, but every one who went could smell it in the air.

Why else would they demand older elders to shovel dirt? Why else would they have young teenage trainees inspecting the underwear drawers of the elders at the FTTT and issue public citations, when all the preferred trainers got off-limit accommodations in Taipei? Were not these types of practices stolen from the cultural revolution in China?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 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."

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".

I saw the quotes. That one was from Don Hardy, who worked closely with Samuel Chang.

At least Philip Lin was honest here. And quite telling of Chinese culture.

Let's be fair here. The other leaders in the Recovery over the years gave WL great latitude. Our concerns were never nit-picking meany obscurities. No. But many people were hurt. The nature of the Recovery changed. Elders were forced to submit to the abuses of the profligate son of WL named Philip. On numerous occasions Philip and Timothy were caught molesting the volunteer staff, only to have Daddy Lee protect them from consequences.

This was the reason for the so-called rebellion in Anaheim. This was the part of the story that LC members were never told. This was the part of the story Lee and company kept hidden. This was the part of the story covered up by accusations of rebellion, conspiracy, and ambition. And this is the so-called "poison" which, if known, causes committed members to leave. Like immediately.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Brother Drake, did you read my response to you here?

Hi koinonia

Yes, I did.

Drake

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Did you ever realize that Christ rarely gave a straight answer to anyone? When asked if he was the Son of God Christ did not say "oh yes I am actually, I'm the second person of the Trinity, the son of the Father, God from God and light from light". He said "what do you think?".

Because of the lack of straight answers from Christ, makes it easier for muslims and such to claim that Christ never said he was God's Son.

Your natural man sounds confused like this verse:

John 6:42 They were asking, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then can He say, 'I have come down from heaven?'"

Even Christ showed himself as the son of man and the son of God.

Is this a serious comparison? You are comparing Witness Lee boasting about being Chinese and claiming not to be Chinese to Jesus being God and man?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi koinonia

Yes, I did.

Drake

Hi drake

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Koinonia

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Did you ever realize that Christ rarely gave a straight answer to anyone? When asked if he was the Son of God Christ did not say "oh yes I am actually, I'm the second person of the Trinity, the son of the Father, God from God and light from light". He said "what do you think?".

If this is what you believe, it explains well your behavior during discussions in this forum.

But you seemed to have overlooked how Jesus responded to question on His identity...

Mark 14:61-62 But He was silent and did not answer anything. Again the high priest questioned Him and said to Him, Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am. And you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the bright hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Hi drake

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Koinonia

Hi Koinonia

I'm getting the impression you expected more of a response from me.

Sorry if I missed that. I had read your response and assumed you were sharing a counter viewpoint based on different experience, beliefs, and I interpreted your questions as built into the logic of your argument not that you were really expecting a response to them.

Let me ask you then: John Ingalls, Philip Lee.... would you still be in the Lords Recovery if those situations had been dealt with differently? Or are there other reasons more fundamental to your leaving?

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

If this is what you believe, it explains well your behavior during discussions in this forum.

But you seemed to have overlooked how Jesus responded to question on His identity...

Mark 14:61-62 But He was silent and did not answer anything. Again the high priest questioned Him and said to Him, Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am. And you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the bright hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.

He said so after not answering the first time. It was legally necessary for Jesus to condemn Himself to die by stating He was the Son of Man.

But this one example does not prove that Jesus always gave straight answers.

We have many chapters of gospels which prove that Jesus did not give straight answers. When asked a question he answered with a question, and when he did give some answer it was in the form of a riddle.

I think Lee's response to the Russia person was very clever and very spiritual too.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

I'm getting the impression you expected more of a response from me.

Let me ask you then: John Ingalls, Philip Lee.... would you still be in the Lords Recovery if those situations had been dealt with differently? Or are there other reasons more fundamental to your leaving?

Drake

Hi Drake, do you agree with Hope (brother Don Rutledge) that Daystar and Linko are two ministry schemes that were divinely judged?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

He said so after not answering the first time. It was legally necessary for Jesus to condemn Himself to die by stating He was the Son of Man.

But this one example does not prove that Jesus always gave straight answers.

We have many chapters of gospels which prove that Jesus did not give straight answers. When asked a question he answered with a question, and when he did give some answer it was in the form of a riddle.

I think Lee's response to the Russia person was very clever and very spiritual too.

For the same reason, Jesus spoke in parables.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You've presented one sample point only

There are more data points suggesting Witness Lee was the leader of a Chinese-flavored personality cult than there are suggesting he was the apostle of the age. And those seem to be the two options here.

Actually, recent attempts to mainstream and legitimise Lee & LSM are perhaps pointing to a third path, that Witness Lee was a "global Chinese Christian leader" or some such. Theresa Zimmerman-Liu's work is in this vein, as well as 'gotquestions.org' which is now aligning with CRI. All these sources say that the lawsuits and cult-label controversies stem from culturally-derived misunderstandings, on both sides (e.g., Witness Lee as well as Harvest House).

But if that's so, then arguing that the LC movement isn't shot through with Chinese culture becomes more difficult. And we're back to wondering why the LC has an gotten an increasingly Asian face. And we then see their efforts to "gain African-Americans", like the one previously to "gain typical Americans" (i.e. Caucasian males).

The more LC looks like an Chinese sect, the harder it is to recruit non-Asian members. Why has the LC demographic tilted so strongly away from the rest of the USA in the past 30 years? The LC I first saw was full of Caucasian families with young children. Now most of those children are gone. A few are off in Europe or somewhere serving the ministry. The only ones left in the pews are recent (>10 years) immigrants from China. In some places they don't even attempt one meeting - the Chinese are off meeting by themselves.

"Oh, it's a language thing." But it has nothing to do with culture, right?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

For the same reason, Jesus spoke in parables.

Twisting the scriptures again?

That's why Apostle Paul got so frustrated with talk like this, and blurted out, "let your yes be yes, and your no be no."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Let me ask you then: John Ingalls, Philip Lee.... would you still be in the Lords Recovery if those situations had been dealt with differently? Or are there other reasons more fundamental to your leaving?

Drake

Hey bro Drake, hope you're doing fine. Nice to hear from you.

Sorry if I'm interloping, but I left before all that went down with Lees' boys, and Ingalls et al.

My problem was with the apostle of the age. So if that hadn't happened, if Lee hadn't claimed to be the MOTA I would have stayed in.

But I wouldn't have made it thru the Lee boy's scandals, and/or the Ingalls mess.

So I'm grateful for the MOTA claim. Otherwise I would have been in that cult 6 or 8 yrs longer. Thank ya Lord Jesus.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

The more LC looks like an Chinese sect, the harder it is to recruit non-Asian members. Why has the LC demographic tilted so strongly away from the rest of the USA in the past 30 years? The LC I first saw was full of Caucasian families with young children. Now most of those children are gone. A few are off in Europe or somewhere serving the ministry. The only ones left in the pews are recent (>10 years) immigrants from China. In some places they don't even attempt one meeting - the Chinese are off meeting by themselves.

"Oh, it's a language thing." But it has nothing to do with culture, right?

Maybe I'm the only who holds this view, I don't know but I firmly believe the late 80's turmoil tilted the LC demographics to being more Asian based on localities I have visited and met with in Western United States.
Non-Asians that remained meeting in the local churches have only aged over the last 30 years with a sparse increase. Only increase I've seen are churchkids that remained who are now raising their children in the local churches. Otherwise, I'm in agreement with Aron's post.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

There are more data points suggesting Witness Lee was the leader of a Chinese-flavored personality cult than there are suggesting he was the apostle of the age. And those seem to be the two options here.

Actually, recent attempts to mainstream and legitimise Lee & LSM are perhaps pointing to a third path, that Witness Lee was a "global Chinese Christian leader" or some such. Theresa Zimmerman-Liu's work is in this vein, as well as 'gotquestions.org' which is now aligning with CRI. All these sources say that the lawsuits and cult-label controversies stem from culturally-derived misunderstandings, on both sides (e.g., Witness Lee as well as Harvest House).

But if that's so, then arguing that the LC movement isn't shot through with Chinese culture becomes more difficult. And we're back to wondering why the LC has an gotten an increasingly Asian face. And we then see their efforts to "gain African-Americans", like the one previously to "gain typical Americans" (i.e. Caucasian males).

The more LC looks like an Chinese sect, the harder it is to recruit non-Asian members. Why has the LC demographic tilted so strongly away from the rest of the USA in the past 30 years? The LC I first saw was full of Caucasian families with young children. Now most of those children are gone. A few are off in Europe or somewhere serving the ministry. The only ones left in the pews are recent (>10 years) immigrants from China. In some places they don't even attempt one meeting - the Chinese are off meeting by themselves.

"Oh, it's a language thing." But it has nothing to do with culture, right?

I agree it's Chinese culture flavored and would take more work to gain the "typical Americans". It could also be the quality of the crab cakes, I don't know. Grandma's recipe for pot luck stew from mainland China may not be a hit with the locals. But we all know Americans still are struggling with the white superiority complex so that could play a part as well.

We tried to stop people speaking Chinese in the meetings, so we let them have their own meetings where they can speak Chinese as much as they want.

But if we can't see beyond the cultural divisions then we have no business calling ourselves the one body of Christ do we ? You are obviously treating the local churches as the "Chinese body of Christ" and Paul never made those distinctions where there is "no Jew or Gentile". Even though Paul and the other apostles traveled extensively in their time, the Bible is fairly silent about these sorts of matters. Paul never addresses cultural issues in his letters.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by awareness

So I'm grateful for the MOTA claim. Otherwise I would have been in that cult 6 or 8 yrs longer. Thank ya Lord Jesus.

If Lee wasn't the "minister of the age" what was he really the minister of?

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

He said so after not answering the first time. It was legally necessary for Jesus to condemn Himself to die by stating He was the Son of Man.

But this one example does not prove that Jesus always gave straight answers.

We have many chapters of gospels which prove that Jesus did not give straight answers. When asked a question he answered with a question, and when he did give some answer it was in the form of a riddle.

I think Lee's response to the Russia person was very clever and very spiritual too.

I just showed the specific example you used was not exactly correct and you turned that into an argument of "Jesus always gave straight answers".

Originally Posted by Drake

For the same reason, Jesus spoke in parables.

His parables about yeast should well remind us.

I haven't heard the cheese and cracker story in person, but it sounds more like a poor imitation that was overinflated.

I don't often buy in Aron's theory to explain the LC's faults with Chinese culture, but this type of stories does remind me of how people praised Mao during the Cultural Revolution in China.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We tried to stop people speaking Chinese in the meetings, so we let them have their own meetings where they can speak Chinese as much as they want.

So is this arrangement for tearing down or building up barriers?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But if we can't see beyond the cultural divisions then we have no business calling ourselves the one body of Christ do we ? You are obviously treating the local churches as the "Chinese body of Christ" and Paul never made those distinctions where there is "no Jew or Gentile". Even though Paul and the other apostles traveled extensively in their time, the Bible is fairly silent about these sorts of matters. Paul never addresses cultural issues in his letters.

May be he did. The book of Corinthians addressed issues with the Corinthian culture of eating food that had been sacrificed to idols.

1 Cor 8:4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I just showed the specific example you used was not exactly correct and you turned that into an argument of "Jesus always gave straight answers".

I thought you were the one turning this into an argument about Jesus always giving straight answers.

I said Jesus rarely gave straight answers. Did I say never? Yet you were engaging me as though I had said "never gave straight answers".

You provided me one example of a rare instance in which Jesus gave a straight answer. One example confirmed my statement that Jesus rarely gave straight answers. If I had said "Jesus never gave straight answers" then yes your example would have proven me wrong. But I said rare rare rare teddy bear with lots of hair.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

So is this arrangement for tearing down or building up barriers?

It's not a permanent arrangement nor is it all the time. Not all Chinese go to the Chinese meeting and some Westerners choose to go to Chinese speaking meetings. It's no different to having a brothers or sisters only fellowship is it. Or fellowship with people only of a certain age group.

Originally Posted by A little brother

May be he did. The book of Corinthians addressed issues with the Corinthian culture of eating food that had been sacrificed to idols.

1 Cor 8:4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one.

Maybe. But to me this example is about religion not culture. This is about whether Christians should eat meat they bought from the market, knowing it was sacrificed to an idol. It could have been a source of contention between Jewish and Gentile believers. Jews wouldn't refuse it because of culture, but because of religious teachings.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

If Lee wasn't the "minister of the age" what was he really the minister of?

He was a Christian preacher and teacher. One among many. But as far as I'm concerned he went south with his megalomania.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree it's Chinese culture flavored and would take more work to gain the "typical Americans". It could also be the quality of the crab cakes, I don't know. Grandma's recipe for pot luck stew from mainland China may not be a hit. . .

It may be that the "Christ" served up in the LC is Continental mysticism steeped in Oriental brine. There's nothing wrong with culture per se. We all have it. Lee pretended he had nothing but pure Christ. So we had no way to cope with the culture. Lee taught a lot about "fallen human culture". That's why I use the phrase. But he pretended he had none. And we believed him.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Surely you are talking about "reverse racism". Are you saying that just because the Recovery has "one color" it is racist?
What about the African American churches? Aren't they 99.9% African American?

If any African-American church taught that they alone had "just Christ" whilst every other group was deformed, twisted, Satanic, darkened, Christless, fallen &c then they'd be criticised for it. And rightly so: nobody should set themselves against their fellows thus.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by aron

If any African-American church taught that they alone had "just Christ" whilst every other group was deformed, twisted, Satanic, darkened, Christless, fallen &c then they'd be criticised for it. And rightly so: nobody should set themselves against their fellows thus.

Such a clear and obvious observation, although it will be lost or ignored by those deceived by Witness Lee

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

It may be that the "Christ" served up in the LC is Continental mysticism steeped in Oriental brine. There's nothing wrong with culture per se. We all have it. Lee pretended he had nothing but pure Christ. So we had no way to cope with the culture. Lee taught a lot about "fallen human culture". That's why I use the phrase. But he pretended he had none. And we believed him.

Lee taught that fallen human culture always goes along with God's plan, but God is sovereign over it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee taught that fallen human culture always goes along with God's plan, but God is sovereign over it.

Lee taught that fallen human culture has no place in the one new man, but Christ is all in all. His studies of Colossians cover this, as elsewhere. He repeatedly made us laugh at the Christmas stockings and Easter eggs. It was a set-up. We then had no defense against the Imaginarium of Lee, a ministry and ''church life'' full of hidden cultural reefs, waiting to destroy the passage of the unwary. All those "moves" and "flows", followed by inevitable "storms" & "turmoils" & discouragement & confusion. And we had no clue what had just hit us.

[UntoHim]

Any sharply political or argumentative posts
will be deleted or transferred over to Alt Views.
NO EXCEPTIONS.
-