Pledge of Allegiance to Witness Lee

[diakonos]

Hi all,
This is my first post here. I appreciate all of the different perspectives and finding out the history and reasons behind much of what is done in the "church life".

I would like to ask for anyone that may have the original signed copy of the Pledge of Allegiance Letter of 1986; if you could send to me I would be grateful. I am pretty sure the elders in my locality signed that letter and I would like to have it, if I ever engage them in a discussion of the "Lord's recovery".

Thank you,

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Hi all,
This is my first post here. I appreciate all of the different perspectives and finding out the history and reasons behind much of what is done in the "church life".

I would like to ask for anyone that may have the original signed copy of the Pledge of Allegiance Letter of 1986; if you could send to me I would be grateful. I am pretty sure the elders in my locality signed that letter and I would like to have it, if I ever engage them in a discussion of the "Lord's recovery".

Thank you,

diakonos, I have also looked for that original letter with signatories, and never found it. It has never been posted here.

Here is a letter from an elder in Toronto who initially signed that Pledge, and then retracted his signature. Many others have regretted that they allowed themselves to be coerced into signing that Pledge.

[diakonos]

Thank you Ohio for your help.
To be more clear to anyone else visiting this page, I am posting the entire text of the Pledge of allegiance letter below:

Agreement to follow Witness Lee in the New Way
Dear Brother Lee,

After hearing your fellowship in this elders’ training, we all agree to have a new start in the Lord’s recovery. For this, we all agree to be in one accord and to carry out this new move of the Lord solely through prayer, the Spirit, and the Word. We further agree to practice the recovery one in: teaching, practice, thinking, speaking, essence, appearance, and expression.

We repudiate all differences among the churches, and all indifference toward the ministry office, and the other churches. We agree that the church in our place be identical with all the local churches throughout the earth.

We also agree to follow your leading as the one who has brought us God’s New Testament economy and has led us into its practice. We agree that this leading is indispensable to our oneness and acknowledge the one trumpet in the Lord’s ministry and the one wise master builder among us.

We further agree to practice the church life in our locality absolutely in a new way: to build the church in, through, and based upon home meetings; to lead every member to get used to functioning without any idea to depend on any giant speakers; to teach all the saints to know the basic truths in an educational way that they may teach others for the spreading of the truth; to build up the saints in the growth in life that they may minister life to others, shepherd each other, and take care of the backsliding ones; to lead all the saints to preach the gospel in every possible way; to avoid leadership as much as possible; and to have home gatherings for nurturing the saints in life; and big meetings for educating the saints in truths.

We agree that all the preceding points are the clear and definite teaching of the Bible according to God’s New Testament economy.

Finally, we agree that the success of this new move is our responsibility and will rise up to labor and endeavor with our whole being, looking to the Lord for His mercy and grace that we would be faithful to the end.

Your brothers for the Lord’s recovery, (signature of elders)

[aron]

There are so many things wrong with this letter. Start with the fact that it even exists.

But let's delineate.

1. "all differences", as in "We repudiate all differences" - what does that mean? That we all have to dye our hair the same color? What differences fall under "all" and what do not? Last time I checked, "all" was a pretty comprehensive word.

Does the angel Michael have any difference whatsoever from Gabriel? If none, how then are they called by different names? Do we really think that no one could tell them apart? Do we really think the angels are all "absolutely identical, with no differences whatsoever", per the RecV footnotes? John doesn't give us this us this impression in his revelation from Patmos. He clearly sees differences.

As in heaven, so on earth - if the citizens of heaven have differences, then how can we not have them? "Star differs from star in glory". Shouldn't we be able to differ? Paul was minister to the uncircumcision, Peter to the circumcision - who gets to say if this is a difference that makes a difference, or not? Or is it just "differences in purpose"? Again, who defines purpose? Or differences in language used? Who then defines terminology?

It's all about control. The so-called wise master builder (WMB) gets to determine who is "different" and who is not. It's entirely based on the subjective whims of the Deputy God. The WMB gets to decide if your differences are noteworthy or not. Good luck. Hopefully he doesn't notice you. Try to blend in, okay? Don't stick out. You might be called "different".

What if the 12 foundation stones of the New Jerusalem repudiated all differences? They might as well be cinder blocks.

2. "Identical", as in "be identical". See above. Completely absurd. Do you think the Peruvians are identical with the Turks? Are they supposed to be? Why then does scripture speak of "every tribe and tongue and nation" if they are all amalgamated into some homogenous, bland ministry smoothie? Who wants to live thus? Nobody but WL and his deluded few. Did Jesus die for our redemption, then rise for us to live, merely for us to act like unwitted robots? Identical? Really? This is so clearly not divine!

3. "Giants". Doesn't WL realize how awful this word is, spiritually and biblically? Did he not read the Bible? Then why use it thus?

A. The Giants devoured people. Awful.

B. If you presume to be "great", however you use your terms, you are the "least". This is Spirituality 101 as taught by Jesus and repeated and clearly practiced in the NT and after. Those who are "great" in this age are not so great on the other side. Whether they call themselves "giants" or some other term is beside the presumption of the self-anointing - but that they call themselves "giants" is just obtuse.

WL often used clunky terminology. "Spiritual giants" is one of his worst. And the signees used it, because he used it. Did nobody stir uneasily when such terms were tossed about so loosely, and such presumptions were made so blandly? I would.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

It's all about control. The so-called wise master builder (WMB) gets to determine who is "different" and who is not. It's entirely based on the subjective whims of the Deputy God. The WMB gets to decide if your differences are noteworthy or not. Good luck. Hopefully he doesn't notice you. Try to blend in, okay? Don't stick out. You might be called "different".

What if the 12 foundation stones of the New Jerusalem repudiated all differences? They might as well be cinder blocks.

Too Funny

You hit it when you said that "differences" were based on the "subjective whims of the Deputy God." Exactly!

This Pledge is all about bringing every worker, every member, and every church under LSM's control. Yeah but Lee said, "we are so free." And Lee said that he can't even "control a mosquito."

Lee wanted control because he was a real glory seeker. He loved the glory of men. That's why he put all others down. I remember this one story years ago. Brother LC was the Cleveland young people's leader at some Anaheim training, and he coordinated the saints for the testing time to review the previous message. Great test, great review. It was exciting, glorious, the whole place was rocking. Thousands of saints. Everyone ought to be happy right? Wrong! After the meeting TC took LC over to the corner and reamed him out. Why would he do that? Because TC knew that he would get it from WL the next day. Why wasn't WL happy about that great test? Because Anaheim got stood up by Cleveland. It was a competition. Cleveland, unknowingly, was supposed to let Anaheim win, so that WL's perfecting skills would not be shamed by TC's. It was all about who got the glory.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Anaheim got stood up by Cleveland. It was a competition. Cleveland, unknowingly, was supposed to let Anaheim win, so that WL's perfecting skills would not be shamed by TC's. It was all about who got the glory.

Right - who got earthly glory & who got earthly shame. Jesus taught that those who sought the glory of men would not get it from God.

WL's defenders may say I'm picking on his terms, and that he wasn't a native English speaker - so what if he used the word "giant" to indicate relative size or stature or advancement or capacity? I mean, really! Right?

First of all, those who are "giants" in this age will be "dwarves" in the next, whatever your terminology. That's basic Christian teaching.

And some native English speakers should have pulled him aside and discreetly counseled him on his unfortunate choice of words, and the particular biblical associations with the word "giant". The "spiritual giants" in the OT were aka "Nephilim". Any fundamentalist would know this. And we were nothing if not that, in the LC... Earths Earliest Ages and all that.

Oh, but I forget, mustn't let The Apostle lose face. He gets the glory, we get the shame. Rule #1: WL is always right. So, "giants" it was.

Then when WL passed, his closest acolytes told us from the dias that now "the age of spiritual giants is over". And not a minute too soon, I'd add.

[Cal]

Just look at the world around you and see the variety. God is obviously a God of variety. He went to the trouble of making each snowflake different, each fingerprint different and each personality different. Why do that just to "blend" us all together? Especially to all be like Witness Lee, of all people!

Think about that. Eternity where everyone is just like Witness Lee! Don't sound like heaven to me!

Speaking of words we hate, how about "blend?" Blend is bland. Blend is blah. Blend is blech. God's none of those things. He likes variety.

"We repudiate all differences." What a retarded mentality!

I'll stop. This is about the time I start thinking about using colorful language.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Just look at the world around you and see the variety. God is obviously a God of variety. He went to the trouble of making each snowflake different, each fingerprint different and each personality different. Why do that just to "blend" us all together? Especially to all be like Witness Lee, of all people!

Think about that. Eternity where everyone is just like Witness Lee! Don't sound like heaven to me!

Speaking of words we hate, how about "blend?" Blend is bland. Blend is blah. Blend is blech. God's none of those things. He likes variety.

"We repudiate all differences." What a retarded mentality!

I'll stop. This is about the time I start thinking about using colorful language.

I don't want to get away from the OP of this thread, but "blending" is one of my big pet peeves. "God has blended the body together" is not about "blending away the differences".....it's about care for the members around us. A human body where all the different and distinct members' differences were blended away would be GROTESQUE and non-functional.

The other verse used to support the "blending away the differences" is 1 Cor. 10:17 about we being many are one bread, but this is again ludicrous. There is no recipe in the world that states "we have to put the grains in the blender so they will be identical to each other". This is about our unity and oneness, NOT our complete lack of distinction from each other.

No wonder LCers who leave don't even know who they are sometimes.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

This is about our unity and oneness, NOT our complete lack of distinction from each other.

The phrase "complete lack of distinction from each other" articulates what I found wrong about the idea, without the rancor. We may tend toward uncharitable language when confronted with something so inane, and demeaning of basic human worth, but it's good to remain thoughtful and measured in our tone. So thanks for setting such a good example.

I resort to scorn and sarcasm. I like humour but when tinged with bitterness it's perhaps unpleasant to read. Thanks to all for bearing along, and I extend my apologies for being caustic at times, and projecting unresolved shame and anger toward others.

The NT epistle says that star differs from star in glory, and seems like that was okay with the apostle. There are notable differences, or distinctions, in appearance, disposition and function. "He counteth up the number of stars, he calleth them all by name, great is our Lord" ~Psa 147:4

If God numbers and calls each by name, can't we suppose that the distinctions of each are worth noting? If so to God, why not also to us? Why the insistence on bland homogeneity?