|
11-20-2012, 09:16 AM
|
#1 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Good morning saints:
I recently purchased this book, and at the time I am posting this, I have not yet read far into it. That said, I wanted to share it. This book, or more specifically the lawsuit launched against it by Witness Lee, is cited within the Christian community as more reason than any other to damn LSM. For this reason, I think we owe it to SCP to hear what they had to say - indeed to hear what Witness Lee and LSM didn't want any of us to hear. Because it was undoubtedly the tithes and offerings of Local Church members that were used to silence SCP's voice - making those of us who were a part of a Local Church in those days, party to that sin. What God says: "When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!" The Defendant: The Spiritual Counterfeits Project (also known as SCP) is a Christian evangelical parachurch organisation located in Berkeley, California. Since its inception in the early 1970s it has been involved in the fields of Christian apologetics and the Christian countercult movement. Its current president is Tal Brooke. In its role as a think-tank SCP has sought to publish evangelically-based analyses of new religious movements, New Age and alternative spiritualities in light of broad cultural trends. The origins of the SCP are grounded in the Christian counterculture movement (also known as the Jesus Movement or Jesus People) of the late 1960s. As a parachurch organization, much like the Gideons, it is made up entirely of Christian lay-people, and not of clergy. In 1968 some staff members of Campus Crusade for Christ conceived of the need to contextualize the Christian message for radical and revolutionary university students. The key figures were Jack Sparks and his wife, Patrick and Karry Matrisciana (also known as Caryl Matrisciana), Fred and Jan Dyson, Weldon and Barbara Hartenburg. In April 1969 Sparks and his colleagues commenced their ministry at the University of California, Berkeley. The Case: In 1977 InterVarsity Press released an 80 page booklet by the SCP called The God-Men: Witness Lee and the Local Church. It was updated and released as a full-length book in 1981 as The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee and the Local Church. This is the book from which I will be reading. This book presented the results of SCP's investigations into the theology and practices of the Local Church. The SCP findings alleged that the Local Church was promulgating heresy. The dispute between the Local Church and the SCP escalated into a lawsuit for defamation that was filed in Oakland, California in December 1980 and known as Lee v. Duddy. Over a period of four and a half years the pre-trial preparations and depositions, involved expenditure that brought SCP into legal debt with their defense lawyers. The defamation trial was scheduled to commence on March 4, 1985. According to Bill Squires "the lawfirm representing us withdrew from the case" and so the decision was taken to file for a reorganizational bankruptcy in the Bankruptcy Court. Squires states, "that move imposed an immediate stay on the plaintiffs' action against us, thus ending the financial drain of litigation. On that day, SCP, while continuing its larger ministry, officially dropped out of the lawsuit." The Charge against SCP: Defamation. California Elements of Defamation Defamation, which consists of both libel and slander, is defined by case law and statute in California. See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 44, 45a, and 46. The elements of a defamation claim are:
Statement from The Prosecution (taken from DCP's website): "Sadly, there were (in the late 70's) a few Christians who for various reasons opposed this speaking (that all believers should be living and functioning members of the Body of Christ). Some held a concept of the Christian faith that was strictly objective and doctrinal. Uncomfortable with the entirely Biblical stress on the need to experience the indwelling Christ, they labeled it as an un-Christian and even as Eastern mystical teaching. Others were motivated by a desire to maintain some level of prominence in Christian work. They felt threatened by a teaching that opposed the hierarchical clergy-laity system of today’s Christianity, encouraged all of God’s people to learn to speak for and serve God as priests, and presented a simple way for believers to meet together in the oneness of the Body of Christ... Had issues concerning differences in understanding of the truths of the Bible been the extent of the accusations made by those opposing the local churches, this Web site would be limited to answering those issues. However, writers from one particular source, the Christian World Liberation Front (CWLF), a group formed in Berkeley to reach radical youth on the 1970s college campus, went further to falsely accuse Witness Lee and the local churches of cultic practices including financial improprieties, deceitful recruiting, autocratic control of members, etc. Their accusations formed the basis of two books:
Because no legal action was taken by the local churches to protest the first editions of these books, a second generation of books and articles were published by others based almost entirely on the misinformation in the initial few books. After suffering defamation for almost a decade, and having exhausted all less aggressive means of reconciliation, Witness Lee and the local churches followed the Apostle Paul’s precedent of appealing to Caesar, that is, the legal system, for protection from his religious opponents (Acts 25:11)." With this history in mind, let us dive in to this book which LSM and Witness Lee label as defamatory, and - as a jury now made up of peers, let us hear the case that never made it before a judge. Let us arrive together at a verdict. References http://watch.pair.com/scp-duddy.html http://www.contendingforthefaith.org...ons/index.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheLocalChurch http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...defamation-law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritu...rfeits_Project http://www.scp-inc.org/ |
|
|
|
11-20-2012, 09:31 AM
|
#2 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
“cultic practices” “financial improprieties” “deceitful recruiting” “autocratic control” They are able to publish these accusations in a book for any and all to read, certainly derogatory. How exactly was the LRC supposed to defend itself if they are not permitted to go to court? (I am referring to your extensive quote concerning the prohibition to lawsuits). Also, please note, I am referring to the situation in 1978 and 1979. I was on campus at the time in Houston. I was not aware of any "financial improprieties" in Houston, nor did we engage in "deceitful recruiting" on the campus I was on. Everyone, both student and faculty, were well aware of the five or so brothers from the LRC and who they were. Also there was no control exercised on the campus work by the church, we were given full autonomy. Also I do not agree that we were involved in "cultic practices" as understood in the Jim Jones post era. At this point I was completely unaware of the teaching of MOTA, if anything WN was regarded highly as a man of God who was a martyr, and WL was considered a close coworker of his. The teaching of the ground was borderline at that moment in history, if you want to argue that it was the basis for a sect I will cede that, but it has a lot to do with which locality and who was applying the teaching. We did not apply it in a divisive way on our campus, which is why I met with Campus Crusade and knew all the brothers on inter varsity. However, from what I gather we were the exception to the rule. My point is not that these things are not valid points concerning Witness Lee and even concerning the LRC. My point is that from my very narrow vantage point, perhaps not the most significant vantage point, but still a valid stance, this book damaged our work in a daily way without being an accurate depiction of us. We discussed what to do about this for over 6 months before they said that they had decided to go on with the lawsuit and we agreed because it seemed like a reasonable response. Just so we are clear, this book was used all the time on our campus to speak negatively about our work. The book didn't describe us fairly, as far as I was concerned. I could not deny the damage when this was discussed in the church. We did not push for any action to be taken, our response was that most people on campus were not talking to Campus Crusade or Inter Varsity anyway. We figured we had plenty of people to preach to that would never be influenced by them. Still, the discussions went on for six months, some were very vehement, and then they told us WL had reluctantly decided at the insistence of James Barber to sue. We had not pushed for this, but we understood the angst, and understood why this action was taken. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-20-2012, 10:00 AM
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Because a charge of Defamation, by definition, is the promulgating of false charges - we need to hear for ourselves what charges are being levelled against Witness Lee and the Local Church in this book. With that in mind, allow me to provide a summary and excerpts from the various passages.
A Note on the Title: Okay, we were Local Church members. We've heard the charges about the doctrines Lee's preached before, and probably bristled at them (at least, when we were ourselves a part of that fellowship). Nevertheless, the Title of this book was take from a quote by Witness Lee. If you've seen the cover in another post of mine, then you couldn't read the quote there as the print was too fine. The quote on the cover is: "To be a Christian simple means to be mingled with God, to be a God-man." - Witness Lee. Now, that title and that quote ARE sensational (they grab a Christian's attention, that is for certain) - but the title itself certainly isn't defamatory. The quote is lifted from Lee's own published writings. From the Preface: Why the Book? "Local Church history is one of stormy relations with Christian churches critical of it's doctrinal posture, its internal social relationships, and its conduct in society. This book attempts to document Local Church doctrine and conduct. Our analysis and critique is based on many published writings of the Local Church's founder, Witness Lee, and on personal reports collated by the authors regarding Local Church interactions with communities nationwide. The authors have personally contacted Local Church (hereafter referred to as "LC" - to save my typing fingers) leaders and members for the purpose of collecting firsthand information. Additional information has come from correspondence with persons who have been members of the LC, who have had encounters with LC members or who have conducted interviews with LC participants." - pg 8. Note: "We have earnestly sought a personal audience with Witness Lee in order that our understanding of his teachings and practices might once and for all be substantiated or corrected (DCP claims this was never done). Before the initial printing of The God-Men by (SCP), a certified letter requesting an appointment with Lee and with two LC representatives was sent to Lee's home. The receipt was returned to our office, bearing Mrs. Lee's signature, but with no reply. After a reasonable wait, we sent Lee a telegram, again urging him to respond to our invitation to dialogue. We received no response." "...Researcher Neil Duddy went twice to Local Church headquarters in Anaheim, California, and spoke with Lee's two chief apologists. At the close of the second session... Duddy was told that Lee, for reasons of principle, does not respond to criticisms or questions from outsiders. LC executive Ronald R. Kangas was not inclined even to tell Lee that an SCP researcher had visited their headquarters.... the disposition of the LC toward such interaction was epitomized by Kangas's response to a question about Lee's extensive use of allegory "You're not spiritual. You don't understand"." "The LC and Witness Lee were invited to read our revised manuscript and were given the prerogative of attaching a five page response to appear as an Appendix. Lee expressed his refusal to accept our offer in a certified letter dated May 22, 1979." From what we have read here already, we see strong refutation (and presumably, physical evidence IE certified letters and telegrams) that DCP's story about "The authors and publishers ignor(ing) appeals from the Christians meeting in the local churches... & unsuccessfully "pleading" with the authors and publishers of these books" must be called into serious question. The burden of proof here in on the plaintiff - what evidence are they able to provide to refute SCP and prove that such appeals and pleadings took place? |
|
|
|
|
11-20-2012, 11:18 AM
|
#4 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
Doesn't the classification of other Christians as "outsiders" indicate a sectarian attitude? It seems to me that the attitude displayed here by WL, Ron Kangas, and LSM is the height of arrogance. Am I mistaken? |
|
|
|
|
|
11-20-2012, 11:32 AM
|
#5 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
- - - - Not so certainly defamatory. Counter to their claim of being wholesome and mainstream. Ugly facts to get out to the public. But defamatory only if proved to be false. And on what basis were they not permitted to go to court? If you say "Neil Duddy" then that would be false. Neil Duddy did not deny them the right to go to court. If you say "scripture" then it would seem that it really did not stop them, so they were still permitted. Who didn't permit them to go to court? Since there is a facade of Christianity surrounding this whole fiasco, isn't there some kind of requirement to attempt to reconcile prior to declaring the other party a "heathen" and therefore be free to sue them? If so, then when did the LRC try to reconcile or discuss? What gave them the freedom within their own version of the scriptural mandates to sue? The problem that surfaces here, and in virtually every case to come after, is that there was opportunity to discuss. But they (the LRC) refused. They charged the other side with refusing to discuss, but it is clear from the actual evidence that it is Lee, the LSM, and the LRC that refused to discuss. They simply sent ultimatums and initiated lawsuits. They want to force the problem to go away. There was never to be any discussion. Any negative statements would either go away or be sued. Funny thing is that there has only been one major trial that went through to completion. And they lost. All the others in which they claim victory were the result of the opponent not having the depth of financial resources to withstand the continuing onslaught of discovery and delay such that they did not have the wherewithal to actually appear in court once the time for trial arrived. Duddy's judgment was essentially stipulated by the trial judge without consideration. There was no consideration of the correctness of the statements made in the book or the counter-charges made by the LRC. And the publisher of the Mindbenders simply agreed to a settlement to avoid bankruptcy. It is a technical victory — they had to say that the book was defamatory. But there was no actual weighing of the facts to determine whether that was the correct result. They gave up to survive. With an endless source of funds, they could very likely have won. Same for Duddy. Only Harvest House got to a conclusion. And the LRC lost. The statements in the Encyclopedia of [cults] were not of the nature as were in the God Men and Mindbenders. But those victories were through suffocation of the opponent rather than consideration of the merits. BTW. I recall that there was some concern that at least one of the accounts in [the God Men, I think] was later refuted by the person who supposedly gave the account. If someone knows what I am talking about, can they provide the specifics. I have wondered whether it is possible that after the first publication of the book, the LRC carefully went out to get that person firmly back into the fold so they would deny the story. It has already happened at least one time more recently when someone who made an account to someone who posts here was later brought back into the LRC fold and then asked to refute the account that was given so many years earlier. Since the telling of the account was out on the internet, they needed to try to squash it. Sounds a lot like the way that account surrounding the God Men went. And, with reference to another discussion going on here, how so many recent accounts may not clear-up situations concerning Nee, Lee, an excommunication, and a trial. Memories get foggy. People want to gain favor with certain people. Or want to punish other people. Last, several years ago, I read one of the books. I think it was the God-Men. After 14 years in the LRC, and about 18 years out (at that time), I think it is fair to say that I had a basis for assessment and I concluded that it was fairly accurate in its comments on LRC doctrines and teachings. Just like the recent discussions on the use of the term "cult" its applicability is in the eye of the beholder. And heresy is likewise in the eye of the beholder. And those are not topics on which courts can opine. The accounts concerning particular actions were not readily confirm-able. But they were not outside of the kind of things that I know have been done. There have been two very real and factual accounts on these forums of the LRC separating families where there was nothing abusive, just lack of desire to be in the LRC, and even hiding the "insiders" from the ones excluded. One account was from a brother who posted on the Bereans for several years. The other from a sister who was a junior-high student when she and her mother and sister were whisked away to another city. Add to that the verbal assault on Jane Anderson and the stories in the God-Men seem quite reasonable. There is autocratic control. And cultic practices. Think about Daystar and you have financial shenanigans. And while I have no problem with the idea of not necessarily telling everybody everything from the outset, the idea that they continually deny the link between Christians on Campus and the LRC when asked about it is deceitful recruiting practices. What is left? Where is the defamation?
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
11-20-2012, 12:27 PM
|
#6 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-20-2012, 01:40 PM
|
#7 | ||
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Ray, thanks for taking the time of starting this thread. I think it is worthwhile for us to review, mainly because the Local Church has changed quite a bit from the 70s (and somewhat for the better I might add). The bottom line, however, is that many, if not most, of the accounts, descriptions and criticisms found in this book were valid and largely accurate at the time they were written. I will repeat something I said from the outset:
Quote:
Quote:
 Anyway, I just wanted to remind everybody of the timeframe we are dealing with here. Even society in general has changed greatly from the 70s. This same goes for little sub-cultures like the Local Church. Again, it does not change the facts as they were presented in the book....so let's carry on, shall we?
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
||
|
|
|
|
11-20-2012, 05:04 PM
|
#8 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
What the LC was able to do in the 1970s was bankrupt SCP and threaten others with expensive lawsuits if they did not settle. A couple of decades later they tried the same tactics with Harvest House who had deep pockets and a deep pocket insurer who would not cave in to the demands of the LC system. Litigation ensued and we got to see how it played out in court in real time thanks to the Internet - a communication tool that wasn't around in the 1970s. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2012, 10:02 AM
|
#9 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Good morning saints,
Before we continue, I want to stop to go over the points some of you have raised. I want us to address the issues raised by both parties here in a thorough and balanced way, with respect for both parties. If what we are doing here is giving this book the trial it was due but never received, then we need to take into account all the facts and stand not only for the defense (if that is the way we might naturally be inclined), but also for the prosecution. Given that, let's look at ZNP's statement below: Quote:
You have copied the allegations made by the prosecution: Promulgating heresy, cultic practices, financial improprieties, deceitful recruiting, and autocratic control - and reposted them as though they have already been proven (established) to be true. However, we have not yet (atleast) found any such allegations made within the book in question. Until the evidence (if it exists) is uncovered, we cannot arrive at the conclusion that LSM's allegations are true. Also: When you say "I am referring to your extensive quote concerning the prohibition to lawsuits" - are you referring to my quote of 1st Corinthians 6:1-8? If your complaint is with that quote, then you will have to bring it to the Lord. The quote from 1st Corinthians does not stand alone in Scripture. The Lord on numerous occasions instructs us on how we are to deal with one another as brothers and sisters. Matthew 18:15-17 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." Here, the Lord's direct instruction to His disciples is to deal with a brother who sins against you (which is what Witness Lee and LSM have alleged) between you and him alone. SCP has already supplied evidence that they attempted to have such one-on-one discussions, but were repeatedly rebuffed by the Local Church of Anaheim and by Witness Lee in particular. 1st Peter 2:18-25 "Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. ..." Again, LSM alleges that SCP was behaving in an unjust way - but even if this is true, Scripture is clear: As "true" believers, LSM and Witness Lee are called to "suffer unjustly" - for "that is a gracious thing in the sight of God." In this case, one can argue that Lee refused to take up the cross, and suffer as Christ suffered - but rather sued for what he believed was his. Again: Matthew 5:38-42 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you." LSM and Witness Lee allege, essentially, that SCP at the least behaved in an evil way towards them. Weren't the words of our Lord Jesus Christ clear? Turn the other cheek. This trial, this propensity to litigate, has been used by the wide Christian community to condemn LSM. This one event, more than any other, has caused PERMANENT damage to LSM's testimony within the Christian community. That is precisely because, I must assert, that Scripture couldn't POSSIBLY be more clear: Suing a brother in Christ is WRONG. It is a SIN. The only way to arrive at another conclusion is to disregard or dismiss the clear Word of God and to say it lacks authority. I don't believe you would say that ZNP - from what you've written elsewhere, I really don't - I think what I've heard from you here is only reactionary; a nerve has been hit, because you were a part of the LC in the time this happened. Am I right? Do we not agree that all of Scripture is God Breathed, and that no prophet wrote of his own volition, but as carried along by the Spirit of God? Regardless: The point of this "trial" is not what God has to say on the matter. If it were, I think we would have to declare the defense the victor even before the trial began, because God would refuse to hear the case. The point of this trial is to give LSM what they say they wanted: A chance to appeal to Caesar. "Caesar" was an unbeliever - so the evidence that LSM brings forth as the prosecution (as well as the defense offered by SCP) must buttress arguments using secular law. That is not to say that Scripture cannot be used throughout the course of this trial - because in this case, I believe BOTH the Prosecution and the Defense recognize the Authority of the Word of God. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2012, 10:19 AM
|
#10 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
Well said, but let me add something to this, although I am not a lawyer. My understanding is, for something to be considered defamatory, it must not ONLY be proven to be false, it must ALSO be proven (by the Prosecution) that the Defandant was negligent in publishing something as "fact". In other words, an honest misunderstanding will not make a libel or slander charge stick. Think about this in terms of Journalism. Have you read a retraction in a newspaper before? Sometimes, journalists don't get their facts straight. Could they be sued for Defamation? Yes, *IF* it can be proven that they used only a single source to get the information they published, or if it can be proven that they had an agenda in printing what they did. For this reason, Journalists are instructed to use more than one source when printing an article. Newspapers stand to lose a lot if they print something false that results in financial damages. Was SCP negligent in what they printed? So far, it wouldn't seem so. They spent four years conducting research, and they interviewed current members, ex-members, and people who have had contact with the LC. They even tried to interview Witness Lee himself, and invited him to bring along two witnesses of his own. This they were refused (and they apparently have evidence of that), but they did make the effort. On this basis, whatever claims are made in this book, I am not certain that we can say they were "negligently" made. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2012, 10:23 AM
|
#11 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
My apologies brother, I meant no offense! I was only saying that what I'd heard about the book doesn't seem to jive so far with what I've now read. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2012, 10:34 AM
|
#12 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
I will assume that RK meant what he said - he wasn't saying this because he didn't want to discuss matters with Neil Duddy - he was saying it because he believes that Neil is incapable of understanding the language used by Witness Lee precisely because he hasn't been regenerated. IF I assume this to be true, then I have to ask: What responsibility does RK have to an unregenerated unbeliever (or "nominal christian") who comes to him seeking the truth? Does he have the right to dismiss him, or does the Lord call him to do more? Would the Lord call him to witness to this man? To tell him HOW to receive the Holy Spirit? Isn't that our calling? I would also ask, what standard is RK using here that allows him to determine that ND was an unregenerated unbeliever? Just questions I want to raise - I will not provide my answers to them. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2012, 10:45 AM
|
#13 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
The issue becomes this: if these two parties are unable to fellowship as brothers in Christ are they then forced to resort to the legal recourse afforded all citizens of the US? Second, if they decide they are unable to fellowship as brothers, why is that? Who bears responsibility for this? |
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2012, 10:52 AM
|
#14 |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 100
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Hello all,
A quick semi related question: How does Paul's appeal to Caesar fit into this. I ask because I have heard it used as an excuse for LSM to "appeal" to the courts. Thanks, A brother in faith |
|
|
|
|
11-21-2012, 10:53 AM
|
#15 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
I thought I explained very clearly in the post you referenced. I had first hand experience of gospel contacts being poisoned by people using this book. So I knew that when I heard others complain that this book was damaging the work it was a valid complaint. On the other hand we felt it was not a major issue for us at the school I was at because we felt Campus Crusade and Intervarsity had minimal impact and very little respect in the school. We were speaking to ten or twenty new gospel contacts per week and we felt they could only poison a handful of contacts per year. We certainly didn't ever think that a lawsuit was the answer. This was decided by the Texas elders, specifically James Barber was the one who insisted on this approach. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2012, 11:04 AM
|
#16 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
If you want a fair and unbiased account, then you have to include the way this book was used, who published it, and why. My personal opinion was that the lawsuit was a very big mistake. But the idea that this book didn't have an agenda or that it wasn't published out of jealousy is ridiculous. We had 5 brothers, intervarsity and campus crusade might have had 30 brothers and sisters. Our gospel was prevailing, reaching every corner of the campus. Their gospel was anemic and sickly, primarily composed of trying to dissuade our gospel contacts from listening or meeting with us. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2012, 11:07 AM
|
#17 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
DCP here is alleging that the reasons that SCP printed their books were any one of the following: 1) They opposed the speaking that said that all believers should be functioning members of the body. If you click on the reference link for SCP, you will see that it grew out of the Christian World Liberation Front (CWLF). It was a group of ex-hippies (or still-hippies) who came to Christ from lives that were tangled in the drugs and the counter-culture movement of that era. These were "Jesus People" - not Baptists or Catholics or Presbyterians. They were believers who WERE functioning members of the Body. They met in peoples homes and read the Bible together - they were not a part of ANY establishment and did not build their own "church". Remember that they were/are a parachurch organization: "Parachurch organizations are Christian faith-based organizations that work outside of and across denominations to engage in social welfare and evangelism, usually independent of church oversight. These bodies can be businesses, non-profit corporations, or private associations" (wikipedia). That being the case, I have to say this charge doesn't logically apply to SCP. 2) Some held a concept of the Christian faith that was strictly objective and doctrinal. Strictly objective and doctrinal? As used here, I believe "Objective" means "(of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts" (wikipedia). And "Doctrinal" means "Concerned with a doctrine or doctrines" (wikipedia). In the case of a secular lawsuit, Objective is a good thing. It disproves malicious intent. In the case of Doctrinal, I would think that would be hard to prove of a parachurch organization which presumably is made up of members who may come from different churches with different theological doctrines - but the case may prove me wrong. Let's keep an open mind on this one. 3. Uncomfortable with the entirely Biblical stress on the need to experience the indwelling Christ, they labeled it as an un-Christian and even as Eastern mystical teaching. This statement would need to be proven, and perhaps it can be through the course of our reading. At this point (just as an aside), let me point out that DCP is couching things in LSM-speak here quite a bit. It becomes apparent early on that this defense of their right to litigate is published for their own members, rather than for the public at large. I also find it interesting to note that they accuse SCP of relating what they do to "Eastern mystical teaching". I haven't encountered that charge by SCP (yet) - but IF true, I find it an interesting one. SCP, again, rooted in the counter-culture movement, had numerous members who were Saved from the eastern mystical religions found on the campuses in those times. In fact, SCP did a great deal of work exposing "gurus" - so they are intimately familiar with "Eastern Mystical Religions". Now let me ask a question quickly - and I haven't seen this in the book: But what is the difference between calling on the Lord as is done in the Meeting Halls, and using a Mantra? Just a question. 4) Others were motivated by a desire to maintain some level of prominence in Christian work. Does or did SCP have such a prominence? This is a charge that DCP would have to prove. 5) They felt threatened by a teaching that opposed the hierarchical clergy-laity system of today’s Christianity. Again, this group didn't come from "that day's Christianity" - they were "Jesus people", folks that most straight laced, suit wearing, Sunday church going families (not that there's anything wrong with that) wouldn't know what to make of, let alone what to do with. They met in houses, read the bible together, went to many different churches, weren't affiliated with any particular church, didn't subscribe to any particular doctrine (that we've read or that I can yet find), and didn't have a hierarchical structure. This claim by DCP seems more than far fetched. On the contrary, the Jesus People sure sound like they did a whole lot of what the early members of the LC did. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2012, 11:13 AM
|
#18 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2012, 11:13 AM
|
#19 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
Doesn't your presence here, and your long posts on Witness Lee being a False Teacher do the very thing that SCP was accused of doing? |
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2012, 11:24 AM
|
#20 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
I use the word poison because a person that we preached the gospel to and who prayed with us one day would not talk to us other than to say this group had talked to them the next day. That is not "warned". Also, if they had then shepherded this newly saved one I would feel less negative about it, but they felt their work was done by preventing us from shepherding this one. We preached the gospel to unbelievers, not people meeting with intervarsity or campus crusade, they talked to them, and now this person doesn't want to talk to any Christian. Yes, that in my understanding is poisoned. SCP were prophets for hire. They were paid by a Christian group to come in and curse the LRC. What they did was similar to what Balaam did. Since Balaam is the poster boy for false teachers I have used him as an example of what Witness Lee did. So no, what SCP did is what Witness Lee did, which is what Balaam did, not what I have done. I do not see any similarity to my posts on this forum. I believe they both used pernicious ways. I have gone into great depth of why I think WL used pernicious ways, I also have first hand experiences concerning this book but see little reason to share them here. They both used fabricated words. They both were motivated by covetousness. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2012, 11:28 AM
|
#21 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
I apologize if I have offended you, ZNP. I do welcome your input, I only ask that you consider how you testify to what you do. You are witness to the time, and your input is valuable...
Regarding your charge of SCP being a "prophet for hire" - can you substantiate this claim? |
|
|
|
|
11-21-2012, 01:34 PM
|
#22 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
A Pause to State a Purpose
I want to skip ahead a little in the reading, just to page 20, to transcribe here what the author claims the purpose of this book was and was not. I ask that we read it without prejudice: "In our treatment of the theological content of Witness Lee's teaching, we have attempted to restrict most of our critique to a separate chapter evaluating Lee's thought as a whole. Total separation of exposition and evaluation has not been possible, but where our appraisals occur, they should be evident. Our quotations from Lee's writings are intended as illustrations of his beliefs rather than as "proof texts" for any theological positions. Several things we have not (emphasis the authors) attempted to do in this study should be noted: 1) We have not tried to answer such questions as "Is Witness Lee a Christian?" or "Are members of the Local Church saved?". Whatever one's personal opinions on such matters, both questions are biblically inappropriate for our present purposes. Christian men and women, even if sometimes misguided or ill-informed, do belong to Local Church congregations. The nucleus of this book is rather an attempt to answer the question: 'Does the doctrine of Witness Lee and the LC present a picture of God, Christ, the human condition, and Christian responsibilities in a needy world that is true to the content of biblical revelation? That is an answerable question which Scripture constrains us to address." It is important that we read this. If the author is sincere about this stated purpose, then what we read later should meet this standard (and we'll see if it does). If this is true, then what we read should not be slanderous towards either the person of Witness Lee, or of any other member of the LC. FYI the 2nd and 3rd statements which are NOT within the scope of this book are that it's "NOT an exhaustive catalogue of LC teaching" and it's "NOT a study of LC social dynamics", as they can only speak for the communities with which their correspondents interacted - although there seems to be a 'high degree of uniformity' between the communities surveyed, based on the observations and experiences of those who testified to the author. |
|
|
|
|
11-21-2012, 01:42 PM
|
#23 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
I'm not equating the LRC to the JWs or Mormons. But there are many who believe that the LRC is quite heretical in some ways, and "cultish" in others, although within the general bounds of Christianity. Should their warnings be insisted to be "poison" just because we don't think that badly about the LRC? Would you warn others about The Way, Garner Ted Armstrong's group, or some other extremely marginal group. Remember, someone doesn't think they are marginal. But would you want the people you warn to still be going to meet with them the next day? The point is not that the assessment of the LRC is entirely correct, but that the result of their warnings is not something dire and subject to legal sanction. We might even "warn" people about the RCC. Do you expect them to sue you? Argue why the SCP assessment is wrong. But looking at the result is meaningless because if their assessment was correct, I would want the result to be even stronger than it was. In your earlier post you said: Quote:
Is the characterization of the motives for the book little more than a spin? Might they have countered that they believed that there was something sociologically dangerous about the LRC and they felt that an open exposure of the problems and errors they saw was needed? Does the fact that a group that was evangelizing on the Berkley campus funded or requested the study evidence that it is tainted? Was competition for converts so great that there was a battle for them? It would seem that the group that ultimately does not "keep" them, but instead steers them to other churches has no reason to compete. It is not so personal with them. But the other has a vested interest in the outcome. Numbers means more money. For Campus Crusade, funding generally comes from outside. Their existence on campus is almost always as a para-church mission group. None of these questions determine whether the findings by SCP were correct, or were presented in a fair manner. But neither does the LRC's charges of "commissioned" or "in competition" direct that what was reported was false or misleading. There are other Christian groups on most campuses and they are not "competing" in the way that the LRC seems to think that they were with Campus Crusade. In any case, while I might have doctrinal disagreements with the Baptists or the Methodists, I generally would not be fighting them on the campus (or anywhere else for that matter). And if there was a group of Buddhists on campus, I might not even fight them other than in the typical way of warning anyone that showed an interest in their group. But if there was a group that I thought was somehow wandering into Eastern mysticism or other more serious error yet was putting on a front of being mainstream Christian, and attracting a lot of people, I might commission someone to look into them as well. The point here is not that they were right in their assessment, but that they were not necessarily doing something unusual or even illegal. Just something that didn't sit well with the LRC. As I mentioned the other day, I read The God Men a few years ago. I cannot say that it is entirely accurate on every point because I do not have the facts to say one way or the other. But what I do know is that they pretty well captured the sociology of the group, and reasonably questioned the origins of some of the practices. Their conclusions were not ridiculous or obviously flawed. There is some question as to whether their assessment of a private account of overt control was correct, or whether the account was later withdrawn in part due to that very kind of control. Unfortunately, something that is nearly impossible to prove one way or the other unless multiple personal witnesses are made and are not later withdrawn or alleged to be misrepresented. And, as I mentioned the other day, the LRC has a history of getting people to tell things different from the truth for the purpose of painting a picture that is not true to life.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
||
|
|
|
|
11-21-2012, 01:50 PM
|
#24 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
My experience is clearly quite different from most that post on this forum. During my freshman year I was very happy and very involved in college and had nothing to do with any Christian groups on the campus. During that time a brother from the LRC would visit with me and share the gospel. He usually came by Sunday night after the Lord's table, a time where everyone was ready to focus on getting work done for class the next day and hence a very good time to find me. When I did come into the church I felt that the school was very fleshly and the battle wasn't between the LRC and Christianity, or the LRC and the other Christians on campus. I felt the battle was between the Christians on campus and the atheists. During my freshman year one of my roommates had crowed about how this school was essentially "an atheist" school with virtually no Christian presence, which was unusual for Texas. During my sophomore year I was essentially the only brother on campus from the LRC, though others visited regularly. I was excited to be a Christian and went to meetings of Christians on campus which were not at all affiliated with the LRC because you couldn't hold meetings unless you were on campus and except for me the LRC wasn't. As a result I knew the brothers and sisters in Inter Varsity and Campus Crusade. (I thought they didn't know me since I had changed a lot and had run in different circles, but during my senior year one brother told me "we knew who you were and we gave God the glory"). There was one brother in that group that I really admired. He was a great brother, he was working a job to put himself through school, and he was a top student. By my senior year the entire atmosphere on campus had completely changed. The gospel was the focus of the entire campus. Every year the school has a special issue on April Fool's and that issue dealt with the gospel in every article, and the major articles were clearly about us, the ones from the LRC. I can give you numerous testimonies about how everyone on that campus knew who we were, but let me focus on this book, the God Men, instead. We had a very prevailing gospel that year, virtually every day we were bringing someone on that campus to the Lord. We would preach and pray with them during lunch. Our table was open to all, so we often fellowshipped with other Christians on campus. We knew them and were all very cordial with one another. Then we learned that one person we had prayed with had been approached by some Christians on campus later and using this book they were convinced not to talk with us. We knew this because one of the brothers in the room at the time came and told us. That didn't bother me, we were praying with so many new ones that we couldn't take care of them all. If the brother who had shared this had then taken this new one under their wing and shepherded them I wouldn't have minded. We then went and asked this brother if this was true and he told us it wasn't. This is the same brother that I had admired so much a couple years earlier and had been an example to me. The other brothers were outraged, "he lied" and "we have to expose him", etc. I couldn't bear to do this. I wasn't going to make up a story like WL did, but I also wasn't going to expose him. I told them to forget it. They were stunned, I had never turned down a fight during my four years on that campus. My feeling was that this was a shame. We should have been working together, we should have been thrilled that what was a completely atheistic school less than four years ago was now a school where everyone was confronted with the gospel. But instead this wonderful brother, very solid character is reduced to poisoning new converts and then lying about it. Now you tell me if that is the testimony of someone who is under a genuine ministry? In that meeting he basically handed the new one a copy of the God Men and said "here, read this". What kind of gospel is that? |
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2012, 03:08 PM
|
#25 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2012, 03:36 PM
|
#26 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
The testimony was that no one spoke the word to him for years, then when one group of Christians does others watch and immediately tell him "don't listen to them". That was the testimony. The very thing that we condemn WL, the LRC and LSM for. Paul says that we should not be conquered by the evil but rather conquer evil with good. By suing them they were conquered by the evil. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2012, 06:31 PM
|
#27 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
http://static.harvesthousepublishers..._Lawsuit_3.pdf In a news release dated June 20, 2003, Local Church spokesman Dan Towle stated, ―Harvest House Publishers and its authors chose to ignore our year–long efforts to resolve this issue.‖42 And on their website www.contendingforthefaith.org, in an article titled ―Facts about Pending Litigation with Harvest House Publishers and Authors,‖ The Local Church claims Harvest House Publishers and authors Ankerberg and Weldon ―utterly disregard[ed their] letters‖ and that there was an ―aggressive refusal to give timely consideration‖ to their appeals. These allegations are seriously misrepresentative, for in fact, every letter from The Local Church received a timely and courteous response from Harvest House and Ankerberg and Weldon. For the sake of setting the record straight, here is a detailed chronology of what happened: January 11, 2001—The Local Church Writes to Harvest House: The Local Church sent their first letter of complaint, which was only one page long, general in nature, and did not point to the specific problems they alleged were in the Encyclopedia. In a clear reference to a previous lawsuit filed by some Local Churches, they closed their letter with these words: ―We hope you know that this kind of writing has been ruled as libelous concerning us in the past.‖ January 19, 2001—Harvest House and Authors Respond to The Local Church: Because of The Local Church‘s reference to libel, and because of Harvest House‘s desire to maintain the highest of integrity in any matter in which libel might possibly be involved, Harvest House answered through one of its attorneys and asked for ―written information‖ that would help us to evaluate The Local Church‘s concerns and provide them ―with a meaningful response.‖ Response time: 8 days. May 16, 2001—The Local Church Writes to Harvest House: Surprisingly, The Local Church took almost four months to respond to Harvest House‘s January 19 letter. In this one–page letter The Local Church indicated a desire to meet to discuss the book, but again, never provided specific explanations that would help Harvest House and the authors to know which statements in the Encyclopedia were allegedly problematic. In the letter, The Local Church referred to ―preparing to answer‖ via lawyers, and cited a 1985 lawsuit filed by the Local Churches. (In that suit, The Local Church obtained a default judgment—a judgment in which the losing party ―defaults,‖ or is unable to or does not defend itself. The ministry that The Local Church sued had to declare bankruptcy because it could no longer afford the cost of defending itself.) Continued in Next Post |
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2012, 06:34 PM
|
#28 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
June 4, 2001—Harvest House and Authors Respond to The Local Church: Harvest House and authors Ankerberg and Weldon answered directly, and for the second time, asked for specific details instead of general complaints: ―we are requesting that you provide us with a written explanation of your specific objections....we shall thoroughly evaluate it, approaching the evaluation with an open mind.‖ This letter also stated, ―If we feel that there would be any benefit in having a meeting as suggested in your letter, we shall certainly contact you to arrange for it.‖ That hardly constituted an ―aggressive refusal‖ to The Local Church‘s attempts to resolve the issue. Response time: 19 days.
November 20, 2001—The Local Church Writes to Harvest House: Nearly a year after The Local Church sent its first complaint letter and more than five months after Harvest House sent its second request for their specific objections about the text of the book, The Local Church finally sent a lengthy written explanation of what they viewed as errors in the Encyclopedia. Ironically, while The Local Church took 10 months to supply the information Harvest House and the authors had originally requested back on January 19, The Local Church firmly demanded that Harvest House respond to the lengthy compilation of allegations in a mere two weeks. The Local Church also closed the letter by emphatically stating, ―Your failure to do so will give us little alternative but to pursue legal action against you.‖ November 29, 2001—Harvest House and Authors Respond to The Local Church: Once again Harvest House replied immediately, explaining that the company ―has just moved its offices, and we are currently in the process of completing our transition. In addition, as I‘m sure you realize, during the holiday season, it is extremely difficult to devote the time necessary to a project such as this in order to truly do it justice.‖ Still, Harvest House promised to provide a response, and stated that ―the points made in your letter will be carefully reviewed and evaluated.‖ Response time: 9 days. Contrary to The Local Church‘s claim that Harvest House ―utterly disregard[ed their] letters,‖ in every case, Harvest House sent a gracious and timely response. More importantly, because The Local Church waited until November 20, 2001 to detail their complaints, Harvest House and the authors were left for nearly a full year in the awkward position of not knowing how they should evaluate The Local Church‘s undefined complaints about the Encyclopedia. All the complaints in The Local Church‘s first two letters (January 11 and May 16) were very vague and never pinpointed which statements in the Encyclopedia were supposedly defamatory. While waiting for this information from The Local Church, authors Ankerberg and Weldon had, in fact, carefully reevaluated the Encyclopedia‘s chapter on The Local Church to ensure it was accurate, and confirmed that indeed it was. To be continued |
|
|
|
|
11-22-2012, 12:45 AM
|
#29 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Regarding your charge of SCP being a "prophet for hire" - can you substantiate this claim?
Quote:
Again, this being a mock trial, let's try to stick to the facts. We can't throw around accusations if they have no founding. Thanks ZNP. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2012, 01:11 AM
|
#30 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
I see no one has answered your question, so I will try to do it justice here: LSM needed to provide Scritural evidence to their supporters and detractors alike that there can be times when taking a matter before a secular authority is not only acceptable for a believer, it is even proscribed. The Scripture they use is from the book of Acts (see Chapter 25). Here we find that Paul has been held in a kind of protective custody for some years, and now a new man has been put in charge of the district - Festus. Festus hold's Pauls fate in his hands, and doesn't really know what to do with him. Festus is not a believer in Jesus Christ, and sees a political opportunity for himself in delivering Paul over to the Jews for trial in Jerusalem. Paul realizes his goose is cooked if he's sent back there, so in a last ditch attempt to avoid a tragic ending, he appeals to Caesar (as is his right as a Roman citizen). Does this argument hold water? You didn't precisely ask this question, but I think you alluded to it. LSM is trying to liken their situation in regards to publishings which cast them in a negative light to Pauls imprisonment by unbelieving Roman officials, while being charged with crimes by unbelieving Jews. You see, the common denominator in this situation that Paul is in, is that there IS no Christian brother making charges against him - rather, it's unbelievers. Further, no Christian brother is keeping him - he is surrounded by the unbelieving. Secular law is his ONLY possible resort. That is certainly not the case with this trial, nor was it with the Harvest House trial which Terry has been sharing information on here. In both cases, LSM brought litigation against Christian brethren, which is forbidden by Scripture. One might ask, "as American citizens, do we not have the right to bring a matter such as this to court"? To which I would answer: As American citizens, you ABSOLUTELY have the right to take this matter to court - just as you also have the right to practice Islam or Witchcraft or Satanism, or to use late-term abortions as a form of birth control, or to marry same sex partners or multiple partners (in a number of states, anyway), or to get divorced as often as you like, or to drink to the point of inebriation regularly.... Heck, there's a lot of things one can do as an American citizen... But seriously: citizens of Christs' Kingdom ought to know that they are held to higher standard. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2012, 01:39 AM
|
#31 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
A Source is Revealed
"One of our sources of information on Local Church practices was Max D. Rapoport, who served as Witness Lee's right-hand man for more than four years, ending in 1978. A forceful, dynamic personality, Rapoport provided leadership and counsel for the Local Church nationally and internationally. His responsibilities included directing leaders' training sessions, drafting church policy and managing church business affairs. Rapoport eventually became Lee's most intimate associate and favored confidante. Then, as president of the Anaheim Local Church and a member of the board of directors of Living Stream, Inc, Rapoport became convicted about Local Church practices and for eighteen months sought to instigate reform. He gradually slipped from his status as Lee's heir apparent and finally was publically denounced before the LC's in Orange County. A videotape of that meeting was sent to all the other LC's in the US. By that time he had left the LC, accompanied by a number of other disquieted members. Lee and LC officials have decried Rapoports defection and labeled him a lost son of perdition. Rapoport and his associates, however, have opted for biblical truth, sound practice, and open fellowship with all Christians. In Rapoport's appraisal, "Lee's attempts to restate biblical teachings in nontraditional theological vocabulary have almost inevitably led to misunderstanding." Many times Lee speaks or writes to fit the need of the moment as he seeks to control the so-called "flow" and direction of all the LC's. Rapoport asserts, however, that Lee is not a "modalist". Nor, according to Rapoport, does Lee believe that "mingling" deifies the Christian convert, even though Lee's oral teachings, writing and illustrations appear to affirm both a modalistic Godhead and the deification of believers. Rapoport believes that Lee personally holds a more biblical view than many of his words indicate." Well, I never knew Max. I only "know" what I've read on Bereans (http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?t=35391). For any unfamiliar, I would direct you there to the back-and-forth testimonies regarding the man. Whatever your ultimate conclusion, you cannot say that he isn't someone who would be "in the know". He *might* have had an axe to grind (or he might not, I've heard he won't speak about the matter of his quarantine, and is working with John Ingalls and a number of other brothers?) Whatever the case, he definitely is intimately familiar with Witness Lee and LSM. |
|
|
|
|
11-22-2012, 03:31 AM
|
#32 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2012, 03:39 AM
|
#33 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
The principle is relatively simple and straightforward, based on Paul's use of his Roman citizenship it is reasonable to say that we have the right to use our citizenship as well. The question is what do you do when you have two opposing principles? Paul said "is there no one that can judge between you? and "why not rather suffer loss?" I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that "not suing a brother" trumps the principle of using your citizenship. However, please note, it takes two to tango. If you wish to condemn LSM, and I am obviously on record doing so, then you should give the same judgement to the God Men, Inter Varsity, etc. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2012, 03:49 AM
|
#34 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Again, I would argue that someone who was in the elder meetings in which James Barber insisted that the church sue and to which Witness Lee agreed would be a much more relevant witness to what happened and how. Since Witness Lee and his associates were thoroughly deposed I would think there is a record of these discussions somewhere. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2012, 04:07 AM
|
#35 | ||||
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
|
|
|
11-22-2012, 04:12 AM
|
#36 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
On the basis that they didn't preach. Their gospel comprised listing their organizations as Christian organizations on the campus and then people who were Christians would contact them. I had been actively involved with them for my first year, and then in frequent contact since then. Some of their members respected us since we were the only ones who actually preached the gospel on campus. This is why they were offended when they saw other members poisoning gospel contacts. Like me they thought we should be working together. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2012, 04:20 AM
|
#37 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
However, since I am much more familiar with the LRC response and lawsuits and have judged that these things were shameful for Christians I can use that as a basis. The "competition" as you put it between InterVarsity and the LRC was started by this book. You might not like the way the LRC "ended" it, but it is absurd to give Inter Varsity a pass since they "started" it. I think there is a proverb that says something to the effect 'if you wring your nose you are going to get a bloody nose'. Inter Varsity wrung their nose and they got a bloody nose. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2012, 07:22 AM
|
#38 | |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
Let's try to stay with what IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN in the book. Let's give NFnL a little breathing room to present as much or as little as he wants, and address the issues one by one as they are presented. Keep in mind that NFnL did not write this book, he is merely presenting what is written and opening it up for discussion. Lastly, I'm going to have to INSIST that certain posters stop making it so darned personal, and nitpicking every jot and tittle....it makes for a very tense atmosphere, and it makes for very tedious reading. Yes, we are dealing with very sensitive and controversial issues - but that does not mean we have to forget that we are brothers and sisters, and that others are watching and listening. Let's all try to be sensitive to THEIR sensibilities and THEIR time.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2012, 10:43 AM
|
#39 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
What I have bolded from Neitherfirstnorlast's post,is to single out as an example of a double standard. It was okay to circulate a video of Max being publicly denounced, but it was not okay when the audio of the Anaheim August 1988 meeting being circulated when the Anaheim elders gave their 16 points message. Whoever was responsible for circulating the tapes, it was John Ingalls and maybe his co-elders too were blamed for the tapes being circulated. Sorry LSM, you cannot have it both ways. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2012, 03:17 PM
|
#40 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
And please pardon my earlier interruption of your posts on the Harvest House lawsuit, I'd like more info (I am guilty of not following your links, I'm afraid). Honestly, what amazes me the most is that I have never heard that Max was involved in any way with "The God-Men". I have seen many ex-members asked what became of him (see Bereans link I provided in the last post), and no one volunteered an answer. No one seemed to know. If LSM read this book, and obviously they did, and if Max's testimony is so easily dismissed, WHY WOULDN'T THEY TELL THEIR LOYAL MEMBERS THAT MAX WAS A PART OF THIS? That question needs to be answered, because as of right now, this lawsuit by Witness Lee is starting to look more like a snow-job. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2012, 03:21 PM
|
#41 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Saints, I'd like to take a break right now and ask you people more in the know that I, for more background on Max Rapoport. I think establishing the credibility of this witness is crucial to the case at hand, as I believe his credibility has already been called into question.
I provided a link to a discussion about "Max Rapoport's So-called Rebellion", and from it I would like to insert a copy of some of the testimonies regarding Max here. Sandee Rapoport, Max's wife has testified (11/10/05) "Dear Bill W. (and others) My daughter and I were told about this website. Our family has never discussed this in a public way on the internet but after reading your testimony this morning, we were both in tears regarding your experience with the local church.* You are one among thousands of familys that were torn apart and destroyed by the LC.* The devestating affect on the Saints is too painful to even given utterance to.* I just wanted you to know personally how sorry I am and how happy I am to hear that the Great Shepard of the sheep has led you back to himself and that your wounds are being healed and that your finding God is restoring your family life through a new situation.* I relate to your pain personally for I have passed through many of the things did.* I found through praying for the leadership and all the saints in the LC that they truly do not realize what they have done and are doing. So instead of anger, have pity for them and pray that their eyes would be open to Christ and his great love for EVERY saint that he has died for.* Many people that had prayed for the destruction of our lives, have come out and come to us in love and apologized realizing what they were a part of.* So know that it is not impossible for your children to have their eyes opened. All in the Lord's timing.* Please feel free to email me if you need further healing. My family will be praying for you specifically and praying for the restoration of your relationship with your children.* I am open to hearing from anyone, including any saints that we may have offended or hurt in any way during this time. Your Sister in Christ, Sandee Rapoport You can reach me here: http://thebereans.net/forum/index.ph...sa=send;u=1646 Jessica Rapoport's testimony is recorded here (11/11/05) Hi Everyone, My name is Jessica and I am Max and Sandee Rapoport's daughter.* I was 9 years old when my parents left the LC.* My mother encouraged me to reach out to adult children of ex LC members. So that is why I am logging on.* If there is anyway I can be a help to any of you please feel free to email me.* Although I was quite young when we escaped I was still quite affected in many ways as were all members of our family, immediate and extended.* My mother has asked me to give a short testimony on here regarding what I saw and felt and that is all I can really speak to so here goes.... I was one year old when my parents joined the LC.* Most of my experiences with the church were very positive. I loved going to Sunday school and especially remember marching up the stairs at the LC in Anaheim to sing to the Saints. What I most remember was the childrens' worship which still permeates my being today.* Praise God I was able to take the good from it all.* The thing that was most troubling and difficult for me as a child was how often my parents were gone. They were at the church meetings seven days a week. We were primarily left with babysitters.* When this occurs, you begin to question your value. Girls get their values from their fathers primarily and it was clear to me that the LC was top priority!* This was the most damaging part I believe.* Fortunately God is good and as soon as we left, my parents were with us day and night. Another difficult aspect of it for me was that kids that were my friends, suddenly were not allowed to speak to me and in fact one told me that he couldn't play with me anymore because I was "of the devil."* I had no idea what that meant but I knew it was very bad and that I was losing a friend. I ran home and cried to my mom. This was especially painful for her because she realized that this was going to affect all of us.* Shortly after, we had paint and eggs thrown at our door and phone death threats. I kept thinking (who would do that to us) I never knew we had enemies.* We then moved to Colorado to have a fresh start and because it wasn't safe for us in Anaheim.* Their marriage suffered greatly as well, but thank God he kept our family together, which is more then I can say for most families who got out.* We have survived and grown closer to each other and the Lord because of all of these things. Our family has moved on from this. I hold on to no anger, and no pain from these experiences. We are happy and healthy and that is my wish for all of you.* That you can move forward in your lives and see the experience as part of the journey that the Lord has set before you.* I know that some of the children blame God for their suffering and have turned from him.* Please know that God does not equal religion and that he loves you and has a plan and purpose for your life.* If you don't feel his deep love for you, please email me and I will pray for you specifically. You can reach me here: http://thebereans.net/forum/index.ph...sa=send;u=1649 " Jessica, being obviously intimately acquainted with Max, also had this to say in regards to the character of her parent's current view of the members of the LRC, in a post dated 4/18/06: "Hi Count Me Worthy, Yes, there is much speculation about my father and mother regarding their time in the L.C. but what does it all matter now. We (escaped, were thrown out, left, etc. call it what you will) with our family intact. God allowed so many of those things to happen and they were very painful for my parents mostly because they loved Witness Lee and the other Saints so much. You call people "brother and sister," but brothers and sisters are supposed to love you no matter what. When I was young I used to try to say mean things about the saints and Brother Lee because I saw the pain my parents were going through and my mom would get very angry and say, " don't you dare talk that way about any of them. They are my brothers and sisters!" I didn't understand because those "brothers and sisters" were praying for our deaths and threatening our family. I now understand that she loved them then and still does no matter what they did to her because they both feel in their hearts that people were just deceived and it's not their fault. They have embraced many people since then who have apologized for praying for our deaths. I understand it now, but it was strange then. If you knew my parents you would love them because they are real. Everyone who really knows them does. You can't help loving them because they will do anything for you and will always forgive you. They don't pretend they were perfect, they just are who they are. My parents hold no ill will for anyone in the L.C. past or PRESENT! They know we will all be together shortly with the Lord and all of this will fall away!" Another member of Bereans, Octim, has testified (4/18/06) "Jessica, I bumped into your dad after he had left the local church and what impressed me was how HAPPY he was! He was glowing with Christ! All the junk about Max this and Max that went out the window when I just talked to him. He was so genuine and real and loving. It made me immediately question what I had been told about "Max's rebellion". He was also the only elder that ever would show that its OK to have a sense of humor. So many elders would speak like professors, Max would speak like a excited college coach, cheering his team on! As a young person, I responded to that much better than a lecture. Praise the Lord, Max has moved on and isn't bitter. I have been amazed at how these brothers that went through so much(John Ingalls, Al Knoch, Max) are NOT bitter! They would have a right to be, considering the slander that was spread. It just goes to show that the Love of Christ can wipe away anything." Please people, what can you offer personally about Max? Please stick to first hand information and present the facts as you know them. |
|
|
|
|
11-22-2012, 07:41 PM
|
#42 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
I'm not sure if the heartburn I'm experiencing now is from too much stuffing or from thinking about how Max R. got jobbed by Lee and Company almost 35 years ago. I'm also not sure if you're going to get a lot of "personally" out of any of us out here in cyberspace... Mr. Max's short (albeit impactful) stint in the Local Church goes back to the early to late 1970s, so it's only us endanger LC dinosaurs who know (or care) about the events surrounding this error...errr...era.
But since you asked.... I think the quotes you have pulled from the BARM forum say A LOT....how many Christian groups, when you leave them (for any reason) would produce death-like threats and curses (from what was maybe weeks or months earlier, your close brothers in Christ) towards your school aged children? Really, this fact alone speaks volumes about the kind of atmosphere that was produced by Witness Lee, and by extension his most ardent followers.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
11-22-2012, 08:48 PM
|
#43 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2012, 08:51 PM
|
#44 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2012, 02:21 PM
|
#45 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
"That is certainly not the case with this trial, nor was it with the Harvest House trial which Terry has been sharing information on here. In both cases, LSM brought litigation against Christian brethren, which is forbidden by Scripture."
NeitherFirst, This does not make sense at all and is an example of abiding by the letter and not the spirit of the Bible. By this definition a neighbor can expand his property by moving your fence-line and if he professes to be a christian, or worse, claims that God told him to do it then you would by this definition above not take any action in the courts? Of course you would and you would do it without hesitation and you would not wrestle with this doctrinal argument you are presenting now. Christians, sometimes well-meaning and sometimes not, cannot hide behind the letter of the Scripture while violating the spirit of it. If it is right in your eyes that Duddy/SCP can write such a book then to be consistent you have to allow Witness Lee the moral right to refute it in the civil court of law if necessary. There are laws we all must abide by in the land we live and if a Christian, or a Christian group, breaks those laws then he is subject to prosecution and consequences under those same laws.
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
11-23-2012, 02:44 PM
|
#46 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Witness Lee, and now his band of blended brothers, only follow the letter of the law when it suits them. Of course when somebody calls them on not following the letter of the law they whine and cry about how they are following the spirit of the law. Lee was HUGE about trying to have it both ways, and now his "continuation" has followed in his footsteps.
Thankfully, in this last money-grubbing go around the Local Church of Witness Lee got spanked hard...but not before wasting mu mu mu MILLIONS of the brothers and sisters hard earned money. Very sad indeed.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
11-23-2012, 02:58 PM
|
#47 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
"Now let me ask a question quickly - and I haven't seen this in the book: But what is the difference between calling on the Lord as is done in the Meeting Halls, and using a Mantra? Just a question."
The most outstanding difference is the object. It is scriptural to call on the Lord but it is vain to call on Krishna. It is scriptural to pray in the Spirit and allow Him to direct, lead, guide you, and saturate you. It is vain to "Om" into transformation. Using your logic one could make a case against faith in Christ by asking "what is the difference between faith in Christ and faith in Buddha?" The answer is the same: It is the object that makes the difference, not the act of faith. Likewise it is not the calling on the Lord that is an issue but rather it is the object that matters. There are other differences but this is the central one. Yes, it was a question, yet an implied one.
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
11-23-2012, 03:09 PM
|
#48 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
...but Cassidy, I am glad you are still here and reading. May the Lord open your eyes to the Truth of His Word. In Christ, Ray |
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2012, 03:27 PM
|
#49 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
So, based on Paul's use of his citizenship as a Roman we as Christians have every right to use the laws that are written for all citizens. However, we should not use the laws that allow us to sue others for libel if they are Christians, rather we should suffer loss. However, no "Christian" would commit libel, because that means they are walking according to the flesh. Therefore it is OK to sue for libel even if the person you are suing claims to be a Christian because they are "lying". We "know a tree by its fruit". Since their "fruit" is "evil" we can go ahead and use the laws even if they claim to be a Christian. What a wonderful loophole. So glad you cleared that up for us. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2012, 03:30 PM
|
#50 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2012, 03:49 PM
|
#51 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 1
For the purposes of our study of this book, and in keeping within the rights of fair-use laws, I want to keep what I post down to excerpts from our book. For that reason, I will offer a brief synopsis of the chapter, and then go over some of the major points. I would like to state that throughout this book are numerous references - in fact, the appendix at the back of the book cites no less than 295 references from which quotes have been taken. These references are not only of Lee's works - with page references. A quick count shows that there are around 20 of Lee's published titles here. I say this simply to illustrate the thoroughness of this investigation. Chapter One is about why we should investigate our spiritual teachers, what we should use a standard to investigate their teachings, what might attract one to a particular kind of teaching, and what reasons we have in particular to investigate Witness Lee. Why Should We Investigate our Teachers? "Evangelical Christians regard the Bible as the authoritative source for teaching on morality and social propriety, as well as theology... Many of Paul's letters emphasize a need for orthopraxis in addition to orthodoxy, that is, for both "right doing" and "right teaching", guided by Scripture. In his commentary The Epistles of John, John R. W. Stott notes the need for Christian communities to evaluate their teachers using Scripture as their base. Focusing on 1 John 2, Stott recommends the application of three tests, two of which are a social test and a doctrinal test. These enable a Christian community to recognize the sometimes alluring falsities of pseudopraxis and heterodoxy among it's teachers. ..1 John 2:9 "The one who says he is the light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. The one who loves his brother abides in the light and there is no cause for stumbling in him." An instructor whose relationships within the Christian community are consistently abrasive and fraught with strife, has, by biblical definition, run askew." ...1 John 2:24-25 "let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father." ...the apostle John required Christians to measure the teachings of their instructors by the apostolic teachings." ******************** It cannot be argued that Witness Lee and the Local Churches certainly have poor relationships with outsiders. Christian brethren have not only been the target of attacks from within Lee's writings, but also in the real world. I have heard stories of LC youth marching on Moody Bible College, telling them that "Babylon is falling", and we all know that the lawsuit launched against SCP was not the first and not the last LSM has cooked up. The authors have not cited any of these incidents - and I believe that's because they want the reader to look for themselves at their own teacher and his movement. As for Lee's teachings, he is proud to say that he has been shown so much more than others, that he preaches a higher gospel, that he has recovered the 'high peaks", etc, etc. I only ask, is Lee saying that the Bible is insufficient in itself to reveal God's redemptive plan to men without Lee's ministry? |
|
|
|
|
11-23-2012, 04:58 PM
|
#52 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
Of course, that convenience will lead to falsely accusing genuine believers of being heathens, pagans, or false Christians. Accordingly, Duddy would only be justified writing a libelous or slanderous book against Witness Lee BECAUSE he believed Witness Lee was not a genuine Christian. In turn, LSM would only have been justified taking civil action if they believed that Duddy were not a genuine Christian. However, to the best of my knowledge, neither party accused the other of not being genuine Christians. That is where the doctrinal stance and argument taken by Ray breaks down in my view. I personally believe there are circumstances where the civil courts play an important role in settling disputes among all its citizens. It is not the preferred route between believers but sometimes it is snecessary. It also recognizes that genuine Christians sin against God and others (including other Christians). Christians can lie, steal, move fences, covet, etc. That is just a fact. Unfortunately, sometimes a civil action is necessary.
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2012, 09:27 PM
|
#53 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
To sue or not to sue....that is NOT the question.
Ray, don't take the bait. All the lawsuits are only a symptom of a very serious and potentially fatal decease that has brought down many religious institutions, even Christian institutions. Discussions regarding the causes (and even the effects) of lawsuits are a smokescreen.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
11-23-2012, 09:53 PM
|
#54 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 100
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
Paul's appeal had to do with defending the gospel against unbelievers, the gospel, not secular matters. The point is, disputes between believers ought to be settled among believers and not in such away that would discredit believers in front of unbelievers. Here, it's any dispute since Paul doesn't qualify other than to call the disputes trivial. If a brother moves a fenceline and is adamant than, yes, rather than bringing him to court, despite how right you are, you should rather be wronged according to Paul. That's pretty clear. Of course reconciliation should be sought, there should be ones among the brothers who can settle such disputes. When a non believer makes accusations we have two possibilities, Christ's turn the other cheek or Paul's appeal to Caesar. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I am sure Paul's decision came after a lot of pray throughout the whole time he had been in prison. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-24-2012, 05:20 AM
|
#55 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
That said I don't think it is an effective practice for the pot to be calling the kettle black. As for my personal experience there was no basis to say that we provoked a bad relationship with the Christians on my campus. The way in which this book was used on that campus would have been objectionable to anyone. So again, here they are pointing their finger at us and yet they have three fingers pointing back at themselves. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-24-2012, 05:23 AM
|
#56 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-24-2012, 05:27 AM
|
#57 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-24-2012, 06:25 AM
|
#58 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
"If what we are doing here is giving this book the trial it was due but never received, then we need to take into account all the facts and stand not only for the defense (if that is the way we might naturally be inclined), but also for the prosecution." If, according to his argument, Christians cannot sue other Christians for libel and slander then neither can they sue them for moving the property line. What Ray proposes is that a person who moves a property-line is a liar and therefore cannot be a Christian therefore he could and would sue them. That argument (genuine Christian or liar) is not one that either SCP or LSM based their dispute on. Ray, I understand you would like to introduce the notion that LSM was wrong for taking action through the civil courts against SCP. However, you can't have it both ways. If you are going to take a doctrinal stance and level charges against LSM for suing SCP then you cannot give Duddy a pass for libel and slander AGAINST FELLOW CHRISTIANS which you will also find the Scriptures replete with such references. The logical execution of your argument is that Christians can sue other Christians but to maintain Scriptural compliance the plaintiff would need to call the defender a liar and by your definition this means the defendant is not Christian and therefore can be sued. Your argument complicates your case. I am trying to help you out here. 
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
11-24-2012, 06:35 AM
|
#59 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I really want to stay on track here. Please: I am trying to conduct an inquiry into the book - that's all I'm trying to do. If you want to believe that Lee had the right to sue Duddy, then fine, I'm giving you the opportunity to pursue that trial here - let's look at the book and see whether he could have won this case or not based on the evidence that is presented and not on inuendo or feelings. Because I am trying to be thorough in my treatment of this book, I need the people who want to participate in this thread to keep an open mind. Imagine you were men and women of the jury. Would you be allowed to remain in the jury if you voiced a judgement before the evidence was even presented? No. And yet that is EXACTLY what you're doing when you accuse Duddy of printing a book that is "libelious and slanderous". At this point, we haven't established whether this book IS libelious and slanderous - that's what LSM has ALLEGED - but that needs to be proven in a court of law - and because this was a matter of public defamation, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff (LSM). The only way to determine whether or not these allegations were true according to the definition of "Defamation" - the charge against SCP - we need to go through the book and see what it was that SCP printed. People; Jurists and Judges are vetted before they're allowed to sit on a case. If you can't have an open mind, then you can't possibly render justice - because no matter what evidence is presented, or where it points you, you will stubbornly refuse to see it and only see what you want to see. Consequently, you would have to be removed from the case and the court room. To Anyone Prepared to Dismiss the Authority of God's Word as revealed in 1st Corinthians 6:1-8: I believe that the Bible is God's Word - and that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2nd Timothy 3:16). If you are prepared to dismiss a clear instruction in Scripture given to the New Testament church as simple allegory, then what more can I say to you? What is Truth? God's Word is Truth - but when you allegorize it wherever you find it's revealed Truth uncomfortable, then no amount of Scripture will ever persuade you otherwise. That being the case, what profit is there in argument? Please people: Order in the Court. |
|
|
|
|
11-24-2012, 06:54 AM
|
#60 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
Yes, I use analogous examples to tamper the emotion and yet still address the underlying principles, hence the property line. I could have used a church property line for more relevance. In any case, Ray's position is that Christians cannot take civil action in court against another Christian under any circumstance, secular or not and that to move a property line constitutes the perpetrator a liar and not a Christian. As if Christians do not or cannot lie. And you are correct about turning the other cheek for when our Lord was being abused he did not qualify his response, rather he just turned the other cheek. Also agree with ZNP, that it is a shame and that it will be finally settled at the judgment seat of Christ. It is better not to engage in civil action and better to try to work things outside the court system between believers or for that matter even with unbelievers. Bringing this back to Duddy, he should never have written such a slanderous and libelous book and should have retracted it without objection. There is an abundance of Scripture on the topic of bearing false witness against another and one does not have to search to hard to find it.
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
11-24-2012, 07:02 AM
|
#61 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 1 Cont'd: "Contagious Zeal"
This portion is on the need to reflect on the nature of zeal - that it is not, in itself, proof of orthodox Christianity. "...'Zeal for Thy house has consumed Me', Jesus Christ's dramatic cleansing of the temple in Jerusalem reminded his disciples of that line from Psalm 69:9. Christ's zeal for God's house laid a foundation for the Christian church. It set a pattern of zeal for God's people to follow. But the Bible also warns that zeal may be misplaced. Paul lamented over his Jewish kinsmen's plight: "they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened." (Romans 10:2). ...His counsel was to avoid such people. The followers of Witness Lee both stress and exemplify the way of commitment and zeal in church life. They see themselves as "the Lord's overcomers," the "recovered church" of the last days. They are understandably excited about what they believe to be their unique participation in God's plan. For Christians outside their movement, however, the Local Church raises many questions that are difficult to answer satisfactorily. By examining the Local Church movement closely, we hope to achieve an understanding of its teachings and practices. Thus we hope to discern whether those who follow Witness Lee's direction are zealous in ways that please the Lord and deserve our emulation, or whether their enthusiasm masks a departure from an authentic understanding of God." Here we see SCP's stated purpose for the book. Is their statement unbalanced or unfair? Doesn't Scripture afterall admonish us: "test everything; hold fast that which is good." 1st Thessalonians 5:21. |
|
|
|
|
11-24-2012, 07:18 AM
|
#62 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
11-24-2012, 07:25 AM
|
#63 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Chapter 1 Con't: On the Difficulty of Treating Lee's Theology Fairly
"A particular problem of trying to summarize Local Church teaching is worth noting in anticipation of whatever response Witness Lee or his spokespersons may wish to make to this revision of The God-Men. The psychological dynamic or spiritual experience taught by the Local Church is described as a subjective experience giving a "standard of sprituality" that is "extremely vague and obscure". The experience of God is viewed as noncommunicable, noncognitive, nonpropositional. It is sensed, felt, even smelled or tasted... ...When the "vague and obscure" are absolutized, precision, their opposite, is depracated almost as a matter of course. For example, any attempts to approach biblical language as a vehicle of meaning, are routinely relegated by the LC to a status so inferior as to be virtual evidence of a "backslidden" condition. The stress is always on subjective experience. ( NFnL's note: "Get out of your mind, brother!") ...In all of Witness Lee's writings there is not a single major statement that is not elsewhere qualified in several different directions. Sometimes major statements are turned on their heads altogether by the affirmation of contradictory points." I wanted to excerpt this bit because it shows that the author was familiar enough with Lee's written work that he recognized that giving it a thorough treatment was going to be difficult. He even wanted to offer Lee an opportunity to respond. Remember that SCP went to Anaheim twice and met with Lee's representatives, they sent a telegram and two certified letters, and sought an audience with Lee. They even went for "a third visit to the Local Church's Anaheim headquarters during a Sunday morning teaching session (which) provided an opportunity for our SCP researcher to introduce himself to Witness Lee. Dominating the conversation that followed, Lee expressed anger toward the SCP and defended his teachings. Yet he avoided any direct response to the researcher's questions." (page 10). SCP did what they could to meet with the man and allow him to speak for himself, or even to (at the very least) respond in writing. They were shut down and ignored, despite their due diligence. As for those who yet revere the teachings of WL, the kind of assessment made here might make you uncomfortable. But is it unfair? We have said this very same thing about WL's teachings many times already on this forum. |
|
|
|
|
11-24-2012, 07:25 AM
|
#64 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
A courtroom with judges, jurists, and prosecutors but without a defense? A court where allegations and arguments made by the prosecution cannot be challenged. Where a firsthand witness (ZNP) offers an alternative point of view from that of the prosecution and then is immediately personally discredited and dismissed as biased? Isn't testimony about the damage caused by the slander and libel of Duddy's book super relevant and central to this whole matter? Seriously, that kind of court is not a real court. That would be a Kangaroo court. Look, an inquiry is one thing. Prosecuting is another. You have been prosecuting, including one of the witnesses. if you don't want your arguments challenged then write a blog. I don't expect you to be objective but you should not be surprised when you are challenged.
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
11-24-2012, 07:49 AM
|
#65 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
I have never read such befuddled and confused statement anywhere. I mean seriously, what is this suppose to mean? "When the "vague and obscure" are absolutized, precision, their opposite, is depracated almost as a matter of course. For example, any attempts to approach biblical language as a vehicle of meaning,..." Want to translate that into English for us? Good luck!  I suppose such a construction would allow almost any interpretation or meaning to be assigned. It's so convoluted who could argue? There is nothing in this entire extract (by that I mean the parts that are at least a little coherent) that I find to be depicted accurately. Duddy is making generalizations without any substantiation whatsoever.
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
11-24-2012, 08:52 AM
|
#66 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Cassidy, you're right, this is not a court of law.....so why are you using all the arguments and tactics of a high priced criminal defense attorney? I'm not sure who would be more proud of you right now, the late Witness Lee or the late Johnnie Cochran
 Please, let's not take Ray's "mock trial" term too far. I think the idea is simply to have "an inquiry" into "An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church". It's not any more or any less than that. LET'S ADDRESS EACH SUBJECT/ISSUE as they come up, and for God's sake, we should not have to suffer through cries for a "mistrial" after every post. Remember the O.J. Simpson trial...that fiasco took nearly 6 months because the aforementioned Mr. Cochran was constantly interrupting the proceedings with all those "sidebar" conferences with the judge. I'm surprised that anybody knew what the whole thing was about by the time it got to the jury. Anyway, let's forget about lawyers, judges and juries for the time being. I think the quotes of Duddy et al provided so far have enough fodder for us to discuss for quite a while. And as far as I can tell they are written in the English language, so no need for translation folks. I have been intimately familiar with the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church for the better part of four decades now, both within and out of the Movement - I find many, if not most of what has been quoted here spot on. Actually it's quite amazing, considering how little cooperation from Lee & CO they got, how spot on and accurate Duddy et al were. I would ask all those who which to come to the defense of Lee and the teachings and practices, please argue the points at hand. Please do not argue about WHAT WAS NOT WRITTEN, rather feel free to address and even vehemently disagree with WHAT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN in the book. Yes, I second the motion...order in court (that's supposed to be the guy with the gavel hitting the table and not one poster knocking the other over the head)
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
11-24-2012, 09:01 AM
|
#67 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
Duddy lost the case based on US law. You want to enter the legal system then you play by their rules. Just like the Lord said, if you want to go to war you better count the cost first to make sure you can finish what you start. The Law courts are not about "uncovering the truth" they are about "winning". This is why it is shameful for us, as Christians, to take our matters there. We should be about truth and justice. The legal system, just like all forms of war, favor those with the most resources (or in this case money). The lesson from this book for me is Luke 14:28-32. If you want to go to war then you should make sure every i is dotted and every t is crossed. You should make sure your research is extensive, it is credible, and it is vetted. If he had done this then why "run out of money". You don't need a lawyer. The publisher would have a lawyer that would respond to motions, whenever they asked for your research you would pull out the files, make copies and give it to them. Surely the publisher can afford to make copies and send a lawyer to handle motions. As you have already pointed out the burden of proof was on LSM, not Duddy. If Duddy was without blemish it should have been LSM that ran out of money, not Duddy. Why does he need to "depose" anyone, he should have already done a thorough job of research before publishing the book. Since matters of orthodoxy and orthopraxy are out of the jurisdiction of the US courts it would really favor Duddy. The fact that he lost this case is, as the Lord said, going to cause all who behold him to mock him. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-24-2012, 09:23 AM
|
#68 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
ZNP and everyone.
Maybe we do have a problem with plain English here after all. Any more posts that don't address what is actually written in this book will be deleted without further notice. The book was written. It cannot be un-written. The Local Church did not "win" the case, they received a default judgement because Duddy and apparently the insurance company ran out of money and just did not show up for the trial. The Local Church's case was simply read into the record without challenge or cross examination. This is a fact of history. As people have noted, the "judgement" was purely civil and monetary in nature and had NOTHING to do with religious/doctrinal/socialogical issues addressed in the book. Let's address the quotes provided by NFnL.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
11-24-2012, 12:14 PM
|
#69 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
"Obscure": unfocussed, imprecise. "Absolutized": to make absolute, to make a priniciple universally valid. "Precision": the quality of being exact and accurate (the opposite of vague and obscure). "Depracated": to belittle, depreciate, held in disdain or contempt. "As a matter of course": A logical outcome. With these words defined, we can restate this sentence to say the same thing, here goes: "When statements that are unclear and imprecise are made out to be universal principles, then it logically follows that statements which are exact and accurate will be held in contempt." |
|
|
|
|
|
11-24-2012, 12:42 PM
|
#70 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
...When the "vague and obscure" are absolutized, precision, their opposite, is depracated almost as a matter of course. For example, any attempts to approach biblical language as a vehicle of meaning, are routinely relegated by the LC to a status so inferior as to be virtual evidence of a "backslidden" condition. The stress is always on subjective experience.
I have included a crucial part of this quote that our friend Cassidy left out. To this very day Witness Lee's followers treat his private interpretations on an equal, and sometimes higher, plane than the actual "biblical language". This was apparently something that really stood out to Duddy et al. He also noticed how Lee berated and belittled Christian teachers, scholars and apologists that used the "biblical language as a vehicle of meaning" in a consistent manner. To Lee, the truth was a moving target....it was whatever he wanted it to be within any word, verse or passage. He could be a biblical literalist when it suited him, and at other times he could be quite liberal with the biblical language. Again, Duddy saw this in his teachings and called him on it.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
11-24-2012, 02:43 PM
|
#71 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
Thanks
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
11-24-2012, 06:43 PM
|
#72 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Come on Cassidy, my man. Is this all ya got?
We are not in English class. We are in a public forum. I am not going to allow you to let us get lost in the minutiae of word definitions. You are trying to bait Ray, and frankly I think you are above such tactics...or am I being too vague for you? Look, we are just at the very beginning of this book. Nothing is going to be substantiated in the first few pages....else it wouldn't be much of a book, now would it? As with all good writers, Duddy is painting with some pretty broad strokes to begin with. You disagree with what is stated in the broad strokes? Great! No problem! Simply state your disagreement with the same broad strokes if you like. Address what is actually written and quoted by NFnL. But please, could you refrain from entering into hand-to-hand combat over the definitions of relatively basic words in the English language? I really hate to absolutize all this, but in order to avoid being obscure, and as a matter of course, I am forced into using precision in my wording....
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
11-24-2012, 08:11 PM
|
#73 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Hold on. Accusing someone of baiting is near to accusing them of trolling. I do neither. If Ray wants a serious review of this book/critique then he has a willing participant right here. If he doesn't, that is fine too. My feelings won't be hurt either way.
UntoHim, you say it is only the beginning of the book and broad strokes are to be expected. Fine, we will see if Duddy has done the due diligence and provides substantiation for his confounding and befuddled broad brush accusations. So, as Duddy unfolds his argument I will be looking for the examples his uses to substantiate these statements: "When the "vague and obscure" are absolutized, precision, their opposite, is depracated almost as a matter of course. For example, any attempts to approach biblical language as a vehicle of meaning, are routinely relegated by the LC to a status so inferior as to be virtual evidence of a "backslidden" condition. The stress is always on subjective experience."
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 06:20 AM
|
#74 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 100
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
I don't see how this becomes a really thorny question. Paul's answer is clear cut. Believers should not bring believers to court in front of unbelievers. Thorns begin sprouting when we bring in our objections, our hypotheticals, our special cases. @ Cassidy Yes, I use analogous examples to tamper the emotion and yet still address the underlying principles, hence the property line. I could have used a church property line for more relevance. The problem is that the two are separate. The "analogous" example isn't analogous because it's not what Paul addressed, not his concern. The believers are his concern and as such they were clearly told not to take each other to court. Unbelievers can take each other to court all they want. AFAIK I believer can even take an unbeliever to court. Our point of reference is Paul addressing BELIEVERS v BELIEVERS. I agree, both will stand before the judgment seat (I'll be there along with the rest of humanity) and answer for their actions. Why not just accept the injustice and leave it at that? Why not let yourselves be cheated? Most of the time, the answer is simple: because we're right and their not. Unfortunately... |
|
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 06:34 AM
|
#75 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
ABF,
Based on UntoHim's request I will limit my responses going forward in this thead to commenting on Duddy's text. I believe the topic you are addressing and your points specifically are worthy of discussion but they will need to be conducted in another thread created for that purpose. Should you create such a thread with the approval of the host of this site then I will be happy to engage you there. Thanks,
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 04:37 PM
|
#76 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
...In all of Witness Lee's writings there is not a single major statement that is not elsewhere qualified in several different directions. Sometimes major statements are turned on their heads altogether by the affirmation of contradictory points."
I'm not sure about the "not a single major statement" part ....but Duddy et al where definitely on the right track. Many, and maybe most, of Witness Lee's teachings regarding some of the essentials were very questionable at best. Many of them had to be "qualified" with all sorts of twisted, convoluted provisos, addendums and exceptions. One that may be most applicable to our discussions here might be "man is becoming God - but only in life and nature and not in the Godhead". As has been noted from people in the past - exactly what part of God are we becoming that includes his life and nature but is not part of the Godhead?  As we delve further into this book I think we will find that it is this kind of unbiblical teaching that Duddy et al were concerned with.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 05:49 PM
|
#77 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
As is par for the course, how can you in good faith do anything when the other party (in this instance LSM) exhibits an unwillingness to communicate. Rather it is the author's responsibility (in this instance Neil Duddy), to aquiesce to LSM demands. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-25-2012, 05:59 PM
|
#78 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar. Acts 25:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 08:43 AM
|
#79 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 1 Cont'd: On Lee's Warning Against Scrutiny of his movement.
"Nonetheless, as we begin our examination, we are well aware of Witness Lee's viewpoint on such an undertaking: 'In my entire Christian life I have never seen one Christian who, when he criticized and opposed the local churches, was ever blessed by the Lord from that time forth. I have observed that all those who have opposed the church life have become backsliders. There has not been one exception. Let them all be put to shame and turned backward. It is not a small thing.... If you hate the local church, you will have no more growth in life. There will be no rich reaping and no rich harvest.' (WL, Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms, 1972 pg 199). Such a statement amounts in effect to a curse on critics of Lee's teachings. It portends evil to any members of LC fellowships with qualms about personal involvement. It is equivalent to a pronouncement that God Himself will blight those who oppose the LC... and it dovetail's with Lee's view that the LC is the only true church." ********************** This quote should not be news to anyone familiar with Lee's writings. This same admonition is still repeated today - and accepted as Gospel truth by many (hence the warning not to even go on the internet, to watch "where you draw your water from", because you might be "poisoned". That's why many people from the LC today are still afraid to open this book (The God-Men). You know, Paul ministered amongst the Gentiles - and was vigorously opposed. Plenty of missionaries around the world, both throughout history and right now, are working in fields absolutely opposed to the gospel message. Satan is working - ever working - to stop the spread of the gospel. Does the Bible tell us to cloister ourselves and stay then only with people of like mind? Or to fear challege of our beliefs? No: "And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation" Mark 16:15. And are we to worry about what we will say to those who "oppose" our message? No: "...do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit." Mark 13:11b (see also Matt 10:19 & Luke 12:11) We are always exhorted in Scripture to test our leaders, as well as ourselves. If we really believe we have the Holy Spirit within us, then what do we have to fear? Test all things, brothers and sisters. |
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 08:55 AM
|
#80 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 09:01 AM
|
#81 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Well, of course, any Christian who genuinely opposed the idea of the Church itself would experience a decrease of blessing. What's fallacious about Lee's mindset is he reserved the status of Church only his movement and the groups in it. It was a kind of bait and switch mentality, what I have called equivocation--playing two or more meanings of a word or idea to an advantage. It would have been the same error for him to say to oppose his teaching was to oppose salvation itself, since he believed his teaching embodied the idea of salvation better than was ever uttered. He didn't exactly make that error (though he came close), but he did make the same error with the matter of the Church. As to Lee's never "seeing" anyone blessed by the Lord after criticizing his movement--was he omniscient? Really was he even paying attention? Few people's awareness of what was really going on around him was more limited than Lee's. And even if he was aware what went on outside his little world, would he have judged it objectively? I doubt it. His pattern and the pattern of his followers is to ignore their own failures and nitpick those of others. He saw exactly what he programmed himself to see. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 09:09 AM
|
#82 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
ZNP, I think that's the point....as usual with Witness Lee his rant is not based in the Bible at all.
Lee, and now his followers, were always under the delusion that nobody was going to call him on absurd statements like this. Later on, Ron Kangas and other editors made sure things like this didn't make it into print....too bad this was back in the day when Lee had no care whatsoever for what made it into print. He figured that if some outsider said anything about it he would just sue them. Worked pretty well until they ran into a publisher and their insurer with the guts and $ to stand up to them.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 09:32 AM
|
#83 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Lee speaking:
Quote:
It is this kind of speaking that I am essentially opposed to. Anyone can find their way out of Lee's theology with some study, but claiming that to leave and oppose him and his movement is to summon God's curse is beyond the pale and is a blatant attack on the conscience, mind and emotions of the listener. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 09:38 AM
|
#84 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter Two: The History of the Local Church Pt 1
Overview: The history given here starts with Watchman Nee and goes through to "recent" times (the time of this books writing). Rather than quote the "background history", I will only briefly outline it in point form. If anyone wants further insight into what exactly was written, you can either ask me to post more on a particular time period, or you can buy the book for yourself on Amazon. - WN born in China around the turn of the century and influenced by the reaction of some Chinese churches against Western missionary practices. - WN (1903-1972) was the strongest influence on WL. - WN disenchanted with "sterile formalism" of his Christian education, starts a "house church" modelled after the Plymouth Brethren type (1922). - WN introduced to writings on the spiritual life (inc. Madame Guyon, Jessie Penn-Lewis, Andrew Murray, JN Darby) - WN writes "The Spirital Man" (late 20's.) - here an overview of this book and the theology of it is given. - WN moves to Shanghai, and starts his own church: "The Little Flock" (1928). - 1938, "Concerning our Missions" and "The Normal Christian Church Life" published. - WL had been taught about dispensations as a child, and about two natures within man (attended a Christian school, but wasn't converted until early adulthood). - In 1927, WL was elected as a member of an executive committee of his denom, but he rejected it and left the denom. - In the 1930's, WL enters the Little Flock - and begins ministering there the same year. - 1940's - WL a "close and invaluable associate" of WN. Trained under WN from 1939 - 1942. - WL imprisoned by the Japanese MPs in 1943, and had tuberculosis for 3 years after his release. - WL back in Shanghai teaching 1946-1948. - At a Little Flock worker's meeting in 1948, worker control over the local churches was established. From Leslie T. Lyall's "Three of China's Mighty Men" (published by the Oversea's Missionary Fellowship in 1973)* Duddy quotes: "It appears that 1948 marked a turning point in Mr Nee's church practices and the beginning of a hierarchical system of central control which differed little from the organization of denominational churches. There are those who believe that here we are witnessing the growing influence of Witness Lee, who later was to exercise such autocratic control over the churches in Taiwan." - As the communists advance on the mainland, Nee appoints Lee as the leader of the Little Flock of Taiwan. - A dozen years later, serious splits develop in Taiwan and Hong Kong. "Some of the Little Flock accepted Witness Lee's leadership. Others believed he had deviated from the teachings of Watchman Nee by introducing questionable doctrines and unscriptural forms of worship. A number of Little Flock leaders and assemblies in different cities of Southeast Asia cut their ties with Witness Lee." - WL considered Taiwan his base until 1962, when he came to the US. - Late 60's, LC starts to use the "Jerusalem Principle" (Acts 8:4). Whole groups of Christians emigrate to establish a church. About 70 emigrate from California to Huston in 1969, others went to Seattle, Chicago, Akron and Atlanta in 1970. By 1974 there were some 40 or 50 LC's in the US. In '79, approx. 50 to 60 in existence. ****************** If there are disagreements about the order of events, let us know. I believe the author is trying his utmost to present the facts. His reference to Leslie T. Lyall's book is a new one to me. I haven't read it, and can't comment on it. It isn't any sort of expose on the LC or WN or WL, as far as I can tell - it seems to praise WN and two other Christian brothers - all three of whom had some fellowship and mutual respect - and speaks specifically about their movements. If you are interested in checking out this book, you can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Of-China...nas+Mighty+Men |
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 09:41 AM
|
#85 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 10:27 AM
|
#86 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
The problem is that this is an anecdote. A specific event. Given the vast array of people, personalities, interests, etc., that there is one who might be interested in things Christian from one perspective, but not any other, then become deluded when they discover that this one perspective is flawed is a real possibility. There is much to be said for the wisdom of following anyone around to warn-off those they just talked to. And I would agree that the problems that were written of in The God Men were overstated. But was the overstatement out of malice and competitive conflict, or out of concern (even if partly misguided)? The thing is, you can't assert that the others were happy to simply drive off potential or new Christians just because it appears to have happened once. You say in another post that you were leading someone to Christ almost every day. If we assume 7 months of the year, 5 days a week (gone to meetings all weekend) that would be somewhere in the vicinity of 150 a year. Since there was still only you on the campus there, that means that virtually all of them went on to other places to grow. If it was just about competition, then why would they complain? It seems that they got almost all the first fruits of your labors. Do you think that they contacted virtually every one of your converts that year? If so, what happened to the rest of them? This is not an attack on what you did or what you think is true about it. But as I look at it, I believe that there may be a different view. Maybe they actually thought that there was something amiss with theology and practices of the LRC. Maybe they really did care for those that they were warning. Now the book was written surrounding things happening in Berkley and not Houston, and maybe those things were quite different. But if your experiences were in any way similar to those in Berkley, then maybe the LRC response was at least as wrong as they claim the SCP was in what they wrote. Maybe their "we don't talk to anyone about things" attitude was consistent with the attitude of other cults and inconsistent with other parachurch organizations. I know that some of the campus groups for mainstream denominations are designed primarily as a way to keep their young ones in the fold rather than as an outreach to the campus. But few of them are entirely that. Do you recall the "I Found It" campaign of the BSU back in the 70s? That was jointly reaching out to the unsaved and to the saved who were on campus and disconnected from their practical faith. Maybe not as robust as the Campus Crusade efforts at times, or those of the LRC. But no one wrote anything about them. Nobody had a "they've got more disciples" view of the others. So maybe it really was what they wrote about. Maybe they really did believe what they were told about the practices, especially the kind of controlling that often went on. It was probably seldom as extreme as the separation of husband and wife because of perceptions of how much for the church one was (or was not). But that did happen. Just maybe the SCP really took their understanding of scripture and stacked it up against what they could discover about the LRC and found it worse than lacking. Worse than just "dead." More like "off the reservation" and actively recruiting. I think I might have wanted to at least hear it. Maybe if this had come out before 1972 I wouldn't have a reason to know enough about the LRC to be having this discussion here. And wouldn't care.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 10:28 AM
|
#87 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Leslie Lyall
Quote:
His obituary is here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ob...l-1320763.html |
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 10:50 AM
|
#88 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Several posts back, I said
Quote:
Quote:
My purpose in mentioning how you would deal with the JWs and/or Mormons was in no way intended to state that there is an actual comparison with the LRC. It was to note that if there are those who honestly believe that the LRC is as off-the-mark in their own way as those groups are, would you assert that they should just be silent because they (the LRC) claim otherwise for themselves? And the short of this is that you a walking around with a burr in you boots. You make everything about you. Every account centers on your uniqueness. Your actions. Your observations. Those are valid and they are part of the equation. But they are not THE view of everything. I was not hemming and hawing at suggesting that the LRC is like the JWs or Mormons. I am consistently clear that they are not. For all their flaws, they are quite Christian. Not something else with a cloak of Christianity wrapped around them to deceive. Oh, there is plenty of deception. But it is not to hide a non-Christian religion. Now, do you dare to claim that I am really saying something else? Will you continue and make stupidity into an outright lie? Are you so distracted by you imagination that you cannot actually deal with what I say and must assault what I did not?
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
||
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 11:29 AM
|
#89 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
OBW and ZNP,
Please take your dispute to the PM system, or at least to another thread. It's just plain unfair (not to mention just plain rude) to NeitherFirstnorLast. He has taken the time and energy to introduce a very serious thread regarding this early critique of the Local Church. This book deserves some serious discussion. If it can't happen here on this forum, where else could it take place? There are many different forum boards with many different threads. There is something for everybody. Nobody has to participate in every thread...as a matter of fact it's better if you don't. I've already issued a warning on this thread. Any post not relating to this book will be deleted. New posters and guests will get a break. You guys that have been around for years know better. If you want to debate then I will be more than happy to open up a thread and you guys can go at it.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 11:35 AM
|
#90 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Unless you can put together these three quotes you are not nailing him down, he is merely using references to Jerusalem, and God's people and applying them to the "New Jerusalem" and God's family, the church. There are valid Old Testament examples of God dealing with those that attacked His people. All I am saying is that you are claiming that Witness Lee taught something, and you are pulling up quotes that can be interpreted that he taught something, but these quotes, by themselves don't prove it. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 11:39 AM
|
#91 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
That said, I agree that this is a good "rant" by Witness Lee that can be proven to be false. But you can't nail him down without the context and without other quotes that prove "God's people" refers to "his movement" or to churches "on the ground". |
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 11:42 AM
|
#92 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 11:44 AM
|
#93 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 01:20 PM
|
#94 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Z, this quote from the book of Lee's is understood by all of us - including you - to be typical of Lee. Why do you insist on trying to torpedo a book you've never even read? |
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 02:33 PM
|
#95 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
I have found it. The quote is based on 2 verses psalm 128:5 and psalm 129:5 Psalm 128:5 The LORD shall bless you out of Zion: and you shall see the good of Jerusalem all the days of your life. So you explain this verse from a New Testament perspective. The second verse is 129:5 Let them all be confounded and turned back that hate Zion. Here is Witness Lee's word, quoted by Duddy, with the verse context. "Now let us go on to Psalm 128:5, “The Lord shall bless thee out of Zion: and thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem all the days of thy life.” The Lord’s blessing is out of Zion, and the good is of the city Jerusalem. In these Psalms of ascension, the concept is always of Zion, Jerusalem, the house and the city. “Thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem (the good of the city) all the days of thy life.” All my expectation is that I may see the good of the local churches as the city all the days of my life. I have been seeing it for forty years now, and I hope to see it until the day I shall see Him. The Lord bless thee, brothers; the Lord bless thee, sisters, out of the local churches! O what a blessing it is to see the good of the local churches all the days of our life! We have only tasted a little, but according to this taste, suppose that there should be no more church life. I believe that many of us would be weeping. What a barren desert that would be! But, praise the Lord, we are in God’s recovery; we are living in the local churches. Now let us go on to Psalm 129. Here we have a contrast. Psalm 129 is a negative Psalm, yet it helps to enhance the city. Verse 5, “Let them all be put to shame and turned backward that hate Zion.” These are the real backsliders. The hate of Zion brings in shame and turning backward. Anyone who hates the local churches will be put to shame and turned backward. I have witnessed many like this. In my entire Christian life I have never seen one Christian who, when he criticized and opposed the local churches, was ever blessed by the Lord from that time forth. I have observed that all those who have opposed the church life have become backsliders. There has not been one exception. Let them all be put to shame and turned backward. It is not a small thing. The Psalmist continues, “Let them be as the grass upon the housetops, which withereth before it groweth up: wherewith the mower filleth not his hand; nor he that bindeth sheaves his bosom” (vv. 6-7). If you hate the local churches, you will have no more growth of life. There will be no rich reaping and no rich harvest. “Neither do they which go by say, The blessing of the Lord be upon you: we bless you in the name of the Lord” (v. 8). No growth, no rich harvest, no blessing. We who have been in the church life in Los Angeles over the past years may look back over our history and see the condition of those who have opposed the local church. There is only shame and backsliding—no growth, no rich harvest, and no blessing. The Lord will vindicate Himself. He is for Zion; if you hate Zion, you are through. The Lord desires Zion. If you reject it, it is not a small thing, it is not a matter of doctrinal disputation. Let them all be put to shame and turned backward that hate Zion." (Chapter 21, Section 2, Christ and the Church revealed and typified in the Psalms, Witness Lee) |
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 02:53 PM
|
#96 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Over the years, whenever this discussion comes up, there is some statement somewhere that goes something like this:
Quote:
But that was not the case. Instead, due to bankruptcy, the defendant was denied the ability to make their case. The LRC presented only its position without any rebuttal, testimony, evidence that would stand against it. Then the judge essentially made a ruling based on the default of the defendant. They didn't speak or present evidence, so they lost. This does not make the evidence of the LRC bad, or insist that Duddy could have made his case in a full trial of the facts. Just that the effect of the ruling was to give victory to the LRC because of the inability of Duddy & co to prosecute their case. The problem is not that Duddy was erroneously found to have libeled the LRC. It is that the ruling does not establish that any court has actually ruled on all evidence. The LRC went around waving their victory as evidence that the content of The God Men was libelous. But the ruling did not really say that. It actually said that for legal purposes, that particular book is treated as libelous. To the extent that money could be garnered to pay any award, they had to pay. And since they failed to prosecute their case, they were under restriction to simply resume publishing and selling the book. But the actual status of the content of the book was not decided. It is a technicality. Just like any number of procedural issues that can result in summary judgment for or against (or dismissal of a case) without actually weighing the facts and ruling on the merits. Don't ask me for legal advice. I am not a lawyer. But common sense tells you that there is a significant difference between taking your facts and evidence to trial and losing and being declared to have lost because you didn't get to present your facts and evidence. Legally, you lose either way. But in the latter case, facts and evidence that would have won are ignored and you lose anyway just because you didn't present. So my basic comment is that the trial of Duddy and his book does not establish anything as libelous in fact. Only for purposes of the law. The words of the book were not found to be libelous. They were declared so without consideration. And that was all that was needed, legally, to get rid of the book.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 02:58 PM
|
#97 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Typical of Lee. Yes, it is. Loaded with scripture. Not the way you claim. Well, now I am beginning to wonder whether Duddy read the book he is referencing because if the thought he intended to convey is that Witness Lee makes statements without biblical basis then he did not read the text in question. Or if he did not intend to convey that thought but nevertheless you and others on this forum took it that way then perhaps we can lay the blame at Duddy's door for not explaining it well or leaving off the references to the Scripture that are so intertwined in the text that one can only surmise that was left off deliberately. So let's clear the air of this allegation that Witness Lee does not have a scriptural basis. I have highlighted the Scripture references in blue: "Now let us go on to Psalm 128:5, “The Lord shall bless thee out of Zion: and thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem all the days of thy life.” The Lord's blessing is out of Zion, and the good is of the city Jerusalem. In these Psalms of ascension, the concept is always of Zion, Jerusalem, the house and the city. “Thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem (the good of the city) all the days of thy life.” All my expectation is that I may see the good of the local churches as the city all the days of my life. I have been seeing it for forty years now, and I hope to see it until the day I shall see Him. The Lord bless thee, brothers; the Lord bless thee, sisters, out of the local churches! O what a blessing it is to see the good of the local churches all the days of our life! We have only tasted a little, but according to this taste, suppose that there should be no more church life. I believe that many of us would be weeping. What a barren desert that would be! But, praise the Lord, we are in God's recovery; we are living in the local churches. Now let us go on to Psalm 129. Here we have a contrast. Psalm 129 is a negative Psalm, yet it helps to enhance the city. Verse 5, “Let them all be put to shame and turned backward that hate Zion.” These are the real backsliders. The hate of Zion brings in shame and turning backward. Anyone who hates the local churches will be put to shame and turned backward. I have witnessed many like this. In my entire Christian life I have never seen one Christian who, when he criticized and opposed the local churches, was ever blessed by the Lord from that time forth. I have observed that all those who have opposed the church life have become backsliders. There has not been one exception. Let them all be put to shame and turned backward. It is not a small thing. The Psalmist continues, “Let them be as the grass upon the housetops, which withereth before it groweth up: wherewith the mower filleth not his hand; nor he that bindeth sheaves his bosom” (vv. 6-7). If you hate the local churches, you will have no more growth of life. There will be no rich reaping and no rich harvest. “Neither do they which go by say, The blessing of the Lord be upon you: we bless you in the name of the Lord” (v. 8). No growth, no rich harvest, no blessing." Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms, Chapter 21 If Duddy had quoted all the text that Witness Lee had stated then we would not be having the debate about whether there was a scriptural basis. Of course there is a scriptural basis! Plain as the nose on his face. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing wrong with ZNP's request for a reference.
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 03:01 PM
|
#98 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
The "context" of the verses provided change NOTHING. What Lee says here is just as absurd, offensive and horrific as if it stands alone (in fact it's worse because he tries to use the Word of God to justify saying such things)....but I suspect you already knew that.
ZNP, if you are here to just be a roadblock I suggest you move on. You are wasting our time.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 03:13 PM
|
#99 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
But, let's examine Duddy's claim here at the end: "Such a statement amounts in effect to a curse on critics of Lee's teachings. It portends evil to any members of LC fellowships with qualms about personal involvement. It is equivalent to a pronouncement that God Himself will blight those who oppose the LC... and it dovetail's with Lee's view that the LC is the only true church." Witness Lee made an observation and suddenly Duddy equates this to putting a curse on people? His objections have no basis and in fact is contrary to sound scriptural practice and church government. For instance, in 1 Tim 1:3 Paul told Timothy to "....charge certain ones not to teach different things". Using Duddy's logic Paul was trying to silence critics. How about I Tim 1:20 where Paul says ".... Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may be disciplined not to blaspheme." So using Duddy's logic Paul did more than curse these two, he actually struck a deal with Satan to blight these two and their reputation to advance his (Paul's) own view that in Ephesus there was only one true church!
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 03:34 PM
|
#100 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Are you now saying that Lee wasn't talking about his Local Churches? Please answer YES or NO. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 03:38 PM
|
#101 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Then "No".
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 03:45 PM
|
#102 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 03:48 PM
|
#103 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
But then in mid stream you changed this thread. This was no longer a mock trial, and I was fine with that. Now we are looking at what was brought forth in this book that might be valuable. That is what I am doing. The quote provided would be valuable if it could be proved to say what Duddy was implying that it was saying. So I wanted to find the quote, which I did. How is that "wasting your time"? |
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 03:51 PM
|
#104 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
In a court of law it is not about the truth, it is about what you can prove. If you want to prove it you have to do your research. What constitutes a "local church" that can be a conduit for God's blessing. Are they required to be on the ground? I think these quotes are out there. "There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, first, the person must prove that the statement was false. Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm. Third, the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement." (Wikipedia on Libel and defamation). |
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 04:30 PM
|
#105 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues...
Chapter 2 Cnt'd....
This next part is on the "recent" history of the LC, at the time of this books writing. This is the part that undoubtedly launched the lawsuit - as it does the most damage to the testimony of the LC. To the people in the Local Churches at this time, not immediately involved in these events, the allegations made here were undoubtedly shocking. To us, this is now history - and I have to ask us to treat it as such. What evidence could Duddy offer to the events he records here? We know he had the testimony of Max Rapoport, who was Lee's closest associate and right-hand man. Duddy also references a holding company I was not aware of - and a company name I hadn't heard of - perhaps some of you have? Of course, assuming most of us here already accept the testimony we are about to read as fact (because we've heard it elsewhere already from numerous credible souces), then we can imagine that subpoenas could have been issued and members of the LC who could corroborate the charges could be brought forth - but we cannot know what the outcome of this would be. Ultimately, we must remember that while Lee launched the lawsuit, it was also his legal team that continually "bought time" and dragged the process out for over four and half years until the other side bankrupted. If none of the allegations we are about to read are true, then dragging out such a lawsuit would not make sense. You would want to get to court as quickly as possible, and vindicate yourself. That said, let's move forward. I will quote more fully here, as this is a part many would like to hear all about. On Recent History "Witness Lee's Anaheim headquarters house two separate branches of the organization, both legally incorporated. Lee is technically and legally not the head of the first branch, the Local Church, which he serves as a salaried, official consultant. The second legal structure, called the Living Stream Inc., is the ministry over which Witness Lee actually presides. ....Though Witness Lee is not legally at the helm of the Local Church organization, the presence and influence he wields there are equivalent to his presence and influence within the Stream ministry. Hence the two agencies are considered synonymous for the purposes of this book's theological and social commentary. Besides the two agencies for the ministry, Witness Lee and other Local Church figures have also engaged in two business enterprises called Day Star and Fosforus. Lee has served as chairman of the board for both companies. His son, Timothy Lee, has served as president of Fosforus. Day Star of California sold motor homes until the fall of 1975, when, having failed to maintain a subsistence level of sales, it registered as a suspended operation. Fosforus was a Taiwan-based factory that initially manufactured parts for the Day Star recreation vans. When the California enterprise folded, Fosforus began to make chairs which Local Church congregations and individual members were encouraged to purchase for meeting halls and homes. A sufficient market was not created, however, and Fosforus then embarked on the manufacture of tennis rackets... When that phase of operation also failed, Fosforus suspended operations but maintained its ninety-nine year lease on its property. An unregistered agency, Overseas Christian Steward, acts as the parent body for both non-functioning corporations. In another financial operation, funds solicited from Local Church members for a meeting hall in Stuttgart, Germany, were diverted into American real estate. The $235,000 collected was withdrawn from German banks in the spring of 1978 because of their low 3% interest rate and invested in a six-apartment building located next to Witness Lee's home in Anaheim, California. Although that investment is appreciating, no apparent action has been taken to acquire the proposed Stuttgart meeting hall. In the autumn of 1978 a significant split occured in LC headquarters: more than forty members of the Anaheim congregation withdrew, including two of Lee's top administrators. Around the nation, several hundred others have followed their example... LC elders, under Witness Lee's direction, have held special meetings for national and international leaders on how to deal with the defectors, particularly Max Rapoport, Lee's erstwhile heir apparent and former president of the Anaheim Local Church. From the "Max Conference" have stemmed rumors that Rapoport has been in league with the devil and is the betrayer Judas. In November 1978, however, Ron Kangas refused to acknowledge any attrition, describing the Anaheim dissidents as engaged in Local Church endeavors outside the Los Angeles vicinity. The Local Church has since responded to the defections by publishing a pamphlet entitled "The Belief and Practices of the Local Churches", hoping to dispel any derogatory publicity. According to former members, however, the pamphlet, which is couched in evangelical language, accurately represents neither the beliefs nor practices of the LC."** **SPECIAL NOTE: Looking ahead into Chapter 3, there is reason given for Max's resignation/defection from the LC. We WILL get to it, but I'd rather not present it yet - to keep us on topic. ****************** I don't generally delve into the history of the LC as regards financial issues. To me, it is not the issue it is to others - I don't see it as a blot on an otherwise spotless record, but rather only a symptom of a systemic disease. For this reason, I can't say that I've ever heard of "Fosforus". Have any of you? Nor have I heard of "Overseas Christian Steward". What have any of you heard about these organizations? |
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 04:47 PM
|
#106 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 05:01 PM
|
#107 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Our Reading Continues...
Quote:
The real kicker is that Fosforus actually made money. It build and sold motor homes at a profit — to Daystar. Nothing makes that absolutely clear. Or actionably clear. But somehow, Lee managed to come up with several business deals over the years, dating back at least to the 50s, in which he made some money, then the churches bailed out the business when they ultimately failed. But this was not the primary investigation by Duddy. There are older threads on Daystar and some of the issues surrounding it. It is a little funny that Max R's first appearances in the LRC were in the wake of Daystar to try to get people to let the investments just go away. And he was on the rise until it became expedient to dismiss him as some kind of snake that Lee needed to save us from. That was the point that Lee really became central as leader and the alleged separateness of the local assemblies began to disappear. I can't clearly assert that Lee just set it up to happen that way, or that bringing the sins of his (Lee's) own son to his attention made him expendable at just the right time. Shoot the messenger and sweep the sins under the rug. Unfortunately, it had to happen again 10 years later. That time he had to "fire" John Ingalls and several others. The thing they wrote about those dear brothers makes The God-Man seem like nothing. Their story of rebellion was nothing if not a fabrication. Worthy of lawsuit and a judgment against them. But alas, those brothers had more integrity than Lee, RK, BP, and so many others.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 05:03 PM
|
#108 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Lawyers will object to evidence as to the relevance. They will object to the way in which it is entered as evidence. They will object to the credibility. Do you really think OJ would have been found not guilty if the evidence that the TV viewers saw was shown to the jury? The first rule is to prevent the evidence ever being presented. Don't you find it ironic that "frankly I don't have time to do that" is basically the same reason that Duddy ultimately folded? Here on the forum we are focused on truth. Law courts are focused on "winning" which is often measured in dollars. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 05:11 PM
|
#109 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues...
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 05:59 PM
|
#110 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
ZNP and all,
One last time. Let's have no more talk of trials, lawyers, objections, etc, etc. I've asked nicely. I've threatened to delete posts. What do you guys want me to do? I'm not asking too much. There is PLENTY to discuss here without having to go off the beaten path. Read the quotes provided. Comment on them. Agree with them, disagree with them. Yes, even bring up whether or not they were in context. (but if you do, please feel free to BRIEFLY explain what you believe to be the proper context. Just saying it's out of context is not good enough) My dear mommy had this saying..."forewarned is forearmed". 
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 06:16 PM
|
#111 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
"Accordingly, the Court finds that the manuscript by Neil. T. Duddy entitled The God-Men (Exhibit 1) disseminated (published) in the United States, the book Die Sonderlehre des Witness Lee Und Seiner Ortsgemeinde published by Schwengeler-Verlag (Exhibit 3) disseminated (published) in Europe, and the book The God-Men, An Inquiry Into Witness Lee and the Local Church by Neil T. Duddy and the SCP published by Inter-Varsity Press (Exhibit 5) disseminated (published) in the United States and England, are in all major respects false, defamatory and unprivileged, and, therefore, libelous." |
|
|
|
|
11-26-2012, 07:55 PM
|
#112 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Our Reading Continues...
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-27-2012, 04:48 AM
|
#113 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
"One has the Apollonian ground, one has the Petrine ground, one has the Pauline ground, and one even says that Christ is their ground. What are these grounds? We must be clear that they are all divisive. Only Corinth is the right ground. The ground of locality is the one unique and uniting ground upon which the church can be built. The unique proper ground of the church is the locality where the church is. Today we have the same thing in a city such as Los Angeles. There is a church built upon the Presbyterian ground, a church built upon the Baptist ground, a church built upon the Methodist ground, and so many kinds of ‘churches’ built upon so many kinds of grounds. In one city, there are many kinds of ‘churches.’ Why is this? Simply because they are on so many different kinds of grounds. And all these grounds are divisive. "The Practical Expression of the Church," (Volumes 6 & 7 Booklet), 5 by Witness Lee This quote does demonstrate that When Witness Lee says "Local Church" he is referring to his sect: “If we do not have the local church [i.e. Church of Recovery] today, practically speaking, we do not have the church. The local church [i.e. Church of Recovery] is the practicality of the church. The church today is practically in the local churches.” (Lee, Witness, “The Practical Expression of the Church,” (Volumes 4 & 5 Booklet), 4.) This quote shows that you can only get the blessing in the church on the Proper Ground: "So first of all, we must know the unity, and we must know the proper unity. It is impossible to keep the proper unity in Babylon or in any of those divisive groups in Corinth. We must come back to Jerusalem, i.e., the ground of locality. If we are in Babylon, we must come back to Jerusalem. If we are in one of the divisive groups in Corinth, we must come back to the ground of unity in Corinth. It is impossible to have the proper unity in any divisive group. We must come back to the one unique ground of unity... If you are absolute, you will realize that it is impossible to keep the proper unity in any kind of divisive group, regardless of how spiritual you are. You must keep yourself from anything divisive and come back to the ground of unity. If you are really absolute and mean business with the Lord, you will experience the Lord commanding the blessing of life upon you. When we have the unity, there the Lord commands the blessing." (The practical expression of the church, chapter 11, section 2). These quotes taken together proves that Witness Lee taught that God's blessing was only in his sect and if you met with any other denomination in Christianity you could not be blessed. With that as the background, now read what Witness Lee said: "In my entire Christian life I have never seen one Christian who, when he criticized and opposed the local churches, was ever blessed by the Lord from that time forth. I have observed that all those who have opposed the church life have become backsliders." (referenced in previous posts, from Christ and the Church revealed in the Psalms, based on Psalm 128 and 129). Here is the thing, I have criticized Witness Lee openly, even publishing my opinion that he is a false teacher. Does that mean that I opposed the local church? Depends on your definition of the local church. I have criticized the teaching of the ground of oneness as a magic formula, a shortcut if you prefer, to being one. My criticism was that a teaching that should have focused on being one with all Christians in a city actually is used to teach that this group is superior to all others and the only "genuine" group. Looking at these quotes you can clearly see this pride and arrogance in this teaching. So then, this principle of God will bless those that bless God's people and curse those that curse God's people could be true and the basic teaching here, but without a doubt Witness Lee has twisted this teaching to build up a sect, a direct contradiction to the NT, and powerful evidence that Witness Lee is a false teacher. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-27-2012, 10:23 AM
|
#114 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
In every case, these two books, God-Men and Mindbenders, were cited as their basis for action.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-27-2012, 10:34 AM
|
#115 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
But ... otoh you know that LC folks were characterized with Jim Jones and the mass suicide. That was the sole intention of those books. Families were totally spooked about loved ones. Fear, not research or factual evidence, was the basic tool they used. Listen, I lived through the hell of those two books and the damage it did to the gospel outreach to my friends and family.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-27-2012, 10:39 AM
|
#116 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
So far, based on the quotes from The God-Men that have been cited here, I can't see how Duddy got it wrong. It sounds like a fair and accurate assessment. If those books were misused, I'm not sure it's his fault. I wish I had been rescued from joining this movement at such a young age. |
|
|
|
|
11-27-2012, 10:56 AM
|
#117 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
It is one thing to use the law to attack your opponent as the plaintiff, and another thing to use the law to defend yourself as a defendant. The question is whether LSM was a plaintiff or defendant.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-27-2012, 11:19 AM
|
#118 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-27-2012, 12:22 PM
|
#119 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Our Reading Continues...
Quote:
You're right of course, Lee's business dealings were not the focus of Duddy & SCP's investigation - but I think it is noteworthy that they are mentioned here. Why noteworthy? Because, as I'd said, these business dealings are symptomatic of a larger problem - these business dealings of Lee really speak to the credibility and motives of the plaintiff. How So? Well, Lee teaches that the New Testament Church founded shortly after the Resurrection was built on the ground of oneness of locality, on no-clergy/laity divisions, on one-trumpet speaking, on pray reading the Word, on eating/drinking/breathing Christ, on calling on the name of the Lord, on mingling and blending, etc. etc. Right? Lee also teaches that very shortly after the founding of the New Testament church, these practices began to be lost... that churches deviated from the Lord's Way, degraded, and became "Babylon". And the Lord wept. Right? Then, Lee teaches, that the Lord began a 'recovery' in the 1500's, starting with Martin Luther - a Catholic Monk who 'recovers' "Saved by Grace through Faith". Martin Luther, Lee asserts, was the Minister of the Age (although apparently this was news to both Martin Luther and to those who followed him). After Martin Luther, the Lord begins a practice of raising up a new MOTA for every generation that follows, gradually 'recovering' more (again, news to every one who Lee claims to have been the MOTA - and absolutely opposed to the doctrines they taught). The final MOTA - and the one who recovered most of all, was (of course) Lee himself. Right? What an incredible responsibility! Lee teaches that he is the culmination of the Lord's labour for His church - that the people who benefit from Lee's ministry will be richly blessed, be the overcomers, and will rule with Christ or be mingled with Christ as the God-Men! This is it, this is the generation that will see Christ return in Glory and be the Church that will be taken up by Him - His True Bride - Praise the Lord!! What an awesome task has been set before Lee! ...But it's only a part-time job? Wait a minute, if Lee REALLY believed all the above, how could he dabble in business at the same time as taking care of all of God's Children on Earth? By Lee's own testimony, he had looked throughout the earth and found no one who was equipped as he was to take back the ground for the Lord. How could he be concerned with making chairs and recreational vehicles to raise funds when he has the weight of the world on his shoulders!? Unlike Paul, who made tents to pay his way, Lee was no itinerant preacher. Lee had money, was already pulling in a salary, but he wanted more?! 1 Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs." Matthew 6:24 "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." How can money motivate a man who REALLY believed these things about himself? Why lay up treasures for himself here, where moth and rust corrupt - if he REALLY believed he could lay up for himself a treasure in heaven? More importantly, where does the Bible say his heart must be, given that he displays this attitude? This is something we MUST consider, when looking at this case - because motives speak to credibility - and the fact that Lee had business dealings outside the LRC greatly damages that credibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-27-2012, 12:46 PM
|
#120 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter Three
Chapter Three is on LC Doctrine and Theology. I would like to rearrange part of what I present here, to better maintain the narrative. Accordingly, I would like to now present the part about Max Rapoport here - before getting into the spiritual matters of the LC. "The problem of authority (its source and who wields it) is a significant test for healthy communities. Although Witness Lee decries church hierarchies, their forms and written constitutions, the Local Church is not a model of democracy. Lee's voice has always been far weightier in the organization than anyone else's. Reliable sources say that Lee rules with a firm hand. Exercising deference to all of Lee's requests, the inner circle serves as a model for the obedience and submission encouraged among LC congregations. Although the LC denies that Lee is an autocratic "pope" and claims that Scripture is their paramount authority, there is some reason for skepticism. Among Stream Publications, editions of Lee materials predominate, with minimal contributions from other LC figures. The non-Lee materials are generally apologetic, presenting a defense of LC positions in accordance with Lee's desires. Although the LC publicly supports the supremacy and authority of Scripture, Witness Lee's persuasive argumentation and spirited theology provide the accepted interpretation of Scripture. Any attempt to exercise biblical leverage on questionable issues by a member of the LC is overruled by Lee's authoritative interpretation, irrespective of it's accuracy. It was that style of authority which prompted Max Rapoport to resign his post as president of the LC in Anaheim. In the Los Angeles Times (December 11th, 1978 edition), Rapoport was quoted as saying that he attempted to encourage the exercise of biblical discipline in a case of moral indiscretion on the part of Witness Lee's son Phillip. Discouraged by Lee from applying scriptural discipline, Rapoport was subsequently removed from Lee's graces and gradually lost power and reputation. " *************** Following this portion, there is portion of where Lee interprets his authority to come from - based on his intepretation of Scripture. I want to stop here again though, as I believe there is plenty to discuss from above. Do any of you have any cause to disagree with anything the author has pointed out here? Anyone have a copy of the LA Times article referred to from Dec. 11 1978? Perhaps it can be obtained on-line for cross-reference? |
|
|
|
|
11-27-2012, 06:04 PM
|
#121 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-27-2012, 08:47 PM
|
#122 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Would you be able to share (post) the article that you have from the LA Times, Terry? |
|
|
|
|
|
11-27-2012, 09:02 PM
|
#123 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-27-2012, 09:34 PM
|
#124 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
"Rapoport emphasized in the interview that Lee himself lives frugally in an Anaheim duplex and has no vices. He also insisted there has been no intent to defraud by leaders and no links with any agencies.
"All of the people I know in the Local Church are real, born-again Christian, including Witness Lee", Rapoport said. Earlier in the article it mentions how Max Rapoport began to be disenchanted when Witness Lee refused to act on Max's demand to remove Phillip Lee after Phillip was accused of an immoral act. As we know there was an eyewitness account to sustantiate the claim. Otherwise Max, Francis, and Gene wouldn't have found out. The article goes on to say attempts to Phiilip Lee were uinsuccessul (same applies to the CRI Journal from the Fall 1988 Journal where attempts to reach Phillip were unsuccessful). In the LA Times article Witness Lee said his son does not like to answer charges. |
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 04:28 AM
|
#125 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 05:41 AM
|
#126 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
If you are assuming that the existence of a verdict means that the words are actually libelous, slanderous, and defamatory, then you are mistaken. It only means that for purposes of the law, this particular book will be treated as such. There was no finding of facts. Only a declaration based on the default of the defendant/respondent. The ruling is legally binding with respect to the book. It has nothing substantial to say about the actual content of the book. It does not even dare to profess that another would automatically be treated as libelous simply because they reported the same information. Note, I am not saying simply republish the book as-is. That is prohibited. If you don't understand the difference, go find a lawyer and ask for an explanation.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 05:46 AM
|
#127 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
I just hope that the fact that a particular account of the group's errors and ways is used as basis for the fear of the group is not presumed to make them complicit in such abductions and "deprogrammings."
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 05:47 AM
|
#128 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
news article
Is this the article? It's from the same date, concerning the local churches, but from a different paper. The byline indicates the article originated from the L.A. Times.
There's a lot of interesting information here, including testimonies from other ex-members. http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...pg=6767,820767 |
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 05:53 AM
|
#129 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
The Mormons have become understood, as they have moderated. But note that even there we find splinter subgroups that will stand-off against the government and fight to the death. Like a lot of far right Christian fanatics. The LRC is not in those groups. But in terms of spiritual health, it is in many ways just as bad. It is unfortunate that the link to the wackos exists. But then some of the actions of Lee and the others are pretty wacko.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 05:54 AM
|
#130 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 07:00 AM
|
#131 | |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: news article
Quote:
If I remember correctly, it came out in the Sunday edition of the LA Times, which had the largest circulation west of the Mississippi. My dad read every inch of the Sunday Times, so of course he ran across this article. By then I was living in "the brothers house", but he still called me to come over to the house immediately. Two older brothers were "assigned" to come with me - I was a real talker and they wanted to make sure I didn't spill any beans. I think my parents came very close to going the "deprogramming" route. Actually if they had the money they probably would have. In a ironic twist of fate, I found out that my godparents (back in the day when many american kids had them) were deeply involved with Max Rapoport in the gospel work there in the San Diego area before he came into the Local Church. Around the time of this article, while visiting my parents, my godparents came over to the house and as soon as they saw me, they proclaimed "So that's what happened to Max, we wondered what happened to him!" Of course by this time Max was persona non grata in a major way, so I kind of acted like I never heard of him. Only a few months earlier I would been able to proclaim that he was "Brother Lee's right hand man!". I think this whole thing went down right around the time of the Jim Jones/Peoples Temple mass suicide, and since this was still very much in public's awareness, it greatly magnified the situation with the Local Church. There is no doubt that it caught the attention of many Christian apologists such as Duddy et al.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 08:39 AM
|
#132 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: news article
Quote:
However, although I feel Witness Lee was reaping what he sowed, I also think it is a shame that one response to this article was to "deprogram" people, which is merely a case of legalized kidnapping. It is difficult for me to believe that the solution to the abuse of the LRC is the abuse of this practice. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 09:12 AM
|
#133 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: news article
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 09:32 AM
|
#134 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: news article
I read this article years ago. It's fascinating to read now. It confirms everything I've learned and concluded about the LRC since. Note Lee's generalized and obfuscating responses. He sounds like Jim and Tammy Faye Baker being interviewed by Ted Koppel.
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 10:05 AM
|
#135 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: news article
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 10:15 AM
|
#136 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: news article
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 10:26 AM
|
#137 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: news article
Quote:
I know Max is now a hero on this forum, but he was a grown man in his 40's messing with the lives of college age kids and elders of churches. The Lord told Pilate that the Jews had the "greater sin," and to me Max was used by Lee as Pilate was used by the Jews. The good thing is that I heard Max repented for his involvement (but he should have come to Chicago and Cleveland to do this), whereas Lee never did.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 10:26 AM
|
#138 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: news article
Quote:
I don't get the impression that Max is self-righteous here. Knowing the full story (or at least the story more accurately), I think that Max is being very honest about the situation. After what Max had been through, being promoted and sent around by Lee, then being expelled and slandered by Lee, I don't blame Max for warning people about the movement. He sounds appropriately disillusioned, like he's seen the man behind the curtain. |
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 10:37 AM
|
#139 | |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
We are just delving into the beginning of the book, but so far I don't see any attempt to use fear as a tool or anything like that. So far it seems they did do a lot of research. As I noted recently, everything that has been quoted so far is actually surprisingly dead spot on. It seems they spent enough time around the group to see through a lot of the coded language. It was around this time that the Local Church produced that little booklet "The Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches". This little tract was more of a work of fiction than a true description of the believes and practices. For example under the Q&A section, to the question "Who is your leader" the answer given is:Our unique leader is Christ. We have no official, permanent, organized human leadership. Furthermore, there is no hierarchy of any kind and no worldwide leader. We regard no person as infallible, and we do not follow anyone blindly. Duddy et al saw right through this smokescreen. They knew exactly who Lee was to the members and that he was the SOLE, unquestioned leader of the Movement. I have a feeling that the more we delve into this book the more we will see that these guys actually did their homework. Yes, they probably made mistakes along the way, exaggerated certain things and maybe even did so in the wrong spirit, but in the end what we should be concerned with today is what they wrote true and factual? In some cases it may be, in other cases there may be some inaccuracies. But I think it will be worth our time and effort to got through it chapter by chapter and let the book speak for itself. Thanks again to NFnL for taking the time and effort to guide us through this.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 10:44 AM
|
#140 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: news article
Quote:
And I agree that if you have this realization it is hard to feel this only became obvious to you after being shown the door. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 10:46 AM
|
#141 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: news article
Quote:
What if he had gone to Chicago, where he had once stirred up the young people against their elders. Should he have repented in Chicago, when it was Witness Lee who had sent him there in the first place to stir up trouble? What repentance would have been received by the elders or the saints there? Would they have listened to Max describe how Lee was a deceptive and manipulative leader? After I came into the LC (in the 80's), I would sometimes hear about this guy named Max. He was always to blame for the "rebellion" of the 70's. Not once did I hear an acknowledgment that Lee deserved responsibility for promoting him in the first place, or that Lee was the reason Max visited the churches (causing problems), or that Lee drove Max out. Max was always the villain. Right now, at this moment, even after the recent turmoil in the Midwest, would either Chicago (now loyal to LSM) or Cleveland (loyal to Titus) welcome Max to give a message of repentance? Lee is still exalted by both localities (am I wrong?) - and Max's repentance would mean that Chicago and Cleveland have a lot to repent for as well. |
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 10:49 AM
|
#142 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 11:12 AM
|
#143 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: news article
Quote:
You make Max sound like a victim here. Is he not responsible for the damages he caused? Self-righteous behavior always blames others for one's actions in an attempt save face. Max was a grown man. He knows better. Did he not rise to prominence within the Recovery by coercing the saints to forgive and forget their Daystar "investments?" The comparison with Ingalls is not fitting. John attempted to protect the saints from the rottenness at LSM, whereas Max was active to spread it throughout the continent. John hurt no one, while Max left a trail of damaged young people. Max may have been duped into doing things, but he was still an accomplice, and that's how the legal system would judge him. It's one thing for Max to warn others about the system, but something altogether different for him, soon after the Jonestown suicides, to tell parents to get deprogrammers for their kids.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 11:29 AM
|
#144 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: news article
Quote:
Years ago what I found interesting is when Paul Kerr, Stephen Kaung, Bill Mallon, Devern Defromke, John Ingalls, and Max Rapoport worked together on the Living Waters publication, I thought for Max to work with these brothers, past history must have been reconciled between them. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 11:34 AM
|
#145 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
I also disagree that the "the LC was very secretive in general towards outsiders." The churches in Ohio were very open to guests coming to check us out. We had nothing to hide. The Cleveland Press sent a reporter to investigate us and then ran disparaging front page articles on the CinCleve for a whole week. Perhaps you should change this statement to say "LSM was secretive..." or something you are more sure of.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 11:35 AM
|
#146 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Ironically how history is revised as I paraphrase;
gifted brothers who left (such as Max, John,) was because they were not interested in the building up of the Body of Christ. Rather interested in creating a following. If you make immorality an issue, you're no longer on the Tree of Life, but on the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. |
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 11:46 AM
|
#147 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: news article
Quote:
I am not saying that there were no similarities here -- hey, Lee worked with both of them, used both of their services for personal gain, and then threw them both under the bus when things went sour. Yes, both John and Max confronted Lee and Son about their damaging activities at LSM. But the Max/John comparison ends when we examine how they behaved when traveling around the USA visiting LC's. John worked with elders, Max shamed them into quitting. John edified the young people with the word of God, Max used Lee's programs to instigate fleshly uprisings in the young people. John nurtured love and harmony, Max created chaos and dissension. John used his authority to build up, Max used his to tear down. Listen folks, I understand it was a difficult time for Max, and that he has gone on to serve the Lord profitably, but we should still be accurate to present a fair account of our history. God knows we have not had much of that under LSM.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 12:50 PM
|
#148 | ||
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
Quote:
Please, those of you who are going to get all riled up over what is in this book, feel free to skip this thread. Maybe it's not for you. There are many boards with many threads covering many different topics. That's the way the forum was designed and it was done on purpose. This way people can feel free to participate in the threads that are of concern and interest to them, but they are also free to just skip the ones that either don't interest them, or that they feel might by too contentious. This is not, repeat NOT, a request that any particular persons refrain from participating in this thread. However, I will not let this thread be continually sidetracked by side issues that are not directly related to what is actually written in this book. I hope ya'll understand.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
||
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 12:56 PM
|
#149 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
 Only thing that riles me up is a visit from Topiq. 
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 01:28 PM
|
#150 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Cool. Then all you have to is stay on topiq! No worries! Carry on!
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 01:37 PM
|
#151 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: news article
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 01:46 PM
|
#152 | |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: news article
Quote:
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 03:30 PM
|
#153 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: news article
The following reflects a combination of my understand from the 70s and what we have learned since:
Quote:
I recall a brother who had been a leading on in Dallas before moving to Anaheim giving an account of a run-in with Max and some of the ones who hung around him. At this point in time, I am fine with accepting that Max was playing a part that was given to him by Lee. That some of it was just a personality thing that might have grated wrong on some people. But anyone who believed that the things that were being driven from Lee through Max were what was right or what was needed had a different need. And that is to have their heads examined. It is not a lot different than the recent account of TC carrying out the excommunication of someone for Lee where he should have had the spiritual sense that there was no basis for excommunication. But they were all under orders in a sense. I have this quandary as to whether to blame Max for being a perpetrator, or just being a blind follower. Was he just blind until he opened his eyes and saw? Or was he really that ambitious? At this point in time, I am tending to lean toward "just blind." Why? because the evidence of the remainder of what little I can see of his life would seem to indicate that the claim that he had some tremendous drive to run some big organization has not materialized in any way. He has seemed to be willing to serve at some level. Yes. His ability to get through to some of us is damaged. How could he have done what he did and then claim (and appear) to be so different? Can he be trusted? That is something we all have to decide for ourselves. I am not fully settled. But I am leaning toward the notion that he was just as caught up in the fog of Lee and the LRC as others, but his eyes were opened once he got away from the fog machine. That is where I lean. But I think that Ohio has summed up the feeling of many who knew more than just the funny story that they sent out to tell. I was visiting Albuquerque when it was first revealed. It was quite shocking to me. There was this wolf running around among us. And at some level it was true. But what was not told was that the presence of the wolf was by design of the shepherd. How's that for a story — a shepherd hiring a wolf to destroy some sheep so that the shepherd could put the sheep in a fenced barnyard and rule over them like a king (I know, the imagery is beginning to fall apart). As for the calls for deprogrammers, that is too much. But given the times, when a grown man awakens to realize how deep he was in a group that had him so blinded that he could do what he did in the (alleged) name of Christ might scare them enough to think that deprogramming was the answer. The realities about such things were really not yet known or understood that well. If the events had been 10 years later, that might not have been his solution. And it may have just been a kind of sour grapes response. But who can say?
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 03:42 PM
|
#154 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: news article
Quote:
Still, you cannot be an elder, the "president" of the local church, a member of the Board of directors of LSM, and the chief spokesman/Public Relations guy for WL and not bear responsibility for your actions. If Witness Lee was the leader of a cult, then what does that make you? Blind doesn't cut it for me. Mistaken, in error, and responsible are words that I would feel are much more in line with the facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 04:19 PM
|
#155 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: news article
Quote:
Just because Max was one of the blind followers using his obvious skills at the behest of the master puppeteer does not make him permanently responsible for what went on. By the way, I take the "what does that make you" question personally. It makes me ( or rather made me) a loyal member of a cult. One in which a single man managed to orchestrate a phenomenal shutting off of the mental capacities of many very intelligent people. Cause serious Bible readers and even scholars to ignore the actual scripture and wander off into la-la land. And I think you can say the same for Max. Maybe it would be reasonable for him to apologize for what he did. But those who are still there are mostly the ones needing the apology (along with the rest of the story). Many of us now outside can see that his life since has been different. Like so many others, including former LRC elders. The opening of their eyes is what I want to see. The telling of the truth. It seems that the lie primarily is still buried in the LRC. It is the most important artifact that remains shrouded in secrecy. Like the rituals to become members of the KKK or become one of the full-fledged Mormons. (The only likeness in these two groups is the secrecy surrounding their initiation ceremonies. No other parallels being made here.) Yes. Max was responsible for what he actually did. But oddly, it may be that the ones that Lee and the LRC declared to be "damaged" by it are the only ones who were freed. To those who remained, it was just another war story to tell about how Satan was out to get "God's best."
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 05:41 PM
|
#156 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
During the lawsuit [against SCP] the saints were warned and pressured to keep silent, and many voluntarily kept silent for the sake of the Lord's Recovery. On some occasions when outsiders sought to interview saints, only special ones were selected who were 'safe' to be interviewed." If you recall from the old Bereans.net forum, the posting member known as "Octim" in one of his posts said he was interviewed by Francis Ball, but was too candid to be considered "safe". |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 05:46 PM
|
#157 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter Three Continued.... On Lee's Spiritual Authority
"A reputable source active in the Local Church for years says that the LC people believe Witness Lee to be the only oracle of God alive today. to disagree with the oracle is tantamount to being out of the Holy Spirit's leading. "When I command in my spirit, the Lord commands with me, for I am one spirit with the Lord" (WL - How to Meet, pg 97). "....Is this my teaching? No! This is the revelation of God in the Bible. It was buried, it was covered for centuries, but by His mercy it has been discovered." (Ibid pg 94). (This follows a discussion of the relation of daily lives to quality of worship, using 1st Corinthians as the text). Some LC people have privately confessed belief that Witness Lee is the apostle of this age. No spokesman for the executive branch of the Local Church has corrected that understanding, or tried to dissuade members from embracing that view. Lee himself believes that he stands in the line of apostolic succession, his authority commensurate with that of the twelve apostles. Lee claims to have received the apostolic mantle from Watchman Nee during their last meeting, when Lee was commissioned to supervise the Taiwan churches. A striking anecdote illustrates Witness Lee's view of the complete sufficiency of his apostleship. Lee once told an elder that the church was like a car; it has only one driver at any given moment. And, he went on, nobody appreciates a back-seat drive. Passengers should cover their eyes, closer their mouths and never distract the driver. Lee demonstrated proper "passenger posture" by putting his hands over his eyes and mouth. During similar conversations Lee's climactic statement had been that, even if the car were headed for a cliff, driver and passengers alike should all go over the edge together." ***************** Wow. That is quite an assertion of Lee's - it certainly sounds a lot like some old quotes Igzy posted on another thread... What was it? Oh yes.... “Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him.” — St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: “The Book of Obedience”, Chapter 1: “There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope”). |
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 06:38 PM
|
#158 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 07:39 PM
|
#159 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 07:45 PM
|
#160 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 07:56 PM
|
#161 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: news article
Quote:
To a certain degree the world's legal systems have had to struggle through these same concepts, and we should take note of their conclusions, because there is a certain amount of time-tested wisdom here. When crimes are committed, all perpetrators bear the same responsibility. One cannot use the defense that "he pulled the trigger." All are guilty of murder, not just the shooter, but the driver who drove the get-away car, the guy who gave the orders to kill him, and the guy behind the scenes who planned it all. All are guilty of murder. Likewise, we must assign culpability to Max for what he did, whether Lee put him up to it or not. He was the promising understudy rising to the top of the heap. Max cannot claim he was completely deceived, just a blind follower, only a patsy setup to take the fall. Max knew what he was doing, even if he was not completely aware of the consequences of his actions.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 08:02 PM
|
#162 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
What Duddy had is what Duddy knew.
He went to Local Church meetings and found out that the Local Church really was The Local Church of Witness Lee. The teachings were Lee. The practices were Lee. The history of the Movement was defined by Lee. Lee, Lee, Lee. Duddy had eyes and ears. He saw what he saw and he heard what he heard. Please Cassidy, don't be a game player. If you heard different let us know. If you saw different, let us know. Duddy wrote of the Local Church of Witness Lee back 35 years ago. Please, let us know different from you. What is your PERSONAL experience that can tell us a different story. I'm not asking for your full name, rank and Social Security Number here my man....just something we can hang our hat on. We all know what you DON'T BELIEVE...we've all seen what you DON'T believe for years. WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE? What do you believe about Witness Lee and the Movement he founded? We know what you DON'T BELIEVE about what others say. What DO YOU BELIEVE? If what you have posted here on these forums all these years is all you have to offer then it is laughable. Seriously. ............................ 
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
11-28-2012, 08:52 PM
|
#163 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
If all Duddy had is what has been posted then Duddy had nothing. That is my question, did he have more than what was posted? Apparently you don't think so but maybe you are wrong, maybe he has a whole chapter on "apostolic succession". Does he? No? A paragraph? No? What?
Let's not confuse the train of thought here. You specifically asked us all to limit our entries to discussions about the content of this book on this thread. So I am doing that. We have been presented and dealing with Duddy's allegation about the so called "apostolic succession" belief of Witness Lee. And if there is any game playing it is the obvious attempts to protect the glaring deficits of this book by blocking serious inquiry about its content, or most probably if current trends continue, its gross lack of content. Now, is Duddy offering anything more than what has been posted about this "apostolic succession". If not, let's just confirm that. Apostolic succession is a heresy and that you will find in LSM publications. Yet who knows, maybe Mr. Duddy hit pay dirt. Maybe he found the smoking gun. If so, let's see it. If not, then all he has is an anon comment, and that would be laughable for such a "scholarly work".
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
11-29-2012, 09:37 AM
|
#164 | |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
The "striking anecdote" provided above is not very striking to those of us who know the real Witness Lee. It was his mindset, so it just came out of his mouth...all the time. Most of the time it was edited out or maybe smoothed over by Kangas and the other editors, so it didn't make it to print. But Duddy knew to dig further. He interviewed current and former members. He knew better than to just talk to a few elders and ministry leaders. This is how he found out about how Witness Lee was truly viewed by the average LC member, and it's how he found out how Lee truly viewed his position in the Movement. Those of you with only "book knowledge", or only want to discuss what is published in black and white, may want to consider sitting this one out. This is about the teachings and practices AS THEY ARE ACTUALLY TAUGHT AND PRACTICED. This is the focus of this book, and this is what we should be discussing in this thread.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
11-29-2012, 10:55 AM
|
#165 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
The idea that Lee was an apostle was fully under way in 1973. I can't recall specific meetings or who said it, but by the time I went back to our old place in the early spring that year to return some things like choir music, I already had Nee and Lee down as apostles. I had only been around the LRC since the beginning of January, and by the time of that chance encounter with the Youth Minster at our previous church, within weeks of me turning 18, I was already steeped in "they are apostles" thinking. (Put the math to it if you must. I'm 57 now.)
Then I read some of the transcripts of the trial discovery where Lee was deposed. He was asked if he was an apostle. He responded with double-speak. He claimed that he told anyone he heard say that not to say it. In other words, he didn't really respond. When the lawyers kept trying to ask the question in different ways, the judge eventually ruled that the question had been answered. But it really had not. It only seemed that way. But it was the way he said what he did that was most revealing to me. It was the carefully scripted response of someone trying to not lie while telling a lie. He never simply said "I have never said such a thing." Or "I always insist that there are no more apostles." Of course, most of those kinds of things that he denied became absolutely true shortly after the verdicts came in. I believe that in that famous conference (wherever) in which he was so exalted by the crowd that he is quoted as saying something like "I kind of like it." At that point, he openly became exactly what he tried so hard to deny under oath in the trial.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
11-29-2012, 11:01 AM
|
#166 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
BTW. And interesting observation. When they announced in Dallas that "we" would be doing our own translation of the Bible, there were a couple of men present who nobody knew. A few meetings later, I believe it was Benson sort of bragging about how those guys had sort of opened their eyes really wide at hearing about a new translation. (It might have been Don. He can probably provide a better account. It is just a fuzzy memory to me now.) I believe that they were reported to have been taking occasional notes. Afterward, they left never to be seen again.
I have always wondered if their notes were part of what was compiled for somebody's book or other research. I cannot remember the time frame precisely enough. Of course, if someone knows when they announced the coming translation efforts, that would pretty well nail it down.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
11-29-2012, 06:34 PM
|
#167 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Getting (back) to the Facts
I had mentioned that Chapter Three deals with the Doctrine and Theology of the LC. The difficulties of nailing that Doctrine down is dealt with, however, a little earlier on - so let me go back and excerpt a little here from Chapter One.... "...The main body of this book is devoted to an exposition of what we understand to be the position of Lee and his movement on a number of traditional theological categories, along with our response to those positions. The areas of theology discussed are those considered essential to the structure of any well-balanced biblical theology. They are not picayune (petty) topics revolving around secondary or tertiary truths. (this is however, difficult to do as)....It appears... that Witness Lee has hammered out a double-edged sword, one blade symbolizing biblical literalism, and the other extrabiblical teaching. The latter, although sheathed in biblical terminology, constitutes an unusual shading or, possibly, a twisting of Scripture. The ramifications of that situation are two-fold. First, by using biblical terminology, the Local Church gains easy access into Christian communities where the Bible is revered. Second, when criticized or accused of unbiblical teaching, the LC is able to produce true biblical affirmations... Yet major emphasis is placed on unusual, obscure, or questionable points of doctrine. The Local Church mentality evidently has no difficulty in accomodating contradiction in a variety of forms.... For example, Witness Lee says that "doctrine only works divisions among the Lord's children" and "the more we talk about doctrines, the more we will quarrel". (WL The Economy of God, pg 23). At the same time, he not only teaches but insists upon certain doctrines (such as "mingling" and "local ground") in a way that leads him to reject fellowship with every major Christian body in the world. Another example of contradiction between word and action is found in LC techniques of proselytizing (gaining 'new ones').... Securing converts among people seeking "a New Testament-type church", the LC took people away from a number of already-established groups. The pattern was almost always the same: "Contact was made with a group that had some ideas similar to those of the LC. There would be a great deal of talk about unity. Slowly the group would lean towards some kind of co-working with the LC. As soon as the LC was in a position to take a sizeable portion of the other group, some issue would be made. It didn't make any difference what issue. Just an issue. A stand with one side of the other was then demanded by the Local Church. They, of course, could no longer work together with a false church that had now shown its real colors. The ugly head of sectarianism had risen. No way would the LC accept that. Division resulted, and the LC took its spoils of victory away." (Jack Sparks) ************************* I think the author's insights are keen, and the quote from Jack Sparks on the bottom (in italics) I think is most intriguing, given ZNP's testimony about what happened with Stephen Kaung's group in NY and their "absorption" into the LC.... I wonder which other groups the author might have had in mind? I debated leaving that italicized quote in, as it stands alone in the paragraph - but it was ZNPs testimony that caused me to leave it in. |
|
|
|
|
11-29-2012, 07:59 PM
|
#168 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
A Sensuous Doctrine (Chapter 3 Cont'd)
"Lee's theology is a sensuous theology. Local Church theology pointedly refers to spirituality and knowledge of God in terminology drawn from the world of the five physical senses: members are exhorted to "sense", "taste", "touch", "feel", "drink" and "eat" the God who indwells the human spirit. One immediate effect of that emphasis is to shift the basis of authority away from God's objective verbal revelation (the Bible) and toward personal, internal illumination.... Lee seems to regard the Bible as a pointer, a manual of limited value, showing the general direction of faith and doctrine. The Bible does not, in Lee's thought, provide an ultimate authority for practice or behavior because it is a reference source external to the human spirit." ******************* I couldn't help but think, as I read this, of Cassidy (and I mean no disrespect Cassidy). Cassidy, who is still within the LC, typifies this mindset which was learned from Witness Lee. In particular, I would quote Cassidy regarding what he said about honoring 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 as following "the letter of the law, but not the spirit" (see post #45 in this thread). This kind of attitude towards Scripture allows for the reader to make His Word say what we want (or "feel") it should say - rather than what it plainly says. More importantly, this attitude, once properly fostered and cultivated in Lee's disciples, renders them unable to use God's Word to discern the validity of Lee's teachings, in favor of Lee's own authority. This is a dangerous place to be. |
|
|
|
|
11-30-2012, 06:09 AM
|
#169 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
I entered the LC's in the mid-70's. One strong theme then present was our need to "return to the pure word of God." This abounded in Lee's ministry, the local ministries, and daily conversation. Since I was raised in Catholicism, this was especially attractive to me. (Remember I was the altar boy who knew the mass in both Latin and English.) I was thoroughly convinced at the time that Lee and his ministry were entirely devoted to God's pure word. One statement that stood out, loud and clear, was Lee's repeated saying that "we don't need systematic theology, we just need the pure word of God!" Fast forward 20 years to the "high peak" era, after the "Ingalls rebellion." I was slowly beginning to realize that all we had by then was "systematic theology." God's economy and high peak theology must abound in every message, song, and meeting or we may get reported to headquarters. I remember one Sunday meeting when the elders were gone and I was left responsible for the meeting. We had a brother visit us from Southern Florida who stood up during our prophesying time and started out, "I don't know if you use the Holy Word for Morning Revival ..." Immediately I jumped up and declared, "Yes we do, we use HWFMR all the time." I didn't think twice before saying this. Who knows what kind of rumors would have started about us! It had actually become dangerous to only use the Bible, even if it was the Recovery version. What had happened to us? All we had was systematic theology! How far had we fallen! The Bible had become a dangerous book in the hands of common saints. It must be properly interpreted! It must be accompanied by the ministry! I remember talking to an in-law of mine during the recent quarantine who also was from Florida. He told me succinctly that "coming back to the pure word of God" was nothing more than a "tactic of the enemy." He then related how Bill Mallon attempted the same strategy during the last rebellion.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-30-2012, 06:21 AM
|
#170 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Although it is the experience of many on this forum, within the LRC and for Duddy, it was not everyone's experience. I did just fine for 20 years without anything but the Bible. This could explain why I was never put in charge of a meeting of the church even though I did run training meetings for the FTTT. The beauty was I didn't owe anyone at "headquarters" anything. I wasn't paid. I knew too many saints in too many localities to worry that someone would take issue with my lack of kowtowing and I had been a full timer for almost 3 years and served in some capacity in LSM for about 15 of my 20 years while supporting myself. The people enforcing these rules were the brothers I had grown up with, I just did not care. If they booted me out for holding to the word that was fine with me. Also I had clashed with the Texas brothers in Houston, Irving and Odessa and every time they had been the ones to leave with their tail between their legs.
|
|
|
|
|
11-30-2012, 06:50 AM
|
#171 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Prior to that Witness Lee was the "official" interpreter of the word. His ministry was published in book and tape form plus the Stream magazine. Regional conferences given by John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, James Barber, etc were basically repeats of Witness Lee's messages. Elders on Sunday mornings repeated Witness Lee's ministry. IMHO all that happened in the late 1980s was to formalize as policy what already existed and to police and punish those who wouldn't comply. At the same time management of "the work" shifted from Witness Lee plus senior coworkers to Witness Lee plus his son and staff at the LSM. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-30-2012, 07:26 AM
|
#172 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
One irony in this whole ordeal, however, was that TC demanded that we be his tape recorders. After his conference messages, all the workers were to rehash his messages during testimony time. Many time, after he finished, no one had anything to say, so he would call on certain ones do this -- a strong message for future meetings. Whereas most LC's used the past training with WL as the content of their gatherings, we often used the last conference with TC. LSM field agents would report this back to headquarters, which is why TC was often at odds with Lee and his minions.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-30-2012, 07:44 AM
|
#173 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-30-2012, 08:48 AM
|
#174 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-30-2012, 11:47 AM
|
#175 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
If there is the grounding of the Word it becomes transparent to discern the issue is receiving according to God's receiving (Romans 15:7) contrasting receiving according to preferences (Luke 6:32-33, James 2). Another reason we need the pure Word of God as our solid spiritual food is "For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant." Hebrews 5:13 |
|
|
|
|
|
11-30-2012, 01:20 PM
|
#176 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
It was another strong signal to me of just how far we had fallen.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-30-2012, 02:51 PM
|
#177 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Scripture: Does It Mean What It Says?
"Because the epistemological schism (the theory of knowledge/learning/understanding which divides) affects Witness Lee's view of God's written Word, the Bible assumes a subsidiary position in his theology. The words of Scripture have meanings, including references to certain facts and events of history, but meaning in general and factuality in particular have less significance for Lee than 'the personal, subjective experience of Christ in the human spirit' (WL, The Knowledge of Life, pg 146). That experience can be opened up to us through reading the Bible, but it occurs through a process of spiritual osmosis having nothing to do with understanding what we read. (WL, A Time with the Lord, pg 8).... Commenting on Romans 2:29 and 7:6, where the apostle Paul wrote that Christians are released from the law (the "letter"), Lee writes: "Now we know what the word 'letter' here refers to - it is the written Bible. Today we must serve the living Lord with newness in spirit, not according to the oldness of the written Bible....Everyone must admit that the word 'letter' in these passages refers to the written Scriptures. There can be no argument." (WL Christ vs Religion, pages 152-153) ********************** Here we find evidence of Lee's disregard for the objective Truth of the Word of God in favor of subjective 'spiritual' leadings. On an old thread of mine, I had once talked about picking up Jessie Penn-Lewis' book "The War on the Saints". Some had told me to be careful of what was written in this book, and I wasn't sure why - but I suspected it was because Penn-Lewis was someone held in high regard by Nee, who quoted her (I am told) quite liberally, on the subject of spiritual warfare. After reading the book however, I found a major disconnect. The disconnect is this: Penn-Lewis, were she alive to read it or see it, would have labelled Lee's theology as absolutely Satanic. The major thrust of Penn-Lewis' book is that the thing least to be trusted is "spiritual leadings" and "feelings" - she argued that these are tools the enemy (himself a spirit-being) is most able to use to convince even the most ardent believers of his lies. My point is not that Penn-Lewis was right in her thinking (or wrong), but rather that Penn-Lewis and Lee are diametrically opposed in their thinking; and yet she herself (we were told) was one on whose shoulders Lee stood. What a lie! How many others did Lee claim to stand on the shoulders of, when in reality, those ones would be appalled by his theology. It seems that Lee liked dropping names - but one must wonder if he ever actually read the books. If he did, he must have thought no one else ever would (why bother, if he has the higher peak revelations, after all?) If anyone is interested in reading "The War on the Saints" - it's available free here: ( http://www.hielema.net/Nederlands/Sc...the-Saints.pdf). |
|
|
|
|
11-30-2012, 03:25 PM
|
#178 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-30-2012, 03:43 PM
|
#179 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Systematic theology is not necessarily bad. But with the LRC, the main problem is that for all the alleged doctrinal and practical errors of every other group, they just replaced those with different errors. And for much of it, the truth is that their error was in replacement of a non-error.
The claim of returning "to the pure Word of God" is just that — a claim. It sounds good. And a lot of people all over Christianity say it as well. And, just like a recent discussion here, it really come down to how you interpret the scripture. And everyone interprets it. Even the Catholics. My problem with the LRC's version of "returning to the Word" is that they (Lee) essentially littered their messages, books, etc., with scripture on everything except the actual point that was to be made, then made some assertion with some verse in proximity that didn't really say what was claimed — unless you simply accepted that it did because Lee told you it did. Yes. We read a lot of the Bible. Our "sermons" had more scriptures in them. But in the end, they were no more correct than any others. And in many cases quite a bit less correct. I'm embarrassed that I was duped into accepting some of the statements made as being simply true. I understood rhetorical tricks, yet missed them all. Until years later.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
11-30-2012, 04:28 PM
|
#180 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
"Commenting on Romans 2:29 and 7:6, where the apostle Paul wrote that Christians are released from the law (the "letter"), Lee writes: "Now we know what the word 'letter' here refers to - it is the written Bible. Today we must serve the living Lord with newness in spirit, not according to the oldness of the written Bible....Everyone must admit that the word 'letter' in these passages refers to the written Scriptures. There can be no argument." (WL Christ vs Religion, pages 152-153)"
Here Duddy's shoddy scholarship shows up again as he selects only the parts of Witness Lee's comprehensive and balanced ministry to attempt credibility for his unfounded case. Yet, even more disturbing is Duddy's apparent total lack of understanding of the inflow (Immanation) and experience of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. His argument is like that of the Pharisees who were very diligent to search the Scriptures, yet they would not find the life of God in them because they did not come to Christ. Witness Lee's ministry is all about the Bible as the foundation and framework for the experience of God's life moment by moment. By the way, the quoted book "Christ vs. Religion" is a classic and full of biblical revelation and insight. I recommend anyone who has not read it do so cover to cover.
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
11-30-2012, 06:42 PM
|
#181 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-30-2012, 08:04 PM
|
#182 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Duddy found out that what Witness Lee meant when he said that Christ is vs religion he ment The Christian religion. And then Duddy found out that to Witness Lee The Christian religion was EVERY Christian denomination, group or affiliation that was not directly controlled by Witness Lee. This made things very neat and tidy for all concerned. If you were a Christian and you were not in The Local Church of Witness Lee, well then you were in something that Christ was "versus". And it's no wonder that Local Churchers were directed by Lee to "picket" the Moody Bible Institute with signs proclaiming "down with religion" and "God hates Christianity".
Did Lee and Company really think that people like Duddy wouldn't take notice of things like this? Apparently Duddy not only took notice, he then went inside the meetings halls of the Local Church and found out that this is what these people were taught on a day-in and day-out basis. Christians were NOT, repeat NOT to be considered your brothers and sisters in Christ. They were THE ENEMY. After all, Christ was VERSUS them! Sad. Very sad indeed.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
11-30-2012, 09:00 PM
|
#183 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-30-2012, 09:06 PM
|
#184 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 07:29 AM
|
#185 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Inspiration
"As a result of downgrading propositional revelation (the view that spiritual truths can be communicated in language comprehended by the human mind), Lee embraces a faulty view of the inspiration of Scripture. In discussing the psalms and their emphasis on the emotive experience of God, Lee distinguishes between pslams that champion the virtues of righteous behavior according to the law and those that advance the virtues of possessing the Spirit of God in the human spirit. In Lee's opinion, the former are peculiarities, expressions of men who did not experience a full spiritual transformation in their lives.... Consequently, Lee says that psalms emphasizing the law are humanly rather than divinely inspired (below this is a chart excerpted from Lee's Christ and the Church Revealed, pg 40 - showing which psalms are 'divine' and which 'merely human')... ...Lee's notion of a dual level of Scripture's inspiration means he must constantly editorialize on the difference between the "humanly inspired" and the "God-breathed". ****************** This is the most damning aspect of Lee's teachings, that the Bible is fallable - that it has, ultimately, been corrupted by men. This is in no way a Christian teaching, but a teaching which comes straight from the cults and those opposed to Christianity entirely. It is the teaching of the Muslims, the teaching of the Mormons, and the teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses. If the Bible contains 'false human concepts', then it is entirely untrustworthy - and cannot be used as the yardstick of our faith. Indeed, none of it's revelation can be trusted any longer. Robbed of it's Authority, the Bible is indeed relegated to the status of a dusty tome, a peculiar souvenir of a time long past, no longer relevant in today's worship. Opposing this heretical view, I would cite from a thesis by Dr Livingston: " All the declarations of the Bible are, no doubt, equally divine... This proof requires neither long nor learned researches; it is grasped by the hand of a child as powerfully as by that of a doctor. Should any doubt, then, assail your soul let it behold Him in the presence of the Scriptures!”1 See How Christ Himself viewed Scripture:
Although some religious leaders profess to accept Scripture as “God’s Word,” their low view of “inspiration” belies the fact. They believe and teach that Scripture is, to a very significant degree, man’s word. Many of their statements are in essential disagreement with those of Jesus Christ. From the evidence of their books, we conclude that some Christian leaders are opposite to Christ in His regard for the authority, the inspiration, and the inerrancy of Scripture. And now, the most important point. III. Jesus Christ was subject to Scripture Jesus obeyed the Word of God, not man. He was subject to it. If some leaders” view of inspiration were true, Jesus was subject to an errant, rather casually thrown-together “Word of Man.” Jesus would have been subject, then, to the will of man, not the will of God. However, in all the details of His acts of redemption, Jesus was subject to Scripture as God’s Word. He obeyed it. It was His authority, the rule by which He lived. He came to do God’s will, not His own, and not man’s. Note how all of His life He did things because they were written—as if God had directly commanded. He fulfilled Old Testament prophecies about Himself. The passages are found all over the Old Testament. We cite here only a very few quoted in the New Testament: Matthew 11:10; 26:24, 53–56; Mark 9:12, 13; Luke 4:17–21; 18:31–33; 22:37; 24:44–47. He Himself is the Word of God. All the words from His lips were the Word of God. (John 3:34). If He had desired, He could have written a new set of rules and they would have been the Word of God. But, He did not. He followed without question the Bible already penned by men. This is the sensible thing for every believer to do. May all who read this adopt Jesus” attitude and become subject both to Him as Living Word (living Torah) and to the Bible as the infallible, written Word of God. The holy Scriptures . . . make you wise to accept God’s salvation (Hebrew Yeshua) by trusting in Christ Jesus (Hebrew Yeshua HaMashiach). The whole Bible was given to us by inspiration from God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives; it straightens us out and helps us do what is right. It is God’s way of making us well prepared at every point, fully equipped to do good to everyone. – II Timothy, Chapter 3, Verses 15–17, Living Bible |
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 07:57 AM
|
#186 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
"This is the most damning aspect of Lee's teachings, that the Bible is fallable..."
This is patently false. An outright fabrication. A damning bearing of false witness. "The Bible is the Word of God. We believe that the Bible, word by word, is divinely inspired by God (2 Pet. 1:21), as the breath of God (2 Tim. 3:16). The genuine Christians do not have any doubt about this point. We must believe that the Bible is God's infallible Word." Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life, The Witness Lee
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 08:05 AM
|
#187 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Great post NFNL and a great quote from Livingston. Thanks.
It's too bad my old friend Cassidy has such a low opinion of "scholars."
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 08:09 AM
|
#188 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Over the course of the last 25 years, WL and his blended successors at LSM have violated nearly every principle set forth in that book.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 08:19 AM
|
#189 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Exibit A of Lee putting down scripture: the Psalms. Out of the great mass of Psalms, 150 in total, the vast majority are held by Lee to be "fallen concepts" and "natural", versus revelatory of God. Even some Psalms which contain revelation, according to Lee, only do so in the exact portions cited by the NT. See e.g. Psalm 34. The rest of the text is perfunctorily waved off. Contrast that with the ministry of Lee. Name any one significant section or portion of his lengthy ministry which has been rejected as revelatory, being rather seen as "natural" or "fallen".
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 08:28 AM
|
#190 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 08:45 AM
|
#191 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Fact is, I have never heard, read, or watched a minister as committed to the infallibility of the Bible as much as Witness Lee. One may disagree with his interpretations and teachings but it is a lie straight out of the mouth of the Devil that he taught the Bible was fallible. He did not. Ever. "The entire Bible is God's breath. Each book of the Bible is God's revelation with every line and word coming from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Scripture is infallible. The functions of the Bible are: 1) it testifies concerning the Lord Jesus; 2) it makes man wise unto salvation and is the seed of regeneration in man; 3) it is the believers' spiritual milk and food; and 4) it makes the man of God complete." Truth Lessons, Level 1, Vol. 1 Witness Lee "The entire Bible is God's breath. Each book of the Bible is God's revelation with every line and word coming from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.] God used over forty men to write the Bible. Only the present 66 books are recognized as the word of God. These comprise the infallible word of God that we have today." Lesson Book, Level 6: The Bible—The Word of God Witness Lee
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 08:52 AM
|
#192 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Textual Manipulation
"The grand illusion of Witness Lee's 'Christ vs Religion' is the view that Jesus completely rejected the religion of the Old Testament. By manipulating biblical data, Lee subtly links both liberal and conservative Christian camps to the New Testament Pharisees who espoused the Old Testament traditions. That strategem disconcertingly persuades readers that Jesus, while rejecting liberal and conservative Christians, heartily approves of and rejoices over the Local Church. To pave the way for that conclusion, Lee must manipulate the historical data in the gospel records. Concerning John the Baptist, for example, Lee writes: "John acted in a way radically opposed to religion.... He had no religion,... he was versus religion,.... he said nothing about the ten commandments. He gave that up." (WL Christ vs Religion pg 9-10)." (In saying this) Lee disregards the fact that John was jailed and ultimately beheaded because he exhorted the guilty, vindictive king, Herod Antipas, with the seventh commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery". (Not to mention that John preached on Repentance* {see Luke 3:3-4 and Matthew 3:1-6}. Later, Lee writes of Jesus: "In those days there was the holy place, the holy temple, the holy city, and the holy land - a four-fold holy sphere. Jesus kept himself away from every one of them." (pg 53). Why should Lee write in such a hyperbolic (exaggerated) fashion and make such an extreme assertion, when it is clear from the Gospel records that Jesus was circumcised according to the law, taught in the holy temple, and kept feasts in the holy city? Lee finds it expedient to subordinate the data of the written Word in order to validate his charges against non-Local Church Christianity and to substantiate his sensuous theology. ...Lee's appraisal contradicts Jesus' declaration in Matthew 23 that a pharasaical mind-set is sinful, secular, and antagonistic to God and his plan of redemption. Lee distorts Scripture in this case to validate the parallel he draws between the "religious" Pharisees of Christ's day and contemporary Christians. "What is it to be religious?... simply to be sound, scriptural and fundamental, yet without the presence of Christ." (pg 152). According to Lee, only through alignment with the Local Church can one be truly in Christ's presence. the testimony of Christians outside the Local Church, however, is that one CANNOT be "sound, scriptural, and fundamental" APART from Christ. ********************** *Repentance is the activity of reviewing one's actions and feeling contrition or regret for past wrongs.[1] It generally involves a commitment to personal change and resolving to live a more responsible and humane life. In religious contexts it usually refers to confession to God, ceasing sin against God in order to gain forgiveness or absolution. It typically includes an admission of guilt, a promise or resolve not to repeat the offense; an attempt to make restitution for the wrong, or in some way to reverse the harmful effects of the wrong where possible. (wikipedia). To repent of a wrong, one must first know what 'is' wrong - one needs a standard which they recognize as authoritative - and that standard is found in God's Written Word, and particularly in His Ten Commandments. John preached the Law, to quote Lee: "there can be no argument". |
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 09:16 AM
|
#193 | |||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
For example, in "Oh how I love Your law/Upon it I mediate day and night" in Psalm 119, there is an opportunity to see into the very heart of Jesus Christ, a human on earth who was utterly obedient to the Father in heaven, as declared in His divine law. John the disciple was able to lean against this Man in love, and in scripture we may have the opportunity as well. Quote:
Quote:
It is not easy to obey God's word. In fact, it is impossible, save for the fact that by faith we see One standing in front of us who is doing just that. The Roman centurion recognized Jesus' complete subjection to His Father; Jesus marveled and said that in all of Israel He could not find such faith. Lee was effectively acting as our tour guide to sections of the OT commenting on obedience to God's word, and saying, "Don't worry folks, there's nothing here to see." I cannot but disagree, and on the strongest terms.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|||
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 09:30 AM
|
#194 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
"Concerning John the Baptist, for example, Lee writes: "John acted in a way radically opposed to religion.... He had no religion,... he was versus religion,.... he said nothing about the ten commandments. He gave that up." (WL Christ vs Religion pg 9-10)."
Technically Duddy is correct concerning what Witness Lee said about John the Baptist. Witness Lee did say the things being quoted here. The problem is Duddy's conclusions are based on a few statements and many omissions and did not include everything that Witness Lee said to provide the reader with context. Also, one statement above taken out of context which I will explain below. Duddy makes it look as if Witness Lee just made anti-religion statements without any explanation to substantiate them. Duddy cuts out the most important part. Had Witness Lee only stated the above I do not think too many people, including me, would find that very compelling (and this book I consider a classic as previously stated) . With Witness Lee's complete explanation, the filling in of the "..." becomes much more compelling and by far a more interesting read. I know it is possible, but I do not think it plausible for anyone to read the whole explanation and not find it thought-provoking if not compelling. I think Duddy had a major scholarly failing here. I highlighted Duddy comments in blue below. Also, Duddy's comment about John the Baptist and the ten commandments was taken out of context as Witness Lee explained that specifically in relation to John's introduction of Jesus as the Lamb of God (though this whole section is about that being outside of religion) "Matthew chapter 3 relates to us the principle of the introducing of Christ—this also is absolutely outside of religion. John the Baptist was the one who recommended Christ to the people. He was born a priest, but he would not remain in the priesthood, he would not stay in the temple or even in the city of Jerusalem. We read that he was in the wilderness. He stayed in a wild place, and even he himself became wild. He wore camel's hair. The camel, according to Leviticus chapter 11, was an unclean animal. But John said in effect, "You say, according to your religious regulation, that the camel is unclean. Then I must be such a camel!" What would you say? John acted in a way radically opposed to religion. And consider his diet. He ate wild honey and locusts. He had no religion, and he had no culture; he was versus religion, and he was versus human culture. He was not in the temple. He had no altar to offer sacrifices, he had nothing related to religion or even to human culture. Not long ago in Los Angeles a brother came to the meetings wearing a blanket. This blanket was a real test to some of the people. But John the Baptist wore camel's hair. The blanket was cultured, treated, and made with human hands, but the camel's hair worn by John the Baptist was absolutely raw. He was wild; he was really wild. This was the pioneer, the forerunner of Christ. It was he who stood there and, seeing Christ coming, exclaimed to the people, "Behold, the Lamb of God." It was he who said that he saw the Spirit as a dove descending from heaven upon Christ, and he knew that it was He who would baptize in the Holy Spirit. What can we say? He said nothing about the ten commandments. He gave that up. He said, "Behold the Lamb of God." He pointed to the One who would baptize in the Holy Spirit, and he said, "Repent!" John did not teach people about religion—he called on them to repent, to change their mind, to change their concept about religion and culture. He did not tell them to do something, he baptized them, he buried them, he terminated them. John said, "I baptize you in water, but He that comes after me will baptize you in the Holy Spirit." What would you say? Jesus was recommended in such a wild way. Would you believe? Would you take it? He was recommended by a wild person in a wild way with nothing to do with religion. Hallelujah for John the Baptist! He was really good." Christ versus Religion, by Witness Lee
__________________
Cassidy Last edited by Cassidy; 12-01-2012 at 09:37 AM. Reason: Grammatical construction |
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 09:35 AM
|
#195 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Now Ohio, you take that back, Witness Lee says clearly that James was "a very godly man and, humanly speaking, he was quite wise." He was just a little too occupied with the OT, didn't understand the NT, and perhaps never experienced a thorough termination and burial of self". |
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 09:37 AM
|
#196 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
But I would like to make the point that "God's economy" as explicated by Lee is not inspired text but rather Lee's interpretion of text. And as a balancing interpretation I would offer Jesus' teachings on "oikonomia", which is usually translated as "stewardship" (see e.g. in parables in Luke), rather than "economy". Stewardship requires faithful obedience. Lee instead used his "God's economy" teaching to instead focus on "masticating the processed and consummated Triune God". So my point is that you may think your teachings and practices are "from the Bible" when in fact they are a result of "fallen" and "natural concepts" overlaid on the Bible. That applies with me; it applies with all of our commentaries -- and it certainly applies with Lee.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 09:41 AM
|
#197 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
"Second, although every line and word of the Scripture is inspired by God, this does not mean that every word in this holy Book is the word of God, but we must be very careful in our understanding of this matter. In the Bible there are a great many words that are not God’s words. We may give several examples to make this matter clear... In his Epistle James wrote in a godly way concerning many things: visiting widows and orphans, keeping oneself unspotted from the world, fulfilling the perfect law of freedom, saying, “If the Lord wills,” concerning the future, encouraging the believers to pray according to the example of Elijah. James’ word regarding these things may be godly, but it is not God’s word. Nevertheless, such a book is included among the holy writings, which were breathed by God, inspired by God." Life Study of James, Message 14, section 3). Yep, a complete fabrication. Look at how much Witness Lee appreciated how this next Psalm exposed him, and this light shining on his personal situation was the light he needed. Duddy was too blind to see this: "This shows us that Psalm 1 is good, but it was written with a wrong concept. The law was not given for us to keep for our prosperity. Instead, the law was given to expose us. The writer of Psalm 1, David, was exposed by the law as being a murderer and a robber of someone's wife. Because of what he had done, the situation with his entire family became a mess. Fornication and murder were among his children (2 Sam. 13:1-29), and rebellion came from his son, Absalom (15:7-12). The third psalm was a psalm of David when he was fleeing from his rebellious son. Thus, we should not highly appraise Psalm 1. It was written wrongly with a wrong concept, a human concept." Life Study of Psalms, Message 1, Section 1. You see most people understand the idea of "the Bible being the word of God, divinely inspired word by word by God" too simply. Not Witness Lee, he got to the depth of this, for example: "The book of Proverbs is recorded in the Word of God, but it is not the word directly from God. Rather, it is the word of many wise men, especially Solomon. In the same way, most of the Bible is not the word of God directly. However, much of the Old Testament is God's speaking, such as Genesis 1:3, where God said, "Let there be light." Although Proverbs is a book in the Bible, when we contact it by our natural man, it is not the word of God to us." (The Life Study of Proverbs, Message 6, Section 1). |
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 09:47 AM
|
#198 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 09:50 AM
|
#199 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
I don't think the answer is to be wild; but to be obedient. The pharisees trusted that their obedience was sufficient; it wasn't. Their hope was in vain, and their false hope was exposed as expressed anger when John and especially Jesus called them on it.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 09:53 AM
|
#200 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
As with politicians, don't pay attention to what he says, but pay attention to what he does. Lee proclaims allegiance to the infallibility of scripture and then spends the whole Crystalization Studies of the Psalms and James to show us how these books are not God's word, but faulty human religious sentiments.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 09:56 AM
|
#201 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 10:01 AM
|
#202 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 10:01 AM
|
#203 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 10:10 AM
|
#204 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 10:23 AM
|
#205 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Second is inspiration. A "voice within" says this contains revelation concerning God's Christ. Much of the elliptical and poetical parts of the OT (Psalms, Isaiah) can yield revelation if we pursue Christ there. Paul doesn't call it "the word of Christ" for nothing in Colossians 3:16. And the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews says, "We see Jesus" shortly after quoting "Your throne, O God, is forever", which might not be logically self-evident to some of us. Lee used both methods. But he missed the safeguard: the counsel of godly men. If we simply rely on our logic and inspiration, we may eventually be led astray. We may get captured by our ideas instead of by Christ. We, all of us, need the counsel of others, else there will be none to "restrain the madness of the prophet". With his idea of "the ground of the church" I think that Nee lost the restraining safeguard of the counsel of godly peers, and when Nee departed the scene Lee likewise lost any external restraint. Eventually the Bible became a tool for Lee to use, rather than God's commandment to obey. Lee tried to be subject to God's Word, but rather it became subject to his "fallen and natural concepts". Then you end up with zany quotes like the one presented by ZNP above. See especially the underlined part.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 10:33 AM
|
#206 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
He elevated his own speaking to that of Jesus' own words. If we apply the Lee concept of the word of God, all we would be left with is the red letter words of Jesus in the red-letter edition of the Bible.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 10:59 AM
|
#207 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Yours is a reasonable explanation and your exhortation about safeguards through peer reviews is not missed. However, there is nothing amiss by the underlined statement: "In the same way, most of the Bible is not the word of God directly ." The operative word here is "directly". He gives the explanation that Genesis 1:3 is a direct word from God "God said". What he means here is that God spoke most of the Bible through men moved by inspiration of the Holy Spirit using their own words to articulate the inspiration. They were imperfect men as are we all. What they said was often through a filter of their world view. God spoke to men within the context of their human existence. He did not seek to correct certain thoughts they may have because the word He spoke to them was introduced to the people of that time and place. He was not seeking technical accuracy nor was demanding a level of superior knowledge beyond what they could know at the time and place they lived. We can look back (and unbelievers who oppose God and His word often do) and find writers misunderstandings about a number of things. Yet, these are all for our correction and instruction in righteousness. For instance, the book of Enoch is not considered canon. It is not considered Scripture therefore it is not included in the 66 books of the Bible. It is an interesting book but its authenticity is suspect. And yet, Jude quotes the Book of Enoch. So what should we do with that?. A book that is Holy Writ is quoting another book that is not. Is the Book of Enoch automatically validated as a legitimate work because of this? No, apparently not. Was Jude's understanding about the book of Enoch's authenticity essential to whether his book should be included in the Bible? No, it was not. If we reject the book of Enoch then should we reject the book of Jude? No, we should not. We simply acknowledge the fact that Jude was quoting something according to his understanding at the time. Rejecting the validity of the book of Enoch does not mean we are rejecting the infallibility of Jude and its inclusion in the canon of Scripture. That same goes for James who was occupied with the law. Or the Psalms or any other book. We hold that all 66 books are the word of God and every word and sentence are infallible canon of Scripture but there is no conflict to embrace the Bible as infallible while acknowledging the bias, the worldview, or the errors that the writers may have scribed.
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 11:02 AM
|
#208 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
And then the OT portions directly quoted by Jesus. That we'll allow as "God's Word". But still, it comes out to a mighty thin Bible. Thank God for those footnotes!
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 11:29 AM
|
#209 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
So instead of seeing that "all scripture is God breathed" to mean that it is inspired by God, it now means that God has a purpose to put all these words in this book and that thanks to Witness Lee we now know they are there to see if we truly understand God's economy. This is the most arrogant teaching imaginable. He was obviously blinded with pride and arrogance. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 11:31 AM
|
#210 | ||||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
So we get "the context of Lee's human existence", as you put it, vetting the Word of God for us. And I say we were cheated. Or is Lee somehow exempt from the cautionary words you impose on the Biblical authors? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
||||
|
|
|
|
12-01-2012, 11:36 AM
|
#211 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Talk about a cautionary tale. David and Solomon have nothing on this guy.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
12-02-2012, 07:12 AM
|
#212 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Witness Lee believed and acknowledged that all of Scripture is God-breathed. He stated it directly and he underscored his belief with tens of thousands of messages covering every book of the Bible (James and Psalms included) on every christian topic. That is a level of commitment to Scripture that most Christians or ministers will never make including present company. You seem to be advocating that all books be treated with equal weight or disregard the background of the writer or ignore contrasting it with other books in the Bible, etc. . I find nothing in the Scripture that says a minister or teacher must do that. If someone has a burden from the Lord to expound on certain Scripture more or less or not at all then they have the liberty before the Lord. However, each minister must follow the leading of the Holy Spirit on this matter. If you feel the book of James or Psalms were shortchanged in Witness Lee's teachings and have a burden from the Lord, then you should put pen to paper and write a study of your own on these books.
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
12-02-2012, 07:55 AM
|
#213 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
"Actually, I think I get, and mostly agree with this. The Bible was composed by fallible, partly ignorant men. But I would argue that there are at least potentially deep, deep, mystical revelations of Christ there, and that Lee did us a disservice by treating it as if it were a blank spot on a map: "Don't worry, folks, nothing there. Let's move along." In this way he elevated his interpretation above the very word of God itself. And his "move along, folks" wasn't incidental. The Book of Psalms is both the most voluminous book of the OT, and the most cited by the NT. Go through your Psalms Recovery Version sometime and notice the glaring absence of footnotes, and the numerous ones that pan the text as of no value, compared to the ones explicating "divine revelation"."
Apparently, Witness Lee did not have the same burden for the book of Psalms has he had for the writings of Paul for instance. He had the liberty and responsibility to follow the leading of the Lord. There may be mysterious revelations of Christ in the Psalms (Witness Lee saw something of the Church there also) as you say that he did not recognize. That will be up to someone else I suppose to expound on. So we get "the context of Lee's human existence", as you put it, vetting the Word of God for us. And I say we were cheated. Or is Lee somehow exempt from the cautionary words you impose on the Biblical authors? Sure. I would only object to the characterization of "cheated". There are at least a hundred messages on the Psalms and hundreds (maybe thousands) of references to them in other parts of the ministry. How many more would you have considered were needed? "Psalms is the second book of poetry. Job leads us into the school of God to be educated to know God. The Psalms leads us into the Holy of Holies for us to fellowship with God through prayers, aspirations, meditations, desires, and praises." I honestly am not sure about Enoch. It is an interesting kind of "grey area" document held to be revelatory by some, perhaps many, of those who composed (and read) our NT. While I acknowledge Enoch as 'suspect' in some ways (authorship & age), I hold that Lee's writings are likewise suspect. Were you to try Lee's works with the same keen-eyed skepticism that you try others, you might be more inclined to agree. The point about the book of Enoch is that some of it is included in the book of Jude as a reference but the book of Jude is no less inspired by God and its inclusion of a non-canonical work makes it no less infallible. We can acknowledge the writer's (Jude) lack of understanding without dismissing the book of Jude. Same for James or David (who wrote most of the Psalms). Likewise, Lee's OT exegeses are not infallible. Human concepts, both "natural" and "fallen", abound. Correct. To more or less of a degree that is true for every man. Lee was also fallible, in behavior, in teaching, and interpretation. As such he is merely one voice among many. Sure. And I trust the experiences of the writers of the OT and NT more than the teachings of Lee; if nothing else, simply because they ARE presented warts and all. Lee, by contrast, was presented like "The great and powerful Wizard of Oz", smoke, mirrors, and all. Interesting that in the movie, the "wizard" was a humble itinerant snake oil salesman before he discovered the lucrative business of elevating himself above the awestruck masses. Or am I mis-remembering the movie? I do that sometimes. It was just a movie. Christmas season is here so you should be able to find it on the tube to refresh your memory. But, look, no one should elevate a man and all but a few will recognize that Witness Lee was a fallible man with shortcomings and failures. If someone followed Witness Lee hoping to find a perfect man they would have been disappointed. Their focus and emphasis was off. If they sought the Wizard of Oz then they should go to Oz, wherever that is for them.
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
12-02-2012, 08:07 AM
|
#214 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
On Interpretation of Scripture (Sola Lee)
"The traditional reference point of Biblical Christianity - "Scripture interprets Scripture" - has been relocated by Lee. "Our spirit today is God's dwelling place. And, even more, the local churches are God's dwelling place. Hence, we must turn to our spirit, and we must to turn to the local church... our spirit and the local church are where we will receive divine revelation, where we obtain the explanation to all our problems." (WL Christ and the Church Revealed, pg 128-129) The Written Word is not entirely written off by Lee...Although it is a shadow, it can lead to Reality... To help his followers use it, Lee presents a number of interpretive principles to use in his books. Two stand out: allegory, and personal revelation. Some of Lee's books are structured entirely by the allegorical use of Scripture. For him, almost everything in the Old Testament is a symbol of something in the New Testament. Obviously, if one views the written Word as history and shadows, then to span one's ontological schism (strongly held belief of the nature of God and being) to the higher spiritual Reality behind the shadows requires something other than literal interpretation. Similarly, if one sees ordinary knowledge as outward, "soulish" and crass, one cannot use rational, verbal, objective knowing to... attain spiritual knowledge. ...Since language and history are of the mind, of the soul, of the lower level of knowing, such matters as the Bible's grammar and the original historical context and intent are inconsequential to Lee. Lee teaches that Scripture is the Holy Spirit and that the interpretation of Scripture is spiritual, beyond rational understanding." ************************* This understanding of Lee's means of interpretation differs completely from Cassidy's presentation of Lee's means. (IE: Cassidy's post to ZNP below: "You seem to be advocating that all books be treated with equal weight or disregard the background of the writer or ignore contrasting it with other books in the Bible, etc." Which statement most accurately reflects the facts here? |
|
|
|
|
12-02-2012, 08:55 AM
|
#215 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
I appreciate your reasoned reply. My only response at the moment is that if someone else tries to expound on the Bible, within the "local church" environs, or does what you call elsewhere "another study", they will be labeled factious, devisive, ambitious, drawing others after themselves, etc. They will be immediately shouted down by the lackeys and sycophants who have clustered themselves around "the ministry". "The ministry" as I have seen it simply allows no other voice than its own. Quote:
Yet on those grounds, Lee dismissed the bulk of the text. He missed the boat on this one, and you and I both know that in today's "Lord's Recovery" if anyone mentions a possible lack, or deficiency in the "rich ministry" of Witness Lee in this regard they'll be hustled out the door so quick their head will spin.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
||
|
|
|
|
12-02-2012, 08:55 AM
|
#216 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
All this is a very excellent analysis of how Witness Lee viewed and taught the Bible. Much of his error stems from his lack of formal Christian/Scriptural education. Most good formal Christian educational institutions will give the serious student the interpretive and language skills that are needed to be a sound Bible teacher.
LEE: "our spirit and the local church are where we will receive divine revelation" REGARDLESS of context, this is a false and dangerous statement, especially the part about "the local church", especially knowing what Lee meant by "the local church". By local church Witness Lee mean HIS CHURCH, where HIS PRIVATE INTERPRETATIONS reign supreme. He said such a thing knowing fully that all the "book rooms" were filled with over 90% of HIS written messages, HIS books, HIS video tapes. ...Since language and history are of the mind, of the soul, of the lower level of knowing, such matters as the Bible's grammar and the original historical context and intent are inconsequential to Lee. Dead, spot on analysis. Witness Lee forced the Bible into the context of HIS interpretation instead of the other way around. He usually only brought up matters of grammar and historical context in order to use the Bible as a "proof text" for his private interpretation. A good example of this might be Lee's insistence that Isaiah 9:6 is saying that Jesus Christ is called God the Father. Duddy et al were not doubt aware of heretical teachings like this, so he could make statements like the one quoted here.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
12-02-2012, 01:34 PM
|
#217 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
I myself only dabble on the fringes as a rank amateur, but the field is so full of proverbial "low-hanging fruit" that it bountifully rewards labor, even to someone unlearned as myself. God loves to present His Son to us in His Word. Not to mention that none of these scholars is pretending that they have the final word on the subject. If any of them tried they'd be laughed out of the room by their fellows. Peer review breeds humility, and care.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
12-02-2012, 05:10 PM
|
#218 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-02-2012, 07:45 PM
|
#219 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Here I am skipping ahead some 20 pages, although we may go back later... I felt, after the last post I made on the "Does LSM hold to Apostolic Succession?" thread, that readers might want to know where 'Blended Brothers' Ron Kangas, Benson Phillips, and Bill Lawson got their ideas from.
Ecclesiology, the House that Lee Built (Chapter Three Cont'd) "Although the crux of the Local Church's theology is the mingling of God and humanity, Witness Lee's ecclesiology (or doctrine of 'the church') is also momentous. Local Church members claim to be the only true Christians, the only true Church. Lee justifies the founding of the Local Church by exegeting Old Testment prophecy and New Testament narrative. He devotes his book 'Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms'to demonstrate that only the Local Church, not the catholic (universal) Christian faith, is prophesied in many texts. Lee argues that Matthew 18:15-20 is a text alluding to the Local Church, as are all the letters of Paul that are addressed to cities. Throughout his writings Lee exalts the Local Church with such appellations as "God's dwelling", "God's beauty", "the place of God's blessing", and "the dispatcher of true salvation". "Furthermore, the salvation of God's people comes out of the local churches. Psalm 53:6 'Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion'." (WL C&C Revealed pg 95). (apparently, Lee believed his Local Churches were also Zion). ...Lee deprecates "Christianity", using perjorative adjectives like "misled", "poor", "fallen", "lost", "mistaken", "pitiful", and "heathen" to describe religious non-local Church people. "Do not try to be neutral. Do not try to reconcile the denominations with the local church. You can never reconcile them. Can you reconcile black and white? You can, but it will be grey; it will be neither black nor white." (WL The Practical Expression of the Church, pg 92). Those who criticize the Local Church often find themselves admonished to heed the advice of Gamaliel: "Let these men alone; you might actually find yourselves to be fighting against God." Application of that Scripture on behalf of Witness Lee's movement is based on his assumption that the Local Church has the same relation to contemporary Christianity that early Christianity had to Judaism, namely, that it supersedes it. That attitude is expressed rather boldly within the confines of the Local Church. Public teaching on the matter has been somewhat more guarded; nevertheless, Lee has committed himself on several occasions, declaring that Christians of today occupy the spiritual position of Gentiles in New Testament times. (alienated from the life of God) "We are simply putting off religion, putting off Christianity. In the early days the church had to put off Judaism. Today we have to put off Christianity." (WL Ibid, pg 133). "All Christians not in the local church are in captivity, in the wilderness of Babylon, and without much regard from the Lord". (WL C&C Revealed pg 198 & The Vision of God's Building pg 69-70). "Today's remnant, however, can flee only to the local church." (WL Christ vs Religion, pg 115). "Is this religion? No. Is this Christianity? No. Is this a kind of new sect? No. Then what is this? It is the church life, Hallelujah!" (WL, Christ vs Religion, pg 34). "Some say that the church in Los Angeles is 'awful'. But it is still not 'awful' enough! We need to be more 'awful'. We want to frighten all of Christianity to such an extent that the whole universe will be shaken." (WL The Practical Expression of the Church, pg 138). ********************** What can I possibly add to that? |
|
|
|
|
12-03-2012, 05:05 AM
|
#220 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-03-2012, 05:42 AM
|
#221 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Quote:
In this phrase we can see both the triumph of the man Jesus, who on earth lowered Himself, and simultaneously see the fall of the angel Satan, who wanted to elevate himself. Proverbs says that a fool despises rebuke, and it also says (3x) that a wise man has many counselors. The words of Proverbs and Psalms, among of course many other scriptures, are to counsel (and yes, rebuke) us. We should not minimize or ignore them. On the contrary, we cannot overstress them.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
||
|
|
|
|
12-03-2012, 07:47 AM
|
#222 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
First. You have no idea what Lee actually believed. And his spoken and written record do not aid in settling the issue. Lee spoke one way one time, and another way in other times. Yes, he said that he believed in the scripture as God-breathed. But the things he said about some of it was more like saying that Lee believed that some of the scripture was God-breathed, and some of it was not, but was allowed to be included so that, without any direct comment, it could be understood as wrong. The problem for so many is the "without any direct comment" part. Scripture holds together quite well if you assume that it is all literally God-breathed as-is and is His intent and not His examples of what is not His intent. So, without some clear comment in the context of what is declared by Lee to be "not according to the divine revelation" or "not according to God's economy," I find the declaration that major portions of scripture, like James and much of the Psalms, is just man's vain thoughts, or just dead religion is to disrespect the direct speaking from God's breath. Throughout the scripture there are ample cases where the sayings and deeds of evildoers, wicked, and even foolish, are identified and either chastised or warned against. But somehow, most of the letter from James, much of the Psalms, and some other writings within scripture have been singled out by Lee (and admittedly, a few others before him) to be somehow errantly in the canon of scripture, or somehow to be read in the mode of "opposite time" in which black becomes white and yellow becomes purple. That kind of position on any part of the scripture is clear evidence of a mind and spirit that are not in tune with God. That kind of mind and spirit could never be a legitimate minister, and clearly not the singular "minister of the age." Then there is the issue of not taking things at equal weight and not emphasizing all of scripture equally. I am not really opposed to that. I'm sure that no one would object to not giving a lot of study to some particular battle in the OT. Not saying to dismiss it or ignore that there may be principles or foreshadowing in it. But as a text of profound importance, it would not be the same as, say, Romans 8 or Matthew 5. But there is imbalance that is not acceptable. Scripture is full of many things. Even within the NT (and without consulting James) there is much concerning our actions, living, and even works. And at the same time there is much concerning our belief and grace. Both are at work. I do believe that while imbalance in a particular ministry is not necessarily a problem. Sometimes we find that certain people see aspects of the full revelation better than others do. We should not dismiss their portion because it is lopsided or limited. We can gain from such a ministry. But when there is such a lopsided ministry, it cannot be taken as "the ministry" and all others ignored. It can only be acceptable (or even just possibly acceptable) if it is used as something equivalent to "an important part of a complete breakfast." In other words, it is not the whole breakfast, and is not even part of the other daily meals. It is just what it is — a small part. And once a minister thinks his little part is the only part and that all others are irrelevant or even fallen, he has stepped into a realm in which whatever might be relevant from his ministry cannot save him. In terms of being a minster, he becomes bankrupt and is worthy of rejection. Not just because he is lopsided, but because in his concluding that his ministry is so singularly important, he ceases to serve God and instead serves only himself. He may think he is serving God, but he cannot be. And for Lee, this is too evident when he twice casts others aside to protect his immoral son so that he can serve the LSM as chief bully. At this point, it is clear that Lee's service is about his belly, not God, scripture, or righteousness.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
12-03-2012, 07:49 AM
|
#223 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-03-2012, 07:57 AM
|
#224 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
12-03-2012, 08:21 AM
|
#225 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica LewinskyWhen I consider statements like Lee made above, I do not know whether to accept that he was truthful but ignorant of the totality of his position, or willfully false. He could have simply been trying to use the "God is mysterious" argument to mask that he could teach contrary things while claiming to hold to the accepted teachings of orthodoxy. He also could have actually thought that he was somehow correct in his assertion. But even if he desperately wanted to hold to a Bible that "word by word, is divinely inspired" his very teachings contradict that position. He cannot accept that God spoke the words found in James and meant them. So even though there is nothing surrounding those "bad" words to declare them as the thoughts of the old covenant or of fallen religious man, Lee believes that is the case. So he must devise a construct in another part of scripture that does not actually refer to James or anything like what James wrote, and drag it to the rescue of his private consideration that God would never actually speak those words as authoritative, but rather allow them to be spoken by spiritual fools so that He could leave them as unidentified errors in theology. The result is to declare his claim of "word by word" divine inspiration of scripture to be false. He believes in a scripture in which God allows error to be spoke and if truth, yet without contradiction until some specially-endowed minister like Lee comes along to set the record straight with a faulty construct devised in other parts of scripture to drag over to those errant portions and finally get God's word completed. In other words, the Bible wasn't really finished until Lee's commentary came along to fix the errors in how it was written down and pieced together. The notes about James' bad theology were missing. Same for much of Psalms. So until at least Luther, James was not properly seen as error. And even then it was not correctly stated. We had to wait for Lee to get the understanding correct. That dog wont hunt. It is a three-legged stool that is missing two legs. I am reminded a little of the bit from Macbeth, act 5, scene 5, where Macbeth, speaking of the hollowness of life says Quote:
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
||
|
|
|
|
12-03-2012, 11:49 AM
|
#226 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-03-2012, 12:28 PM
|
#227 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
You asked me if I thought they were infallible and I answered no. Make your point and let's move on.
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
12-03-2012, 12:43 PM
|
#228 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
12-03-2012, 12:45 PM
|
#229 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
12-03-2012, 01:00 PM
|
#230 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-03-2012, 01:10 PM
|
#231 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
My instinct told me I should have ignored your first leading question. I prefer a dialogue. If you have a specific writing you wish to discuss I will be happy to engage you. If the teaching in question is not related to this thread then with the permission of the host of this site you may open another thread and depending on the topic I may join you. Thanks
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
12-03-2012, 01:47 PM
|
#232 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
" . . . there is more justification in the Bible for head covering than for the ground of locality . . ."
And the general thought is that there is almost no justification for any kind of insistence on head covering. So . . . (Thanks, Ohio, for that great quote.)
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
12-03-2012, 02:49 PM
|
#233 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
When asked about Lee and infallibility, you are quick to assert that he is not infallible. But from your actual statements and positions, it would seem that you have found no actual reasons to question anything Lee ever said or did. That makes your assertion of "fallible" to be little more than theoretical. In practice you have found him to be entirely accurate and trustworthy to have spoken precisely what God is saying in all cases. I will declare plainly that I find things about virtually every ministry, from large national and global ministries to the people who minister in various local churches (that's local church in the unadulterated sense of churches that are found locally). The minister at one place we have attended declares plainly that they stand as a bastion of strength to defend the propositions of a pretty by-the-book DTS (Dallas Theological Seminary) version of "the truth." And while I find his preaching quite sound and refreshing, I cannot say that everything he says is entirely as I understand it. Further, I don't think that the DTS version of "the truth" is absolutely correct. And my son and daughter-in-law who both attended DTS would agree. I can give specifics if you would like. But no matter how strongly I consider DTS theology to be either right, wrong, or in between, I do not sideline all other thought as if it is something to fear. In fact, it is the opening of other perspectives that I learned how wrong Lee actually is. How contrived his reading of scripture can be (and more often than just "at times"). But the LRC is frozen in place following the singular ministry of one (dead) man without even considering other ministries as at least supplementary. And please do not confuse arguing that Ron and Benson have their own ministries because theirs, at least at this point in time, are nothing more than rephrasing and restating Lee's. Except for certain very sectarian groups, you won't even find a severe limit on the range of ministries to be considered as you find in the LRC. Virtually no one out there is even suggesting that we should avoid all other ministries but theirs because those others are either redundant or wrong. Virtually all ministries understand themselves as little more than a part of the whole. Even Paul did not declare himself to be more than that. But Lee did. (That Lee. He is soooo special. Even more special than Paul.) In a favorite podcast (having nothing to do with the LRC or even theology), the author regularly quotes Thomas Jefferson: Quote:
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
||
|
|
|
|
12-03-2012, 04:00 PM
|
#234 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-03-2012, 06:17 PM
|
#235 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter Three: Unique Theology - Lee on Salvation
I continue here reading from page 57 of The God-Men. May the Lord grant us wisdom to discern His Truth. "(In Witness Lee's theology of Salvation) It could be said that people are not so much redeemed as they are replaced. The crux of Local Church teaching seems to be that God is working Himself into people and at times even replacing them with Himself... The function of salvation is primarily to effect (or permit) that mingling, not to atone for sin. Although Witness Lee acknowledges the redemptive aspect of salvation, he explicitly labels it the "lower aspect". The "higher aspect" of salvation is the mingling of God's essence with the essence of humankind: Lee literally devotes volumes to its explication.... ...For Lee, atonement deals primarily with the corrupted body, the flesh, in which Satan is incarnated. The soul, according to Lee, does not need to be redeemed except insofar as it is wedded to the flesh. ************************ A short but not insignificant passage. This thought of Lee's puts much of my personal experience with the Local Church to mind. |
|
|
|
|
12-03-2012, 07:02 PM
|
#236 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Why did we never use Christmas or Easter to invite friends to hear the gospel. Was not Chinese New Year far more pagan than Christmas? From my earliest days in the Recovery, I was indoctrinated with anti-Christmas venom. Most genuine Christians use the celebration of Christmas in this way. They focus on the reason for the season. They did every year what only our Chinese saints were allowed to do. It's no wonder that Caucasians have been exiting the LC's for decades.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 04:38 AM
|
#237 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
No doubt Witness Lee emphasized the salvation of the soul and deemphasized redemption. This was done because the teaching in Christianity is often so focused on redemption they cannot see anything more than that. Case in point -- Duddy. But it is total BS to say that we were taught we were not redeemed, or that "salvation is not so much redemption but being replaced" |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 04:46 AM
|
#238 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
2. I don't see what one message by a leading elder in Winnipeg 20 years or more after Duddy's book about Witness Lee has to do with anything. I never heard such a message in the LRC, never heard Witness Lee share a message with that title. You have had quite a bit of time to glean out the "gems" from this book and what exactly has this book said so far? |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 04:48 AM
|
#239 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 05:22 AM
|
#240 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
I realize that it appears that Duddy is just giving some uninformed opinion about what Lee is teaching. But based on my 14 years of in-house observation, I believe he has gotten the gist of it.
What really bugs me now is how I recall that Lee would work through his little bit of scripture which he would then couple with stories saying the equivalent of "it's like . . ." when a careful observation of the base scripture would not lead there. Lee created a religion on top of Christianity based on stories. The actual Christian life, like the comment by Duddy on Lee's lowering of salvation (which is in scripture) and raising of mingling and replacing (which sort of appears once or twice, probably somewhat metaphorically) is spot on. For all of Paul's discussion in Romans 7 and 8 on how he was unable to fulfill the law on his own but is able to through agreeing with and walking by the Spirit, Lee only finds Satan in our flesh and our spirit as the key to success through no effort of our own. And Lee's goal has nothing to do with righteousness because it is of the law. He goes on to avoid reckoning because he can't do it. "Just let the mingling handle it" is probably the nearest thing to going along with that passage. Like the discussion about a unique ministry or many ministries, we see how Lee's isolation and claim as sole minister of all that is worth knowing leaves his followers so far from the scripture that they so liberally quote as they learn error after error. A this point in the discussion, it is worthy to note that many of the portions from Duddy that have been posted at first (once again) seemed a little harsh. But upon further reflection, I realized that they were quite accurate. The religion of the Lee and the LRC is about knowledge and terminology. It is built on recasting of clear words into "spiritual" words. It refuses to accept words for what they are and uses mantras like "you must not be spiritual" to continue to declare that their unfounded replacement of the scripture is the real deal. I recall when Max once visited Dallas that, in reference to the Book of Mormon, he said that Satan wrote a counterfeit of the Bible but was embarrassed about it, so he buried it. Then Joseph Smith came along and dug it up and called it the Book of Mormon. I thought that was pretty funny. The Book of Mormon is not a subtle rewrite of scripture, but an alternate that is clearly identifiable. Lee did something much more subtle. Instead of writing a different book, he simply came along side of The Book and provided alternative explanations. He turned The Book into a cipher in which the words as understood by the casual reader are discarded based on a cipher. A decoder ring. It is not as simple as "every seventh word with an overlay of every 12th word" or something like that. Rather, the cipher is a library of writings much more voluminous than the Bible itself. This library carefully explains how to ignore what the Bible says and instead accept something that Lee says. Oh, some of it sounds like the base scripture. But very little of it. And while they do believe in salvation as you and I know it, that is not far from all. Even the rest that has a sound of similarity is actually different at some level. You think I am overstating it? Just talk to one of them about virtually anything. It takes very little time to reveal some aspect in which the clear word is cast aside because, based on "God's economy," it must mean something else. Or a single word is latched onto and becomes the focus of a single verse (or entire pasage). Much like discovering a "profound truth" about Christ being The Spirit in the midst of a discussion about the kind of resurrected body you and I will receive. It might be easy to dismiss this as an exception rather than a rule because it is so easy to find and others are not provided. So, let's talk about abiding. The metaphor was a vine. We have to soak up this supply from the vine before we, as branches, can do anything. But the metaphor of a vine is a constant flow of nutrients and a constant effort by the branches. There is no waiting in plants. It is joint, together. If you think those verses are saying to wait until your tank fills up, you don't know plants. Plants don't operate on "I need some more supply before I start." Or more accurately, "I need every bit of what it takes to finish before I start." That is not the way of plants. For a plant, it is more like "Oh, here's a little sap. I must work with it. Do what I can. More sap will come." In fact, if a plant waits for enough sap to do the job, there will be a build-up of sap that will probably dry out and the branch will die as a result. Based on that kind of analogy, Lee's "wait for the dispensing" is a sure-fire recipe for failure and spiritual death. And that is one of his favorite decoder-ring overlays. A formula for death.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 05:24 AM
|
#241 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Maybe they have moderated a little now. I think that there was a conference in OKC a week ago that didn't start until Friday. They did allow them one day.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 05:27 AM
|
#242 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 05:32 AM
|
#243 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
There is no joke here. Duddy may not have gotten every aspect spot on because he and his fellow researchers were not long-time members. But they got a pretty good idea. And they spelled it out pretty accurately.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 06:24 AM
|
#244 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
And, if you look at the printed ministry there is no basis to make this claim at all. Now, if he had said "they emphasize "replacement" more than redemption" that would have been reasonable. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 06:52 AM
|
#245 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Later on, having the day free was a custom, but for those of us with family in other cities, we needed the weekend for travel.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 07:25 AM
|
#246 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 262
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
The pattern is this: Duddy does not tolerate any teaching other than the most basic ones we learned in Sunday School class. A salvation beyond redemption is not in his vocabulary. He has no concept of the Immanation of the Holy Spirit. He apparently thinks all of Christianity is in good shape and anyplace will do. Unless one believes the Bible like Duddy, then Duddy thinks that one is teaching the Bible is fallible. It is shoddy workmanship on Duddy's part and SCP should have caught it internally as it sullied their usual good reputation.
__________________
Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 07:57 AM
|
#247 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
ZNPs "assessment" in neither accurate nor fair, he is simply being argumentative and sidetracking the discussions by trying to address something that Duddy DID NOT SAY, instead of addressing what he did say. I have asked everyone, and ZNP especially, PLEASE ADDRESS WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK, NOT WHAT IS NOT WRITTEN IN THE BOOK.
The matter of salvation being "more than redemption" IS NOT ADDRESSED here. Any Christian knows that - it was only Witness Lee that falsely claimed that most Christians are taught and believe such a thing. But this book is NOT about what is taught in orthodox, evangelical Christianity...it is about what Witness Lee taught. Let's discuss Duddy et al's analysis and criticisms. We can agree or disagree with those criticisms - NO PROBLEM! - but we are not going to get mired in the quicksand of arguing about what Witness Lee actually taught. That battle will have to be fought another day on another thread. So far we have have not seen where Duddy has misrepresented Lee in any significant manner. In fact, he is amazingly spot on considering how little cooperation he got from Lee and his followers. So let's discuss WHAT HE WROTE, NOT WHAT HE DIDN'T WRITE. Please
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 08:28 AM
|
#248 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Lee's theology of Salvation is addressed in this quote. Duddy says "it could be said that people are not so much redeemed as replaced." This is false. It cannot be said. It cannot be inferred. It is false. The fact that Witness Lee taught that people are "replaced" does not change the fact that his teaching on redemption is very fundamental and scriptural. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 08:40 AM
|
#249 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
I responded to that quote. My response was accurate and I have provided a message from the Truth lessons, used to teach new believers, to demonstrate as briefly as possible that this was so. How am I being "argumentative"? What does that mean? NFNL quoted Duddy, I responded that the quote was false. How is that sidetracking the discussion? What is the discussion if it isn't about Duddy's book and the things he says in the book? I AM ADDRESSING WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK BY DUDDY. Your accusations are false. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 08:47 AM
|
#250 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
I don't agree with everything that Witness Lee taught. I have itemized teachings that he taught which I characterize as "damnable heresies". That is about as strong as anyone can get. But to say that in Witness Lee's theology of salvation is not so much redemption as replacement is not true, it is not partly true, it is blatantly false. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 08:58 AM
|
#251 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
Maybe I'm wrong, but for some reason ZNP seems to be held to a different standard. Maybe it's just his NY accent. I have trouble understanding them people at times too.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 09:22 AM
|
#252 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Z - I offered a few sentences from the book on the Salvation Lee preached - and those few sentences are from a page and a half on that - and I haven't touched on Sanctification or the rest yet. Please note that Duddy writes "it COULD BE SAID (it hasn't exactly been said, but it is not a far stretch to say, given the volumes Lee wrote on the subject) that people are NOT SO MUCH (Lee seems to believe that the main aspect has been missed by mainstream christianity - because there is more to the story) redeemed as replaced. Z- you ADMIT that Lee taught that people were replaced. My Lord God, a brother I was close to didn't even think Christ would LITERALLY return, because there was no point in it: WE ARE CHRIST he said!!! That's where Lee's doctrines lead - he may not have exactly taught that, but his confusing way of writing and contradicting himself didn't just leave his critics scratching their heads, it left his followers often doing the exact same thing! It Does NOT say "Lee doesn't teach that people are redeemed." It Does NOT say that "Lee taught that people are only replaced." You ARE reading something into what was said and making more of it. Thus far in his treatment of LSM, Duddy has been respectful, courteous, and gracious to the movement - and on MULTIPLE occassions documented that he went to LSM for specifics, for further clarifications, and began his whole treatment of LSM theology with the caveat that LSM doesn't publish a single volume outlining their theology, and on many points they seem to contradict themselves between publications. Duddy even asked LSM to provide a rebuttal, and (later in this book) suggests that LSM or Lee publish a definitive and accurate statement of faith or a book that defines to their satisfaction their lingo. As you well know, LSM's only response was to flip SCP the bird and take 'em to court! Not once has Duddy called LSM a cult, not once has he used a derogatory term to describe Lee, not once has he questioned the salvation of Lee or of members within the Local Church. Slander has still not been proven, and even Duddy notes that his research (extensive as it was at 4 1/2 years) was still not entirely adequate but that he was making every effort to be faithful to relate what Lee was teaching. Duddy and SCP were respectful, but where is the mutual Christian respect shown? Do you realize from what we've read so far, that EVERY topic Duddy covered we've also covered here? Do you realize that Duddy covered it quite thoroughly back in 1981 - and even before that to the first publishing in 1978? Have you realized that if you would have read this book back when it first came out, rather than accepting it's ban carte blanche by LSM, that you would have learned about DayStar, about the 'Rebellion', about Phillip Lee, about the differences between LSM theology and 'orthodox' Christian doctrine? Do you realize you might have seen your way out of the LSM movement DECADES ago? Please, let's return to the topic tonight... I'll resume with Lee on Sanctification.... |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 09:34 AM
|
#253 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
"It could be said that people are not so much redeemed as replaced." That is completely false. There is no confusion between being redeemed and being "replaced" in Lee's theology of salvation. If there was "clarification" that was not in your original quote then go ahead and give us a fuller quote. But anyone not familiar with Witness Lee's teachings who reads this will be alarmed. It is exceedingly misleading and false. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 11:09 AM
|
#254 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
A few decades later when the BB had to contend with Harvest House they asked the question WWWD and decided to follow in his arrogant foot steps to sue, sue sue. Thankfully they lost in the legal courts and the court of public opinion. But sadly through the long process they lost mega time and money that could have been used productively to help the poor and other worthy pursuits. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 11:38 AM
|
#255 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
Then, in the gospels, Jesus' teaching about "oikonomia" (there translated "stewardship") is effectively ignored. Why? Because it might distract us from Lee's "God's economy = dispensing" metric. Quote:
So I give Lee a pass there. My current claim of having been cheated stems from the fact that we were told this was the "all-inclusive ministry", which had gleaned the wheat and discarded the chaff of 2,000 years of careful Bible study. That's like saying a third grader's drawing is an accurate representation of a nuclear power plant. You really have to put so many qualifiers on "accurate" that you make it mean something different. Likewise, to think that Lee's ministry is somehow the all-inclusive, rich ministry of the age is so willfully naive that it's ridiculous. I recently got an inter-library loan of a scholarly book on the Psalms which had a couple dozen articles by researchers who'd put years of work into their studies, with dozens of references given for each article. Of course, not all of them are accurate, and one has to sift, and ignore some. But by contrast how much scholarship does Lee have? As OBW puts it, you get a little scripture then Lee says, "It's like..." and then you get one of his stories. Now, I do this too. We all do, to some degree. We simplify the universe to explain it, and in so doing we distort it somewhat. But neither I nor these Biblical scholars pretend for one instant that our explanation is the "all-inclusive" one. That is just ridiculous. Not only is it the antithesis of Christian meekness and humility, it won't even fly out in "the world". The only thing you can do with such an attitude is start your own self-congratulatory, navel-gazing, exclusive sect.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
||
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 01:53 PM
|
#256 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
In this case, you are correct that the base of salvation was clearly taught. But that was almost a side thing. The real teaching — the real meat of the ministry — was in being replaced. And therefore, Duddy's complaint is not laughable. It was entirely too true. Lee may have taught about basic salvation, but then he really does go on to speak of it as something so low. But salvation is a foundation upon which the Christian life is built. If it something so low and nearly forgotten, then what kind of foundation is it? Shifting sand? Lee was also clear that there are Three in the Trinity. But other than throwing it out there periodically to keep the orthodoxy police at bay, he spent virtually all of his time talking about Jesus as the Spirit. Unlike Justyn who considered Lee's talk about the Three as virtually a ruse to hide from the taint of modalism, I believe him. But it is still only barely enough to be believable. Maybe the discussions on salvation are not quite as minimal. But not really far from it. The only really important things in the LRC were things that were "beyond" anything that could be found anywhere in Christianity. That means they spent/spend most of their time on questionable things and don't do much more than pepper "sermons" with lip service to the basic truths. (Sort of like when Lee would use a long paragraph saying one absolutely foundational truth after another, complete with a verse or two in reference, only to follow it all with a nonsensical statement that often didn't even have a verse. And that was what the rest of the sermon was going to be about. I do not expect someone like Duddy to conclude that Lee and the LRC really put much stock in things like basic salvation because they were so sparsely referenced.)
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 02:05 PM
|
#257 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
And you are free to assert the "both sides are true" or "two-foldness of truth" principles that Lee so often used. But most of the time, the only reason I can find for such a claim of "two-foldness" is that Lee wanted to push a position that ran smack up against things that virtually no Christian could tolerate violating. So he did an end-around. He declared both true, even if clearly contradictory. So finding a place that Lee said one thing is not sufficient to disprove that he is primarily teaching another. You've fallen for one of the worst blunders of modern times. The first is "never get involved in a land war in Asia." The second is "never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line." And the third is "never assume that because Lee is found in writing to have said it that he didn't mostly say the exact opposite over and over."
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 02:07 PM
|
#258 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
And you are beginning to sound as ridiculous as a favorite LRC stalwart of past days.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 02:21 PM
|
#259 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 03:28 PM
|
#260 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
UntoHim said that my assessment is neither accurate nor fair, his opinion, to which he is entitled. Not an accusation. He said “he is simply being argumentative and sidetracking the discussion by trying to address something that Duddy DID NOT SAY” Those are the accusations. I said these accusations are false because I quoted the quote which NFNL provided. NFNL has also responded and has not in any way suggested this quote was not accurate or provided by him. Instead what he implied that the quote might be missing some context. Since UntoHim’s accusations were based on the assertion that Duddy did not say this I felt providing the quote adequately proved that He did, and therefore my response was not sidetracking nor was it argumentative. So please enlighten me 1. How is my response that the accusation was false “seriously misguided and flawed”? |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 03:39 PM
|
#261 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
To be fair the quote should predate Duddy's book, but to prove I'm not an LRC stalwart as you have accused me I'll waive that. I would love to see this quote since I am no fan of Witness Lee. Also, to make it even easier I'll also allow a quote from Watchman Nee, since Witness Lee has claimed his ministry is based on Watchman Nee and since he has itemized the few places they disagree. Any way you have accused me of making "flawed" and "misguided" statements, of being "an LRC Stalwart" and of "sounding ridiculous". Surely you intend to back up these insults with a quote that proves this. I look forward to your supporting evidence. Just to be clear: Duddy said that Lee's theology of salvation "it could be said of people that they are not so much redeemed as replaced". You are going to provide a quote from Witness Lee or even Watchman Nee that supports this statement. I in turn will apologize and admit that you are in fact correct. Thankyou. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 03:47 PM
|
#262 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 06:02 PM
|
#263 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Ya know ZNP, for someone who says that Witness Lee was only about 5% of his Christian life, and that you went for 20 years in the Local Church only using the Bible, you sure seem quite defensive of Lee's teachings. Sorry to call you on this my friend, but you're kind of asking for it. Sorry, but I'm not going to let you have it both ways. I'm also not going to let you go after the author of this book with the old Local Church mantra of "false accuser! false accuser!". Saying "this is false!" will not cut it in this thread. Duddy made a very specific and keen observation about Lee's teachings regarding the larger scope of salvation, redemption and sanctification. Maybe you missed out on it during those 20 years that you only used the Bible, but Duddy's analysis and criticisms are indeed accurate. I think OBW has been trying to get this through to you, but you are failing to hear him through all your screams of "accuser!" and "insult".
Please, for your own sake, try to take a step back. Maybe take a sip or two of some calming herbal tea (and Ohio, maybe you can have some of the leftovers  ) Read over what OBW and even better what NFnL has written here today. This book was written over 30 years ago. Who knows where Duddy is today, or what he thinks about Lee and the LC today. It DOES NOT MATTER. Let's calmly and thoughtfully go over the quotes AS THEY ARE WRITTEN. Please try to not emulate our friend Cassidy by making wild guesses about what Duddy believes about Sunday school class, the "Immantion of the Holy Spirit" or that all of Christianity is in good shape, etc, etc. THESE ARE SMOKESCREENS AND RED HERRINGS! Again, this is an important, bewether work on the teachings and practices of the Local Church as they were back in the 70s. These guys did their homework. Some of you out their want to give them an "F" before we get past the first page. You're being unreasonable. There is a good reason you are getting a lot of grief and pushback from us old timers....it's because we were there and we know what Lee taught....even if it didn't make it into the books. We know what was taught and practiced day in and day out. So please, do not treat us like a "new one" or an outsider. You are insulting our intelligence (as little as that may be).
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 06:54 PM
|
#264 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
You guys got more "seniority" than ZNP and I? And so we should clam up and go elsewhere? OK, Boss, it's your barbeque. Not much of a "discussion" though. Why are you so threatened by diverse viewpoints?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 07:00 PM
|
#265 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
On the contrary, it seems Duddy did far more research on the local churches than Hank Hanegraff ever did. It seems Duddy may have been on par or exceeded the desire for dialogue that Harvest House sought with Living Stream. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 07:54 PM
|
#266 | |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
 Do I look threatened to you?  How would I know if somebody has a diverse viewpoint when they won't even address the matter at hand. "False accuser! False accuser!" IS NOT A VIEWPOINT.... it may be a "talking point" of those defending Witness Lee and his teachings, but it is not a viewpoint of the actual teaching or practice being addressed by the author. And as far as how you and others (including myself) were treated when this book came out, well if what was written was true and factual (and so far it has been), then you are placing the blame in the wrong direction. Again, we are just at the beginning of this book. There may be some blame and shame to be thrown Duddy's way....and if that time comes you will see me at the front of the firing line. You can take that to the bank$. Brothers (and for the poor sister or two out there lurking), Please, I know this is an emotionally charged topic for many of us, I really do know that and I really do appreciate that fact. I didn't start this thread. I have MANY more things on my heart and mind, most are pointing towards the future for us former members (and the current ones who will listen). This is what I appreciate so much about John Myer's "A Future and A Hope" - it is pointing towards the future...it is pointing towards a hope. (come on John...you said you had a finishing touch yet to give us...get to it!) HOWEVER....however NeitherFirstnorLast, in his search for the truth about the teachings and practices of the Movement that he and his family have invested a measure of their lives into, has thought that delving into this book might bring him some answers. I strongly believe that it will. In the process it seems that it may open some old wounds for some of us. But, brothers PLEASE remember it is not NFnL, it is not even Neil Duddy, that caused the wounds in the first place. We were wounded by a man and the man-made movement that he led. Duddy, though just a sinful man like all of us, falling short of the glory of God like all of us, was simply pointing out that these people, these Christian brothers and sisters, were wounded, and being wounded by the teachings and practices of Witness Lee. I think he was right in doing so. But let's keep going and find out.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2012, 09:14 PM
|
#267 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
If you knew a brother in OKC was quarantined by JB for saying Daystar was illegal. If your background was in business law, certainly you'd have the secular discernment. Would his unscriptural quarantine make a difference more than the book? If it's inclusion in a book was spun as an attack, most saints would be dismissive. I think if the elders and deacons in Anaheim weren't such in a mentality of deference to Witness Lee over the Philip Lee issue in 1978, what then? Of course we don't know how much communication there was between Max, John, Al, Gene, and Francis over Philip Lee. As to the Philip Lee matter, it become a "respector of persons". Because of who his father was, the brothers deferred to Witness Lee (with the exception of Max). |
|
|
|
|
|
12-06-2012, 08:54 AM
|
#268 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Ok, this thread is being reopened.
I have asked NeitherFirstnorLast to continue on. I have promised him that any post that does not address what is actually quoted in the book will be deleted without warning. NFnL, being the thread starter will lead the discussions, and he will be given more leeway as far as exploring the topic at hand. This is an important work. It deserves serious treatment. I will repeat what I said earlier, you don't have to agree with what Duddy has written, or for that matter what NFnL writes or anybody else, but I will INSIST that you address the matter at hand. Arguing for the sake of arguing and flaming other members will not be tolerated. NO EXCEPTIONS! Let's give NFnL some time here to pick up the conversation. He can backtrack if he wants or simply go forward.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
12-06-2012, 01:02 PM
|
#269 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
So for someone who was also there for a period, going back as far as 1977-ish, we find it odd that you jump in to declare that Duddy was false and slipshod when the rest if us pretty well agree that he got it pretty accurately for someone who was denied a real discussion. (And, I might add, a discussion that would provide only the sanitized stuff anyway.) And I did not refer to you as an LRC stalwart. I don't think you are that and would not say it. I likened your rants of "false" to those rants of FALSE ACCUSATION that a long-time LRC stalwart who no longer posts used to give. It was a reference to a known LRC stalwart, not a declaration that you are such. I'm enjoying my second read through parts of TGM. As I mentioned before, I read it back in about 2005. It was quite enlightening. Not what the book said about the LRC, but how right it was given how wrong it was claimed to have been. Actually, back in 2005, some of it was eye-opening with respect to the LRC. I had slowly dumped a lot of the stuff. But the direct confrontation with Lee's theology, while not always written with a complete understanding of that theology, really nailed the essence of it.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
12-06-2012, 09:54 PM
|
#270 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter Three Continued.... On the Battle Within.
Given our ongoing discussion on another thread, about the war that is waged inside - about differentiating between conviction (by the Holy Spirit) and condemnation (by the spiritual forces of wickedness in this present age), I had the sense to resume our discussion here... Coincidentally, this section is within the section on Salvation, and follows our last portion. "For Lee, atonement deals primarily with the corrupted body, the flesh, in which Satan is incarnated. The soul, according to Lee, does not need to be redeemed except insofar as it is wedded to the flesh. The human spirit, on the other hand, is quickened (when God comes into a person by means of the mingling of the divine and human spirits)... ...In Witness Lee's theology, the goal of regeneration is a redeemed (quickened) humanity, a brand new creature in some way spiritually "consubstantial" (one in substance) with God. "Mingling is much more than mixing together; it is an intrinsic union." (WL The Four Major Steps of Christ, pg 6) Elsewhere, Lee teachs that the once separate human and divine natures are now fused into one unit (WL The Economy of God, pg 11) ....Yet two wars are going on inside a believer.... (One The quickened person's personality is no longer in the soul but in the spirit, although the old soulish nature lives on. (TwoThe other war is a three-cornered struggle: Satan is still in the flesh as sin, God is mingled in with the human spirit, and the self is still in the soul. (WL The Knowledge of Life, pg 85).... God and Satan are engaged in a continuous battle from their respective bases of operation within an individual. (WL The Economy of God, pgs 168-169)."*************** Witness Lee's unorthodox Satanology (study of Satan) has been given a thorough treatment by Nigel Tomes and is available here on Local Church Discussions. This idea of Lee's, that Satan actually physically indwells the believer, is not an orthodox doctrine by any means... and to quote Nigel's article: "The obvious question arises—is this doctrine of Satan’s personal indwelling consistent with Scripture? Moreover, is this a “healthy teaching”? It is not merely an abstract doctrine. How will this teaching influence believers who embrace it and seek to apply it? What is its potential impact on believers who lack selfesteem, have a poor self-image and who are inclined towards asceticism? What drastic measures might they contemplate to “deal with Satan in their flesh”? Isn’t this a dangerous doctrine?" If you haven't read the article, I strongly encourage you to. His is a question worth asking. http://www.concernedbrothers.com/Truth/SATANOLOGY.pdf |
|
|
|
|
12-08-2012, 10:45 AM
|
#271 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Chapter 3 Cont'd: Christianity on Sanctification
To the Christian, whatever their denomination or non-denomination, this is an extremely important topic. Proper treatment of this subject cannot be given, without first establishing the "traditional" accepted definition of "Sanctification". Only in seeing what "Sanctification" is according to Christian Scholars, Theologians, and Pastors, can we adequately grasp the significance of the different view that Lee proposes. After understanding the differences, we will be better equipped to analyze these two radically different theologies (Christianity vs Lee), and see which of the two is properly arrived at through consideration of the Word of God and the FULL COUNCIL of Scripture. This is no small undertaking, so I am going to ask for license to post a long section here. I cannot find a better way to divide it. What I will begin with is an accepted standard amongst Evangelicals for Sanctification, with it's Biblical support in Scripture. Please take the time to consider this definition, but do not respond yet - the post that follows this one will be on Lee's version of Sanctification. I have highlighted here in red some of the key points, for those not prone to read long posts. However, let's analyze these two disparate views separately; then, in a third post - we will discuss those differences. Following that, perhaps we can work through the results (the fruit, if you will) of Lee's peculiar theology. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Baker's Evangelical Dictionary defines Sanctification as "the state of proper functioning." To sanctify someone or something is to set that person or thing apart for the use intended by its designer. A pen is "sanctified" when used to write. Eyeglasses are "sanctified" when used to improve sight. In the theological sense, things are sanctified when they are used for the purpose God intends. A human being is sanctified, therefore, when he or she lives according to God's design and purpose. The Greek word translated "sanctification" (hagiasmos) means "holiness." To sanctify, therefore, means "to make holy." In one sense only God is holy ( Isa 6:3 ). God is separate, distinct, other. No human being or thing shares the holiness of God's essential nature. There is one God. Yet Scripture speaks about holy things. Moreover, God calls human beings to be holy as holy as He is holy ( Lev 11:44 ; Matt 5:48 ; 1 Peter 1:15-16 ). Another word for a holy person is "saint" (hagios), meaning a sanctified one. The opposite of sanctified is "profane" ( Lev 10:10 ). God said through Peter, "in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord" ( 1 Peter 3:15 ). One sanctifies Christ by responding to unbelievers meaningfully, out of a good conscience and faithful life. God calls his own to set themselves apart for that which he has set them apart. Sanctify, therefore, becomes a synonym for "trust and obey" ( Isa 29:23 ). Another name for this action is "consecration." Failing to sanctify God has serious consequences ( Num 20:12 ). Human beings ultimately cannot sanctify themselves. The Triune God sanctifies. The Father sanctifies ( 1 Cor 1:30 ) by the Spirit ( 2 Thess 2:13 ; 1 Peter 1:2 ) and in the name of Christ ( 1 Cor 6:11 ). Yet Christian faith is not merely passive. Paul calls for active trust and obedience when he says, "Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God" ( 2 Cor 7:1 ). No one may presume on God's grace in sanctification. Peter reminds believers to be diligent in making their calling and election sure ( 2 Peter 1:10 ). Sanctification According to God's Creative Design. God created the universe and human beings perfect (i.e., sanctified). Everything and everyone functioned flawlessly until Adam and Eve believed Satan's lie. The fall plunged the human race and the universe into a state of dysfunction ( Gen 3:14-19 )... ...Human beings, made in God's image, were the pinnacle and focus of his creation. The sanctification of human beings, therefore, is the highest goal of God's work in the universe. God explicitly declared it to be his will ( 1 Thess 4:3 ). He purposed that human beings be "like him" in a way no other created thing is. Human beings are like God in their stewardship over creation ( Gen 1:26-31 ). Yet this role is dependent on a more fundamentally important likeness to God: moral character. By virtue of God-given discretionary autonomy (faith), human beings may so depend upon God that his moral character (communicable attributes) are displayed. The unsanctified state of fallen humanity is not caused merely by lack of effort or poor motivation. It constitutes an inherent structural flaw. When Adam sinned, he and his race forfeited that which made it possible for them to function as designedthe presence of God himself. Adam and Eve's prefallen sanctification was not a result of their inherent capabilities. God's indwelling presence was responsible for the manifestation of his attributes in them. Sanctification always requires God's presence. His presence is more than his "being there"a corollary of his omnipresence. It is his dynamic presence, producing fruit for which he alone is the source. "Indwelling" is not God's way of getting close to us sensually. It is a theological, rather than experiential, reality; it is "experienced" by faith, not by feeling. Jesus Christ: The Sanctifier and Model of Sanctification. The singular means of God's sanctifying grace is Jesus Christ: "We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" ( Heb 10:10 ). Christ was qualified to sanctify because he himself had been sanctified through suffering ( Heb 2:10-11 ). First, Jesus Christ was the only human being since the fall to live a continuously, perfectly sanctified life. He was without sin, therefore, without guilt or dysfunctionality. He was sanctified from the moment of his conception ( Matt 1:18-20 ; Luke 1:35 ). He was rightly called the "Holy One of God" ( Mark 1:24 ), sanctified by the Father ( John 10:36 ). In his character, therefore, Jesus Christ was morally sanctified. Second, he was vocationally sanctified. Christ did what the Father called him to do ( John 5:19John 5:30John 5:36 ; 6:38 ; 8:28-29 ; 12:49 ). He accomplished his vocational purpose through time, yet he continually fulfilled his moral purpose. He sanctified himself by fulfilling his unique calling as the Messiah ( John 17:19 ), being declared the Son of God at his resurrection ( Rom 1:4 ). Jesus Christ, therefore, is the model human being for both moral and vocational sanctification ( Php 2:5-11 )... God's law is holy ( Rom 7:12 ). Christ sanctified God's Law by fulfilling it ( Matt 5:17 ). That means Christ fulfilled the ceremonial purpose of the Law by being the antitype of all that it prefigured, and fulfilled the moral demands of the Law by living perfectly according to its standards. The "law of Christ" ( Gal 6:2 ) is synonymous with the moral demands God places on all humanity. We sanctify God's Law by obeying it. Obedience is not contrary to faith. It is not works-sanctification. Biblical faith is a faith that works (James 2). The New Testament is full of commands, imperatives, laws. God is pleased when the believer does "good works, " for He designed them from the beginning ( Eph 2:10 ). It is understandable why some downplay or even deny any present usefulness of "law" in the sanctification of believers. They appeal to such verses as, "you are not under law, but under grace" ( Rom 6:14b ). They are right that "law" is not the dynamic that sanctifies ( Heb 7:18-19 ). But the Law was never given for that purpose ( Gal 3:21 ). Its purpose for unbelievers is to show them how far from the original design they have come. It has an evangelistic purpose ( Gal 3:24 ). Its (the Laws) purpose for believers, however, is to guide them to where grace is leading them. The old covenant anticipated a fuller application of the Law. God said to Old Testament Israel that he would inaugurate a new covenant in which he would put his Law within them, and write it on their hearts ( Jer 31:33 ; Heb 8:10 ; see Ezek 36:27 ). Jesus reiterated, however, the continuing sanctifying function of the moral law, which can never be superseded ( Matt 5:17-20 )... Sanctification is applied justification. By its very nature justification does not have a progressive character. It is God's declaration of righteousness. The focus of justification is the removal of the guilt of sin. The focus of sanctification is the healing of the dysfunctionality of sin.... The Holy Spirit is the dynamic of sanctification. Jesus said that he had to go away so that the Holy Spirit would indwell believers ( John 14:16-20 ). The "Holy" Spirit is so named not because he is more holy than the Father and the Son, but because his specific ministry, vis-a-vis salvation, is sanctification ( Rom 15:16 ; 1 Thess 4:3-4 ; 2 Thess 2:13 ; 1 Peter 1:2 ). The Spirit that inspired the Word of God now uses it to sanctify. Jesus, therefore, prayed concerning his own, "Sanctify them by the truth" ( John 17:17 ). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth ( John 16:13 ). The blessing of the new covenant is the presence of the Spirit ( Ezek 36:27 ; Gal 3:14 ). The Holy Spirit not only is the restoration of the presence of God in believers; He also equips believers to serve the church and the world. As the fruit of the Spirit are the result of the reproduction of godly character in believers ( Gal 5:22-23 ), so the gifts of the Spirit ( Rom 12:4-6 ; 1 Cor 12 , 14 ) are the means by which believers serve others. Sanctification has a negative and positive orientation. Negatively, sanctification is the cleansing or purifying from sin ( Isa 66:17 ; 1 Cor 6:11 ; Eph 5:26 ; Titus 3:5-6 ; Heb 9:13 ). The laver in God's sanctuary provided a place for those offering sacrifice to God to ritually cleanse themselves. Christ cleanses the sinner once for all. The believer testifies to this through a lifestyle of self-denial ( Matt 16:24 ). Biblical self-denial is not asceticism - withholding pleasure or causing pain as an inherent means of spiritual growth. It is placing the interests of God before the interests of self. Believers do not deny or ridicule legitimate human desires. These desires, however, need to be continually prioritized according to God's purposes ( Matt 6:33 ). Positively, sanctification is the growth in righteous attitudes and behavior. Good deeds ( Eph 2:10 ), godliness ( 1 Peter 1:15 ), Christ-likeness ( 1 Peter 2:21 ), and fulfilling the demands of the Law ( Rom 8:4 ) are all ways of referring to the product of sanctification. The believer "presses on" by laying hold by faith on the promises of God ( Php 3:12 ), striving according to his indwelling resources ( Col 1:29 ). The initial avenue of spiritual experience is the mind. Faith must have an object. God transforms believers from a worldly perspective and lifestyle by renewing the mind ( Rom 12:2 ). The Word of God makes us wise ( 2 Tim 3:15 ), for "faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ" ( Rom 10:17 ). We need the mind of Christ ( Php 2:5 ), by which we take every thought captive ( 2 Cor 10:5 ). The New Testament stresses moral, not ritual sanctification. Christ's atoning work put an end to the ceremonial foreshadowing of Israel's cultic practice. Jesus' reference to the temple altar in Matthew 23:19 was from the perspective of the practice he came to supersede. A sanctified believer has assurance that he or she is Christ's. The call to sanctification reminds the Christian that he or she cannot presume upon justification. Professing believers are to "pursue" sanctification ( Heb 12:14 ). Apart from God's sanctifying work in human beings, "no one will see the Lord" ( Heb 12:14 ). God will judge any person claiming identification with Christ while not actively engaged in pursuing sanctification ( Matt 7:21-23 ). John bases assurance on a faith that perseveres in sanctification ( 1 John 2:3-6 ; 5:2-4 ). Though sanctification is never complete in this life ( 1 John 1:8-10 ), it is not an optional extra tacked on to justification. ******************* Bradford A. Mullen: excerpts from http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/sanctification.html |
|
|
|
|
12-08-2012, 11:49 AM
|
#272 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 3 Cont'd: Lee on Sanctification
"Sensuous theology finds a major point of departure from orthodox theology in the subjective experience of God within the individual. Witness Lee's most detailed theological concern is in the area of sanctification. Progressive sanctification is for Lee a process whereby one can obtain a 'bigger and better' possession of God. Lee's constant exhortations to sanctification, however, and his explanation of how it comes about, have an elusive vagueness about them.... Although Lee has written volumes on the subject of sanctification, his basic steps for Christian growth appear to be simple. The mingled divine-human spirit "releases" new life into the soul (self) and body (satanic) after "killing" the body-soul complex. The new man in the spirit must overcome the old man in the soul. The God of redemption indwelling the spirit must overcome the created self lodged in the soul, removing it from the influence of Satan who inhabits the body.... In Lee's concept, if division between soul and spirit (see Heb 4:12) is not sensually registered in the Christian's daily experience, sanctification means nothing. Failure to experience that distinction means that the old self persists in the body-soul complex, and that God remains imprisoned in the human spirit (God subject to the will of man, and not sovereign). But once the division is experienced, the self and the body-soul complex are "killed" by the divine-human Spirit-spirit's passing through the heart and engaging in victorious battle with the soul. The "released" soul then floats up to "touch" the Spirit which subdues it, whereby the process of sanctification can begin. That process produces a two-way communication between "Reality" and the human being. That going up/coming down, passing to and from shadow (body/soul) and Reality (Spirit-spirit) is difficult. Lee admits that few people manage to effect it consistently. ...Nothing from the soul can be spiritual; the soul cannot desire God or receive things from God. In Lee's view, Christians should initially sense forgiveness, then grasp it with the mind. They should sense God's presence, rather than believe it (accept it with faith). ...Four aspects of the soul are to be denied: 1) The self... "the soul is simply the self. The self is the very centre of the human being and is the human being, and it is the self that must be crossed out... To deny the soul means that we turn from ourselves to the spirit." (WL The Economy of God, pg 100). 2) The mind (and doctrines which are of the mind). "One who is in the mind should refuse his intellect in all spiritual things; he should put aside completely such functions as thinking and considering and return to the spirit.... When he reads the Bible, prays, or speaks about spiritual things, he should refuse his thinking, imagining, theorizing and investigating..." (WL The Knowledge of Life, pg 83) 3) Morality (an effective willing of behavioral choices based on moral standards). For Lee, morality is neither of the law nor of grace. Indeed, humankinds' fall was into morality... "In my Christian dictionary there is not such a word as 'evil', nor is there such a word as 'good'! From the beginning to the end my Christian dictionary contains only one word - 'Christ'! I understand neither good nor evil. I do not want help to do good; I only want Christ!... Trying to do good is a real temptation and a great distraction from experiencing Christ." (WL TE of G pg 38). "Eventually, there is no right or wrong, no yes or no - only Jesus!... There is no law, no teaching, no regulations - only Jesus!" (WL Christ vs Religion pg 63-64). 4) Natural (God-given) emotions, affections, and desires "Natural affection, natural love, and natural relationships have to be cut-off by the cross." (WL TE of G pg 119). "Whatever we can do in a natural way with our natural strength does not count in the eyes of God. We may love our wife naturally, but that love in the eyes of God means nothing. In the heavenly account, it will never give any credit. God wants nothing but Christ Himself." (WL The Stream, #15, No. 1 pg 20) ...For Witness Lee, spiritual maturity is a movement inward which leaves all outward tests and helps behind. "To determine whether a person has grown in life, we must observe the condition of his enlightenment within" (WL The Knowledge of Life pg 201). "The condition in the holy of holies typifies the condition in our spirit. When a man turns to his spirit, he enters into the holy of holies. He no longer lives according to the feeling of his soul, nor does he display anything before men. Everything is hidden; it is no longer on the surface, but deep within. At this time, his life attains the degree of maturity." (WL The Experience of Life pg 259). ********************** Notice above, the differences as highlighted in red. Whereas the accepted Christian understanding of Sanctification speaks of our "living according to God's design and purpose", through a "faithful life of service to the church and to the (unbelieving) world" by the "renewing of our minds", which creates in us a natural desire to live by the righteousness of the Law and to do "the good works which God determined beforehand for us to do". Note especially that these good works are done "before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." Matthew 5:16b. Why praise 'your Father'? Because the work of Sanctification isn't done in us by us, but by the sovereign Triune God. Lee's theology through subtilty teaches an opposing view. Lee, is stating (and indeed, I've heard it taught), that our sanctification is something that cannot (and should not) be outwardly seen - it is inward. It is done by us (indeed, God can be 'trapped' in our spirits - unable to get out and do work). Natural desires and affections are of no use and must be eliminated. The law is not a standard of righteousness, but is void (there is no good and evil, no right and wrong), that good works indicate a lack of maturity - that the mind is not renewed but is to be denied. Do you see where these extreme differences lead yet? |
|
|
|
|
12-09-2012, 07:27 AM
|
#273 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 3 Cont'd: On the Fruit of Lee's Theology
We have shown how Lee's theology of Sanctification (and even Salvation) differs from the accepted Christian standard. The question must now be, what is the result of Lee's theology? How does Lee's interpretation of Sanctification affect his other doctrines? Before we resume our reading, please allow me to excerpt doctrine from the Word of God, to offer it in contrast to Lee's teachings on the matter: The Bible - On the Qualification of Elders Note: No elder will be a perfect man, but if he is clearly and persistently lacking in any of these qualities, he cannot serve in the church as an elder. An elder must be: 1. above reproach (lit. "blameless") 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7. This qualification is the summation of all of the rest. It means that there is nothing in his life that would justify a legitimate accusation of misconduct or call his character into question. 2. the husband of one wife (lit. "a one-woman man") 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6. Whether a man is single or married, he must be living a sexually pure life. For a married elder, it also means that he must be faithfully devoted to loving his wife (Ephesians 5:25; 1 Peter 3:7). 3. temperate (moderate, not given to excess) 1 Timothy 3:2. In all areas of life, an elder must be calm, well-balanced, careful, and sane—one who at all times is capable of clear thinking and sound judgment. 4. sober-minded (a sensible, serious person) 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8. This does not mean that an elder may not laugh or joke or play. It means he leads a disciplined life, not allowing frivolous activities to distract him from more serious and important concerns. 5. of good behavior (respectable, orderly) 1 Timothy 3:2. The opposite of the Greek in this case is chaos (utter confusion). An elder's outward behavior must demonstrate decency, orderliness, and self-control. 6. hospitable (lit. "one who loves strangers") 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8. An elder must be one who shows genuine kindness and hospitality, not only to the members of his church, but also to people he does not know well. 7. a lover of what is good (lit. "one who is inclined to do good") Titus 1:8. Closely related to hospitality, an elder must be one who not only loves the concept of goodness, but also is prone to doing good to others. 8. able to teach (lit. "skilled in teaching") 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:9. There is no biblical requirement that an elder have a formal education, but he must be an able teacher and defender of the truth (cf. 2 Timothy 2:2, 24; 2:15; Titus 2:7-8). 9. not given to wine (lit. "not a drinker" or "not addicted to wine") 1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7. Though not an absolute prohibition, this is a serious warning that an elder cannot be preoccupied with alcohol or known as a drinker. Due to abuse, however, it may be advisable for elders to abstain from alcohol altogether in order to avoid offense or damaging influence (cf. Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8). 10. not violent (lit. not "a giver of blows," or "a striker") 1Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7. An elder must be a man who solves problems and settles disputes peacefully, using persuasive words and calm demeanor, not his fists or other weapons. 11. gentle (patient, gracious, forgiving) 1 Timothy 3:3; 2 Timothy 2:24. An elder must not be a man who holds a grudge or is slow to forgive. He must be one who will patiently bear with those who are needy, difficult, reluctant to change, or slow to learn. 12. not quick-tempered (he must be slow to anger) Titus 1:7; James 1:19-20 Anger in itself is not always a sin. There is a righteous sort of anger. An elder, though, must be aman who recognizes and controls his own propensity to become angry. 13. not quarrelsome (not argumentative) 1 Timothy 3:3; 2 Timothy 2:24-26; James 3:13-18 He must be a man who will defend the truth strongly, but in a peaceable manner. He must not be one who allows himself to become embroiled in hostile disputes or petty arguments. 14. just (righteous or upright) Titus 1:8. He is a man who is known for doing what is right. He lives a life of practical righteousness, trying to reflect God's view in every decision he makes. 15. holy (lit. "devout" or "set apart to God") Titus 1:8. An elder must be firmly committed to God and His Word. He must be faithful to the ministry and to biblical doctrine, not one who gives in to social, political, or religious pressure to compromise. 16. self-controlled (or self-disciplined) Titus 1:8. He must be a man who is disciplined in terms of his response to physical desires for food, pleasure, comfort, money, sleep, sex, or anything else which could cause him to stumble. 17. not covetous (not a lover of money) 1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:2. An elder cannot be motivated in the ministry by financial gain or greedy in his lifestyle. He is a man who will trust the Lord, be content with what is provided, and be thankful. 18. one who rules his own house well (a good manager and leader) 1 Timothy 3:4; Titus 1:6. An elder must have proven himself a good manager of his children (if he has children), his personal finances, and his household in general. 19. having his children in submission with all reverence (having obedient, respectful, faithful children) 1 Timothy 3:4-5; Titus 1:6. The children of an elder must not have a reputation for uncontrolled behavior or insubordination. Additionally, an elder must not be a harsh or brutal man, but must maintain order in his family through loving leadership, consistent biblical training, and proper discipline. 20. not a novice (not a new or immature believer) 1 Timothy 3:6. An elder must be a mature believer, especially in relation to others in his particular church. If even a capable man is elevated to the position too rapidly, he will battle with pride. 21. He must have a good testimony among those who are outside (well respected even by unbelievers in the community) 1 Timothy 3:7. An elder must have a consistently good testimony in all places and with all people (aside from those who would persecute him or accuse him falsely), even outside the church. He must be just, honest, peaceable, and loving in every context. 22. He must serve, not by compulsion, but willingly . . . eagerly (he must desire to serve) 1 Peter 5:2; 1 Timothy 3:1. Elders must not be pressured into service if it is not their personal desire to serve in this capacity. An elder's desire to serve must be God-given and his motives pure. 23. not self-willed (not anxious to control others or to have his own way) Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:3. An elder must not be a man who is anxious to dominate or control others. He must be a team-player, realizing that while he is a shepherd, he is also one of the sheep. 24. an example to the flock 1 Peter 5:3; Titus 2:7. An elder will not be perfect, but he must be a man who will lead the church, by instruction and example, according to God's Word. ****************************** If we have understood Lee's doctrine of Sanctification correctly, then we must expect that he will reject these Biblical qualifications for eldership in favor of new, more spiritual qualifications that fit into the mold he has created. Indeed he has to reject them, as Lee himself does not meet the biblical standards set forth here enough to qualify as an elder. But let's read what SCP's inquiry into this matter found.... 'qualifications for an elder' provided by Christ Fellowship Elders |
|
|
|
|
12-09-2012, 08:08 AM
|
#274 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 3 Cont'd: Lee's Doctrine of Eldership
"...because sanctification is progressive, Lee can delineate certain elements of what seems to be a superspirituality. When analyzed, that spirituality is composed of: 1. An increase of the element of God; 2. An increase of the stature of Christ; 3. Expanding of the ground of the Holy Spirit; 4. Decrease of the human element; 5. Breaking of the natural life; 6. Subduing of every part of the soul. (WL The Knowledge of Life pgs 177-180). ...The select few who climb the pinnacles of sanctification are the elders of the Local Church... In practice, these superspiritual people constitute an elite possessing permanent authority under Witness Lee's direction. Such a group is under the anointing of the Holy Spirit and has the urim and the thummim. Thus they can obtain the judgement, the decision of the Lord. They will be able to judge and decide any matter that may arise...(WL The All Inclusive Christ, pg 122) "At a certain point, something new must be started among you. Formerly, all you have enjoyed has been Christ as the lamb, as the manna, and at most as the rock with the living water. Now you must enjoy Christ in a new way, in a new stage... you must confess that it is rather difficult to pass this fifth item [the experience of Christ as the high priest so that we can assume the priesthood]. Not many groups of the Lord's children ever realize the priesthood." (Ibid, pg 133) Local Church members must submit to the elders council, if their sanctification is to be deemed credible (pg 146). Submission to the elders entails obedience, a yielding of the prerogative to challenge them - even in situations where they are in error. (pg 151-152). The elders... superspirituality is altogether subjective. It cannot be measured or expressed in terms commonly associated with righteousness and piety. By definition the elders are beyond objective judgement... they use their spirits to discern whether others are stagnating in the body-soul complex. (WL The Experience of Life, pg 332)... A question will not doubt occur to many, however: "Who could evaluate a person's subjective experiences to sanction his entrance into that mystical body of elders, since there are no objective criteria on which to base that decision?" ***************** Who indeed. |
|
|
|
|
12-09-2012, 08:51 AM
|
#275 | |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
12-09-2012, 02:09 PM
|
#276 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-10-2012, 06:10 PM
|
#277 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Eldership is a serious matter, or should be, in any church. Elders are called upon to serve the church in many ways. Typically, elders are nominated and elected; they don't submit resumes. To be elected an elder, you normally have to be quite well known by the believers with whom you fellowship. Being well known on a personal level, it is not hard for those with whom you fellowship to assess your maturity, where you're at in your walk with the Lord. I don't know if you were asking about my quote specific to Lee not meeting many of the qualifications or not, but I assume you were. That isn't something that comes from The God-Men book - it's something I wrote as a comment. I justify the comment by pointing out that Lee fails to meet the following criteria for eldership: 1) 1. above reproach (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7. This qualification is the summation of all of the rest. It means that there is nothing in his life that would justify a legitimate accusation of misconduct or call his character into question. There are plenty of accusations against Witness Lee, and whether one chooses to accept them or not is irrelevant - the accusations are made and they have merit. Nominating a person with such accusations outstanding against them for eldership would bring the church into disrepute. 3. temperate (moderate, not given to excess) 1 Timothy 3:2. In all areas of life, an elder must be calm, well-balanced, careful, and sane—one who at all times is capable of clear thinking and sound judgment. Witness Lee has demonstrated a temper on a number of occassions, it could be argued that he is not calm nor well-balanced nor careful. 5. of good behavior (respectable, orderly) 1 Timothy 3:2. The opposite of the Greek in this case is chaos (utter confusion). An elder's outward behavior must demonstrate decency, orderliness, and self-control. 6. hospitable (lit. "one who loves strangers") 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8. An elder must be one who shows genuine kindness and hospitality, not only to the members of his church, but also to people he does not know well. Witness Lee is not kind or hospitable to Christians - excluding members of his own flock. 7. a lover of what is good (lit. "one who is inclined to do good") Titus 1:8. Closely related to hospitality, an elder must be one who not only loves the concept of goodness, but also is prone to doing good to others. Witness Lee disavows knowledge of good or evil, and cast aspersion upon even thinking along these lines. 8. able to teach (lit. "skilled in teaching") 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:9. There is no biblical requirement that an elder have a formal education, but he must be an able teacher and defender of the truth (cf. 2 Timothy 2:2, 24; 2:15; Titus 2:7-8). Depends upon one's view of truth. Certainly, when it comes to the Bible, Witness Lee was not qualified to teach on the Psalms or James. We could debate endlessly about the rest. 10. not violent (lit. not "a giver of blows," or "a striker") 1Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7. An elder must be a man who solves problems and settles disputes peacefully, using persuasive words and calm demeanor, not his fists or other weapons. Witness Lee did not use fists, but he did use law suits. This ought to give one pause - are not lawsuits a legal weapon? Certainly, he did not try to settle disputes peacefully with SCP. 11. gentle (patient, gracious, forgiving) 1 Timothy 3:3; 2 Timothy 2:24. An elder must not be a man who holds a grudge or is slow to forgive. He must be one who will patiently bear with those who are needy, difficult, reluctant to change, or slow to learn. Witness Lee and the Blended Brothers have still not 'forgiven' those who were 'rebellious' in the 70's and the 80's and the 2000's... they might say they forgive, but their attitude and unwillingness to talk indicates otherwise. 12. not quick-tempered (he must be slow to anger) Titus 1:7; James 1:19-20 Anger in itself is not always a sin. There is a righteous sort of anger. An elder, though, must be aman who recognizes and controls his own propensity to become angry. Witness Lee had a temper. 13. not quarrelsome (not argumentative) 1 Timothy 3:3; 2 Timothy 2:24-26; James 3:13-18 He must be a man who will defend the truth strongly, but in a peaceable manner. He must not be one who allows himself to become embroiled in hostile disputes or petty arguments. Disputes with Witness Lee often got ugly. 17. not covetous (not a lover of money) 1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:2. An elder cannot be motivated in the ministry by financial gain or greedy in his lifestyle. He is a man who will trust the Lord, be content with what is provided, and be thankful. We've been over this on a number of threads, what besides covetousness could have possibly motivated Lee to begin the DayStar company? Or to ask members of the Local Churches who lost their life savings to forgive him the debt he owed them? 18. one who rules his own house well (a good manager and leader) 1 Timothy 3:4; Titus 1:6. An elder must have proven himself a good manager of his children (if he has children), his personal finances, and his household in general. We've been over Witness Lee's son Phillip. Witness Lee's inability to deal with his son in the matter is enough alone to deny him an eldership. 19. having his children in submission with all reverence (having obedient, respectful, faithful children) 1 Timothy 3:4-5; Titus 1:6. The children of an elder must not have a reputation for uncontrolled behavior or insubordination. Additionally, an elder must not be a harsh or brutal man, but must maintain order in his family through loving leadership, consistent biblical training, and proper discipline. See above. 20. not a novice (not a new or immature believer) 1 Timothy 3:6. An elder must be a mature believer, especially in relation to others in his particular church. If even a capable man is elevated to the position too rapidly, he will battle with pride. Witness Lee used to teach that Watchman Nee told all of his followers that Witness Lee's spiritual growth could be likened to a man flying. If that isn't spiritual pride, I don't know what is. Even if this story were true, what is the sense in telling it? That's like me saying: "My dad used to say I was THE BEST. Man, am I ever good!" 21. He must have a good testimony among those who are outside (well respected even by unbelievers in the community) 1 Timothy 3:7. An elder must have a consistently good testimony in all places and with all people (aside from those who would persecute him or accuse him falsely), even outside the church. He must be just, honest, peaceable, and loving in every context. Witness Lee doesn't. We all know that. 23. not self-willed (not anxious to control others or to have his own way) Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:3. An elder must not be a man who is anxious to dominate or control others. He must be a team-player, realizing that while he is a shepherd, he is also one of the sheep. Wow. Witness Lee absolutely doesn't rank here. The man taught that he was the be all and end all of all the ministers on earth. Nope, he was certainly self-willed. ************* You might debate me on the rest, but I think this says enough. Don't know if that answers your question, but it can be explored on another thread if you're so inclined.... |
|
|
|
|
|
12-10-2012, 07:01 PM
|
#278 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-10-2012, 07:04 PM
|
#279 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 3 Cont'd: Techniques for getting "In the spirit"
We've explored the nature of Lee's sensuous theology - his doctrine that puts a demand to be 'spiritual' above every other command in Scripture. This next section goes into what we know he taught about how to get in touch with God and "mingle". PS: I've been asked to be more clear when I quote The God-Men, as to when I am quoting, and when I am exposting on my own. I have tried throughout this thread to present quotes from The God-Men in blue, with interjections of my own (within those quotes) in these colors (umber). Any preamble in font size 1 is mine, and anything after my asterisks at the bottom of the quote (usually in black) is likewise mine. If I have to quote another author in my post-script, then I pick a different color. I hope this doesn't cause to much confusion! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The God-Men, page 67-68 "The techniques Witness Lee offers for jumping from the shadowy world to Reality are practiced most effectively by the corporate church. Although other activities includes singing and prophesying, the main techniques are "pray-reading" and "calling on the name of the Lord". Except, perhaps, for the church itself, what Lee calls "eating and drinking the Lord" is the primary "means of grace". Pray-reading is also the Local Church's substitute for Protestantism's ministry of preaching and teaching. For Witness Lee, preaching and teaching are only of the soul; pray-reading is far better, being of the spirit. "We really enjoy pray-reading the Word together in the meetings. It is much better than preaching or teaching, because it includes breathing. When we pray-read the Word, we just breathe the Lord Jesus into us..... We come together not to receive some teaching, but to be breathed upon by the Lord Jesus - to take in the Lord Jesus by breathing." (WL How to Meet, pg 42) ***************************** It should not surprise us, given what we've seen so far of Lee, that he would come to disregard preaching and teaching of the Word of God within a meeting. Preaching and teaching are grounded in the Bible, whereas Lee's theology leads ever away from the Bible to subjective experience - and by default leaves Lee with unquestionable authority in his own church. I think expository preaching is essential to the growth of the Christian church. The Lord has spoke to me many times through the preaching of men who are truly after God's own heart... although finding such godly preachers and teachers is not easy. Preaching and Teaching are spiritual gifts, given for the building up of the Body of Christ. Ephesians 4:11 – “It was He who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers...” There are plenty of lists in the New Testament with gifts like these. What is so special about this list is that all these gifts have to do with one fundamental part of being God’s church – the Word of God. The work of all these people – apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers – are all to do with delivering the Word of God to people. The Holy Spirit uses people to deliver (minister) His Word to His people. |
|
|
|
|
12-11-2012, 11:21 AM
|
#280 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
The church isn't a building - it's every true believer of every age. Workers must belong to the church, if they are really workers (bondslaves) of Jesus Christ. To suggest that elders would be held to a higher standard, than those under whom they labor (as all elders in LSM Local Churches labor under Lee) is ludicrous. If anything, the standards must be higher for such a "worker", not lower - because greater responsiblity lies with one who claims that kind of authority. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-11-2012, 11:59 AM
|
#281 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-11-2012, 01:47 PM
|
#282 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
No one "belongs" to anything or anyone.
The Bible says "all things are yours." But that doesn't mean a worker is owned by us like a car or house. It just means his ministry is a gift to us from God. Neither are we owned by him. Neither are the churches owned by him. And neither are we owned by the churches or are they owned by us. No one and nothing owns anybody or anything. Really, guys. Take a step back and ask yourself where your premises come from. They are straight from the Nee/Lee playbook and they are not scriptural. You keep trying to figure it out and the reason you can't is because your fundamental assumptions are out of whack. It's like you are debating what language eggs speak. But you forgot to consider whether eggs can talk. |
|
|
|
|
12-11-2012, 07:10 PM
|
#283 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
If we get into the teachings, most of which are scriptural. If we get into the practices, many are no longer scriptural. that includes the topic of discussion in previous posts. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-11-2012, 07:45 PM
|
#284 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
The problem is that many, if not most, of Witness Lee's teachings regarding the core matters of the Christian faith are not scriptural at all, and this is what Duddy et al have clearly shown in the opening chapters of this book. They had rightly discerned that Lee uses the scriptures as mere "proof texts" for his make-it-up-as-you-go-along theology. Though these guys really did their homework, it was kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. I mean, you don't need a PHD in theology or anything to see just how warped and twisted Lee's teachings regarding salvation really are.
I think we will also find that Duddy et al will end up finding out that Lee's false and unbiblical teachings have translated into wrong and harmful practices.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
12-11-2012, 08:38 PM
|
#285 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Sorry brother, but I think you misunderstood my point (?). What I was saying, (and I believe Terry was agreeing) was that a "worker" for the Lord belongs to the church Universal - he "belongs" to Jesus Christ the Lord. We who are redeemed are bought and paid for by the blood of Christ. This isn't a Leeism at all... 1st Corinthians 6:19 "Do you not know that . . . you are not your own?" ...I used a little "Lee phraseology" only to highlight to members still in the LC that the idea that Lee is either "above the Law" (qualifications for an elder) or somehow outside of it is ridiculous (actually, it's worse than that). For Lee to assert such a thing would show exactly where he is 'spiritually'. A servant is not greater than his Master. I assure you Igzy, I do not use the Lee/Nee playbook. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-11-2012, 09:10 PM
|
#286 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 3 Cont'd: Lee on Ethics - Doing what comes Spiritually
The God-Men, pages 70-71 "A sensuous ethic results naturally from a theology embracing sensuous sanctification. Witness Lee's ethic is based on the sensate experience of God rather than on conformity to Scripture. For Lee, holiness is irrelevant to matters of obedience, faith, fruitfulness, or moral action. It is a spiritual essence: possessing God's life. "Holiness is not a matter of action, but a matter of nature, for holiness is God's nature. It is not what we do, but how much we have been mingled with God." (WL, The Vision of God's Building, pg 208). "It is because behaviour and life are things which definitely belong to two different worlds.... Some believers may be very reverential and devout before God; they dare not be disrespectful or loose in their behaviour and action. We cannot say these expressions are not good, but neither are they the growth of life." (WL, The Knowledge of Life, pg 184). In no case... are the guidelines of Scripture to be consulted rather than turning inward. Lee considers the ethical standards found in the Bible as possibly helpful hints, but never definitive guidelines... Yet most Christians see that if sin were divorced from biblical judgements and if holiness were divorced from biblical criteria, it would be possible to "do good" and sin, or "do evil" but not sin. One can conceive of immature believers whose standard of conduct plunges far below the ethical code of the law, but who remain oblivious to the disparity. In Witness Lee's ethical system, sin is truly sin only when the Spirit convicts such a person and then he or she voluntarily disobeys that "leading". According to Lee, a believer may be exemplary in conduct, pious, zealously serving God, abounding in gifts and power, but living an unspiritual, unethical life. "Even if you are scriptural, you are still wrong; if you are fundamental, you are still wrong.... There is no law, no teaching, no regulations - only Jesus.... Go to Jesus and ask Him. See what your living Jesus would say." (WL, Christ vs Religion, pg 63-64). ************************ Jesus Christ is Risen; He IS alive - and what He spoke is recorded in the book that you all have on your shelves at home. What He said wasn't left wanting for lack of footnotes until the mid 1970's. His Word is complete - finished - the canon of Scripture was closed; and whoever adds or subtracts from His Word is damned (Rev 22:18-19). If you want to know what He had to say, you need to read it for yourself - and you need to trust that He can lead you into all Truth without the help of any footnotes. Don't trust your feelings "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" Jeremiah 17:9. Do you know how many tens of thousands of saints have died to put the precious Word of God in your hands - in words you can read? Do you not know that it was the expository preaching from that Book that finally liberated thousands and began a Reformation that transformed the face of Christianity from an autocratic system headed by a man who claimed to be Christ's unique Vicar with absolute authority in the only "real church" on Earth to save a genuine Body of Believers willing to take up their cross for you... for us... for Him. Don't give another man (or his minions) that kind of power and authority. Christ is the head of Church; He can speak for Himself. "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied." Matthew 5:6. |
|
|
|
|
12-12-2012, 06:37 AM
|
#287 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Guys,
Sorry if I misinterpreted. But part of my point was that if you use certain terminology you can strengthen certain premises which may be false. An example is using the verb "belongs." Now, you may have meant by it "is a member of," but the term also conveys the idea of ownership. And I think this is one reason you hear the term used in this way in the Recovery, but rarely elsewhere. LCers easily say things like, "brother so-and-so belongs to the church in Seattle," because they think of people as means to an end. But mainstream Christians wouldn't use that phrase, because of the idea of ownership it conveys. I think LCers have no problem with the idea of ownership the phrase conveys, because that's the way they think. So when you start discussing what or who a worker "belongs" to, what are you actually talking about? What he is a member of? Or what owns him? Are you talking about what you believe, or what LCers believe? Because, before I chimed in, both of you used the term "belongs" in sentences which seemingly were declaring what each of you believed. There is a difference in saying someone belongs to the Church Universal and saying someone belongs to Jesus. Not meaning to be difficult. Just making a small point, for what it's worth. |
|
|
|
|
12-12-2012, 07:15 PM
|
#288 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 3 Cont'd: Lee on Sin & the Gospel Message
The God-Men, pages 71-73 "Ultimately, believers are not obligated to obey any ethical standard beyond their ability to sense the leading of the Spirit within their own spirit. Consider Lee's description of a new Christian displaying a bad habit: "...a brother tells him (the new Christian) that this bad habit is not pleasing to the Lord and that he must get rid of it immediately. He replies, 'When I pray, I am not aware that the Lord is displeased.' To prove his point, the brother then explains to him all the biblical truths concerning the matter. Finally, the new convert is convinced and compels himself to obey these truths... This results in failure, because his growth of life is not adequate.... Therefore, he continues to live in this bad habit. At this point, his conscience condemns him severely...." (WL The Experience of Life, pg 112). Commenting on that illustration, Lee says the new convert's guilt (induced by biblical precept) is a "leakage of the conscience". Lee then cautions members not to "impart to others advanced knowledge" [biblical truths] which may cause a leakage of conscience (pg 113). Later in the discussion on conscience Lee writes that true knowledge of sin committed comes only from feelings that exist in the conscience, and does not mention the knowledge of sin gained through biblical precepts [Psalm 119:11 "I have stored up Your word in my heart, that I might not sin against You."] Biblically, of course, God manifests perfect holiness because He is self-consistent, not because He obeys an extraneous higher law. Lee reasons that because Christians too are divine, they should not be bound by external moral laws. In the context of evangelism and discipleship, Lee says that the message believers communicate is inconsequential. Union with God - being "put into" Him - is the crucial element. People's beliefs about God seemingly will not influence the degree of their fellowship with Him. (WL Christ vs Religion pg 89). "Regardless of what teaching or message we use, as long as people are put into the triune God, that is quite sufficient." (WL Ibid, italics added). ************************* No, it's not sufficient. If it was, Christ Himself would have used this simple "repeat after me: Oh Lord Jesus...." trick Himself. I don't know what it was like in the LC back in 1977, when this book was first published. Did Lee teach people this same trick back then? When I went to Anaheim for STT, I had an opportunity to go out with some members on a Saturday and do some door-knocking around the training centre. The two members I went with were second year full-time students, who had a burden to preach the gospel (as they had been taught to understand it, at least). What our goal was, was not to explain Christ to sinners, but to get them to 'call on his name'. A number of teams went out that morning, and while our team failed to get anyone to do this, the team a dear friend of mine went out with did meet 'success'. This friend, "R" came back overjoyed that he gotten a couple of young boys (early teens) to call out "Lord Jesus" three times with him. He believed he had gotten them Saved, by this evangelistic trick... that's what we were taught in the Local Churches - and the teaching came straight from Anaheim. Do you see what Lee's Theology did? Lee, in rejecting the notion of good and evil as fallen concepts resulting from the fall itself (eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil), does not teach his adherents to preach the gospel in the way Christ Himself preached it. Listen to what Christ said: "From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 4:17) "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance". (Luke 5:32) "The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here." (Matthew 12:41) "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish". (Luke 13:3, 5) Lee didn't teach us to preach repentance of sin. Indeed, he admonished people not to even touch on what is sinful... let feelings show the person the way. Where did he get this idea, that teaching people to call Jesus "Lord" would save them, when they didn't even know who He was and had no intention of really letting Him be Lord of their lives? All they were really taught to do, was LIE. |
|
|
|
|
12-13-2012, 09:45 PM
|
#289 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Chapter 3 Cont'd: Lee, on the nature of the Church
The God-Men, pages 73-74 To Witness Lee, the church's essence is divinity. It is the Body of Christ; it is Christ; it is the new mode of the Godhead. - "...the church is one with Christ in life and nature. In other words, according to life and nature, Christ is the church. Christ is not only the Head, but He is also the Body, because the Body's life is Christ and the Body's nature is Christ. The Body is Christ and Christ is the Body." (WL The Practical Expression of the Church, pg 14).... The Local Church experiences the blessings of God primarily when it assembles to form the corporate body of spiritual Christians. As Witness Lee sees it, individuals yearning to grow in godliness through a private devotional life seldom achieve deep levels of experience. Christians who focus on the Bible and the doctrines it contains will not "hear" from God. ...all of creation, the heavens, humankind and even the Trinity itself exists for that corporate body. The fulfillment of all things is the Local Church (ibid pg 7-10) The true church has a proper government, says Lee, yet history has rarely seen it in action; only the churches of the apostolic age and of the Brethren type are biblical. Often, in reading Lee, one might think church government unimportant, since he so consistently derides forms and organizations, offering in their stead "spontaneous" organic growth. In practice, however, he establishes an authoritative eldership of the "spiritually advanced". Lee counsels his followers not to censure the elders, who are entrusted with the ministry of God's Spirit, warning that "....as soon as you criticize him and dispute with him, his ministry toward you is finished" (WL The Knowledge of Life, pg 215) Such authoritative leadership exerts great leverage in a church member's life, generating intense dependency on the leader's approval in both personal matters (home life, vocation and the like) and church affairs. To differ with a leader's counsel puts one in a "soulish" predicament, adrift from the spiritual flow of church life; submission provides security and approval. ************************** I had to underline that last paragraph - it is so true. I don't think I ever confessed this, but I felt guiltier coming on-line the first time to look for you people (whom LSM calls 'the opposers') than I ever did at anything else. There was real fear in my heart, with sweat and shaking hands and heart palpitations and all the rest. I can't be alone in that. I was worried someone would find out, I had a real fear of "poisoning"; if the Lord hadn't made it so clear to me, I would never have had the courage to press on. It took years to move me, and it was all Him; and I Praise Him for it! What about you? |
|
|
|
|
12-14-2012, 08:10 AM
|
#290 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
It's interesting, though, that some people seem more susceptible to it that others. Some easily see through it and move on rather quickly. Others struggle with it for years. I think personality and temperament play a part in it. Also, I believe ex-LCers often think they cannot find anyone who would understand and with whom they could counsel. So they go it alone, and it can be a very, very lonely path. I went through it. The only help I got were these internet boards. I would like to say that there are probably Christian counselors that could help. But I never sought them. I just never thought anyone would understand or be able to help. It's that old lie from the Devil that one's problem is unique, in violation of 1 Cor 10:13: "No temptation has seized you except what is common to man." |
|
|
|
|
|
12-14-2012, 08:50 AM
|
#291 | |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
Many thanks to my brother Paul Cox for all his fellowship and encouragement back in the day. Paul, don't make yourself so scarce my brother! I really miss your thoughtful (and sometimes hilarious) contributions to this little popcorn stand.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
12-15-2012, 09:27 AM
|
#292 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Chapter 3 ends with: Lee's Eschatology - We Win, You Lose.
The God-Men, pages 77-80 ...Witness Lee and the Local Church believe that the Lord's parousia (Second Coming) depends on their spiritual performance... that the LC is the paramount reason for His reappearance.... "The Lord's recovery" is Christ's regaining of actual dominion over the earth. In the present age, the church is God's earthly agent. In fact, it is the church that deals with God's enemy and casts Satan out: "The Church brings in the Kingdomz" (WL, The Kingdom & the Church pg 25) "God's church today is the Local Church. Without it, God cannot recover the earth and Christ cannot return."(WL, C&TC Rvld, pg 177, 227-230) "One day through the LCs the whole universe will know that God alone is the most high over all the earth." (ibid, pg 144) More particularly, the Lord's recovery depends exclusively upon the 'overcomers', those few Christians who are truly spiritual and who compose the true church, for which Christ will return. Although Witness Lee encourages all LC members to work hard to merit the Second Coming, he seems to harbor the view that the true believers responsible for Christ's return are notably the select elders of the LC. Overcomers participate in the recovery through their ability to 'release' the spirit and to conform to the spiritual church. Only those Christians, only the LC, are the prepared bride of Christ. Non-LC Christians will play an insignificant role in the apocalyptic last days. "There will be many Christians who will lose the birthright... They have the birth of life, so they are the children of God, but they still need the growth of life, the maturity in life, for them to be the heirs of God... It depends on the transformation [supersanctification]... Through the transforming of our soul, we will have the real growth to enjoy the birthright, the full enjoyment of all that God is and all that He has planned and accomplished". (WL God's Purpose for the Church, pg 8) In Lee's millenarian structure, the LC membership will receive God's fullest blessing in the events immediately preceding the advent of the New Jerusalem: the premillenial rapture of and participation in the marriage supper of the Lamb as Christ's bride. They will rule with the celestial Christ for the duration of the millenium. Non-LC Christians will not recognize the Lord's Second Coming... such Christians are raptured after the tribulation; not being of the bride, they do not partake of the marriage supper. Rather, they remain on earth with Israel during the millenium under the government of the overcomers. God will reprimand those Christians. Former LC members in New England testify that an official but still unpublished teaching states that the majority of non-LC Christians will be chastened and locked in a dark room during the marriage feast of the Lamb and his bride, which they will watch via closed circuit telecommunications." ****************** There is not one, but at least two insidious teachings here (and the third {that the LC is the only means through which men and women can come to Christ} flows from these two). The first is the teaching that we (humanity, or the church) can is some way determine when Christ returns by our performance. The major flaw with that teaching is that it turns the focus of our attention from God to ourselves. Like the religion of the Pharisees and the Saducees, who believed they could 'earn' the coming of the Messiah through strict adherence to religious laws made by man, so too Witness Lee taught that 'spiritual' laws made by him (his dictated means of 'touching the spirit', pray-reading, fellowship, calling on the name of the Lord, meeting, etc. etc.) if strictly adhered to, would bring the Messiah back. The second is Lee's teaching of what Christ's return would really mean. Look at this quote from agodman.com (an appropriately named current LC members blog): "The Lord Jesus did not come as a King to rule us outwardly but He came as the bread of life for us to eat Him! God has no intention that man would do things for Him or work for Him – God wants man to enjoy God, eat God, and drink God!" This is a lie, for Christ said: "Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:21-24 Lee puts the focus on this passage on the word 'spirit' - but 'spirit' is used only 3 times, and only once as part of an imperitive. The words 'worship' or 'worshipped' or 'worshippers', which is the ACTUAL focus of this passage (and the focus of the imperitive command given), is used 8 times. "Worship Him who made heaven and earth" (Revelation 14:7) "You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve" (Matthew 4:10). The primary obligation of man is to worship and serve his Creator. It is therefore essential that we understand what this entails. The word translated as 'worship' in the New Testament is: Proskuneo: In the Greek New Testament this is the main word for worship. The word is common in the gospels (26 times) - people would often bow down worshipfully before Jesus. And it is common in the book of Revelation (21 times) because the angels and elders in heaven often bow down before God. Proskuneo can also be used in the sense of "doing obeisance" to kings and people in positions of respect (Matthew 18:26; Mark 15:19; Revelation 3:9). There are other words translated as "serve" or "service" as it is rendered to God (those being the Greek Latreuo, Diakoneo, and Douleuo). Each of these three words deserves a full treatment which is beyond the scope of this post. Here, and very briefly, my point is that true worship, as Christ defined it, as the Bible and the religion God Himself created defined it, was utterly rejected by Witness Lee in favor of an entirely new definition. Why? ----------------------- References: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexic...proskuneo.html http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-...worship-god--2 http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons...worship-part-1 http://www.deusvitae.com/faith/outlines/worship1.txt Suggested Reading: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexic.../diakoneo.html http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexic...s/latreuo.html http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexic...s/douleuo.html Last edited by NeitherFirstnorLast; 12-15-2012 at 09:36 AM. Reason: insertion of references. |
|
|
|
|
12-15-2012, 10:07 AM
|
#293 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 100
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
Any thoughts to help me work through this? Thanks ABIF |
|
|
|
|
|
12-15-2012, 08:26 PM
|
#294 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-15-2012, 08:33 PM
|
#295 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
It was my problem alone regarding FOTPR, PSPR, the descrepancy between the ministry and the practice of the ministry, etc. Then came the BARM and this forum. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-16-2012, 02:26 PM
|
#296 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
The answer to your question is addressed in three things: The nature of God, the nature of man, and the nature of prayer. The Nature of God The Bible teaches that God is a holy God. The idea behind the concept of holiness is "separation." It comes from a word meaning "to separate or cut off." God is separate, or cut off, from everything that is sinful and evil—He cannot tolerate sin. John wrote this truth in figurative language. This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5).To say that God is holy means there is no trace of evil in his character. In fact, He is good and upright and righteous... Good and upright is the LORD; Therefore He instructs sinners in the way (Psalm 25:8). Before the LORD, for He is coming; For He is coming to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness, And the peoples in His faithfulness (Psalm 96:13). ...and His way is perfect... This God—His way is perfect; the word of the LORD proves true; He is a shield for all those who take refuge in Him (Psalm 18:30) The Nature of Man The Bible teaches that since the fall, (a willfull disobedient act done in rebellion against God) all men are dead in their trespasses and sins. None are righteous. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5) But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. (Isaiah 64:6) But you might ask: "What of those who are in Christ? Do they not have the minds of Christ?" No brother, even Saved believers, great saints living and dead, are not made perfect in this life... Sanctification is a process. Even Paul said: Romans 7:15-18 "I don't really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don't do it. Instead, I do what I hate. But if I know that what I am doing is wrong, this shows that I agree that the law is good. So I am not the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it. And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I can't." (New Living Translation) The Nature of Prayer Believers know that Prayer is communication with God - done for Worship, to give thanks, to Praise, to seek His will, to beg favor, and to even command with authority. We know from what Christ taught, that whatever we ask in His Name, will be done for us. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in My name. (John 16:23) |
|
|
|
|
|
12-16-2012, 06:55 PM
|
#297 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 100
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
It's God sovereignty that we do not know His will fully. This is why, I think, faith is so important. We can't know all the things God wills, and so as we pray, we must continually, simply, fatihfully say, "Your will be done." I don't think our not seeing God's will fully, authoritatively, in all our prayers PREVENTS God from acting, from moving, from accomplishing His will on Earth. Like you said, if this were the case, we'd all be damned. Nothing would get done. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-17-2012, 08:50 AM
|
#298 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
This has always been a troublesome concept. Nothing happens without prayer. We have to pray. We must pray according to His will.
But when you couple that with the kind of certainty of preordination, the foreknowledge of God, etc., then there is potentially the kind of extreme predestination mentality that some of the most extreme Calvinists (more extreme than Calvin himself) seem to hold that it is going to happen the way it is going to happen. And there are verses to support that. (sort of) So somewhere between "I can simply pray for anything and because I am a Christian I will get it" and "why bother, it is all going to happen according to his predestination" must be real. Do we over-attribute His will? Do we incorrectly assert that every minute detail has His will on it? Is it possible that His will is more about us and our being than about particulars of otherwise irrelevant details. Maybe He doesn't care which job you take (assuming the options do not include robbing banks) but rather than you acknowledge and seek Him in your considerations. Maybe we really can move the hand of God. I do not diminish that even that may be known before hand by God. But that it went the way it did was not as much a matter of Him deciding how it would be and making it so, but knowing how our free will would choose to seek Him and to ask concerning our needs and He joyfully responds. So, in this kind of context, what is "according to His will"? Is it possible that to pray according to His will is sometimes little more than to actually pray. To have a heart for something for which He is happy to agree and respond accordingly. If His will is summed-up in "love God" and "love your fellow man" then his will is not necessarily something that is always predefined in terms of specifics, but is rather much more broad. There may be more than one "solution" to an issue. We can pray in any of those ways and be within His will. But some other option is not. But most importantly to me, it seems that trying to define God's will before you pray is a kind of man-made limit on God. I think that it is better to pray outside this expanded definition of "will" than to be so narrow that we need to predetermine God's will before praying. It is true that a prayer not according to His will likely gets the "no" answer. But at least you are praying. And, like another simplistic statement, it is better to ask and not receive than to not ask. If you ask, you may receive. If you do not ask, you will never receive.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
12-17-2012, 06:18 PM
|
#299 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues Into Chapter 4
Chapter 4: An Evaluation of Witness Lee's Writings
"How should Christians respond to the teachings of Witness Lee? What evaluation ought to be placed on his movement's doctrines and practices? The LC exclusiveness towards other churches confuses and annoys many people. Some feel challenged to examine themselves in the light of LC teaching, yet that teaching is often ambiguous or contradictory. The LC's sectarian approach to church life may offer a broad clue that its teachings are at odds with the mainstream of Christian belief. Lee's strong use of Scripture has often led Christians to overlook areas of his word that seem unclear or questionable but not blatantly wrong. Continuing problems between Christian communities and the LC, however, suggest a need for a second look. Plowing through volumes of Witness Lee's materials... one sees many debatable points. Ambiguities begin to take on a recognizable pattern, assuming proportions that constitute definite aberrations. Few people outside the LC are likely to examine that copious literature with care. Christians who glance at Lee's teachings may conclude that he zealously communicates biblical truth, whereas intense scrutiny would reveal some systematic fallacies of his doctrines." ************** 35 years later, what has changed? The LC is still extremely sectarian - more so than any 'denomination' they abominate. Witness Lee's teachings have been called 'strong meat' by some elders, and not fit for the consumption of 'new ones' until they're well in the fold - emotionally, spiritually, and psychologically integrated into the group. SCP is right, at first glance, so much of what we read and heard in the LC sounded so right... but getting in 'the meat' of their teachings revealed an altogether different and unexpected flavor.... and the problems, as the author points out, are systematic. The whole of Lee's theology was built on a single idea - everything he expounded flowed out of that. If he was wrong on that one foundational point, then everything he expounded and taught was likewise wrong... You could call it "the fruit of a poisonous tree". |
|
|
|
|
12-18-2012, 08:09 AM
|
#300 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Our Reading Continues Into Chapter 4
Quote:
And when Duddy admits that Lee's points do not seem "blatantly wrong" he is not saying that they are not wrong . . . just that they do not stand out as obviously wrong. If they were that obvious, then Christians who first see Lee's teachings would be wary and never get "caught" by "the ministry." They wouldn't become so accepting of the lack of support if it were obvious. The teachings and ways of the LRC are subtle. They are not declaring that Jehovah is the savior but Jesus is not Jehovah. They are not declaring that the angel Moroni (is that "moron" with an "i" on the end?) delivered this message to the prophet Joseph Smith and that Jesus is now the brother of Lucifer. No. They have taken as somewhat mainstream approach to Evangelical Christianity, complete with a mostly Calvinist view of salvation and methodically excised the bulk of the Evangelicals from it through a redefined emphasis supported by an altered lexicon of terminology. They do assert that they have a "legitimate" equivalent of Joseph Smith to give them words from God that God did not give others because it is not simply in the scripture. But they are careful not to make that assertion to the Christian community at large. They just walk around with their secret handshake and coded phrases so they can speak what the rest of us consider normal Christian words and phrases, but with them condemn everyone else in secret. Duddy got it right.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
12-18-2012, 06:41 PM
|
#301 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 4 Cont'd: Lee - the man and his Paradigm
I've given this section it's title - not Duddy, but it speaks to what Duddy is about to express here in this passage, in a word that was not yet captured by the english speaking world at large at the time the book was written. I don't know if everyone here knows what a "paradigm" is, so for the sake of those who don't, I will give you that definition here: par·a·digm /ˈparəˌdīm/: "A worldview underlying the theories and methodology of a particular subject." "In a sense, we each have our own set of paradigms or glasses through which we view the world. These personal viewpoints of the "way things are" may cloud our ability to perceive or consider new or different ideas, especially if they seem to be in conflict with our perception of what is reality or "truth." - Grant M. Bright. "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."- Albert Einstein "What you see depends on what you thought before you looked."- Eugene Taurman The God-Men, pages 82-83 "Without calling Witness Lee's intentions into question, one can think of several factors that may have led him astray. One has to do with what theologians call 'hermeneutics', or principles of interpretation. Today, many theologians are discussing 'contextual hermeneutics", particularly relevant to cross-cultural communication of the basic tenets of Christianity, by missionaries. Do certain biblical themes elicit different responses in different cultures? If so, to what extent are those varied responses equally valid? Witness Lee is an Asian who relocated to the West at nearly sixty years of age. No doubt certain structural elements in his teaching (e.g., the deification (divinization, if you prefer) of humanity; introspective meditation) are Eastern cultural emphases that seem out of harmony with a Western view of biblical Christianity. Certain peculiarities in Local Church social practices also seem rooted in Lee's Asian heritage. A second factor may have to do with the nature, methods of composition and purposes of Witness Lee's publications.... Most of Lee's books are derived from lectures delivered in LC training sessions... They were not intended to be theological treatises or essays.... Finally, Witness Lee's disposition toward writing and his method of teaching contribute to the strangeness of LC doctrine. Lee has a penchant for novelty in expounding biblical ideas. He seems to want to distance himself from Christianity in general and from traditional doctrinal positions and modes of expression in particular.... The authors of The God-Men recognize that Witness Lee may disagree with our systematization of his writings. Yet we think that if he were to reshape his oral teachings into systematic form, his own formulation would be congruent with the one we have suggested." ******************* I wanted to insert my commentary on the word "paradigm" in the opening of this post, to emphasize that what Duddy is suggesting here isn't racism - it's a nod to the fact that one's upbringing, culture, language, family, interactions, and history affect one's view of the world... and that is going to have a very definite emphasis on our interpretation of the Bible. Any Messianic Jew could tell us Westerners that! What seems to be so 'novel' in Lee's 'Recovery' is undoubtedly partly due to the cultural paradigm through which he viewed the Bible - and that is also the reason so much of what we learned has an Eastern flavor to it. Two men were walking down a busy city street. "Listen," exclaimed one. "What a lovely sound of a cricket." The other looked at him in puzzlement. "How can you hear a cricket amid this din?" he asked. The first man replied, "I’m a zoologist." He took a coin from his pocket and dropped it on the crowed sidewalk. Immediately, the people around stopped and began to look down. "We hear what we listen for," he explained. Paradigm quotes courtesy of www.brightquotes.com |
|
|
|
|
12-20-2012, 07:57 PM
|
#302 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 4 Cont'd: Deconstructing Lee
The God-Men, pages 84-85. "Consider one example of the need for evaluation of Witness Lee's teaching: Evangelical Christianity in Western society has always accepted the doctrine of God's Spirit indwelling believers. Lee, however, constantly attacks all Christians for being "unspiritually guided". Such an attitude steadily erodes the relationship of the Local Church to the larger Christian community. LC enthusiasts single out the evangelical community to proselytize. The conclusion evidently drawn by LC people is that all forms of Christianity, evangelical included, are irretrievably degenerate; God has abandoned "Christianity" to work elsewhere (ie, in the LC), in a new and distinctive way: "Do not think that the Lord is in the circle of Protestantism. He is outside the door. Judaism is Satanic, Catholicism is demonic, and Protestantism is without Christ.... There are only two things on the earth: Today's generation and the testimony of Jesus.... What is the testimony of Jesus? It is still the Local Churches." (WL, The Stream No. 14, #4). We believe that, although Christianity is wrongly understood by Witness Lee, his distinction between the Local Church and Christianity is valid. Our study reveals that Lee's teachings do indeed differ in substantial ways from biblically orthodox Christian doctrine. Lee's writings intimate that we are in a new dispensation, and only the Local Church has been sensitive to God's new way of relating to humanity. "We have the deep conviction that the Lord has turned the age from the age of religion, forms, doctrines and teachings to the age of the Spirit." (WL How to Meet pg 243) "The new way of meeting is a way in the Spirit. It is not according to the teachings or doctrines of the Bible (of course it is not contrary to the clear words of Scripture), but absolutely according to the Spirit. Do not say, 'We must act is such and such a way according to the Scriptures.' In a sense I agree with you, but I tell you, that will kill you. The written code kills." (WL How to Meet pg 253) Lee clearly sees himself as the harbinger of this "new way" (or dispensation) and, as such, his writings and ministry invite evaluation. *********************** Lee's "distinction between the Local Church and Christianity is valid". That is a statement with which LC elders probably couldn't agree more; but I hope and pray and that the vast majority of "marginal members" are troubled by it. Indeed, I think they must be. Witness Lee many times castigated Christianity, and even went so far as to say his movement was NOT Christianity. These same words have more recently been echoed by Ron Kangas, Benson Phillips, and others within the inner circle of LSM. Now, why would they say that on the one hand, but on the other, not assert a new identity for themselves? Why continue to call themselves Christians, if they hate all things Christian? Could it be that Witness Lee and (now) his disciples, were/are testing the waters? Consider: There are definitely some genuine Christians who meet in Local Churches - and the testimony of those ones are what gives the LC it's credibility. These ones might be extremely troubled, if, like the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses, the LC abandoned the word "Christian" and took their own name. The loss of these ones would be detrimental to the appeal of the LC. At least, that seems to be the conclusion they've reached thus far.... but the fact that they've brought this matter up more than once over the years makes one wonder if there is, at some level, an agenda to cement and formalize the relationship between the administration of LSM and the congregants of the LSM Local Churches ('localities') across North America. If there is, then one must ask how better can one formalize that relationship, than by having your adherents formally renounce their Christian faith in favor of whatever name LSM decides to offer in its place? |
|
|
|
|
12-21-2012, 04:01 AM
|
#303 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
I never read "The God-Men." I read "The Mind-Benders" and was not impressed, and more or less assumed that "The God-Men" was of the same quality. I was wrong.
Reading these quotes by NeitherFirstnorLast, I think it is safe to say that "The God-Men" is the best examination of Lee and his teachings ever published, and should be taken seriously. It's not perfect, but it is not libelous. At least if these quotes are any indication. Note how Lee and LSM dealt with Duddy's honest, well-considered examination. They sued the parties responsible for it. And they did not win the case. "The God-Men" was never found libelous by a court of law. Duddy and SCP could not afford to go to court. Lee, et al, bullied them into submission by using the mammon of unrighteousness. That's about as bad as it gets. LSM principle clearly is If you don't have the resources to play with us in court, then we have to conclude and expect others to conclude your evaluation of us must be false. In other words, when push comes to shove with them, it's all about the money. |
|
|
|
|
12-21-2012, 04:40 AM
|
#304 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
For those of you who still tend to rationalize LSM's penchant for suing publishers of unflattering assessments of them, consider this.
What if, just maybe, Duddy's book was God's way of sending a message to Lee and his movement that they needed a course correction. Maybe, just maybe, Duddy was doing God's work. After all, aren't we to consider the input of the Body and its members? Isn't this what the Body-life is all about? What if a brother has such a problem with you that he was forced to go public with it in the church? And what if his problem with you echoed the feelings of other brothers and sisters who had said similar things? Wouldn't your suing them indicate a desperate closed-mindedness on your part, not to mention arrogance? But, what if, on the other hand, you began to humbly fellowship with these brothers and sisters and honestly consider whether their ideas had merit. Even if you didn't always agree with them, you would undoubtedly gain valuable perspective. And you probably would not sue them, simply because the act of humbling yourself would take you out of such an adversarial realm altogether. Lee and LSM, for all their talk of seeking fellowship, never really sought it. They just attempted to convince others to do things their way, and resorted to bullying when those parties did not fall in line. Thus, maybe, just maybe, they missed the adjustment of the Body, and the current state of the movement is the fruit of that arrogance. |
|
|
|
|
12-22-2012, 08:55 AM
|
#305 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 4: Lee's Basic Misunderstanding
The God-Men, page 85 "We have shown that in Witness Lee's sensuous theology, the core tenets are derived from and focus on a believers inner subjective experience of God through impulses, intuitions, and feelings. Scripture, however, speaks of God as the external, infinite One whose Word is Truth... Psalm 119:160 "The sum of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous rules endures forever." Daniel 10:21a "But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth..." John 17:17 "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth." Ephesian 1:13-14 "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in Him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of His glory." James 1:18 "Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures." ... thus (His Word) bears an innate value independent of human understanding or assessment of it's contents. God's Word provides the platform for addressing human dilemmas and social issues. In contrast, Lee's theology seems myopic (nearsighted) in it's inability to address concerns beyond an individual's personal experiences. The Local Church not only fails to express social or moral conciousness but explicitly counsels its members to avoid any public awareness." ***************** Is Duddy's assessment here valid? What yardstick can we use to measure the Local Churches "expression of social or moral consciousness"? Let's define these terms first off, so that there are no misunderstandings: Social consciousness is consciousness shared within a society. It can also be defined as social awareness; to be aware of the problems that different societies and communities face on a day-to-day basis; to be conscious of the difficulties and hardships of society. Moral consciousness is an awareness of good and evil, of right and wrong. The two together imply an awareness of societal needs in regards to it's condition - an awareness not only of what is right and wrong with society, but also of individual's basic needs - such as food, lodging, clothing - or intellectual and emotional needs, such as love, compassion, education, understanding, and of our righteous requirement to answer those needs as best we can. Therefore, one who expresses an awareness on these levels, would (of course) react to these needs... they would compassionately respond to the members of the society in which they live. This is a BASIC Christian response: Consider what Christ said in Matthew 25:34-50 "Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’ “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Outside of the walls of LSM churches and amongst their own members, do we see Local Church members aware of societal needs and responding to them at all? Do we see a "Local Church response to Hurricane Sandy victims", for instance? We've certainly seen this among other Christian groups - and more. It is common amongst Christians (and notably absent amongst non-Christians) to generously fund and participate in non-profit / non-recruiting Outreach programs, Missions, Youth Groups, Soup Kitchens, building of Schools and Hospitals and homes for the homeless, establishment of Christian humanitarian groups (although later secularized - some outstanding examples from our history include the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and the Young Men's Christian Association {YMCA},etc. If we cannot point to such an organization or effort, then perhaps we must concede that Duddy has indeed identified a glaring absence on the part of Witness Lee's Local Church. If so, and especially in light of Christ's stern warning in the above verse, then we must consider the implications of that lack of fruit. |
|
|
|
|
12-22-2012, 09:28 PM
|
#306 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Talk about morals in the local churches, you will be told you're on the wrong tree; the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Bring up cases of immorality and you will be told "it's not about right or wrong it's about life". Same applies wen talking about ethics or about righteousness. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-23-2012, 07:28 AM
|
#307 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Christ was clear: Those who do NOT feed the hungry, visit the lonely, clothe the naked, or give drink to the thirsty, are bound for eternal punishment. He was not speaking about some kind of 'spiritual' "feed them Christ/give them Christ to drink/ clothe them in Christ" nonsensical idea. He was speaking of practical needs being practically met. James 2:15-17 "Suppose you see a brother or sister who has no food or clothing, and you say, “Good-bye and have a good day; stay warm and eat well”—but then you don’t give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do? So you see, faith by itself isn’t enough. Unless it produces good deeds, it is dead and useless." Strong words that Lee despised, but words that God breathed into His Word - words accepted by the earliest members of the Church Universal as Truth. And yes, James refers here to brothers and sisters - but can we logically say then that the meeting of practical needs is reserved only to those within the Body of Christ? What of our unbelieving neighbors? Do we not know the parable of the Good Samaritan well enough that I needn't quote it here (Luke 10:25-37). In that parable Christ is telling us exactly who the neighbour we are commanded to love is - and here we see also that the religiously devout, so concerned with going about 'Gods work', did not have to time to stop and help the man beaten and wounded on the side of the road either. If "God's Economy" prevents you from answering His clear call in Scripture, then it's high time to evaluate whether such a thing as "God's Economy" really exists. Read the Word of God, and read it without Lee's footnotes. Listen to what Christ says. ******************** From the Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (AD 100): "Let us not merely call Him Lord, for that will not save us. For He says, 'Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will be saved, but he who does what is right." Thus, brothers, let us acknowledge Him by our actions...." |
|
|
|
|
|
12-23-2012, 07:47 AM
|
#308 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 4: On Reading Scripture
The God-Men pages 85-86 "Scripture contains both general principles and particular guidelines. They govern Christian behavior on the corporate as well as individual level. Negating Scripture's significance, Lee's theology requires direct personal involvement in an issue before one is qualified to critique it. If the revelation of God's will in the temporal sphere is restricted solely to an individual's personal affairs, any Christian moral consensus regarding social justice, politics, civil liberties, etc. is obviously eliminated. Biblical theology generally faces the question of what the Bible says about a given topic at three levels: First, the boundaries of a topic are determined through a process of cross-checking relevant passages. Second, passages are studied which discuss the appropriate personal subjective response to the topic. Third, passages pertinent to the social implications of the topic are studied. Witness Lee's theology is moored in the channels of the second level without investigating the other two aspects. Although Christian in intent, it (Lee's theology) is truncated and defective in both range and depth." *********************** I have heard a person say here on this forum, in a thread long past, that one thing they appreciated that they'd learned from Lee was a 'disdain for theologians'. That was a sad commentary. Lee had a reason for disdaining theologians: He wasn't one, and he was never trained as one. If anyone could unmask Lee as being untrained and uneducated in Christian history and teaching and Biblical exegesis, it would have been someone who had that training and education. If there are yet people out there reading this who believe that Lee "stood on the shoulders" of those who went before him, then you must also believe that Lee's teachings should be found in a 'less mature' form in the writings of those who came before Lee. Lee's teachings should be recognizable there - even if (as yet) undeveloped. I challenge you to look. I challenge you to search and to read for yourself... and see where that leads you. May Jesus Christ our Lord bless you, and lead you into all Truth for His name's sake - that He might get the glory. Amen. ***************** Want to start reading what the really early church taught - in the apostolic age? Why not read The Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles). Although not included in the canon, it was considered for such - and although excluded, it was considered recommended reading. Think of it as the very earliest version of a New Believers Series. Learn about the Didache here: http://thedidache.org/ Read it here: http://www.paracletepress.com/didache.html Last edited by NeitherFirstnorLast; 12-23-2012 at 08:50 AM. Reason: Inclusion of Recommended Reading |
|
|
|
|
12-23-2012, 05:54 PM
|
#309 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
One former member well-versed in the ministry of Theodore Austin Sparks suggested Sparks spoke the same God's Economy in the 1950's which Lee spoke in 1963/1964. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-24-2012, 10:16 AM
|
#310 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
I have been receiving T. Austin-Sparks messages from The Golden Candlestick ministry for years. Sparks may have mentioned "God's economy", but his definitions are biblically based, Witness Lee's "economy" is not biblically based. The Bible does not say that man is becoming God, the Bible does not say that we are going to be mingled with God, the Bible does not say that our eternal destiny is to be melted into some "mingling of divinity with humanity, issuing in a universal, corporate, mysterious person" (Lee - Footnote on Revelation 22:21) I am quite certain that Sparks never said anything close to this.
I would think that the kind of things Lee wrote here in this footnote did not escape Duddy et al. Lee's messages are filled with this kind of unbiblical teaching - for any half competent Christian apologist it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
12-24-2012, 03:22 PM
|
#311 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
Ephesians 1:5 having marked us out beforehand for adoption through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, Darby Translation Predestinating us unto sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, Recovery Translation |
|
|
|
|
|
12-26-2012, 12:31 PM
|
#312 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Chapter 4 Cont'd: Are His Ways & Thoughts REALLY Higher than ours?
The God-Men, page 86-87 "Witness Lee and his defenders tend to establish a teaching as mysterious & inexplicable, but then proceed to explain it in an unorthodox way. Consider Lee's doctrine of God. All Christians would agree that the Trinity is a great mystery, fully known only to God Himself, yet we have received in the Bible a revelation by which we can understand some truth about God's nature. Witness Lee, dissatisfied with historical trinitarian doctrine, repeatedly states ideas that sound both trinitarian and modalistic.... Some of Lee's teaching seems relatively harmless, if puzzling. For example, in commenting on Exodus 3:6, he says - "This passage reveals that God as the God of the patriarchs is threefold. With the God of Abraham the emphasis is on the Father; with the God of Isaac the emphasis is on the Son; and with the God of Jacob the emphasis is on the Spirit." (WL, Concerning the Triune God, the Father, the Son and the Spirit - pg 11). The implications of such a parallel are many but obscure, so one may shrug and go on. But what of the modalistic teaching Lee derives from the Gospel of John? "After death and resurrection He became the Spirit breathed into the disciples (20:22).... The Son became the Spirit for us to drink in as the water of life (7:37-39; 4:10, 14)... In the heavens where man cannot see, God is the Father; when He is expressed among men, He is the Son; and when He comes into men, He is the Spirit." (Ibid, pages 8-9) Scripture speaks of an indwelling by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three distinct persons, yet the Bible verses Lee has cited above do not support his assertions. Jesus remained Himself as He symbolically "breathed the Spirit" on His disciples; He was still there in bodiy form with them. Not did He give His Spirit before His glorification; the whole point of his upper-room discourse was that He would send the Spirit when His work was done. Although He promised to be present through the Spirit's work, Jesus used a third-person pronoun, rather than a first-person pronoun, to refer to the coming Spirit." ******************** This is one short passage on Witness Lee's Doctrine of God, which is actually examined much more thoroughly earlier on in this book. Up to this point, I haven't referenced that material (yet), as it touches on something that we've repeatedly heard from LC Outsiders - that Lee taught modalism. Duddy never goes that far; rather, in a statement much more consistent with our own 'insiders assessment', Duddy states that Lee seemingly taught both a trinitarian and modalistic deity - frequently contradicting himself.... but never unable to supply an answer to any question posed to him, regardless of whether or not either Lee himself or Scripture elsewhere contradicted him. Now let me distance myself from that particular topic (Lee's unorthodox Doctrine of God) briefly, to touch on something that to my mind comes out of it: and that is Lee's penchant to constantly offer explanations for the unexplainable. Throughout 'Christianity', that is, the history of the Church Universal, men (and women) have been 'touched by God' and have been used to illuminate for us not only theological truths but also to demonstrate genuine faith and obedience to our Lord. However, many of these men (and women) had differences in interpretations and understandings of exactly what the Scriptures taught (and I say this with the caveat that we must always remember 'In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity') . Doesn't Isaiah 55:9 remind us how we ought to approach Scripture? "As the heavens are higher than the earth so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." Shouldn't a 'bible teacher' who is honest with himself acknowledge that there are truths contained in the Bible that he can only guess at... and shouldn't he consequently humbly approach Scripture, always seeking and growing in the truth but knowing that "Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely." (1st Corinthians 13:12 -NLT) Is it pride that prevents a man from saying "I think", or "I believe", or "my understanding is", rather than saying he has all the answers? If so, what does God say about the proud? How does He view them, and shouldn't that proud man's teachings be suspected rather than exalted, given his penchant to so boldly declare that he knows (absolutely and without mistake) the mind of God? |
|
|
|
|
12-27-2012, 11:39 AM
|
#313 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
BTW, one of their chief complaints against Titus Chu that led to his excommunication is that he taught young people to go to the Bible text first in their study. This was anathema because in the LC system you are expected to go to the writings of Witness Lee first and foremost to make sure you have rose colored glasses on before reading the text itself. If Duddy knew the half of what has gone on in the LC system since he wrote his first book he could do a 2nd volume that would make his 1st one seem mild in comparison. Because while the same problems existed way back then they became much more manifest and boldly proclaimed when the New Way was rolled out. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-27-2012, 12:06 PM
|
#314 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-27-2012, 01:28 PM
|
#315 | |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
Also let's not forget that even back then Lee was proclaiming all sorts of absurd and bizarre things, such as man is becoming God, Satin dwells in our flesh and that the religion he invented was God's one move on earth. The Revelation trainings were in the mid-seventies and by then Lee was already boasting that "Judaism is Satanic, Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless".
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
12-27-2012, 06:32 PM
|
#316 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 4 Cont'd: We are Saved by Grace through Faith.
The God-Men, pages 88-89 "As a final comment on the theological inadequacy of Witness Lee's thought, we might consider his sensuous theology in light of Genesis 3: "And the serpent said to the woman, 'You shall surely not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it [the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'" (Genesis 3:4-5). In the garden of Eden, Satan began by challenging and negating three cardinal truths about God. 1) He denied the reality of the curse of death. 2) He denied the truthfulness of God. 3) He denied the lovingkindness of God. Then he (Satan) introduced a positive element in his deception by making false baited promises to Eve. He offered her the promise of wisdom, the promise of divinity and the promise of power. Satan thus twisted God's truth, focusing on Eve's understanding and perceptions of God. Did she believe God? No, she did not. Unbelief gave birth to disobedience. Any authentic "recovery" (to recover a term of Lee's) must begin where the loss began - with faith and belief. The prologue of John's gospel declares, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name." (John 1:12). At the end of that gospel, John said that the real reason he documented the story was so "...that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:31). In the New Testament, faith, obedience and experience of God are intimately related to eachother. Faith generally precedes the other two. It is not through our righteous works that a relation with God is "recovered". It is not through our obedience, but rather through the grace of God, and that by faith. The New Testament is clear about the priority of faith in conversion and Christian sanctification. Yet the New Testament's witness to the significance of faith is muted by Witness Lee. In his theology, sensation and experience take precedence over faith. The danger of fraudulent theology was expressed by the apostle Paul in Colossians 2:18 "Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly [sensuous] mind." Paul's admonition applies to leaders who claim direct revelation and consequent authority from God. Witness Lee claims to have "received [revelations] of the Lord" (1 Cor.11:23) which were neither audible nor visual nor mediated through spiritistic activity. Rather, his more-than-fifty revelations sprang from his own Spirit-spirit complex. Lee assumes apostolic authority to regulate Local Church procedures based on those privately received divine disclosures. (A Local Church in-house circular entitled "Revelations Received of the Lord Within the Period of 1920 to 1973" lists 46 such experiences of Lee's related to personal salvation and church emphases, and 22 related to church growth). ********************** ....Well, that's about as damaging a statement as Duddy has made thus far regarding Lee's credibility; and not just his credibility as "The" Minister of the Age, but even as "a" minister of the Word. And the evidence is damning. By pointing just how far off the reservation Lee wandered in his handling of the Word of God and his ministering to the Saints, we see a clear picture of just what we were being subjected to. Not a New Testament ministry, but a New Testament heresy - clearly proscribed against in New Testament Scripture. As we go through this book, it becomes easier to see just why it had the effect Lee and LSM claimed it did on campuses. It's not that the book called Lee's Local Church a "cult" (I still haven't seen that word even once anywhere in this book, and we're on page 89) or that the book made untruthful claims about what Lee was teaching. Rather, this book shone a light in a dark place... it exposed Lee; and how did he react to the exposure? Did he offer to correct any of what was printed? Did he offer to consider what was printed? Did he offer to meet with the people before the book was printed, and try to explain his theology to deal with any misunderstandings, if there were any? No. "Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." John 3:20. |
|
|
|
|
12-28-2012, 06:30 PM
|
#317 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 4 Cont'd: Human Beings in Bits and Pieces
The God-Men, pages 89-91 "The diagram of Witness Lee's doctrine of humanity (see pg 50 - this is the diagram of the three concentric circles, you know the one) goes beyond the Bible's revelation of human nature. Lee's doctrine practically binds Local Church adherents to his interpretation of Scripture as the surest route to spirituality. The faculties of the soul (mind, will, emotion) are set over against the spirit (intuition, conscience, fellowship with God) in unceasing struggle. Hence, although the mind, in subordination to the spirit, may theoretically be used to discern truth, its acceptance of any ideas other than Local Church dogma (A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true) is understood as "soulish" de facto. Such a distinction between soul and spirit in their operation has no biblical warrant. In fact, Old Testament nephesh ("soul") is frequently used in parallel relation to one's body or flesh, but is also closely united with the spirit or heart (see Psalms 63:8, 84:2, 73:21, Proverbs 23:15-17).... ....God created man as a "living soul", so constituted that the "life [soul] of the flesh is in the blood," (Gen 2:7, Lev 17:11) and is dependent on God for preservationas a living (soulish) being. Even God "has" (is) a soul (Lev 26:11, 30) - that is, He is a living person; human souls are made in His image.... ....When the Scriptures mention one specific aspect of human personality, the word used often intrinsically includes other dimensions as well. For example, in Acts 27:37, when Luke said "two hundred and seventy-six persons" were on a ship, he used the word psyche for "person", obviously not meaning a disembodied "soul"..... hence one finds scant biblical justification for Lee's notion of a merged Spirit-spirit as the dispenser of God's will to the soul through intuition, feelings, the senses and noncognitive processes.* (note to view Appendix 2 for further details - and I quote from that following....) The "nature of human nature" is a traditional topic of controversy in Christian theology. When the subject is referred to by theologians under its technical title of "anthropology", most of their discussions focus around two major positions or schools of thought. Some theologians postulate a trichotomous view of human nature (three-part humanity as Nee and Lee did)... Other biblical scholars opt for a dichotomous view (two-part {body & soul}). Although Bible interpreters are disagreed as to the exact scriptural position, few have confined the Holy Spirit to a particular part of human nature, as Witness Lee has done. Fewer still have set the components of human personality in opposition to each other, as Lee has done.... ******************** I will end the quote there, and looking back over the passage I have to highlight the result of this theology - that one can and will be admonished to "not" think through Lee's theology. Thinking is "anathema" to spiritual growth, in Lee's view - and that leaves a person who follows Lee unable to question anything Lee teaches. The section I will quote from tomorrow gets more into this. I must confess that I too embraced the idea of a tripartite man; and I can't say I've entirely given the concept up, but I no longer hold it as "gospel" truth, merely a view which can and should continue to be challenged. I note that Lee took the teaching quite a few steps further with his placement of God's role in communicating with man, and in the nature of the division between the elements. I also hope we all know that Witness Lee or Watchman Nee didn't invent the tripartite man idea, and neither did the Brethren.... THE HISTORY OF TRICHOTOMY Most Biblical scholars in the early church saw man as a threefold (trichotomous) being. Even as late as Augustine (A.D. 354-430), the common view was that man was trichotomous - that he possessed a body, a soul, and a spirit. The words of Augustine substantiate this fact very plainly when he wrote in Faith and Creed: "... there are three things of which man consists - namely spirit, soul, and body ..." [Faith and the Creed (XX:23)]. But as Latin Theology (i.e., Roman Catholicism) began to take hold, most theologians abandoned trichotomy and began to see man as simply a two-fold being of soul and body (with spirit being just another name for the soul). This idea, known as dichotomy, continued as the majority opinion down through the centuries and still is the common view held by the Roman Catholic Church and most of the Protestant churches that came out of the Reformation (i.e., the Dutch Reformed, the Lutheran, the Episcopalian, the Presbyterian, etc.) - all of which, interestingly enough, hold to a post-millennial approach to eschatology [i.e., that the church must take control of the world before Christ can return (more about this later)]. It is interesting to note in this connection, however, that Martin Luther, the father (so to speak) of the Reformation, championed the view that man was trichotomous. THE PLYMOUTH BRETHREN It wasn't until the rise of evangelicalism in the 1800s [and most especially, the Plymouth Brethren, the group which is looked upon by most church historians as the parent body out from which evangelicalism sprang] and John Nelson Darby that trichotomy once again revived - and it's worth noting in this connection that along with a revived view of man as a trichotomous being, pre-millennialism also revived. Darby's teachings were popularized and gained wide acceptance and public acclaim in conservative church bodies throughout most of the 20th century. But with the rise of the modern ecumenical movement - i.e., the political movement of Protestant and Catholic bodies together to "take the nation back for Christ and the church" - post-millennialism (which "politicizing" promotes) resurfaced along with dichotomy - which post-millennialism of necessity encourages. History of Trichotomy courtesy of Brent Harris' book "Body, Soul and Spirit" |
|
|
|
|
12-29-2012, 08:35 AM
|
#318 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 4 Cont'd: Lee vs the Bible
The God-Men, page 91 "Contrary to Witness Lee's concept of the spirit versus the soul and its faculties, the Bible appeals to believers in Christ to use their minds and wills to fullest capacity. God said to Israel, "Come now, and let us reason together." (Isaiah 1:18) He challenged Job to "gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to Me." (Job 38:3 & 40:7) Adam used his mind to name the animals. Rational worship is defined as offering our bodies to God according to minds renewed by Him (Romans 12:1-2). As John Stott states (in "Your Mind Matters"): Now redemption carries with it the renewal of the divine image in man, which was distorted by the Fall. This includes the mind. Paul could describe converts from paganism as having "put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of it's creator" (Colossions 3:10) and as being "renewed in the spirit of your minds." (Ephesians 4:23). He could go further. A "spiritual" man, a man indwelt and ruled by the Holy Spirit, has new powers of spiritual discernment. He may even be said to have "the mind of Christ" (1st Corinthians 2:15-16). This conviction that Christians have new minds enabled Paul to appeal to his readers with confidence: "I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say." (1st Corinthians 10:15). ********************* I just want to muse a little, before I get to my point in this passage... I woke up this morning with a memory from a conversation with a dear young sister, whom I met when she was College age (she later wound up going off for full-time training, and recently married an LC man in Texas.) This dear young lady once lamented that she didn't understand how the Lord could love her soul, it was so filthy and wretched. This sentiment was echoed by a young brother with whom I went to STTA; when he said that he couldn't understand why we would have a hope of resurrection into fleshly bodies, since the flesh was so corrupt and useless. Neither of these two dear Christians understood exactly why Christ came in the flesh - what He came to redeem - and why He valued man (woman) as He did. We were created fully in His image, but Lee's rant against the mind (soul) and the body were so thorough that these two who had been raised in the LC could not see the Truth in Scriptures: That we are being wholly renewed by Him out of Love (and whether you are a trichotomous or dichotomous being, this truth applies to you). We are not being replaced by Christ, stamped out and remade into carbon-copies of Christ - or brought into an eventual oblivion where "everything" is Christ and nothing else exists. God is a God of relationships - relationships are His very nature. He craves a relationship - even a marriage, with us; what more intimate a relationship can there be? Who among us wants to replace our spouses with a carbon copy of ourselves? Do we not crave fellowship, partnership, intimacy, love, compassion, understanding, accountability, and care? I tell you we crave those good things, because He made us to crave them, even as He does. Look how wrong Lee's theology was. Do you see what it did to people and the gospel message? Do you see it really had another aim - to take us captive to him. Throw off the shackles, LC men and women. The Truth shall set you free. |
|
|
|
|
12-30-2012, 09:43 PM
|
#319 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 4 Cont'd: What Lee missed
The God-Men page 92 "In his interpretation of the Fall, Lee sees sin and Satan as residing in the "flesh" (meaning the physical body). That concept may reinforce the Local Church's view of salvation, but it trivializes the biblical concept of God's adversary (see the warning against this practice in Jude 1:8 "In the same way, these people—who claim authority from their dreams—live immoral lives, defy authority, and scoff at supernatural beings" NLT.) By identifying the locus of sin and evil as the realm of physical existence, Witness Lee (also) blinds himself to the insidious reality of spiritual evil (eg. spiritual pride) and veers further towards Gnostic tendencies. Scripture clearly calls the created world "very good" in God's sight (Gen 1:31). Though corrupted through the Fall (Gen 3:17), it is renewed and rendered valuable through Christ's redemption (Romans 8:19-23). The material world, fallen as it is, is the object of God's love; it will be purified and reconstituted as the everlasting home of His redeemed people. Human nature, then, in its entirety, is part of a good creation gone bad. Union with God in Christ does not deify us by adding some missing component. It enables us to be what God intended from the beginning; His own image on earth. ********************* I am excerpting these portions to demonstrate to the readers the differences between what Lee taught and what we read in Scripture. A plain reading of the Biblical text does not validate Lee's interpretations at all - in fact, it puts his interpretations at odds with the Bible. We will explore the author's allusion to Gnosticism in the next portion. |
|
|
|
|
12-31-2012, 04:38 PM
|
#320 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Reference to Appendix One: Lee's Teaching in Historical Context
What follows is an excerpt from the first Appendix of this book, which points out the similarities between Lee's teachings and Gnosticism - a heresy that pervaded the early Church. "The origins of gnosticism are not clearly known, but there is general agreement that threads of the teachings must have arisen somewhere in what is today known as the Middle East and Asia Minor—areas in which several cultures could converge and synthesize. Many scholars find the roots of gnosticism in Neoplatonism, which similarly devalues matter and regards the spirit as the true reality. A minority of scholars believe it to be of eastern origin because of its similarities to Buddhist ideas of enlightenment, while others believe it has Mesopotamian or Jewish (mystical Kabbalism) roots. Gnostic groups became popular around the same time and often in the same places that Christianity did. Gnosticism was widespread within the early Christian church until the gnostics were expelled in the second and third centuries AD. Gnosticism was one of the first doctrines to be specifically declared a heresy and gnostic movements were often persecuted as a result..." from Gnosticism: New World Encyclopedia. ********************************** The God-Men, Appendix 1: A survey of Christianity's long list of doctrinal deviations helps to place Lee's teachings more firmly in historical context. His basic shadow/reality cleavage is a minor variation of the matter/spirit dichotomy that characterized the heresy of Gnosticism, which flourished in the second and third centuries. Platonism. One source of Gnosticism was Platonism, which also generated several schools of so-called Christian mysticism. Platonic philosophy was characterized by a kind of dualism which saw "essential reality" opposed to "manifest reality", and "spirit" opposed to "matter".... The correspondence between Plato's language and Lee's teaching that the objective world is a "shadow" of "Reality" is almost too neat, but if we look at the changes that Platonic thought historically introduced into Christian theology, we can see that the resemblance is more than coincidence. (In "Being Human: The Nature of the Spiritual Experience" authors Ranald Macaulay and Jerram Barrs provide an excellent description of Platonic influences on Christian thinking. They cite Watchman Nee and Morton Kelsey as two examples of Bible expositors who have adopted the Platonic sacred/secular split".) According to one source, Platonically influenced theology faced problems about the relation of reason to revelation and experienced a noticeable tendency toward allegorical interpretations of the Bible (D.A. Rees, "Platonism and the Platonic Tradition, 1967). In addition, it's strongly otherworldly outlook was combined with a dislike of structured rules of behavior; it stressed "spirit" rather than the "letter" and attached minimal importance to forms of ecclesiastical (church) organization. ....In Gnostic theology, humans beings are composed of three parts: body, soul and spirit. The "outer portions" of body and soul are the province of evil cosmic powers, and an individual is thereby subject to their baleful influence. Enclosed in the soul is the innermost humanness, the pneuma ("spirit"), which is a portion of the divine substance, or the ground of reality. "The goal of Gnostic striving is the release of the inner man from the bonds of the world...." (Hans Johnas "Gnosticism" 1967)... ....For the Gnostic, as for the Local Church, the ultimate objective of life is to experience the God-self. That experience (or gnosis)is superior to both intellectual knowledge and faith.... With the concept of "mind versus experience" we arrive once again at the psychological root of doctrinal deviation. ***************************** Given the similarities between Buddhist doctrines of spiritual enlightenment, and 'Christian' Gnosticism found in the 2nd and 3rd century Church, is it not possible to imagine that Lee would find something akin to a familiarity in these heretical teachings? This is not to suggest that his embracing such views was entirely purposeful.... rather, it is possible that he really thought he saw something in the Bible that wasn't there... that he put stresses on words or phrases that were uncalled for, even proscribed against. |
|
|
|
|
01-02-2013, 06:56 PM
|
#321 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 4 Cont'd: On Lee's Doctrine of Mingling
The God-Men pages 92-94 "Witness Lee also tends to view God's creation of humankind as a... neccessity.... Lee stresses the "economy" of God's historical dealings as springing from God's desure to unify humankind with himself. 'Thus, the three Persons of the Trinity become the three successive steps in the process of God's economy. Without these three stages, God's essence could never be dispensed into man.' (WL, The Economy of God, pg 10). Related teachings in Lee's writing lead on toward a distorted view of why God made the world. Did God create the world not only to enrich His creation with His own essence, but also to enrich Himself? Lee presents God as needing to absorb humanity into Himself through a process of "mingling"... One LC publication is entitled "The Testimony of Church History Regarding the Mystery of the Mingling of God with Man." Surveying Christian doctrine, it cites many theological writers on the union of divine and human natures in Christ. It also deals with the union of believers with Christ, for which some writers have employed the term "mingling". Indeed, some have even called the latter union "deification". Bill Freeman expects his readers to be patient with Witness Lee's doctrine, since Lee is dealing with a mystery the same way others have done. (Freeman, Testimony of Church History, pages 5-6). Mysteries do defy definition, but one should be hesitant about using terminology that has largely been shunned by the church as heretical. Freeman acknowledges that the term "mingling" has been a "theological pariah" for centuries (pgs 14-21)... Witness Lee and his disciples resemble some of the mystical writers of the Eastern churches. They overemphasize one side of the mysterious union of God with His people at the expense of equally true and important aspects... The problem with the LC publication on mingling begins with its emphasis that a mystery (by definition) cannot be exhaustively expressed in rational or conceptual terms. As used by the LC, the proposition that "the mystery of union with Christ cannot be pinned down" turns into a polemical tool (a tool for attacking a doctrine). It is used to discredit traditional approaches to the mystery, not so much to acknowledge the mystery's unexplainable quality as to explain it in Witness Lee's terms. ********************* Duddy's refutation of Lee's doctrine of mingling is balanced, fair, and succinct. He acknowledges that a version of what Lee teaches was taught in some of the early churches (in fact, Athanasius of Alexandria is frequently trotted out, with this very brief quote (offered without context, source, or time) attributed to him: "Christ became man so that man might become God, or gods, or divine, or exalted.*" The latter half of this quote, here in italics, is left out of LC literature. But what did Athanasius mean by this statement? Athanasius clarified this statement in his third treatise against the Arians: "To become as the Father is impossible for us creatures.'' "There be one Son by nature...we too become sons, not as He in nature and truth, but according to the grace of Him that calleth, and though we are men from the earth, and yet called gods, not as the True God or His Word.... We are sons, not as the Son, as gods, not as He Himself. '' (Orat 3.19-20; Robertson 404-405). Similarly, in Orat 1.37 he briefly noted that "we are children by grace, not by nature. We are like the Son not in essence but in sonship, which we shall partake from Him'' (De Syn 53; Robertson 479). If we cannot be gods by nature or essence, in what way are we to be like God? "We are as God by imitation, not by nature'' (Orat 3.20; Robertson 405). Jesus did not mean "that we might be as God,'' but that we should imitate him (Orat 3.19; Robertson 404). "Albeit we cannot become like God in essence, yet by progress in virtue imitate God'' (Ad Afros 7; Robertson 492). This treatise of Athanasius', now put in it's proper context, reveals all too clearly that Athanasius is not an ally of Lee's - but rather that he would reject completely Lee's theology: man cannot become God in life and in nature or in the Godhead; but can, through His grace, imitate His righteousness. Now you know the REST of the story.  Information on Athansius quotes in context supplied by http://www.angelfire.com/md/mdmorris...t/DIVINIZ.html |
|
|
|
|
01-03-2013, 07:08 PM
|
#322 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Chapter 4 Cont'd: How (and How Not) to Read Scripture
The God-Men, pages 99-103 "Traditionally, certain general principles are recognized as useful for interpreting... the Bible. Other special principles must be used to interpret passages marked by extensive figures of speech or literary devices such as parables, allegories, Hebrew poetry, typology and prophecy. With both sets of principles (general and special) the interpreter's goal is to deduce what the author intended to communicate, and what the first readers or hearers understood the words to mean. The general approach is: (1) to take the grammar seriously, assuming the intended meaning for each word. (2) to understand the cultural influences and historical background in which the words were written (and more and more my burden is that we don't do this enough - we gentiles are generally ignorant of Christ's own culture - the culture in which He lived, ministered, and spoke). (3) to be aware of other relevant passages of Scripture that influence the meaning. Each (special) literary device employed by authors of Scripture has its own special principle of interpretation... ie: Jesus' explanation of the parable of the sower. Witness Lee's own interpretations of Scripture seem to vary in quality from valid insights to total repression of an author's intended meaning. His principles allow him rather indiscriminately to attribute typological intrepretations to various historical-narrative Old Testament passages, forcing them to prefigure New Testament events. Witness Lee regards the entire Old Testament as a continual series of types on which he bases a high percentage of his teachings.... Lee frequently places great significance on a type's initial appearance in the Old Testament as normative for its interpretation, rather than examining its fulfillment in the New Testament antitype. Such teaching admittedly has a certain charm. It's fanciful applications are powerfully graphic... the dangers of the teaching are many, however, since both teacher and learner may miss the plain meaning of the Bible's words amid the profusion of typology. In glossing over the plain meaning of Scripture in favor of unveiling a hidden spiritual meaning, Lee often renders the Bible's historical data inconsequential.... One encounters an obvious problem in utilizing typology so extensively and without restraint. No authoritative reference point exists for indicating whether the interpretation of the type is correct or incorrect. Witness Lee becomes the sole authority for determing the correct usage of types in the Old Testament. In exegeting Psalms, Lee feels thoroughly justified in finding there a prophetic type of the Local Church, not of Christianity. In the long run, if that principle is consistently applied, the Bible loses its character as universal revelation and as the straightforward Word of God to humankind. It becomes instead a veiled and cryptic book of esoteric teachings that must be 'decoded' by an authoritative teacher who possesses the key... The danger of such teaching is even greater if the factual content of the Bible is handled loosely or inaccurately in an effort to score theological points. ******************** Reading this section, I am struck by the second principle of proper Biblical interpretation (in the Historical-Grammatical method). Understanding the context in which the Word was written. Last year I attended Breakforth Canada, an international gathering of Christians from any and all denominations, for a weekend of shared worship, fellowship, and learning from various speakers. Three of the seminars I attended specifically were done by Joe Amaral, who wrote the book "Understanding Jesus: Cultural Insights into the Words and Deeds of Christ". Joe is not Jewish, but he married a woman who's father was a devout Christian pastor and Zionist. Joe met a woman at his father-in-laws who felt that the Lord was calling Joe to Israel. Joe thought the lady was crazy, but wanting to be polite he told her such a trip would be nice, but he couldn't afford it. She felt so strongly about the matter, she funded his trip... poor Joe! While he was there, Joe suddenly had a revelation: "Jesus Christ was a Jew!" Yeah, we all laughed at him, and he laughed at himself. This is something we all know, but (most of us) never consider it significant when we read the Bible and the words of Jesus. How foolish. This book of Joe's is an excellent read, full of many insights that explain so clearly some of the things we read in Scripture that we gentiles simply scratch our heads at, or misread, or pass over without notice. I'd love to share from this book if I had time... and maybe elsewhere I will. For now, let me say that we ALL need to consider how much of our own paradigms have colored the Word... maybe we've removed Lee's glasses, but have we put on others? Blessings, in the name of our Lord: Yeshua HaMaschiach! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7PXFVadYzs *********************** Recommended Reading: Understanding Jesus by Joe Amaral http://www.amazon.ca/Understanding-J...7268793&sr=8-1 |
|
|
|
|
01-04-2013, 07:55 PM
|
#323 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 4 In Conclusion: Everyone Else is Out of Step
The God-Men pages 104-105 "What shall we say about the Local Church's exclusive attitude toward other churches? We have uncovered some of its doctrinal roots in Witness Lee's teachings about God, about humanity, and about the way people come to know God. If our analysis is correct, we should not be surprised to discover that Lee's followers hesitate to fellowship with most Christians. Local Church teachings seem to conflict with orthodox Christianity at several key points*. In his writings, Witness Lee depicts the Local Church as God's chosen vehicle for bringing "this age" to a close; it is the faithful manifestation of Christ's body in a perverse generation. Opposing the sad divisions in Christianity, Lee has ironically been instrumental in forming a new divisive sectarian denomination. He has cut himself and his churches off from the doctrine and practical life of sincere believers in Christ, holding out for their unity with the Local Church on what he perceives to be biblical principle. Witness Lee's mentor, Watchman Nee, held views on church geographical locality and denominational affiliation that were definitely segragationist. Those views can be traced to Nee's close association with the Exclusive Brethren and Taylor Brethren groups in China. From such roots have sprung the isolationist policy of the Local Church in America." ***************************** The association of Nee with the Exclusive Brethren should not be missed, and neither should what became of their exclusivist sect. In reading on the "My Brethren" site, I found this quote from an examination of the Exclusive Brethren; let me remove "Brethren" from the quote, and insert "Local Church" in it's place... you see if the shoe doesn't fit. "The first thing which strikes us on marking the piety of the Local Church, is its exclusiveness. The theory of those composing it is, that all the churches are wrong – that all sects are unscriptural – that Christendom is in ruins. Were it so, the natural conclusion would be, to set to work and build up what has fallen, and reunite what is scattered. But no. To end sectarianism, as John Duncan used to say, the Local Church began by making a new sect, and that sect, of all sects, the most sectarian.” – William Reid, Plymouth Brethrenism Unveiled and Refuted 1876. 1876: One hundred and thirty six years ago the group that grandfathered today's Local Church was doing the exact same thing that the Local Church is doing. And how many localities will fracture and go their own way, and do the EXACT same thing? How many times will division be the result and exclusiveness reign supreme? When will the children ever learn? The kind of theology that is taught by these groups is the recipe for church disaster, not church growth - it's been prove time and time and time again. God does not get the Glory. Christ does not reign supreme; His desires - prayed so ernestly before His Father, are ignored and trampled under foot by men seeking their own glory. Remember what Christ prayed: “My prayer is not for the world, but for those you have given me, because they belong to you. All who are mine belong to you, and you have given them to me, so they bring me glory. Now I am departing from the world; they are staying in this world, but I am coming to you. Holy Father, you have given me your name; now protect them by the power of your name so that they will be united just as we are. During my time here, I protected them by the power of the name you gave me. I guarded them so that not one was lost, except the one headed for destruction, as the Scriptures foretold. “Now I am coming to you. I told them many things while I was with them in this world so they would be filled with my joy. I have given them your word. And the world hates them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. I’m not asking you to take them out of the world, but to keep them safe from the evil one. They do not belong to this world any more than I do. Make them holy by your truth; teach them your word, which is truth. Just as you sent me into the world, I am sending them into the world. And I give myself as a holy sacrifice for them so they can be made holy by your truth. “I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message. I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me. “I have given them the glory you gave me, so they may be one as we are one. I am in them and you are in me. May they experience such perfect unity that the world will know that you sent me and that you love them as much as you love me. Father, I want these whom you have given me to be with me where I am. Then they can see all the glory you gave me because you loved me even before the world began! “O righteous Father, the world doesn’t know you, but I do; and these disciples know you sent me. I have revealed you to them, and I will continue to do so. Then your love for me will be in them, and I will be in them.” excerpts from Jesus Prayer to the Father, John 17. *to be explored in follow-up post. |
|
|
|
|
01-06-2013, 10:20 AM
|
#324 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
How Do Lee's Teachings Compare to Orthodox Christianity?
In my previous post, I quoted Duddy's statement (below). Quote:
.................................................. ......................A Graphic View of Critical Issues.................................................. ................ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ................................................Witness Lee.................................................. ........The Bible................................................ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source of Theology:..................... Sensations and impulses within a............................... Scripture. .................................................spirit-Spirit complex. Reality: ......................................Higher spiritual reality plus a..................................... Spirit world plus the material world .................................................lower shadowy reality, (IE a sacred-.......................... equally real and valuable; hence, no .................................................secular split.).................................................. ....... sacred-secular split. Scripture:.................................. Not completely inspired; fallible.................................. Inspired, infallible, and authoritative. .................................................and not authoritative. Authority:.................................. Invested in Witness Lee as an.................................... Scripture. ................................................"Apostle of this age". God:.......................................... Antimony (a contradiction) .......................................God is a Trinity: Three Coexisting Persons = .................................................Trinity and a modalistic Godhead................................ One God. .................................................Father-is-Son-is-Holy Spirit. Redeemed Humanity:................... Mingling: Fusion with God in essence............................ Creator/Creature distinction retained. .................................................and identity. Source of Ethics:........................ Impulses and sensations from the ................................Scripture. ................................................spirit-Spirit complex. Eschatology (end-times view): ......Millenial purgatory awaits many Christians...................... Full attainment of redemption and glorification ................................................who are "soulish".................................................. ..... at Jesus' Second Coming. Church Structure &..................... One church per town/city............................................ No limitations. Growth. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ****************************** ..............Now, ones first reaction (as a member or ex-member of the LRC) might be to argue that we (as individuals) maybe didn't embrace all of these teachings attributed here to Lee, so this must be false - but on some level, we did.... Earlier in the book each of these points was driven home with relevant quotes from Lee's writings - and who ever contradicted Lee (besides the man himself, of course)? These are not minor differences such as might exist between denominations (in terms of ecclesiastical structure, form of a worship service, or even interpretation of Scripture (IE Calvinism vs Arminianism, and every point in between). Calvinists and Arminians can, after all, fellowship together (I know, I've done it) - but the LRC cannot fellowship with other Christians, due to the radical nature of the differences in their theologies. Perhaps it is for this reason that we ought to heed Lee when he makes statements about his movement like "This is not Christianity!" Don't sweep that under the rug as Lee simply being overly-dramatic. The man meant what he said, and I think he proved that he was right. |
|
|
|
|
|
01-06-2013, 11:24 AM
|
#325 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: in Spirit & in Truth
Posts: 1,363
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
I want to comment on post 324 everyone.
All church organizations have a strong sense of ownership of their flock or sheeple. Lee's ministry was/is no exception. Of course since we were "seduced" by Lee's teachings, the popcorn testimonials, the home fellowship meetings, where we read life studies together, & sang the LC church songs, we felt special. Speaking for myself, I had never read the bible as a Catholic. I never went to a protestant church and it was through meeting the LC brethren at work, I came to know the saving Grace and Love of our Lord Jesus. I took everything in, believed what I was told and never questioned anything. Having been out of the LC institution 35 or more years, I have made my rounds. I have sat under a number of strong, good bible teachers/preachers. I was involved in a couple of ministries. My observation has been most die hard sheeple are very loyal to their pastor and do not question or dispute his teachings. I have witnessed people being kicked out or placed on "sabbatical", meaning they can attend the services but not allowed to fellowship or talk to anyone. So today, while I pray, read, study, fellowship, teach the Word to youngsters in the Lord, and lead people to Christ, I pretty much stay away from the enclosed 4 walls of a church building. I do read books, watch unorthodox but sound biblical teachings on you tube, speak positive affirmations and meditate on God's Beloved Word everyday. This is my current up-to-date testimony. Blessings all!! Carol G
__________________
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36) |
|
|
|
|
01-06-2013, 07:48 PM
|
#326 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Members and lurkers, please give your input. |
|
|
|
|
|
01-07-2013, 06:44 AM
|
#327 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
In answer to your immediate question: I think it's safe to say that everyone in the LC can testify that we often invited and hosted non-LC Christians at our home meetings; this was standard practice... but was it fellowship? Isn't fellowship supposed to be about sharing with one another; our testimonies, our burdens, our joys? Isn't it about meeting eachothers needs both physically and spiritually, about praying together and pursuing truth together? Isn't it about learning from one another, sharing perspectives and insights by actively getting into the Word together? If it is, then you have to ask yourself: Does the LC Establishment (The official teaching of the LC - which is what this book is addressing) allow you to regard a non-LC Christian as someone who can meet your spiritual needs, someone from whom you can learn more of Christ? Someone who can offer a perspective that fills in more of the picture than you have? The answer is, of course not. Non-LC Christians are to be recruited; in fact - I've heard it said that more than 80% of the members of the LC came to Christ elsewhere, they were brought into the LC as believers, not non-believers. You can't recruit them if you don't ask them in to your home meeting; home meetings were "the way". Now, do all individual members of the LC think that they have nothing to learn from Christians? Of course not. But that doesn't mean that this isn't taught by the LC, and believed by the vast majority of it's membership. Christians are to be pitied in the LC; not learned from. They are to be recruited, not fellowshipped with. Again, as individuals, our thoughts on the matter might be different - but it's very important to remember that this book is about the Official Party Line, not the exceptions to the rules. As for non LC-Christians asking us to fellowship with them; I can testify that I was invited to fellowship with other Christians. Even a number of the Hutterite Colonies (think: Amish) I visited invited me in to fellowship with them... and I went; just as I went to the Bible studies here in our home town before I left the LC. The attitude of long-time friends of ours in the LC had to this was "why would you lower yourself to that?" |
|
|
|
|
|
01-07-2013, 11:40 AM
|
#328 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Having met in other localities I see what I experienced a practice of the home meetings that has since been replaced. |
|
|
|
|
|
01-07-2013, 11:48 AM
|
#329 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: in Spirit & in Truth
Posts: 1,363
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
As former LCrs, we know from our past experience, the purpose for us to "fellowship" with non LC Christians, was to lead them to believe there was something better than degraded Christianity. What many failed to do, thanks to Lee's teaching was to bond with them in CHRIST. Our motive for "fellowship" with them was to reel them in, to recruit them as Neitherfirstnorlast pointed out. There is no qualm among us former LCrs. Personally I think the attitude of "we ARE the Lord's Recovery, a cut above the rest" still holds. That is why I try to lift up and encourage ALL Christians, especially those in name only, to look to JESUS, the Author and Perfector of our Faith. I believe we (the posters and those walking in God's Love and Truth) are all trying to point people to Jesus, whether it be by prayer, our example (walk) and / or the WORD of our testimony. Carol G
__________________
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36) |
|
|
|
|
|
01-07-2013, 05:49 PM
|
#330 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 5: The Local Church in Action
The God-Men, page 107 "Some Christians are attracted to the Local Church by the zeal and apparent spirituality of its members. Others encounter it primarily through its undisguised abrasive actions toward Christian communities. The Local Church, wherever it exists, seems to follow a similar pattern of antagonism and proselytism. Max Rapoport, who formerly conducted training sessions for Local Church extension programs, testifies that those sessions focused on the theme of "taking the earth". Implicit in that theme was the idea of wooing Christians. Rapoport himself participated in inducing seventy members to leave a California church and join the LC. He also trained LC members in New Zealand, where conflicts erupted in many Christian congregations." ****************** I am about to head off for Bible Study tonight, so I haven't much time to post - but I wanted to put this next chapter into perspective, because it seems again to lead exactly where our conversation is going - into the nature of the interactions between the Local Church and non-LC Christians. Further to this topic, I wanted to relate a story about my time handing out RcV Bibles with Bibles for Canada, at the University of Manitoba campus. As you all know, BfC is the same as BfA; both are companies owned and operated by Living Stream Ministries. I said before that I wasn't initially told this by anyone at my Local Church (I still wonder if some of them understood that themselves, as I'd been told that Bibles for America loved to print the Recovery version because "it was the only version people actually read - and wore out!") Anyway, whether that was a deliberate lie told to me or a deliberate lie told to the person who told me this, I don't know... What I do know is that when we were given the Bibles to hand out, we were SPECIFICALLY told that we absolutely could not tell anyone that we were affiliated with any group whatsoever. If anyone asked, we were to tell them that "we are only simple Christians who meet to lift up the name of the Lord Jesus" or some such, NOT to say anything about the Local Church, about Witness Lee, or about how or where we meet - although we could direct them to Christians on Campus if they wanted fellowship. We could debate night and day, maybe, about why this imperitive directive was given, but the fact is it WAS given. And that, dear brothers and sisters, is a deliberate lie, and it's inexcusable. Christ said to the lying Pharisees "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44. Lying is a sin (Exodus 20:16, Leviticus 19:11), and of Satan. Doesn't Christ also admonish His followers in Matthew 5:19 "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Can anyone possibly excuse lying, given what the Word of God says? |
|
|
|
|
01-07-2013, 06:50 PM
|
#331 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: in Spirit & in Truth
Posts: 1,363
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
To NFnL's post #330:
As I was reading your post, what went through my mind was "Jesus. did not lie or deceive anyone. ". Should we not be imitators of Christ? This should tell us all, Jesus was/is not their first love. The LSM is. May we never leave our First Love, Jesus. Carol G
__________________
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36) |
|
|
|
|
01-10-2013, 07:16 PM
|
#332 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 5 Cont'd: The Recruitment Syndrome
The God-Men, page 108-110 "Many people who have joined the Local Church have undergone states of thought, feeling, or questioning and circumstances which we label the recruitment syndrome. This process helps explain why many people convert to the Local Church. (Citing extensively sociologists John Lofland and Rodney Stark, and their book "Becoming A World-Saver: A theory of conversion to a deviant perspective" the author continues....) The recruitment syndrome indicates a vulnerability to conversion.... it may not fit every type (case)... but accurately describes many. The factors which we identify with it are... a general absence of peace... a desire to possess "the mind of God" or achieve a divine purpose... an active seeking for a new approach... encountering a new group/perspective at a major turning point in your life (migration, career or school change, marital status or living arrangements). Many people, including Christians, may pass through the predisposing stages of the recruitment syndrome several times during the course of their lives. Adults as well as youth are candidates for conversion when their lives encompass all four factors at once. In the United States, 75 percent of the Local Church constituency has been gathered from Christian circles, including teens, collegiates, and adults (survey by SCP). A common pattern is for LC members to be warm, hospitable and engaging in their relationships with others, without revealing their Local Church affiliation. By investing time and energy, LC evangelists sometimes gain the confidence of Christian fellowships or entire churches. Then, typically, the Local Church people introduce an issue that causes a schism. The group who are siphoned off into an existing LC assembly or to form a new one are usually people characterized by the recruitment syndrome. Conversations and written communications with New Zealand Christians indicate that several churches there have been divided by a series of almost identical LC efforts. ************************ I only have one comment to make here - and that is that the "ideal conditions" for recruitment perfectly mirror where I was at when I first encountered a member of the LC. Now, was that God's plan or was it simple chance? I honestly don't believe in chance. I believe that God was working to bring me into a fellowship (which I needed) - even a wrongly centered one - precisely because I NEEDED fellowship.... but the fact that the LC people I met never revealed the true nature of the fellowship - it's focus - or the organization they were affiliated with is very telling. They might argue that they can't reveal their affiliation, as that might scare people off. But that admission reveals that they are very aware that their practices and their focus is something that should cause a person to do a double-take. It is a thoroughly dishonest thing to do, and makes their motives entirely suspect. That said, I will say I learned a great deal about what the Church should be, in my time in the LC. I also learned that as much as the LC seemed to walk with God, their theology and practice just weren't biblical. They seemed to talk the talk, but their walk was a completely different matter... and in the end, they were so focussed on a single man and a single idea, that there was no opening them up to anything else. No one was listening for the voice of the Living God, because they were so obsessessed with the idea that when He spoke, He HAD to speak just like Lee... I really believe He's standing outside their door. And It's heart breaking. It really is. |
|
|
|
|
01-11-2013, 08:02 PM
|
#333 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 5 Cont'd: Recruitment and Beyond
The God-Men, pages 114-117 "A group that has had experience attracting individuals in the recruitment syndrome often uses recruitment techniques very effectively to expand its membership.... LC evangelists project a warm, friendly manner, listen carefully, affirm others enthusiastically and seemingly possess infinite patience. Pre-converts may accept such personal attention as evidence of a true and simple spirituality that allows God to resolve personal tensions, gives purpose for living and produces special servants of God. Usually, pre-converts are invited to dinner at the homes of members, where conversation revolves around the Lord, the glories of being a Christian, and how God is working through a fellowship of believers who "pray-read", "call on the name of the Lord" and feel the presence of God. When an invitation to attend the fellowship meeting is extended, it is generally accepted, partly to repay the time and attention lavished on the pre-convert. The unity of thought and harmony of relationship in a Local Church meeting may strike the onlooker as quite impressive. Boisterous pray-reading may recall memories of joyful gospel singing. The heightened emotional pitch and activity of lively fellowship are pleasantly startling. The people read together, pray together and share their mutual concern for reaching others for Christ, with no variance of opinion or expression of disagreement. Harmony, commitment and God's presence seem to prevail. Christian sociologist Anthony (Tony) Campolo of Eastern College in Pennsylvania has observed, as has Harvey Cox (in Turning East), that God seems immediately accessible at such meetings. A new comer who "experiences God" and also experiences a lessening of tension may begin to invest more time in the fellowship. A critical point of embryonic commitment is soon reached. Some pre-converts make a total commitment after attending only a few meetings, feeling that "life is becoming a manageable enterprise again"... Most Local Church congregations are quite adept at retaining new converts... One person who did defect from their ranks credits LC people for being the most committed people he has ever encountered. They are willing to pay the price of committment regardless of the cost. The LC maintains loyalty and affection in newly converted members through a number of social mechanisms which seem to result in a sacrifice of individuality and personal worth, withdrawal from society and exaltation of the group and it's charismatic leader. Sociologists have observed that the pattern is strikingly similar in a wide variety of groups." *********************** |
|
|
|
|
01-12-2013, 09:40 AM
|
#334 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Chapter 5 Cont'd: Loyalty Mechanisms - Phase One
The God-Men, page 117 "A useful schema (model) for describing loyalty-producing mechanisms divides the process of commitment into two phases: an investment-divestment stage and a burial-resurrection stage (Rosabeth Moss Kanter, "Commitment and Community" pg 165-191). In the first stage, a new lifestyle is created by investmenting one's time, talents, and money in a group while concurrently divesting oneself from one's former fashion of life, friends, and interests. The second stage focuses on the psychological dimensions of loyalty, as the the individuals goals and identity are immersed in and subsumed by group goals and identity. The stages often overlap, producing a fluid, natural movement to ever-deepening levels of commitment. According to Max Rapoport, who once managed the national training sessions for Local Church leaders, the loyalty mechanisms used by most Local Church congregations follow that general pattern. Other ex-Local Church members agree." ************************* There are some excellent references provided by Duddy here, to books written by respected psychologists and sociologists on the nature of groups similar to the LC, and how they work on the minds and hearts of the individuals they take as members. I would particularly recommend them to those among us still struggling to come to grips with what happened to them in the LC. I believe that the fact that these books are written about groups other than the LC will make what they have to say more palatable; to those who still hold their experiences and time in the LC so near and dear. Perhaps this treatment of the subject, being more gentle, will allow them to see things that they might otherwise close their eyes to. With that said I have provided some links (embedded below), for those who wish to read further. These are free copies available on-line, with references and citations. I particularly recommend the first, as the similarities between this group and our own is rather striking. "Becoming a World-Saver" "Commitment and Community" |
|
|
|
|
01-19-2013, 07:18 AM
|
#335 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 5 Cont'd: Investment
The God-Men page 118 "The Local Church offers a host of time consuming activities and relationships for new converts to thrust themselves into. Members generally attend a Tuesday evening prayer meeting, and a Friday evening ministry meeting (held from 7:00 - 9:30 pm). On Sundays there is one meeting to observe the "Lord's Table" and another for worship and teaching. (Apparently the number of meetings and their days or structure have changed since this book was written; the schedule we had posted had been Tuesday night Ministry meeting, Wednesday nigh prayer meeting, Thursday night Home meeting, Friday night College meeting, Saturday morning brothers meeting, Sunday Lord's Day meeting / "prophesying" meeting ... and some Mondays I might visit a brother at 6 am on the way to work to read from the HWMR together. One could spend every day of the week immersed in the Local Church and Lee's word).. Local Church emphasis on attending meetings automatically discourages the development of intimate friendships or creative activities beyond the sphere of Local Church influence. College students have been discouraged from attending extra-curricular events except to discuss "spiritual matters". According to Max Rapoport, "Intimate friendship even among Local Church people, is totally frowned upon." Relationships are generally developed only through personal interaction at meetings. During a 1978 conference in Texas, Witness Lee declared friendship to be soulish and unspiritual, confessing that he himself doesn't "have a friend in the world". *********************** I'm fond of full schedules; I suppose they make me feel important. I've been absent from posting this week, because I've found (the Lord has shown me) I'm investing too much time myself here lately.  I must confess that my family has been craving more attention than I've been providing them, after my work hours are done. I have found that I really have to be intentional in my time management, and I don't mean focussing to cram more 'work' into my waking hours, but more sensitive to the needs of the those around me. Managing my time to ensure I have enough freedom to answer those needs as best I can... both aware of them, and responding to them; remembering it is my responsibility first and foremost to minister in my own house, as a husband and a father representative of Christ to His Church.Ephesians 5:25-27 "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless." Psalms 103:13 "As a father shows compassion to his children, so the LORD shows compassion to those who fear him." |
|
|
|
|
01-29-2013, 06:56 AM
|
#336 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
The God-Men, Chapter 5 Cont'd: Divestment
The God-Men, pages 118-120 "Dedication to LC life gradually leads to giving up one's former life. Divestment can also take the form of drastic renunciation. We have noted, for example, that Local Church policy discourages members from watching television, reading newspapers, going to movie theatres or maintaining cultural interests. If members persist, however, they do not talk about it. Divestment helps a group to maintain a controlled environment where even alert, gregarious members are effectively isolated from the social milieu... One Local Church mechanism used to generate (and test) loyalty in the divestment stage is "burning". Some time after joining a Local Church, converts may be asked to burn the physical possessions they are particularly fond of or that represent nonessentials. Unneccessary possessions are regarded as impediments to spirituality and any attachment to them as soulish and ungodly: "But God's intention with the seeking saints is to remove all material blessings and all physical enjoyments that they may find everything in God. Nothing in heaven nor on earth can be their enjoyment but God Himself." (WL:Christ & the Church Revealed, pg 129). One night on the shore of Huntington Beach, California, Max Rapoport and fellow LC members burned such things as their TV sets, radios, books, favorite clothes, wedding albums, athletic equipment and family photos. Apparently giving these things to the poor or non-member relatives is not in LC interests. Holding the two annual Anaheim conferences during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays is also part of the divestment mechanism. The scheduling of conferences during major holiday seasons has the effect of separating Local Church people from nostalgic celebrations with friends and relatives... No secular or sacred holidays are observed by the Local Church, which also mutes the sentimental associations of anniversarys and birthdays. Denunciation is a graphic divestment mechanism. For example, when Witness Lee denounced Max Rapoport during three days of public meetings, Lee told the church, and particularly Rapoports friends and associates, to renounce their ties with the apostate. Rapoport states that the psychological effect of these meetings contributed to the nervous collapse of one of his friends. The demands of investment and divestment continue throughout one's membership in the Local Church. The original cycle is calculated to produce at least two lasting effects. First, "bridges are burned" behind a new member, making it extremely difficult to extricate oneself from the Local Church. Members who are heavily invested in the LC, generally do not maintain previous social patterns. Indeed, on leaving the LC many ex-members have experienced emotional difficulties in making a transition to non-LC life. Moreover, a number of current LC members, aware of the bridges they have burned, have told Rapoport they feel trapped in the movement. They feel uncomfortable about returning to a society they had rejected when joining the LC. Another lasting effect of the initial investment-divestment cycle is the development of a sturdy psychological barrier between LC members and non-LC Christians. To experience God in an unorthodox way, LC members pay a price on both the theological and the physical level. As members invest in Lee's theological treatises, they divest themselves of any other source of spiritual enlightenment. They come to regard themselves as the only spiritual people whom God can use. The LC membership is continually exalted by Witness Lee as the sole focus of God's blessing and presence. Christians and Christianity are continually demeaned and derided. ********************** I have heard bitter ex-LC members refer to Witness Lee as "Witless Lee"; but that he most definitely was not. Witness Lee was far more clever and calculating than most people, even those who are a part of his movement, ever give him credit for. Much of the loyalty producing mechanisms he employed were not of his own invention - but he recognized their effectiveness when he encountered them, and adopted them into his movement, to gain what he arguably sought all along: A loyal following of his own. I have mentioned before that I see similarities between the Jehovah's Witnesses and the LC, but have you stopped to consider? Look at the investment and divestment mechanisms that SCP has outlined here: Investment includes: An all-consuming schedule of activities, cementing your time and attention on the Local Church. An exaltation by the group leader of your own prominence and significance in "God's unique move". Divestment includes: Renunciation of non-LC family ties and friendships, renunciation of non-LC hobbies and activities, abandonment of cultural norms or activities that keep one a part or aware of secular society, denunciation of Christians, Christianity, and any who dare to offer a dissenting opinion from Lee within the LC. The Jehovah's Witnesses use the SAME mechanisms to ensure the loyalty of their members; and I encourage you to investigate the matter yourself if you doubt it. Why not visit Jehovah's Witness Recovery Forum (<-- this is the link) and hear what their ex-members have to say.... and then look in the mirror. Are you a current member, who knows - knows - that you can't reconcile what you've been taught in the LC with what the Bible teaches, but are afraid to leave? Are you an ex-member who still struggles with finding new fellowship in "Christianity", and unable to reconcile what you've gone through with what you always thought was "the Lord's Recovery"? Steve Isitt (Indiana) is a graphic example of what kind of psychological and emotional damage this group can and has wreaked on it's members.... but he's far from alone. What happened to Steve didn't happen by accident, it was done to him on purpose. One day, those who did it to him (and you?) will have to answer for it. I ask you to consider with WHOM will you be standing on that day. Will it be with the beaten and the broken, giving of yourself to do Christ's work of ministry and healing; or will it be with those who have beaten and broken them? Are you too emotionally and financially invested in their work to do anything other than stand silently by? |
|
|
|
|
01-30-2013, 04:32 PM
|
#337 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 5 Cont'd: Maintaining Loyalty - Phase 2
The God-Men, page 121. "The second set of loyalty mechanisms in the Local Church aims at repression of the individual and exaltation of the church and Witness Lee. Local Church members whose commitment has lasted more than a year usually enter into the psychological process of "burial-resurrection". To an outside observer, the burial-resurrection cycle seems deleterious (seems to cause harm or damage) to the individual. Participants, however, generally experience the burial-resurrection stage as a natural, even desirable flow of events. Burial : Witness Lee teaches that the LC meeting is the true place of spiritual experience, where God's "best" revelation is channeled. Ex-members testify that failure to attend meetings brought social recrimination or pumblic harangue. Individual experience of God through a personal devotional life is not considered essential to true spirituality. Such de-emphasis on individual devotion eventually deflects believers from their identity as unique, gifted children of God. Witness Lee teaches that it is sinful and unspiritual to think and act as an individual; the individual must disappear, dying as an entity of inherent value and significance. The apex of spirituality is the active participation of believers in meaningful experiences in large church meetings. The "burial" of individuality is furthered by the fact that the elders and Witness Lee seem to exercise so much influence on matters of importance concerning individuals. Many Local Church members, instead of praying, seeking insights from Scripture, soliciting counsel from mature believers and deciding issues for themselves, yield their prerogatives of decision making to LC elders. An individual may thus surrender his or her accountability to make responsible decisions in all aspects of life, including occupations, schools, relationships, finances, etc. Sometimes the elders have determined God's will for individuals or families without even being consulted for direction. ***************** Thus begins the passage on Lee's use of the Biblical term "burial" (as in we have been crucified with Christ, and raised up with Him), VS Lee's subtle redefining of the term to mean something very different... something he was able to use to produce submission to himself and to his doctrines. Looking back, one must wonder that any of us ever fell for what he offered. The spirit of his ministry (to "recover" at term of Lee's) was ever one of submission by conformity - and that conformity required financially "buying" into the ministry: through conferences, hefty and continuous book orders, fees for trainings, etc. With Lee's evident focus on the earnings of his ministry, it should not have surprised anyone that he sued SCP for a large sum of money. This book hurt Lee where he could be hurt the most, in his wallet; and that by denying him new potential converts from the campuses where his loyal students were recruiting. The lawsuit was all too obviously not about an attack on Lee's character, or the nature of the Local Church movement. If it were, then the face-to-face meetings SCP had long requested could have resolved it (or, if not, even a babe in Christ would have recognized that it is right to suffer offense as Christ Himself did {see 1 Peter 2:20}). That however, would never have allowed Lee to "Recover" his financial losses, and he was far too proud to allow that to happen. |
|
|
|
|
01-31-2013, 11:13 AM
|
#338 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
01-31-2013, 11:42 AM
|
#339 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-31-2013, 12:03 PM
|
#340 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-31-2013, 12:07 PM
|
#341 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Quote:
And I think you are conveniently omitting a few essential facts. Both Inter-Varsity and Campus Crusade are long standing para church ministries that have had a tremendously positive impact around the world with young people. They are not affiliated with any particular church. Christians on Campus is an offshoot of the LC system affiliated with and staffed by the LC in each location and also serve as outlets for LSM materials. Their goal is to recruit young people to join their church. Instead of suggesting that Inter-Varsity and/or Campus Crusade were jealous of the LC system's campus work (far-fetched when you consider their size and reach) why not at least entertain the thought that they genuinely believed the LC system was a cult and wanted to warn people not to join it? IMHO what has happened in the LC system since Duddy was first published only serves to confirm his concerns. Imagine if he had Witness Lee stating that he was the only oracle of God on the earth since 1945? Or imagine if he had the quote by Benson Phillips that if you leave the LC system you cannot be sanctified. Or how about material on the ouster of Titus Chu for not following the one publication policy of a publishing company 3000 miles away? He could have a heyday with this crazy stuff! |
|
|
|
|
|
02-01-2013, 10:55 AM
|
#342 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
help
I AM OUSMANOU JOSEPH, A BROTHER OF LOCAL CHURCH OF YAOUNDE-CAMEROON. CAN YOU HELP ME TO HAVE THE ADRESS OF ELDER GUNTHER OF LOCAL CHURCH OF STUTTGART. THANKS. THIS IS MY EMAIL ADRESS: jousmanou@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
02-02-2013, 10:09 AM
|
#343 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 5 Cont'd: Getting Buried by Lee
The God-Men, pages 122-123 "In the Local Church, individuals retain value only as they support group goals and participate in group activities. Witness Lee devotes the final chapters of The All-Inclusive Christ to an exposition of true spirituality, the essence of which is subordination of individual goals to group goals. "Without submission there is no army. When we enjoy Christ to such an extent, everyone of us will be submissive to eachother. We cannot do otherwise. True love is in submission. We we submit one to another, we are really loving one another. If there is submission among us, the authority of Christ is among us." (WL The All-Inclusive Christ, pg 190). When evangelical Christians use the term "submission", they generally have in mind the biblical notion of "mutual, self-effacing deference (modest, humble, mutual respect)". But in Local Church parlance, "submission" means something else: a self-extinguishing repudiation of authentic individuality. Although submission and burial with Christ are both biblical themes, Witness Lee's use of them is related to Local Church authority rather than to liberation from sin. <Consequently>, concerning the believer's burial, Lee writes: "We have been buried with Christ; we have been finished! Do you realize how big a word 'burial' is? It would be good to write it in large letters and hang it in your bedroom - BURIED! Hang another in your dining room, another in your living room, and another in your kitchen. Everywhere there is a room - buried, buried, buried! I have been buried." (WL, Ibid pg 157). New converts may actually welcome deeper indoctrination that binds them closer to the group and that gradually eliminates from conscious thought any conflicting ties or emotions. <But> Such submission leads to a unique psychological disposition. Confident that the church is composed of "buried" individuals, Lee admonishes members never to challenge an elder's decision, regardless of it's correctness, lest they lose God's blessing in their lives. Members neither challenge that teaching nor confront Lee personally without serious results. Max Rapoport's biblical challenge led to his excommunication. ...A submissive church is unlikely to challenge the authority structure, however questionable it's decisions or practices might be." ********************* What Lee was building, not only in America but earlier back in Taiwan and China, was an autocracy (a system of government by one person with absolute power), not "the church". While Lee wrote and perhaps spoke of mutual submission; he in fact answered to no one - either inside or outside the Local Churches. Do you disagree? Can you point to an instance when Witness Lee himself submitted to the members of the Body of Christ? No precious ones, the kind of organization Lee built had been built before within "Christianity" and the World - we see it's echoes throughout the ages.... there is truly "nothing new under the sun" here. Lee's exaltation of himself and his own movement as "the one true church" has been heard before, countless times - but more and more so in these latter days. "But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness*, but denying its power. Avoid such people." (2nd Timothy 3:1-5) *Godliness: Dutifully and obediently fulfilling the righteous (good) requirements of God's Law through faith, trusting in the Atoning Work of Jesus Christ; eagerly looking for the return of the Master who bought us. Some Ex-Holdemans' have a ministry for those who have been mislead by the many wolves in sheep's clothing that have preyed upon the Flock of Jesus Christ; Wolves who claimed to be building the "One True Church". I strongly encourage you to visit this site, and read what these false teachers have taught. Quotes from Witness Lee's ministry are provided on this website as examples of the "One True Church" mentality - along with quotes from other such 'churches' and 'church leaders'. None of these ministries offered Freedom in Christ, but rather bondage to the group and it's leader. "Leaving a "one true church" is traumatic, and the healing process is slow. No matter which "one true" church a person leaves, the expelled usually struggles with residual fear and legalism, shock, depression, and the shunning by family members. It is very helpful to learn that all "one true" churches operate virtually the same to gain and keep extreme control over the behavior, thoughts, and emotions of their members. Many groups were started by a single man who believed, often through dreams and visions, that he had been called to reform Christ's Church." Visit "Comparing the 'One True Churches'" Here.
|
|
|
|
|
02-02-2013, 08:47 PM
|
#344 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
In recent years I've heard a phrase pertaining to a brother, "just get right with the brothers". Meaning the requirement is on him to get right with the elders. An elder can overstep his boundary, but since he's the authority he erroneously feels no responsibility to get right with the brother or sister he offended. If we use the Old Testament as an example, this is not the case. Samuel challenged Saul and Nathan challenged David. If we use a New Testament example, it does not say never challenge an elder but, "Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses." |
|
|
|
|
|
02-03-2013, 08:19 AM
|
#345 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues...
Chapter 5 Con'td: Resurrection of the Buried Believer
The God-Men, pages 123-124 "Local Church members regard their "burial" as a desirable state of affairs resulting in special measures of God's protection, care and affection. Sociologist, Pastor and Professor Anthony Campolo (www.redletterchristians.org) sees the end result as the passage from an individual ego to a group ego. The "buried" individual is "raised" anew to a greater form of existence, the group existence. Individuals are raised to a greater consciousness of group success, Campolo says, thereby adopting a perspective in which they receive stronger emotional benefits from group success than from private achievements. The individual ego is subsumed within the larger group personality, embracing its successes and sorrows. Members transcend their individual concerns, becoming thoroughly identified with church concerns. The member who no longer wrestles with submitting to authority, but consistently, willing exalts group goals, has been "resurrected" to a transcendent state. Contented Local Church converts regard their passage through the investment-divestment and burial-resurrection stages as an honorable but arduous journey toward glorification. Former members say they seldom felt abused by Lee but did feel confused about themselves, perceiving their qualms about the Local Church as temptations to be unspiritual or disloyal. *************** The tactics Lee employed to gain such loyalty of his membership were as effective as the tactics used amongst the other "One True Churches". And as the authors of that site note, it is our fallen human nature that allows us to willingly fall for such tactics. "Human pride desires elitism. We like to belong to the “best” group. Children want to be accepted by the popular crowd. Teenagers want to be on the winning team or in the best clique. Adults want whatever marks them as being one of the prestigious levels of society. One of the gimmicks of a well-known discount store is to offer card membership to people in certain professions only; this makes people want to “make the grade” and shop there. Christians usually try to steer clear of such obvious pride. But what happens when our Christian heart wants to belong to the best church? The one that is special? The one that is more spiritual, more godly? What happens to a Christian who goes looking for the “right” church? The “true” church? Those of us guilty of this very subtle elitism were easily snared by the bait of one of the “one true” churches. We saw a group that looked so very pious in their clothing, their demeanor, their speech, their dedication that we suddenly wanted to be a part of this spiritual clique. And as we began wearing their uniform, observing their restrictions, talking their talk, we were special. Though of course we spoke much about humility, we were still publicly portraying our heightened spirituality—just like the Pharisees with their broadened phylacteries and lengthened tassels. There do exist false brethren, false apostles, and false teachers in the world and in the churches. There are entire denominations that have no part of the truth of Jesus Christ, and a modern evil is to combine them all into ecumenism. It is not wrong to want to worship with a church that teaches the Bible correctly. It is not wrong to desire to walk closer with Jesus. The pride of elitism comes when we unite with a particular denomination and then turn and denounce all the rest of the Christian groups as non-churches. This would be as arrogant as one child claiming to be the only heir of his father and denouncing all his siblings as illegitimate. There is a one true visible church, an organism composed of all true believers everywhere on the globe. But there is no one true denomination, no one true organization. Jesus Christ evaluated the seven churches in Revelation as individual congregations and found some to be strong, some weak, and one dead. He looked at each congregation with its particular strengths and weaknesses individually. Each stood or fell on its own, without denominational umbrella coverage. What He did not do was recognize one denomination as His church. And that’s the first mistaken notion we must discard before we can be free. We must stop looking for the “one true” denomination. It doesn’t exist. But the One True Church does." |
|
|
|
|
02-05-2013, 06:43 PM
|
#346 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Our Reading Continues
Chapter 5 Cont'd: Lee's Authority
The God-Men, pages 124-125 "Witness Lee's voice of authority carries Papal weight. Lee issues three written messages and one tape-recorded message weekly, distributed by Stream Publications to all Local Church assemblies for memorization and recitation by the teaching elders. Departure from Lee's original text would be severely criticized. (according to interviews with ex-members). {Note that today the HWMR, full of Lee's ministry, is what is required reading on a daily basis for devout members.} Local Church elders and apologists are quoted as saying that Witness Lee is the embodiment of God's economy (authority/presence) on the earth today, just as the apostle Paul was in the life of the early church. Lee does not discourage that type of adulation. He does not dissuade members from confessing him as the oracle of God or the "apostle of this age" (ibid). In "Against the Tide", a biography of Watchman Nee, Angus I. Kinnear describes Witness Lee's participation in Nee's church in China in 1947. Witness Lee was an "activist" with a "volatile temperament" who was "energetic and authoritarian, thriving on large numbers, and has a flair for organizing people". ("Against the Tide" pages 131-132) Lee, Kinnear says, made certain structural changes in Nee's "Little Flock". "The effect of so much energetic organization however meant that something of the earlier freedom in the Spirit began to be lost. A clock-in system was soon to be introduced at meetings which, together with a full index of believers' addresses, employment, family, etc., meant that your failure of attendance could be quickly followed up. The Lord's Table was "fenced" and you were formally introduced and wore a badge with your name. No longer might you be accepted simply on your own testimony that you were born again and loved the Lord. Witness Lee was careful of course to disown the concept of "organization", explaining that, like a cup containing drinking water, these arrangements were merely the vessels for communicating spiritual things. But he exhorted everyone in the church to be submissive. "Do nothing without first asking", he urged. "Since the Fall man does as he pleases. Here there is order. Here there is authority. The Church is a place of strict discipline." (pages 132-133). Today Anaheim church members use the phrasae "catching the flow from the throne" to describe their attempts to sense the movement of God's Spirit in their large meetings. The "flow from the throne" clearly refers to Witness Lee's speaking as he teaches during the meetings (interviews with ex-members). Local Church members have little opportunity to discuss with church leaders any major disagreements or dissatisfactions they may have. In most religious movements mechanism exists for internal criticisms to be channeled through certain officials, thereby averting open criticism of the charismatic leader or governing body. In the Local Church, however, there is no mechanism to express dissatisfaction, either privately or publicly. To raise questions is "negative"; to criticize is unspiritual and divisive. (inteviews with ex-members). **************** It is fair to say, given the testimony of Angus Kinnear (son-in-law of T. Austin Sparks) , that Witness Lee's penchant for self-exaltation was already exhibiting itself back in 1947, many decades before his trip overseas to America. What wound up occuring on our shores was not some new failing of his, but was (rather) a monkey on his back from the very beginning... and one he seems to have continually fed, rather than wrestle with. |
|
|
|
|
02-07-2013, 06:58 PM
|
#347 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
Chapter 5 Cont'd: Fear
The God-Men, pages 126-127 "Periodically, Witness Lee humiliates specific Local Church members by naming them in public meetings as being "out of the flow", which members take to mean under the influence of Satan. Since Lee's dramatic utterances are in effect taken to be the voice of God, such accusations are a powerful blow to the individual, utterly destroying any vestige of self-value. Max Rapoport thinks Lee uses the harangues as object lessons to subdue potential dissonance in the church. One example of this occured several years ago, when the president of a Local Church in northern California collapsed under the pressure of public humiliation and was admitted for psychiatric care in a local hospital. Lee had rebuked him for evangelizing "hippies", whom Lee considered repugnant and unworthy of Local Church membership. That man eventually left the church. Generally, however, members who are publicly belitted remain in the church. Lee's teachings contribute to their fear of leaving. Witness Lee teaches that the Local Church will occupy a privileged place during the millennium, the thousand-year reign of Christ prophesied in the Bible. In contrast, almost all Christians outside the Local Church will remain in darkness and isolation during the millenium, after which they will join God and the Local Church in heaven. But those who are not fully spiritual should dread not only their millennial fate. Lee embellishes his teaching with anecdotes about deserters from Local Church who have encountered financial and physical crises, even death. Although victims of Witness Lee's diatribes may be afraid to leave because of spiritual or physical consequences from visits of divine wrath, the prospect of remaining within church ranks is not all that appealing either. Publicly humiliated members endure a phase of being ostracized and alienated from social interaction. Rapoport and others report that being "singled out" has contributed to emotional disturbances among a few Anaheim church members who subsequently required hospitalization. For the majority, however, the public exhortations are viewed as an appropriate way to stimulate a higher degree of spirituality. Lee calls it "breaking of the outer man". He seems to be masterful at engendering an exalted group spirit while simultaneously making certain individuals extremely uncomfortable. Finally, Witness Lee's teachings on sanctification may encourage a peculiar mentality of suspicion within the Local Church. According to Lee, a person's spirituality is sensed, "smelled", or intuited. To conclude, the Spiritual Counterfeits Project believes that those social dynamics are a natural consequence of Witness Lee's sensuous theology. In his theological system there are no intrinsic restraints to prevent their abusive application. His theology strips the Bible of its authority to pinpoint theological or moral abuses and to correct them." ******************* |
|
|
|
|
02-08-2013, 12:10 PM
|
#348 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-24-2013, 09:13 AM
|
#349 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 348
|
Duddy's Look Back on the Trial
This was offered up on another thread, and I thought it really belonged here as a kind of "concluding word" on this case. I offer this interview with Duddy, done many many years after the trial, to you brothers and sisters.
Neil Duddy and The Peculiar Teachings of The Local Church In 1979, Swiss publisher Schwengeler-Verlag published a short book on a movement of six hundred churches known as The Local Church. It's title "Die Sonderlehre des Witness Lee" translates in English as The Peculiar Teachings af Witness Lee. About 4,000 copies were sold to German-speaking Europeans. This book was contested in Swiss court by the Stuttgart, West Germany, Local Church, but the suit and subsequent appeal were dismissed. In 1981 the Local Church took the suit to Oakland, California. Schwengeler, and the two co-authors Neil Duddy and the Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) were the defendants. We present this interview and article about the teachings of the Local Church and its leader Witness Lee as a service to our readers who are interested in the many variations of new religious movements found in the world today. Some, as in the case of the Local Church, have their roots in the Christian faith and can be misidentified as orthodox denominations unless close scrutiny is made of the teachings and organizational methods. We also present this article as a tribute to the former editor of UPDATE, Neil Duddy and his wife Linda. They no longer live in Europe, and hopefully will find peace in their new world far removed from the several years of anxiety and pain documented in this article. However, the verdict of the court in the United States, as well as harassment on the part of the Local Church, will follow them into the future. We commend them to the prayers and concern of our readers, and ask for your own reflections about the situation in your country. Here in Denmark, the Local Church makes prominent use of the verdict of the trial. They have translated The decision of Judge Leon G. Seyranian of the Superior Court of the State of California into Danish and German. They have also widely disseminated a reflection on Duddy's book prepared by J. Gordon Melton. an American scholar who appeared in court on behalf of the plaintiff against Duddy and the SCP. The Local Church is appealing to those who recognize the authority and power of the courts to assert their correctness in this matter. But while making this assertion in the name of the Christian faith. and claiming the authority of a civil body as their grounds. they continue to crudely judge other Christian expressions of faith and judge the holiness of other Christian denominations. Introduction The controversy which began with the publication of a book in German by Neil Duddy about Witness Lee and his denomination called the Local Church is another episode which demonstrates the central importance of the courts in deciding matters of religious conflict. In fact, because the book was judged to be libelous and fines of several million dollars levied against the defendant and the publisher, other authors who may wish to appeal to the reason of the public by writing about a group or their beliefs may be restricted by fear of similar action. When discussion of religion can be challenged in a court, and the terms for appearing on behalf of one's own defense are so extravagant, few will be so bold as to risk stating controversial opinions. The supremacy of the court and its civil authority even for deciding matters of religious doctrine was strengthened in this case. The issue was libel. But the tactics used by the Local Church during the pre-trial preparations, and the witnesses called at the trial to testify about doctrine, denominational legitimacy and interpretation of difficult church teachings obscure the issue. Not only was a book on trial, but a serious and calculated defense of a religious body was undertaken in court. All attempts at extra-legal arbitration and out of court settlement were rejected by the Local Church. The defendant was pushed into bankruptcy by expenses incurred in preparation for the trial. Expert witnesses for the plaintiff included scholars of religion and clergymen of several faiths who argued about interpretation of scriptures and homiletic practices. Because a book printed in German was being tried in English, and conclusions about what had been written were argued only in the English language, discussion of the author's intention was hindered at several critical points. And, in a default trial (without the presence of the defendant) the court ruled that the Local Church and Witness Lee had suffered damages which cannot be erased but can be eased with the payment of several million dollars. While courts are necessary for the protection of the rights of citizens, and have become the arena for disputes of all types between citizens with grievances against each other, they have also inadvertently become a tool in the hands of those who know how to skillfully employ the protections of the law. Courts have become an expensive arena beyond the access of many people who have serious grievances. They have become expensive propositions for people drawn into a dispute by another party. The time and money consumed by this most recent trial demonstrate this unfortunate aspect of modern legal institutions. This interview does not intend to vindicate Duddy, Schwengeler-Verlag, or the Spiritual Counterfeit Projects. It returns to a discussion of religious doctrine and faith which was obscured in three intense years of emotional and economic ruin. This interview attempts to refocus the discussion of new religious movements on topics which are of a concern for Christians, questions of teaching, interpretation and authority. No appeal is possible to the good will of the Local Church. The Local Church is intent, it seems, to use legal proceedings against any who criticize their teachings. The Local Church has initiated or threatened legal action in over twenty-five instances. Each court appearance, and each verdict resulting in financial reward strengthens this conviction to appeal to a civil authority rather than to dialogue with other Christians. Another book with sales of 80,000 copies in America was challenged, but the courts awarded only $150,000 in punitive damages. Now with an award of at least $4,400,000, the Local Church is firm in its conviction to ignore the reasoning of Christian critics and continue to appeal to the business of law. We are concerned, however, that dialogue must continue with certain guaranteed freedoms. These cannot be argued for or defended only with teams of experts costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. We are also concerned with the current tendency to sue one's neighbor rather than to reason with him, to disagree, to have conflict and to suffer the pain of separation over irresolvable differences. To make a charge of libel about it something written from a particular religious viewpoint, and then to create obstacles preventing a fair trial by means of exorbitant legal expenses, emotional harassment and bevies of expert witnesses certainly impedes the process of dialogue between religions which seeks truth. Interview Update: You are hesitant to respect the claims of the Local Church that they are a legitimate Christian denomination. Would you please comment on this. Duddy: Witness Lee's association with Southern Baptists and Plymouth Brethren (1904 to late 1920s) is used to identify him as a mainline Protestant Christian. But he is not consistent about this identity at all. On the one hand, he speaks with great reverence for his mother and recalls that she taught Bible stories every night. She was a third generation Christian, and was educated in a Southern Baptist mission school. But Lee speaks of her in an exegesis of Matthew in quite a different way. Not only his mother, but millions of Christians are not real believers. They are tares among the wheat. They are "for Christianity, but they are not Christians." And, he claims that they are so numerous that it is difficult to find the wheat. Update: Many Christian denominations tend toward an exclusivism, however. Only those who have received their particular baptism, and adhere to their particular scripture interpretations are to be saved. Why do you challenge Witness Lee on this point when there are other Christian bodies displaying the same tendency? Duddy: As I said, there is a lack of consistency on this point. He is mainline Protestant when it serves his purposes, but he is condemning all Christian sects when he is speaking only to his Local Church members. For this reason it is difficult to relate to him as a fellow Christian. For instance, Witness Lee was a disciple of Watchman Nee who started a Plymouth Brethren type of house church in Foochow in 1922. Nee was disenchanted with the formalism of his previous Christian education. But over the years Witness Lee has rejected even the Protestantism of the Plymouth Brethren for social and theological reasons. He has repudiated his own association with them. He says Brethren influence should be "washed off like salt." That's a rather strong, clear image, I think. Elsewhere, when commenting on his early formation, Lee speaks of how he was "killed" by the teachings he was trained in. He repents of those teachings. By inference it is clear that he is speaking of his time in association with the Plymouth Brethren when he says, "After I was saved, I was brought in to an assembly of Christians to learn the good teachings of the Bible. I received teachings on prophecy and typology; but after seven and a half years, I discovered I had been killed by the teachings of the dead letter. I repented and came into the matters of the inner life." Update: It sounds metaphorical to me, as if he is speaking of some inner transformation with veiled references... Duddy: If it were only that, I suppose we could ask what he means in clear speech. But, at the same moment he is speaking of being killed by the Brethren, and criticizing the Brethren to the members of the Local Church, he testifies in court before Judge Seyranian that he himself is Plymouth Brethren. He also allowed for the testimony of expert witnesses as to his affiliation with the legitimate tradition of the Plymouth Brethren. This is the puzzling inconsistency that is disturbing. He is also vitriolic in his criticism of other Christian denominations. This is more than symbolic language, I believe, because he is teaching members of the Local Church what they should believe about other religious expressions of faith. This teaching is motivated by his convictions that the Local Church, and here I emphasize he is not speaking about the Plymouth Brethren but is speaking exclusively about his own denomination, that it alone possesses the true faith. He testified in court that denominationalism is not important. Millions of Christians are saved, he said to the judge, and they are all saved with different ways of church life. Whether they are Catholic, Protestant, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, the Brethren, they are all saved. But, again, I can point to the opposite statements when he is educating his own people. It is one thing to speak in public to defend one's interests in a court of law. But quite another to speak before members of one's church and define the doctrines of faith. In this context he says something quite different, quite exclusive: "it is absolutely unnecessary to consider which kind of church to join. {Whether) Presbyterian, Baptist, Nazarene, Lutheran, Methodist or Episcopalian, there is only one church. That one church is the Local Church. Besides the Local Church there is no other church. The universal church is the ultimate consummation of the composite of all the local churches." He is also in print declaring that practicing Roman Catholics are not to be saved. He teaches his members in classic anti-Catholic apocalyptic images, describing the Catholic Church as the eschatological whore of Babylon which, in the end, is cast in to the lake of fire. Update: That's pretty strong imagery, but I am sure you know it is not original with Witness Lee. He sounds in the mainstream of a long tradition of anti-Catholicism. By extension, I suppose he can also be critical of other Christian denominations too. Isn't that a mark of exclusivist theology? Duddy: Yes, but he goes further than most because in court he denies that this is what he teaches. In other words, when threatened he flees. But then he weaves theological explanations for what he means which raise deeper questions about his own integrity as a Biblical Christian. Update: What do you mean? Duddy: For instance, when questioned by the court about the meaning of his claim that the Local Church is the only church in the universe, he denied it. But his denial used language peculiar to the Local Church teachings, and so ought to be interpreted according to the use of the language in his own published teachings. This is where the problems begin for a Christian. In court, he answered the charge of exclusivism by saying, "wenever taught this way. The Bible teaches that all the believers of Christ are his members. So all the believers of Christ universally are the Body of Christ, in a universal sense. Then the believers are living in different localities throughout all centuries. Wherever they are they, as fellow Christians, should come together to worship God. That gathering is considered by the Bible as a local church. But, with his teachings about the validity of other Christian bodies for salvation, it is doubtful that he means just any other Christian gathering. He is referring to the gathering of people who believe in his teaching and organize within his Local Church. The universalism he speaks of is not a general universalism of Christian faith, but the universal domination of the Local Church. He has said that the universal church is realized in the local churches. In this context he can speak critically of all other denominations, and teach that the salvation they offer is not really salvation. But, it seems, he can also defend himself from any criticism because the language he uses sounds Christian. Without a deep knowledge of what he means with his words, one can facilely assume he is consistent with the general Christian understanding of the same words. But he's got his own interpretation of so many doctrines, that I doubt if he shares much with other Christian bodies. Update: Can you give some examples from his theology that would in form us about this point? Duddy: In my doctoral dissertation prepared for the Theology Faculty of Aarhus University, Denmark, I was concerned with Lee's understanding of salvation as presented in his writings and sermons. Even though a man can appear in court and in a few sentences answer yes or no to questions prepared by his attorneys, a thorough understanding of what he teaches, and the effect of those teachings upon future generations of members of his church, should be culled from more extensive sources. I do not accept his testimony in court, but that is a private matter. However, to demonstrate why I do not accept it, I have investigated his own works. There are certain elements in his writings that cannot be merely passed over as symbolic. For instance, Lee teaches that the church is God, or is a part of the "organism of the triune God". He constantly teaches that the whole of God becomes the local church and the local church becomes God. This is more than symbolic expression. His right to say this can be defended in court, but his ability to teach this, and what it implies, within the community of orthodox Christian churches cannot be defended. No Christian tradition, even given the leeway of poetry and artistic imagery, claims that the church is God, or that God comes into being through the church. God is. And the church, even in fundamental formulations of narrow sects of Christianity, is a body which results when sinful people turn to God through Jesus Christ. But no claim of similarity or equality can be defended according to Christian orthodoxy. Update: Your point is clear, but why does this become such a concern for you? Many groups teach doctrines which differ from orthodox Christian teachings. Duddy: Yes, but they do not claim to be Christian and non-Christian at the same time. They do not attack the churches on one occasion, and then sue for libel on another. But I don't want to speak af the particular legal situation which has affected me personally. There are more important implications for other Christian groups. The formulations of creed and conciliar proclamations of the church fathers define the orthodoxy of the Christian faith. Lee's teachings are beyond that which is recognized by most churches. But, because his teaching asserts the uniqueness and eventual supremacy of the Local Church, and even goes so far as to elevate the teaching to a position equal to God, he can then turn toward the other Christian churches with harsh judgement. There is a social problem which results from his theological proclamations. This problem has been experienced by the Christian bodies with some contact with the local churches. They seek to recruit members from already established denominations, influence members of established communions and seminaries, Bible colleges and fellowships. No ecumenical fellowship or respect for another Christian's faith seems possible for their general activity in society. Update: What other theological differences have you found? Duddy: One of the more interesting innovations is Lee's teaching that God should be eaten. This is curious because there are numerous Eucharistic denominations in which sacramental communion with God is highly esteemed But, Lee's teaching can be summarized by his own Americanism, "you become what you eat!" In his writings Lee says that God is desirous of being eaten by us. If we tell God that we want to eat him he will be very happy. We are his eating and his assimilating vessels. Eventually, God will become us. Praise the Lord! The only permissable conclusion is that if you eat God, you become God. This follows not only from this analogy, but in his teachings on regeneration, faith, transformation and glorification, Lee consistently points his listeners in this direction. Man becomes God. This is not only unorthodox for a Biblical Christian, but beginning with the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologies of eucharistic participation in God's life, it is unorthodox for even eucharistic Christian denominations. Update: Perhaps you are overlooking the influence of Chinese religions or private revelations in the development of the Local Church teachings? There seems to be influences of personalistic spiritualism characteristic of animism. Duddy: That's my contention. Lee is claiming Christian orthodoxy, but there are elements in his teaching that are clearly unorthodox and unfamiliar to other Christians. There are methods he uses in developing his doctrine that are quite unlike methods of other Christian groups. And, these differences influence his teachings and his ecclesiology. If it were only a matter of unorthodox theology and inspired preaching I suppose it would not be a matter of importance for Christians. Just another religion appearing on the horizon. But, the Local Church is claiming to be a part of the orthodox Christian tradition without clearly establishing the claim to orthodoxy according to traditional Christian definitions. And, they challenge their critics not with theological discussion, but with legal actions. Even their definition of Jesus is so different from what Christians mean when they speak of Jesus, that it is hard to understand how they can claim membership in the Christian body. Hard to understand, that is, until one balances that claim with their disdain for all other Christian churches, and their teaching that so many of those who are called Christian are really tares among the wheat, the true fruit of Christ being only the members of the Local Church. Lee teaches that Jesus is God the Father, that Jesus is the Holy Spirit, and that Jesus is the triune God. If you don't believe this you cannot be saved. He makes it more explicit in a pamphlet en titled What a Heresy--Two Divine Fathers, Two Life-Giving Spirits, and Three Gods that if you don't believe that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father, you are a heretic and don't believe the Bible. Undoubtedly, Lee is expressing here his own frustration with the divisions between Christian denominations that he experienced from his youth in China up until the present time. He is trying to contribute to an understanding of grace and the Trinity that creates unity, not division. But he does so simplistically. When he claims that those who hold the traditional concept of the Trinity "in actuality have three gods," he may attempt to clarify some confusing theology but he also moves beyond the basic faith of Christianity. Update: His writings are voluminous, and his writings are actually based on his preaching. How do you suggest that one even approach some of the questions you raise? It seems like years of careful sifting of material would be necessary, not to mention the theological task of interpreting his position. Duddy: There are many difficulties in understanding Lee's literature. Perhaps the most difficult of all is that one must first of all be in the "spirit" which Lee speaks of to understand anything at all. How you read the Bible, how you think about God, how you behave, all this is directed by being in the "spirit". But, this "spirit" is a creation of Lee himself, so he is putting forth the hermeneutical instrument at the same time he is criticizing any conclusion not consistent with his own method. It's a closed circle that doesn't allow for much discussion, dissent or critique. This is Lee's anthropological contribution. There are three parts to human being--body, soul and spirit. This tri-partite division is not uncommon, but Lee assigns the three parts specific roles. As his theology evolved in the 60s and 70s, Lee taught that the spirit can replace the role of the soul, thereby replacing human thought and understanding among real Christians. The mind is in the soul, and it follows impulses and intuitions from the spirit, which is fused to God. By this time Lee was characterizing human thought as satanic, so if you miss the emphasis of spirit over and against soul and body, you miss the heart of his teaching. God is fused to the spirit, and the spirit conducts all aspects of Christian life, morality and social behavior, not the soul. But, anyone unfamiliar with this anthropology (or questioning its facticity) would be relating to Lee, and also trying to understand Christianity and the Bible with human thought. This is behavior which comes from the soul, not the spirit, so is discounted. Again, we meet the circular construction of Lee's teachings. Conversion to his teachings is necessary for understanding them. Criticism of them amounts to a challenge by mere human thought, which is satanic, so is to be discounted. In this way discussion and criticism are impossible with the Local Church. Update: It is curious that although you mention the local churches, you constantly refer to Witness Lee himself. Are the churches autonomous, or is he their actual leader? Duddy: Anthropologists Morris Fred and Shih-Ming Tu argue that Lee is the charismatic leader of the movement known as the Local Church. The local church and the expert witnesses of the trial argue that he is not. I say he clearly is. Lee presents himself to the members of the churches as vox Dei, a medium through whom God speaks. The Local Church appears to agree, because they treat his own words in a fashion reserved for the Bible. That is, they use a method known as "pray-read" to hear his messages. "Pray-read" is a ritual in which the members shout or chant the Bible so that they can absorb the Spirit of God into their own spirits. They pray-read Lee's own words, and I conclude that similarly they seek to take his spirit into their own. However, the court disagrees with this conclusion. To disagree with the court is not a small matter, but again, I believe it is a problem of words being manipulated without a full knowledge of specific sectarian meanings. To deny his charismatic leadership, Lee uses a self-effacing description of himself as "just a little man." This sound humble and admirable. But it is also his teaching, without any historical basis, that Jesus was "a little man." I firmly believe that this expression has religious significance to his listeners that we do not hear. He is not asserting only his humility; he is putting himself forward according to an image he created for reference to Jesus. Update: Neil, you didn't appear at the trial. Could you explain the circumstances briefly that led to your decision to accept a default judgement? Duddy: The Local Church presented as the topic of their complaint 46 paragraphs of the book I wrote. Each paragraph is subject to a pre-trial discovery process and examination during the trial. The defense lawyer for the Spiritual Counterfeits Project was paid to attend sessions during which persons were called to give evidence regarding a particular paragraph in the complaint. This process took 145 days and bankrupted the SCP. It cost more than $400,000 to provide legal representation at the depositions. It would have cost me an additional $150,000 to mount a defense during the trial. I simply could not afford this. I had gone through the process of deposition at the request of the SCP, the co-defendant. But, when they declared bankruptcy on the first day of the trial I was left with the task of mounting my own defense. The Local Church was not interested in time or money, it seemed, but for me it was a formidable task to organize thousands of pages of witnesses' testimonies. All efforts for an out of court settlement were rejected by the Local Church, and mediation by the Christian Legal Society was out of the question for the Local Church. Update: There is also the language problem, a German book being tried in an American court whose language is English. Isn't this unusual? What sort of problems did you encounter? Duddy: The court judged three works. The manuscript entitled The God-Men, the book Die Sonderlehre des Witness Lee Und Seiner Ortsgemeinde, published in Europe, and the book The God-Men, An Inquiry Into Witness Lee and the Local Church, published in the United States and England by Inter-Varsity Press, were found in all major respects "false, defamatory and unprivileged, and therefore, libelous." But language was twisted and abused in order to substantiate certain claims, and to suggest an attempt on the part of the authors to prejudice the minds of the readers. An example of this is the use of the word "violent". The Local Church charged in one complaint that I said "...the Local Church is especially characterized by violent encounters with Christian communities." This description is also included in a booklet published by J. Gordon Melton and distributed in English, Danish, and German. We said that the Local Church had "stormy relations with Christian churches," which is easily demonstrable from their own publications. Lee encourages his members to recruit from Christian schools and churches, and to trouble Christian organizations. This is especially clear in his work The Kingdom where he encourages the church to be violent against Christianity (although we'll fall into the same trap of asking what he really means when he uses these words if he doesn't mean what they say). But, for purposes of the lawsuit, the German word stürmisch was translated as violent, whereas it is obviously the word for stormy. The Local Church knew this meaning, and they knew the difficulty of having a trial in a German-speaking country as the dismissal of the suit in Switzerland demonstrated. The tell-tale sign is to be found in the Local Church translation of Melton's pamphlet into German. There they translate this word as gewaltsam, violent, knowing that the credulity of the German people would be stretched to think that a word like "stormy" constituted a serious crime of libel. So, by insisting on the word gewaltsam they have fabricated language which never appeared in Die Sonderlehre. The word we used was stürmisch, not gewaltsam. That is a very important distinction. Update: In conclusion, have you any final point you would like to emphasize for our readers? Duddy: In The God-Men I wrote that we did not attempt to answer such questions as "Is Witness Lee a Christian?" Such a question is inappropriate. The nucleus of our book was to ask if the doctrine of Witness Lee and the Local Church present a picture of God, Christ, the human condition and Christian responsibility that is true to the content of biblical revelation. Now, drained of all resources and emotional strength af ter several years of battle with an uncompromising Local Church ideology, I still suggest that the question of whether Lee is a Christian or not is inappropriate. But I suggest that his own actions and the actions in court encouraged by his professional staff raise legitimate questions about his understanding of the compassion and mercy or God, and the forgiveness of Jesus Christ which is revealed in Scripture. He has avoided every possible avenue of negotiation and reconciliation in order to prove a point. And, he has used resources and experts beyond ordinary means to do so. What is he really protecting? What message is he really trying to speak in the world?" ********************* I can't say for certain what message Lee, and now LSM (who has continued to make lawsuits their practice - even establishing their own Prosecutorial law firm, AKA "DCP"), meant to get across... but I do know what message we've received; and it ain't Paul's four words "Christ and Him Crucified". No, folks. It's another four words, and to put that message in plain and vulgar language, I'd say what Lee said was "Don't f*ck with me." |
|
|
|
|
03-26-2014, 09:45 AM
|
#350 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Norman Oklaoma
Posts: 122
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
__________________
Christ is the answer to every question and the solution to every problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-26-2014, 12:28 PM
|
#351 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
"Now get out there and sell! Sell! Sell!"
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
03-26-2014, 02:02 PM
|
#352 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,661
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
03-27-2014, 11:49 AM
|
#353 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
Elden1971, are you suggesting the church in Denver sending back the shipment precipitated the entire locality being quarantined and Witness Lee sending Gene Gruhler to Denver in it's aftermath? |
|
|
|
|
|
03-27-2014, 11:50 AM
|
#354 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: Our Reading Continues
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-29-2022, 09:05 PM
|
#355 | |
|
Admin/Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,059
|
Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church
An historic oldie that some may be interested in. Some quotes and discussion.
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
