POLL: How do you generally view the LC?

[UntoHim]

The problem with StG's poll is that any movement based on the person and work of a mere human being(s) has great possibility to be ALL the things listed in both categories. The Local Church of Witness Lee is a movement of men based upon the person and work of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, therefore at any given time, the LC could fit into any one of the categories..maybe even fit into different categories for different people at the very same time.

I'm always a little amused when people use this term "move of God", as if we can make a subjective judgment apart from what is plainly laid before us in the Word of God. It's kind of like making a subjective judgment or assessment of a man being an apostle apart from what is plainly laid before us in the Word of God. Witness Lee and his followers have always made these kind of judgments and assessments a "moving target". They define terms such as "move of God" and "apostle" so that they match up with their little sect and with their chosen guru. And this is why most other Christians (what little have even heard of WN/WL and the LC) have little to no respect or recognition of "The Lord's Recovery".

All this being said, my rating would be:
CDF - 321
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'm always a little amused when people use this term "move of God", as if we can make a subjective judgment apart from what is plainly laid before us in the Word of God. All this being said, my rating would be:
CDF - 321
-

Thanks. I went back and forth and word-smithed the questions numerous times before arriving at the "move of God" phrase. But it seemed to be at least somewhat applicable, hopefully. Is there another term you could suggest that would be more appropriate for this quasi-scientific purpose?

Averaging your ratings together would be a D - 2, which is "A mostly different Christ & gospel" and "Always preached downright heresy." (but probably not completely like that when you first arrived)

May I ask where in TLR you were?

[Ohio]

The 3 LC's I was a part of would be A8 when I started with them, but now B6

[UntoHim]

I was in a number of the Local Churches in Orange County, mostly within 15 minutes of Anaheim, from about mid-70s to about late 80s. Probably only missed Witness Lee speak in person a hand full of times during that period. Was briefly volunteer "tape room" brother under Mr. Philip Lee. Saw a lot. Heard a lot. Sat at the feet of Witness Lee for better part of 2 decades. Kind of, sort of know what I'm talking about when it comes to the teachings and practices.

I lived in brothers houses with several of what are considered "Co-Workers" and "Blended Brothers". I knew them before they were even elders or "responsible brothers". Knew some of them before they graduated college or married. So you could say that my "general view" of the Local Church of Witness Lee is pretty well informed. Doesn't make my judgments and assessments any better or any worse than anyone else's...only that they are well-informed.

As far as your use of "move of God", I took it at face value...meaning legitimate move of God, something initiated by God and approved by God. Did you actually have something else in mind?
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I was in a number of the Local Churches in Orange County, mostly within 15 minutes of Anaheim, from about mid-70s to about late 80s.

Thanks for that bro! I didn't know your background at all. There are a few still associated with the Scottsdale gathering that you perhaps crossed paths with. However, most of us here are either from the LCs in the Bay Area or the NW. I have to ask, since you rated the LC so low, why did you stick around there so long?

Regarding the "move of God" phrase, no, I think that is good enough for this - it communicates a basic perception and provides a springboard for dialogue I think.

[UntoHim]

Well I've been out of the Local Church of Witness Lee for the better part of 25 years. If I would have taken your poll back then my rating would have been a lot closer to yours. I left in good standing. I wasn't "quarantined" in any way shape or form. Aside from seeing a little glimpse of Philip Lee in action, I was totally oblivious to any kind of abuse. I adored Witness Lee. I thought he walked on water. Same goes for Watchman Nee. I refused to believe anything negative. It took sitting in John Ingalls' living room, hearing him relate to me in tears the things that were going on behind the scene. I knew in my heart and mind that the things that he was telling me were true, and that he was really "speaking the truth in love".

Then, slowly but surely, I did my own due diligence, contacting many trusted brothers (including some brothers that were co-workers before some of the yahoos there in Anaheim now), and they all confirmed for me what I already knew in my heart. "The Lord's Recovery" was neither - it wasn't the Lord's and it certainly wasn't his recovery. It was just another sectarian movement initiated and run by a man. It didn't take long to find out that Witness Lee was a fraud. He had already created a "Lord's Recovery" in Taiwan and other places in Asia, and he was found to be a fraud, a swindler and was already teaching and preaching a different gospel way back when. He was already hiring and firing elders and co-workers at his personal whim, all depending on their personal loyalty to his person and work (his authority and ministry).

Can you possibly expand your poll to include an F- ?
-

[aron]

It's an interesting and not illegitimate question, but perhaps unanswerable, to do a sliding scale like this. We’re called to be children of light, not look at gradations of darkness. I think God can differentiate shades of grey but we just stick to “black or white”, as in “to fellowship or to avoid”. And the LC's in my latter category, along with JW, Unification Church aka Moonies, Rastafarians, SDA, LDS, WWCOG, Iglesa ni Cristo, and Jesus Family. It’s a pseudo-Christian personality cult.

We suffer from selection bias, based on subjective history and ignorance. God is the Judge, but we still need to sense which groups might be profitable for fellowship versus which to avoid. But trying to pinpoint exactly where some cross the proverbial line and go from “aberrant but genuine Christian sect” to “cult” might be beyond our capacity. I do feel it’s beyond mine.

Here’s why the LC's in my “to avoid” category:

WL taught that the Son is the Father. How can the Father sit at His own right hand, a la Psa 110 and Matt 22? And yet no one noticed, or rather everyone pretended not to notice.

WL taught that most Psalms with imprecations were fallen human sentiments and not divinely inspired. We’re called to love our enemies, to bless and not to curse, right? Yet in other Psalms, imprecation is called a type of Christ defeating Satan. And yet none noticed this disparity, or rather they all pretended not to notice.

WL taught that women can’t teach in the church, yet his ministry still sells books by women teaching on the “three parts of man”, and cites them as foundational for the recovery of "God's economy”; and WN cribbed Jessie Penn-Lewis for his “Spiritual Man” so egregiously that the publisher had to acknowledge it in the preface to the Second Edition. And yet none noticed this, or rather everyone's forced to pretend not to notice. Mustn't upset the Teacher, and point out issues. Don't ask questions, because question marks are shaped like serpents.

WL taught that with the problem of sin in church, Matthew 18 principles apply unless the person involved is the Great Man himself: the Guru aka 'Ministry of the Age' aka 'God's Oracle' aka 'Seer of the Divine Revelation'. If the Guru errs, then one must pretend not to notice. It's a test from God, see -- if you can be subject to His Divine Government, or not. If the Great Man sins, one must "cover drunken Noah". Thus, the image of Ed Marks clapping his hands over his eyes and ears and saying, "I'm a monkey". Today Ed has a secure job promoting this ministry, because he's made himself blind and deaf, and is well-practiced at pretending not to notice.

When WL died his Chief Minions declared that an age of human history had passed, and another begun. “It's now the age of the small potatoes; the age of spiritual giants is over”. No more divine revelations; now one had to parse the Great Man’s writings for guidance. And no scripture was given. And nobody noticed, or rather, everyone pretended not to notice.

I could go on, with Daystar, Philip Lee aka The Office, what happened to Jane Anderson and dozens (hundreds? Thousands?) of others. Deceptive recruiting practices. Crass manipulation of church members. Information control, or “omerta”, that would make the Mafia jealous. Etc. The details of the whos, whats, hows, and whys are probably beyond my ken. I'd just say, “Avoid”. No Church is perfect. But prudence would dictate that some are best to simply stay away from. We don't need to know in some objective, doctrinal stance of "Same Christ yet funky" versus "different Christ". We're all funky, or most of us anyway. But at some point you just have to avoid. Or, if you're there, run away. Fast.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by aron

Don't ask questions, because question marks are shaped like serpents.

Just to zero in on a small part of your post above....

And yet somehow, the co-workers are allowed to ask questions and apparently in their minds somehow those questions are not serpents, e.g. from the shepherding words site on "Twisting Ron Kangas's Words" article:

"Would the critics have Ron skip the story of Miriam’s leprosy and the lessons to be learned from it? Would they have him ignore the lessons from our own history?"

Those are manipulative questions designed to shame and shut down. They are putting words in people's mouths that those people never said, with the intention of making them look stupid. But it's a blatant manipulative technique.

Interestingly enough, a similar question format shows up in the CRI We Were Wrong journal, which is supposed to have been written by the CRI people, but sounds a lot like the way the co-workers write. It's on page 20 in big bold print:

"Do the drafters and signers of the Open Letter really want to say that when the Spirit comes into the believers the Father and Son are left on the throne?"

Well, the drafters and signers of the open letter never said that, so why are they incredulously asking that question as if that's what the signers said?

Somehow these types of questions are not in the shape of the serpent when they come from the co-workers.

It's just manipulation and hypocrisy.

That's how I view the LC.