In the Wake of the New Way

[Indiana]

It was on this date 19 years ago I wrote to LSM’s Dan Towle.


January 28, 2001

Dear Dan,

I have written a little book for the sake of fellowship, mainly with leading ones, concerning our past sixteen-year history of the new way. I think this period of time in the Lord’s recovery warrants our careful study of both the benefits and the costs to the church in what was such a highly controversial move among us in those beginning years.

“I wanted to come to you because I feel it is safe to do so. If I am inaccurate or unfair in some way, perhaps you are the most qualified one to catch me that I could either make an adjustment or terminate the proposed fellowship.”

“I hope we can have a good, thorough, and upright fellowship over this booklet called In the Wake of the New Way, while remembering the Lord’s prayer ‘that they all may be one’ and the repeated petitions from our brother Lee, not only to heed the trumpet call for the Lord’s new move, but also to respond to the call for the rendering of care to every member for the building up of the Body in love…”

I would welcome your phone call or e-mail message at …………] and ………….. I don’t intend for this booklet to be widespread; rather, I hope that ones who do receive it could do so in the Lord, with a holy regard and respect given to those who left the recovery, and a godly consideration rendered to those who remain, but who are in need of more significant care.

Www.IntheWakeoftheNewWay.com

I DID NOT HEAR BACK FROM HIM, BUT DID GET MARKED AS ONE WHO CAUSES DIVISION, AND THAT DISTINCTION AND IMPRESSION REMAINS.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Indiana

I DID NOT HEAR BACK FROM HIM, BUT DID GET MARKED AS ONE WHO CAUSES DIVISION, AND THAT DISTINCTION AND IMPRESSION REMAINS.

18 years later, Jo Casteel posted an open letter on FB, to which the DCP said that she didn't follow proper NT due process, i.e. 'private fellowship'. But she did. She followed Steve Isitt, Bill Mallon, John Ingalls, and others who for decades have tried to use private communication.

Matthew 18 principles have been repeatedly used with this group's leadership by their fellow Christians, and they were consistently ignored and rebuffed. The time for frank and open dialog on public format has long since passed.

[Sons to Glory!]

One thing that stood out to me in that paper was your observation that love was completely lacking in the official statements and otherwise. And that love was not a needed characteristic because the intention was to build an army. This lack of love has been the observation of many regarding the LC in America (after its initial period), including mine. Yet, the Lord told us this is how others would know we are of Him.

May we allow the Lord show His love through us to others!

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

One thing that stood out to me in that paper was your observation that love was completely lacking in the official statements and otherwise. And that love was not a needed characteristic because the intention was to build an army. This lack of love has been the observation of many regarding the LC in America (after its initial period), including mine. Yet, the Lord told us this is how others would know we are of Him.

May we allow the Lord show His love through us to others!

Amen to every word!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

One thing that stood out to me in that paper was your observation that love was completely lacking in the official statements and otherwise. And that love was not a needed characteristic because the intention was to build an army. This lack of love has been the observation of many regarding the LC in America (after its initial period), including mine.

Prolly ten years ago I ran into an old LCer friend from out of town in the aftermath of the Midwest quarantines. He told me plainly that the Lord revealed to him that, "there is no love in Laodicea."

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Prolly ten years ago I ran into an old LCer friend from out of town in the aftermath of the Midwest quarantines. He told me plainly that the Lord revealed to him that, "there is no love in Laodicea."

And unfortunately Laodicea is a natural (spelled A-D-A-M) tendency after having a real experience of Christ. We think we have something and try to hold onto that instead of Him --> Who IS love. When love exits, religious pride and lukewarmness comes in. May the Lord have mercy!

[Curious]

Hi. I know it’s not really my place to have lots of opinions here though I have helped myself to them anyway. I’m trying not to overstep my place too much but I really want to draw a connection here. My apologies in advance if this is too presumptuous.

Reading briefly through the document on ‘The New Way’ something stands out clearly to me. ‘The New Way’ represents WL’s raw ambition. He had had wonderful success in establishing and growing the work in North America, as a continuation of what had been begun by Watchman Nee. This move of ‘the new way’, plus the litigations issued against anything in his way, speaks of ambitious risk taking. He thought he could overtake all of Christianity and make it his domain. He saw what looked like such an opportunity, and notably, cared nothing for what he had already established. He was willing to both exploit the people he had, to do the grunt work, and then to let the stability of what had been established, be tossed into the pot, if necessary, in the effort to satisfy his unbridled ambition. How far could he take his 'new ministry'? He wouldn’t know till he tried, right?

It’s therefore also worthy to bring this alongside his assigning all ‘opposers and dissenters’ as being ‘full of ambition!!’ What blatant and direct hypocrisy!! To a maneuverer this would serve two purposes. One, it would deflect attention away from his own audacious ambition. As people tend to believe that if someone is horrified by a negative trait in another, then certainly they would keep that same tendency under control in themselves. This is a false connection, and a strategy often employed by those who are cunning. They may also deceive themselves in this way. ‘If I’m horrified by the thought of them exercising ambition, then surely I can’t be guilty of that myself!’ It doesn’t work that way. Being very irked by someone else’s perceived character flaw is actually a tip-off that it is one’s own flaw, projected onto another in order to be punished there, alleviating one’s own guilt. So the duel purpose is, it shifts focus from self, and satisfies self of own guiltless position, which is self-deception. You can also enjoy punishing that trait as perceived in another, and by doing so, feed your self-righteousness, and feel even better about yourself! "Judge not lest you judge yourself"...God knows this about us.

I notice that he only ever had one motivation to assign to any source of questioning or criticism. As far as I can see, it is always ‘ambition’. A ‘dissenter' may be leprous and all sorts of things, but when describing actual motivation, only the one word seems to be used. Like creating an ugly, 2-D caricature of any source of challenge to the perfection of the ministry. Its very simplistic and of course directly avoids having to deal with it or take questions or corrections seriously.

No wonder he did not like the science of psychology. Imagine what a psychological evaluation of himself might have produced!! Perhaps the very thing he probably needed, in fact. That's an afterthought.

[Curious]

I am attempting to be less opinionated. But I’m not having much success….this is a lead-in to deliver another opinion!!

I feel it is worth, and important perhaps, to point out the following. ‘In The Wake Of The New Way’ is quite an impressive document in itself. It is written with a series of qualities, all of which express the very best of motivation, dedication both to truth and loving care of people, gentleness, and forbearance in the creation of a long document, (which takes considerable time and thought to have written). Frankly, if I ran a Christian ministry, I would be deeply grateful if one of my team took the time, effort, care and courage to present a written concern so respectfully worded, humble, and concerned for the welfare of the whole. I’m sorry if this is a bit flattering. But these comments are earned, in my opinionated opinion, and in lieu of WL responding correctly to this document, someone could!!

So, my next point. For the very reasons stated above, no wonder WL was confronted by this document. It expressed directly, everything that should’ve been the priorities of the LC and LSM, but which WL had cast aside in his ambition to metamorphose into world domination with his ‘product’. The document exposed his corruption but in total innocence, making it even worse. Its obvious sincerity, trust and faith in the system/ministry, and earnestness would have made for very uncomfortable reading, is my guess. it leads me to the impression that WL tossed out his treasures, persons God had provided for the protection of the work. A foolish and rebellious thing to do.

I just wanted to say that. As the cost to the author of this document has been substantial, words of recognition and encouragement are not misplaced. There, I have dispensed my opinion, and now I feel better!!!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Curious

Hi. I know it’s not really my place to have lots of opinions here though I have helped myself to them anyway.

We all have opinions. The only issue is when we insist that only our opinion matters. "In the counsel of many is safety" says Proverbs. So opinions of themselves are not wrong.

Originally Posted by Curious

Reading briefly through the document on ‘The New Way’ something stands out clearly to me. ‘The New Way’ represents WL’s raw ambition.

Not only was his constant lookout for the "gopher" of ambition (his word) a mask for his own, it allowed a back door for those who angled for position themselves. The trick was, blatantly promote Lee and your own star will rise. I remember an early member, Hope, noting RG's constant focus on the ministry of Lee. "You have to read between the lines", RG said. "He doesn't tell you what he wants." Likewise, RG didn't say what he wanted either, but look where he is today, running things. Not a coincidence.

[Curious]

Re-reading the document that begins this thread raises more questions for me. I see that it was written after the death o f WL, though it is a commentary on directions he initiated, (and towards the end, seems to have actually regretted).

I suspect this document to be a very interesting one to look at for those who study cults and extreme groups, and to investigate the thinking at the time of the person who produced it. (This type of document is probably extremely rare). For example, did the writer firmly believe he was writing a genuine document to genuine hearers who would respond in a genuine way? Was their rejecting response, both towards the document and himself, a massive unforeseen shock to the writer? Or did he at some level at least, suspect it would result in him being ‘shunned’, so that he was in some part prepared?

This document represents two things clearly, a person who simultaneously could see the problems crystal clear, and was prepared to explain them thoroughly, and at the same time is just as thoroughly loyal and devoted to the ‘system’ that he can see has gone wrong. I just wonder, (as am indeed a curious bunny), how his understanding and thinking about that all was, at the time of writing and submitting to those in charge. Any detaching from the theology of Lee that may now exist for this writer, is not evident in the document. Had any such doubts arisen for him before or at the time of writing?

I would be very interested in learning some more about these things, to fill in the picture.

It may seem to be irrelevant questions, or it may be important to help understand the way a person within a system (of error) may handle that error and attempt to put things right. And in worst case scenario, it may show how a perceptive and sincere person may be all the more vulnerable to being brutally mistreated, within such a system.

Leading on from questions section to the 'my opinion section!', I now have the following to say. WL underneath it all, had a basic Christian foundation, which it seems caught up with him in the end. The foundation he put into his followers was flawed in ways his own was not. Those who have followed on have instituted things in ways that are best illustrated by looking at King Rehoboam, a son of, and the first successor of King Solomon. found in 1 Kings chapter 12.

Followers who gain leadership of a system are often much more absolute and rigid than the ones who start up the system. Because leaders are inspired and inspiring people, they create energy around themselves, a capacity their followers either don’t have, (or in some cases, learn to suppress). Whether inspired rightly or wrongly, those who lead have a gift and an ability to exercise it, which comes naturally to them. Followers who succeed them gain the power but in the main, have been followers for a reason, they are not inspired in the way the original leader was. Therefore, they look for security, and the departed leader’s inspiration provides it. So, they fortify the doctrines they inherit, beyond what the original leader did.

WL changed things as he saw fit. He was not afraid to 'adapt' including 'contradict' his own teachings if it suited a ‘current’ agenda. Followers who succeeded him, the BB’s, have the challenge of trying to lead without being inspired or naturally inspirational. That creates insecurity in them, they don’t have their own strong sense of direction for the ‘movement’. To resolve this, they fortify and make rigid, all the teachings and doctrines of the original leader. The motive behind it is to make the successors feel assured, not to better serve the people. That’s why it operates at the expense of the people, and ends up being harmful to them instead.

1 Kings, chapter 12, verses 14. ‘My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scourges'. King Rehoboam was perhaps not trying to follow his own father’s ways in the spiritual sense. But he was entrenching and worsening some of the practices of Solomon’s style of rulership, in a harsh and domineering way, to benefit his sense of security at the expense of the people.

That’s my theory that when ‘followers’ inherit leadership, they become harsher than their predecessor. I have the impression this is a true observation in the LC. It seems WL himself would have agreed with this document towards the end of his life, but not those who followed him.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Curious

I would be very interested in learning some more about these things, to fill in the picture.

I believe that Steve was in a meeting where WL said, "We have to find out what happened to those who left; to reconcile with them." This goes against the "guanxi network" ethos of "once out, ever out." Yet the message was on reconciliation and WL in a burst of Christian piety, said that he wanted to make peace.

So Steve, burning for the building up of the Body of Christ, went forth and got the stories.

Now, what to do? Clearly he was operating within a culture of silence, and to bring "bad news" to the church about what happened would have ramifications. But WL had said, "get the stories - reconcile". So there he was. He stayed with WL's directives, which were based on NT exegesis.

He went to the local leaders. Reply, "Nix. Quiet." Now, another dilemma. Listen to the local leaders, or go above them? He went above them. Surely at some point he must have realized that this would not go well. But the directive was there, and he remained steadfast.

(at least, this was my take, reading the story)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Curious

Re-reading the document that begins this thread raises more questions for me. I see that it was written after the death o f WL, though it is a commentary on directions he initiated, (and towards the end, seems to have actually regretted).

That’s my theory that when ‘followers’ inherit leadership, they become harsher than their predecessor. I have the impression this is a true observation in the LC. It seems WL himself would have agreed with this document towards the end of his life, but not those who followed him.

Curious, as part of the LC's for 3 decades, and studying the system for 15 more years, WL liked to play both sides when it suited him. He could appear to be the most humble and the most orthodox or mainstream of Christians at times. And this is what makes his life and ministry so confusing for some to understand.

You may have read this story. After Lee passed in 1997, tensions increased off and on between the Blendeds in Anaheim and the regional center in Cleveland under Titus Chu. Both camps were always suspicious of each other. In the LC system of things, the two camps could never be peers. One must be in subjection to the other. When Anaheim wanted to buy their LaPalma Campus, things were good, and the Midwest donated ~$2K per family. Then things grew tense again. At issue was "what did WL really say about a variety of topics?" At the heart of this was the role and relationship between LSM and the LC's, or in a broad sense, between "the work" and "the church."

So TC had all the Midwest workers and full-timers read all of WL's books and copy pertinent quotes. We also covered the "blueprint," our supposed governing "vision," Nee's book The Normal Christian Church Life. Reams of documents were assembled. TC would hand carry them to the chief Blendeds, seeking honest fellowship. Nothing was accomplished, what a waste of time. The battle boiled down to WL's unedited ministry vs. his edited books. "Raw" Lee vs. "polished" Lee. WL in private vs. WL in public. Who was the real WL? Obviously, we in the Midwest were long deceived.

So was Steve Isitt, apparently. Initially, he was convinced that his fair and objective study of the "new way" movement of the late 1980's would benefit the Recovery. Didn't Lee himself suggest that? Everyone can learn from their mistakes, right?

Wrong! Not the elites at LSM. Any critique, any documents even from Lee's own books, any objective study of former members, any honest fellowship, any online websites, any anything, will always be viewed as a rebellion.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

TC had all the Midwest workers and full-timers read all of WL's books and copy pertinent quotes. We also covered the "blueprint," our supposed governing "vision," Nee's book The Normal Christian Church Life. Reams of documents were assembled. TC would hand carry them to the chief Blendeds, seeking honest fellowship. Nothing was accomplished, what a waste of time. The battle boiled down to WL's unedited ministry vs. his edited books. "Raw" Lee vs. "polished" Lee. WL in private vs. WL in public. Who was the real WL? Obviously, we in the Midwest were long deceived...

Given that TC was only part of the Great LC Schism of 2007, I think there's more than this. The other rebel party, that of DYL, played no such niceties as TC. There it was, "Here's what we're going to do." In both cases, however, the "regional apostle" claimed the mantle of Charisma whilst the Blendeds said Charisma is over and the age of Bureaucrats is come.

Looking at it, I said that TC and DYL were the true followers of WL, in that they aped his methods to the 't'. DYL and TC, like WL before them, used Charisma as control. I met some Brasilians once who told me about watching DYL sitting in a hammock with his wife, just like RK told us about WL walking down the street with a bag os seashells. In both cases the object of the story was imbued with the Special Power, making the mundane into the divine. The Bureaucrats would never claim that. TC and DYL both did.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Curious

WL changed things as he saw fit. He was not afraid to 'adapt' including 'contradict' his own teachings if it suited a ‘current’ agenda. Followers who succeeded him, the BB’s, have the challenge of trying to lead without being inspired or naturally inspirational. That creates insecurity in them, they don’t have their own strong sense of direction for the ‘movement’. To resolve this, they fortify and make rigid, all the teachings and doctrines of the original leader. The motive behind it is to make the successors feel assured, not to better serve the people. That’s why it operates at the expense of the people, and ends up being harmful to them instead.

Originally Posted by aron

I believe that Steve was in a meeting where WL said, "We have to find out what happened to those who left; to reconcile with them." This goes against the "guanxi network" ethos of "once out, ever out." Yet the message was on reconciliation and WL in a burst of Christian piety, said that he wanted to make peace.

About 1-2 years before I left, I was in a meeting where Andrew Yu was speaking and he was encouraging everyone to contact the "backsliders" (meaning anyone who wasn't currently meeting). By that time I was already aware of much of the LC history that had been swept under the rug, including Steve's endeavors to do exactly this sort of thing that Andrew was encouraging.

It made me realize that despite what was being spoken from the podium, the leaders at the top already knew that people wouldn't be acting on those words (and I think that we all subconsciously realized it too). The striking thing about it to me was how much that type of talk helped to reinforce a certain narrative - that being how "inclusive" the LC supposedly was, how we never "throw anyone off of the boat", etc. WL's did the same sort of thing too. He quite often said things that he didn't really mean, just because it served some sort of benefit to do so.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So was Steve Isitt, apparently. Initially, he was convinced that his fair and objective study of the "new way" movement of the late 1980's would benefit the Recovery. Didn't Lee himself suggest that? Everyone can learn from their mistakes, right? .

(To Dan Towle, beginning paragraph)

I have written a little book for the sake of fellowship, mainly with leading ones, concerning our past sixteen-year history of the new way. I think this period of time in the Lord’s recovery warrants our careful study of both the benefits and the costs to the church in what was such a highly controversial move among us in those beginning years....


(from a letter 2014) "Note: I didn’t realize that Witness Lee in his final message had asked the brothers to do the same thing, that is, to come together and study our past to learn where we have been wrong, including himself, in receiving believers. The brothers didn’t do this, knowing how high the cost would be" I was compelled to do it, and was naive, totally, concerning what the cost might be.


“Concerning the matter of receiving people according to God’s receiving, we coworkers in every place all need to learn, the responsible ones in every place all need to learn, the brothers and sisters in every place all need to learn, too many things cause us to learn. We all made mistakes in this matter in the past, I myself included; I confess that, I had, for this matter and before the Lord, a very painful repentance…

You must bring this message back, read it once, read it twice, and come together to fellowship with one another. Then you will see that we in the past were wrong… I say again, you must come together…" (FINAL message of Brother Lee's, Chinese New Year conf., 1997)

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

WL's did the same sort of thing too. He quite often said things that he didn't really mean, just because it served some sort of benefit to do so.

The Blendeds knew better - just nod and say, "Amen" but don't do anything. As current Blended RG once said, "You have to read between the lines". Steve's error was to naively take the speaking at face value.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Brother Lee's exhortation in his final message was to learn from the past and that especially the elders and coworkers were to learn from the mistakes of not receiving others according to the Son of God.

I don't think others can fault you for not trying to be true to the vision that God gave you. The problems that followed weren't for a lack of trying. (The DCP said that Jo Casteel didn't follow Matthew 18. But she did - she followed Steve).

[Curious]

Thank you to you all for your prompt responses. They are very good to help fill out the picture.

So, the message is, submission is not the real answer, although it was emphasised by WL. (In fact I read in their writings somewhere that a person with a mature spiritual life should enter a room and immediately ask who to submit to….) but doing so faithfully and diligently can leave you shunned, which means quarantined, which is LC speak for excommunicated.

What a wise master builder at work in this schema!! (master destroyer maybe?)

So WL was a master at double-speak, hidden meanings, passive-aggressive behavior. Unhealthy and devious communication methods. The real skill required is to join in this game playing. That is what God values and requires of those He would endorse and promote? What a destructive mess it became, persecuting the Godly ones….psalm 31:30 ‘charm is deceptive’ is often applied to women as in its context. Yet ‘charm’ itself is not the sole trait of women. The confusion WL generated is another one warned against in the bible.

The reason I tell bible stories from my own, particular point of view is that I believe that the bible, as the divinely appointed word of God, has things to say which are of support and comfort to those who have been mistreated. Most scholars who have interpreted the bible for us have not been those who have suffered significant injustice, they are usually persons with scholarly status and authority in the church. They are not bad, but just insensitive to such concerns, and we all see the bible through the lens of our own experiences. Its unavoidable. And God just may be in that.

My hope is to restore faith that God is on the side of justice, which is promised over and over again in the bible. To have a look at these and other accounts restore hope in a just God to those whose hearts are aching for justice. That’s my purpose anyway, and I don't think anything I’ve written contradicts any of the details in scripture, actually, though may contradict other interpretations out there.

I had the thought that Solomon’s son was harsh and cruel, explicitly so. The LC is rigid. It may seem unfair that I equate being rigid as being harsh to the end of being cruel. But anything truly strong is flexible and needs to be. Our backbone for example. If it was rigid, not flexible then that would be very harsh on our limbs and head. Imagine the inflamation it would cause to the rest of our body trying to move about, having to adapt to reality around it without any help from the spine!

An aeroplane wing flexes, while necessarily strong. If it was rigid it could not respond to the air outside and would not work. (though a bit scary to look at it flexing from inside the plane!!!). A pane of glass is strong and rigid, yet it is brittle, as aron has said in another post, (the rigid system of the LC is actually very brittle), If it breaks it shatters completely. Yet a blade of grass is flexible enough to survive being trampled on.

‘Am I a pane of glass or a blade of grass’? that’s just another one of my little self-taught sayings. (Obviously we need boundaries and our own absolutes too. They just need to be thought-out and thoughtfully, consciously applied wise ones that consider others and truth, and are open for improvement and adaptation, according to our own growth in maturity).

In conclusion then, I am saying that rigid IS harsh, even if not presented so.

It saddens me as to what Steve Isitt experienced. For being upright, truthful and concerned in love. I hope he has experienced God’s restoration and pleasure in him for his sacrifice. I believe it all does truly, help us to understand Jesus better, and the walk He walked, and betrayals He experienced, for our sakes. Whatever deepens our faith becomes part of our eternal reward.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

About 1-2 years before I left, I was in a meeting where Andrew Yu was speaking and he was encouraging everyone to contact the "backsliders" (meaning anyone who wasn't currently meeting). By that time I was already aware of much of the LC history that had been swept under the rug, including Steve's endeavors to do exactly this sort of thing that Andrew was encouraging.

It made me realize that despite what was being spoken from the podium, the leaders at the top already knew that people wouldn't be acting on those words (and I think that we all subconsciously realized it too). The striking thing about it to me was how much that type of talk helped to reinforce a certain narrative - that being how "inclusive" the LC supposedly was, how we never "throw anyone off of the boat", etc. WL's did the same sort of thing too. He quite often said things that he didn't really mean, just because it served some sort of benefit to do so.

Interesting. Prolly in the late 90's, after Lee's death, Ron Kangas gave a "pseudo-prophecy" that many of those who had left would soon return, that the Spirit of God would touch their hearts to come home, so to speak.

Looking back, this kind of talk did two things to us:

• Gave us all false hope concerning our much needed growth in the Recovery

• Reinforced the notion that people left, not because of inherent problems in the Recovery, but because of their own shortcomings or weaknesses

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Indiana

(To Dan Towle, beginning paragraph)

I have written a little book for the sake of fellowship, mainly with leading ones, concerning our past sixteen-year history of the new way. I think this period of time in the Lord’s recovery warrants our careful study of both the benefits and the costs to the church in what was such a highly controversial move among us in those beginning years....

I always viewed brothers like Dan Towle, Dick Taylor, Howard Higashi, etc. as a little different than the other Blendeds. They seemed to be more personal, with a genuine relationship with the Lord, more anointed, less robotic or doctrinal, etc. (however you want to phrase that.)

I have heard that Dan Towle left a number of years ago. His son implied on FaceBook that he was silenced by the ruling Blendeds for what he knew, or for what they knew about him, or both. Whatever, it was ugly and hushed up.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Curious

So, the message is, submission is not the real answer, although it was emphasised by WL. (In fact I read in their writings somewhere that a person with a mature spiritual life should enter a room and immediately ask who to submit to….) but doing so faithfully and diligently can leave you shunned, which means quarantined, which is LC speak for excommunicated.

What a wise master builder at work in this schema!! (master destroyer maybe?)

That quote was from Nee's "Authority" book. He spoke that after his return to ministry from a 6 year excommunication by the elders in the church in Shanghai, who by the way Nee had appointed.

Does this sound like a repentant minister?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Curious

So WL was a master at double-speak, hidden meanings, passive-aggressive behavior. Unhealthy and devious communication methods. The real skill required is to join in this game playing. That is what God values and requires of those He would endorse and promote? What a destructive mess it became, persecuting the Godly ones….psalm 31:30 ‘charm is deceptive’ is often applied to women as in its context. Yet ‘charm’ itself is not the sole trait of women. The confusion WL generated is another one warned against in the bible.

Your comments on WL are quite perceptive. I know my former LC colleagues in the Midwest would condemn this, but then readily accept these same comments about all of Lee's lieutenants. I would only ask from whence they learned.

Btw, that verse should be Proverbs 31.30

[Curious]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your comments on WL are quite perceptive. I know my former LC colleagues in the Midwest would condemn this, but then readily accept these same comments about all of Lee's lieutenants. I would only ask from whence they learned.

Btw, that verse should be Proverbs 31.30

If I’m perceptive here then that’s only because I have encountered the same elements of human nature in different contexts, and I’ve had to figure it out for my own survival. This whole forum is about the LC of WL. Yet it’s also about dangerous elements of human nature that permeate many situations. (oh, thanks for the correction of my scripture ref. I tend to get proverbs and psalms muddled up….after all, they both start with ‘p’!)

So next. I am going to relate an account shared with me confidentially. Then I will explain a few reasons why I chose to share it. This account comes from another context, another exclusive Christian sect. its not even in Cal's list in his youtube channel. This sect exists in my community, though it keeps its exclusivity secret. According to my source, incest has happened, never been exposed or addressed. I know some more bad things, one member of this congregation ended up in prison, which was fully deserved. Yet more evil intent behind it than publisized, according to my source.

One male member became unhappy with things as they are within and had some confrontation with the core group. He then promised them he would expose them fully to the local media the following day. He never made it. that night he had a heart attack and died.

The leadership’s response: God vindicated them, He got rid of the contentious one before he could do them any harm. Did they feel grief at the loss of someone they had been close to? I don’t know but my source said they didn’t even. This group has become painfully small due to their tendency towards excommunicating. (I sought this conversation with the ex-insider as my nephew had joined them, and I went along to one service and saw, among some other observations, how small their numbers were myself). My source person was the adult child of the original pastor who had set up this church in my area, growing up within this sect, and had themselves, been excommunicated.

The reasons I shared this. First, they guy who wanted to expose the faults, may have had a weak heart. Yet the fact it claimed his life in the middle of this conflict reveals how much stress the situation caused him. On many levels. My first point is I want to draw attention to the impact on an individual who finds themselves so betrayed by their spiritual leaders, and suddenly so alone and at odds with those you depended on and trusted for guidance. This stress killed him literally, sadly.

The next aspect to bring out is the attitude of the leadership. Once I got over the initial feelings of disgust, it made me think about the possible parallel of the religious leaders who murdered Jesus. (I know he laid his life down, no-one took it from him, he chose it in humble obedience to the Father, but on the human level he was a victim of a brutal murder, I think it is sometimes good to notice and recognise that). The religious leaders probably felt vindicated by God, it all went easily and smoothly, no hiccups. The fear that he had used supernatural powers to heal people and might be able to use those powers to protect himself had maybe occurred to them. But he had seemed totally helpless when it came down to it. So, clearly God was with them and not Jesus, right? …or maybe God had exposed the deep attitudes of their hearts, weather they felt any pangs of guilt or conscience over it. Jesus had brought joy and hope to people by healing them and raising the dead. Maybe he could have done the same for more people if they had left him be? But the fact he had challenged their legitimacy had offended their own, self-centred agenda meant they didn’t care about the people’s hopes and hurts, or the life of an itinerant preacher and healer, that had hurt nobody.

It’s scary how safely on the right side of the ‘truth’ people can mistakenly believe they are, when they are actually in the worst place possible. Those in positions of power in an exclusive sect can think the fact that they can get away with abuse and mistreatment of their people and covering it up, resulting in the stress they put on their own who can’t stomach it killing them, it just means God is on their side. But, like the religious leaders of Jesus’ day, they may continue to exist, oblivious and unaware of where they really stand, and what they have really done. What a terrible deception. In the end, how terrible it will be for them, if they never see it themselves.

[Curious]

Originally Posted by aron

Given that TC was only part of the Great LC Schism of 2007, I think there's more than this. The other rebel party, that of DYL, played no such niceties as TC. There it was, "Here's what we're going to do." In both cases, however, the "regional apostle" claimed the mantle of Charisma whilst the Blendeds said Charisma is over and the age of Bureaucrats is come.

Looking at it, I said that TC and DYL were the true followers of WL, in that they aped his methods to the 't'. DYL and TC, like WL before them, used Charisma as control. I met some Brasilians once who told me about watching DYL sitting in a hammock with his wife, just like RK told us about WL walking down the street with a bag os seashells. In both cases the object of the story was imbued with the Special Power, making the mundane into the divine. The Bureaucrats would never claim that. TC and DYL both did.

Just a comment from me to round up this subject, about the two styles of leading, ‘inspired individual’, or 'bureaucratic'. Very interesting observation about the differing directions of those who followed WL's methods, through observing his ways, and those who followed a take on his teachings, and became the 'blended bureaucracy'. (A fun new term for them?)!!

Just my thoughts on it: At the end of the day, neither is necessarily wrong though each has different vulnerabilities to going wrong, which have been considered in this thread. Too much personality driven can end up exulting the individual. Too much bureaucracy becomes rigid, legalistic, harsh and inhumane. Either can work when the key, which is leadership that is properly submitted to God, with enough faith to genuinely follow Him, and serve people, is central to the heart and calling of the leader or leadership team. It's not about having 'the right' system, but the right heart intent and spiritual maturity of the people in charge, that determines weather they go off-track or stay on-track. It is critical to have been prepared by God for the role before being released into it. Like David, who learned to trust God as he was being pursued by Saul in the wilderness. Any 'system' can work when the heart of those leading is right. That's just my 2 cents worth opinion on this matter, anyway.