Sacrifice and Sail On - Book by Philip Lin

[TLFisher]

Deleted for now.

[TLFisher]

http://www.amazon.com/Sacrifice-Sail...rds=philip+lin

A book brought to my attention.
Those with Kindle Unlimited can read for free. I paid $20. Was the $20 worth it?

I will just say those in the local churches who think the late 70's and 80's turmoil's is ancient history, think again. Brother Lin, has brought it back to the surface through his perspective.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

http://www.amazon.com/Sacrifice-Sail...rds=philip+lin

A book brought to my attention.
Those with Kindle Unlimited can read for free. I paid $20. Was the $20 worth it?

I will just say those in the local churches who think the late 70's and 80's turmoil's is ancient history, think again. Brother Lin, has brought it back to the surface through his perspective.

Thank you for sharing the link to this book. What comes to mind is Philip Lin's statement:

I know in my conscience you brothers are right according to the truth, but in my culture I must be loyal to Brother Lee.

With that in mind, I wonder how anyone could be expected to place any trust in what Lin writes.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Thank you for sharing the link to this book. What comes to mind is Philip Lin's statement:


With that in mind, I wonder how anyone could be expected to place any trust in what Lin writes.

Just taking a look at the table of contents reveals to me a mass of propaganda.

Terry, am I lying?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Just taking a look at the table of contents reveals to me a mass of propaganda.

Terry, am I lying?

At least in the title Lin states "My View of Witness Lee" although in the Preface Lin states, "Under the anointment and guidance of the Holy Spirit I have completed the writing of this book." I do know that because of some of WLs failed businesses and harsh church practices in Taiwan he was not loved by everyone. It would be interesting to obtain an overall fair biography of WLs ministry etc in Taiwan but it doesn't look we will with this book. I for one will not drink the kool-aid.

It doesn't appeal to me at all because I agree with Awareness, there appears to be a considerable amount of propaganda. I can only go by my own observations and my experience when I was in the LC and it wasn't favorable as I became closer to those trained by WL in Anaheim.

If you want the book free you could probably sign up for "Kindle Unlimited" 30 day trial, obtain the book and then if you don't want to continue with Kindle Unlimited cancel the trial before the 30 days are over. I presume you still keep the book.

[aron]

I have looked at the back cover. It uses the word "love" nine times, describing "an intimate life of love with the Lord", and so forth. Now, I don't know, maybe Lee loved the Lord Jesus Christ tremendously. I won't argue with that.

But maybe "his heart was darkened by greed", also? How are we to measure such things of the heart? Whether someones heart is "dark" or "full of love for the Lord" are subjective measures, and in Lee's local churches we habitually received subjective measures as if they were objective reality. So if a printed encomium by one of his disciples says that Lee's heart was full of love for the Lord, all we can do is take it at face value. How can we argue with such words? We cannot.

What we can do, however, is look at deeds. Look at actions. The Greatest Commandment is to love the Lord God with all our heart and soul and strength, and love our neighbor as ourselves. The first part is not easy to assess (unless you are writing for LSM, of course), but the second is easier to see. Lee's actions showed that he loved other things; when Lee's neighbor interfered with these other things (the ministry, his teachings, his organization, his distribution of publications, his control of the local churches) then the neighbor got thrown under the bus. John Ingalls was called his closest co-worker, until JI wasn't convenient to the cause, then everything changed. I don't see love demonstrated there. Nor with many others whom he raised up and quickly threw down. The records are there. The turmoils, the rebellions, the storms, the lawsuits. Discord after discord.

So "love" as used in local church parlance can get dried up pretty quickly if you don't do exactly as they say. They love your participation and support, but they don't love you.

Secondly, who is this Jesus Christ that Witness Lee loved so much? The one in the Bible, or the one he constructed from his imagination? Was this the real Jesus revealed to us in the Word of God, or a construction convenient to Witness Lee's ministry? I am tending toward the latter, the more I examine Lee's Bible study messages.

Regarding the OT text, Jesus said, "These things were written concerning Me" (Luke 24:44; cf Rom 15:4). Lee said, "No they were not. They were often merely the vain imaginations and fallen concepts of sinners".

The Bible says, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (Matt 4:4) Lee said, "Not by every word but by some; some are profitable, and some are not". Naturally the words which Lee lined up with his hermeneutics were "revelatory of Christ", and the words which couldn't fit into his theology got abandoned. And it wasn't just one or two verses, it was chapter after chapter. Look in the OT for chapters of footnote-less scriptures. No cross-references either; merely a few disparaging remarks: "Natural", etc.

The writer of Hebrews held up the OT and said, "We see Jesus". (2:9) Lee said, "No we don't. We see a fallen man writing according to his natural concepts."

Peter, standing on Pentecost, said that David being a prophet foreknew and spoke of the Messiah who was to come after him. (Acts 2:30,31) Lee said, "No, David was a sinner. He fornicated with Bathsheba, numbered Israel in his pride, murdered Uriah, etc." So when David wrote, "God rescued me" (Psa 34:4), Lee panned that and said "No, David rescued himself". Lee ignored the coming Messiah.

Paul said that the Psalms are the "word of Christ" (Cor 3:16); Lee said, "No, they are often merely words of a fallen man." Jesus said that David was speaking of Him in Spirit (Mark 12:36; Matt 22:43); Lee said David was merely speaking from and of himself, his fallen soul.

Who is fallen, here? Who is natural? You can keep your love if it's manifested this way; I don't want it. Not if you do this to the Bible. I don't know what kind of Christ is being promoted, but my job is to reject it. I really don't want to know. "Truly I tell you, I don't know you". Matt 25:12

[Freedom]

This is from the preface:

When I wrote this book, I was very cautious and faithful. The Holy Spirit strictly controlled me not to mold Witness Lee into a so-called “perfect person.” Of course, I also did not hesitate to describe in detail his admirable traits , which merit recommending. I hope that everything I wrote about Witness Lee in this book will be beneficial to future generations. This was the governing principle in my writing.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (Kindle Locations 211-214). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

I wonder if this statement is an attempt to solicit trust from the reader? This also begs the question of why would Lin have any idea in the first place of describing a "perfect" Lee. That is, unless, perhaps the LC has the tendency to view Lee as such a person.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

If you want the book free you could probably sign up for "Kindle Unlimited" 30 day trial, obtain the book and then if you don't want to continue with Kindle Unlimited cancel the trial before the 30 days are over. I presume you still keep the book.

Unless someone gives me a reason otherwise I won't waste signing up for Kindle Unlimited on this book. Besides the table of contents, all I had to read to kill it for me is: "Witness Lee, a bondslave of Christ Jesus."

And why $20 dollars? Who published this book? It doesn't say. Maybe Lin expects to tap the LC Lee zealots. They're use to being fleeced. A fool and his money kinda thing.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

I have looked at the back cover. It uses the word "love" nine times, describing "an intimate life of love with the Lord", and so forth. Now, I don't know, maybe Lee loved the Lord Jesus Christ tremendously. I won't argue with that.

But maybe "his heart was darkened by greed", also? How are we to measure such things of the heart? Whether someones heart is "dark" or "full of love for the Lord" are subjective measures, and in Lee's local churches we habitually received subjective measures as if they were objective reality. So if a printed encomium by one of his disciples says that Lee's heart was full of love for the Lord, all we can do is take it at face value. How can we argue with such words? We cannot.

In the introduction Lin says: "This is a book about Witness Lee’s personal Christian walk."

I have to ask the question, what does he know about Lee's Christian walk? He may have been around Lee all the time, but that doesn't mean he knows how much Lee loved the Lord or what his heart was like. I think those in the LC have always had the tendency to make subjective statements about other people, like "so and so really loves the Lord", "so and so is lukewarm", etc.

That being said, I think you can know a little about someone's heart through their actions, so it would make sense to take into account all of Lee's actions, not just those that put him in a positive light.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

... all I had to read to kill it for me is: "Witness Lee, a bondslave of Christ Jesus."

Yes, he was supposedly 'today's Paul'. Didn't you know that? And if you'd prayerfully receive this recommendation you'll get much profit. Otherwise, your heart is probably dark and hard, and you won't be able understand the revelation of God's current oracle.

Blah, blah, blah. Empty words sold for money; words full of carefully contrived appearance, but devoid of substantiation.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the introduction Lin says: "This is a book about Witness Lee’s personal Christian walk."

...I think you can know a little about someone's heart through their actions, so it would make sense to take into account all of Lee's actions, not just those that put him in a positive light.

Also consider the writer: consider Lin's own personal Christian walk. If Phillip Lin has been elsewhere quoted, saying that he put his loyalty to his and Lee's shared Asian culture and heritage, above the righteousness and truth of the Bible, and above his conscience, and above his love for the brothers, how much can you trust Lin's recommendation of Witness Lee, however scrupulously presented? Where do his loyalties lie here, to God or to man?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Empty words sold for money

$20. I guess hoping to tap all the Lee fanatics. Is there a minimum order requirement for all the localities?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

$20. I guess hoping to tap all the Lee fanatics. Is there a minimum order requirement for all the localities?

With a retail price of $57.08 plus S&H, $20 is supposed to be a "bargain."

Those with a Kindle reader can get it for free. How good is that!

Btw, "sacrifice" was supposedly Lee's last official words. It was a frameable quote you could buy at the training.

"Sail on" was a reference to Christopher Columbus' exhortation in the face of mutiny. Lee saw any and all feedback to his ministry, which was not exuberant cheerleading, as persecution from God's enemy.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"Sail on" was a reference to Christopher Columbus' exhortation in the face of mutiny. Lee saw any and all feedback to his ministry, which was not exuberant cheerleading, as persecution from God's enemy.

Yes if you express any kind of personal opinion in the local churches this is mutiny. "Rebellion" they call it. Yet the Maximum Brother is somehow exempt from this peril. Somehow the MB is so transformed, either positionally as God's Deputy (shades of 'ex cathedra') or dispositionally as God's premierly transformed, loving and humble bondslave, that every expressed word is "God's oracle". No opinion from the MB, just manna from heaven.

So if you can swallow this fully fleshed out and formally declared organizational despotism, then by all means, sail on. The good news is that you never need to think again. Just do whatever MB tells you, and sail on. If your conscience protests, ignore it. If the Bible can't square up, ignore it. If 2,000 years of Christian activity, both professed and acted upon, are overturned, ignore that. Sail on.

[Freedom]

I am reading the free Kindle version. I should point out that while this book is pro-Lee, it brings up the matters of both Phillip Lee and Daystar. Both these issues are put in a positive light by Lin. It is interesting that the LC is willing to let these matter be brought up, considering that they have not addressed Steve's writings on these same issues.

Maybe they wanted to put something in writing that could be considered the "final word" on these issues. That is my best guess.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I am reading the free Kindle version. I should point out that while this book is pro-Lee, it brings up the matters of both Phillip Lee and Daystar. Both these issues are put in a positive light by Lin. It is interesting that the LC is willing to let these matter be brought up, considering that they have not addressed Steve's writings on these same issues.

Maybe they wanted to put something in writing that could be considered the "final word" on these issues. That is my best guess.

How in the world do you portray Daystar and Phillip Lee in a "positive light?"

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Who published this book? It doesn't say.

Self-published probably. You can actually write and sell a book on Kindle with $0 invested. You can also have conventional books printed and only pay for the copies you sell with CreateSpace. Anyone can be an author these days.

Just Google CreateSpace and Kindle to learn how. I read this book about it: http://amzn.to/1v33uCi

I'm waiting for Steve Isitt to jump on this.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How in the world do you portray Daystar and Phillip Lee in a "positive light?"

Well for someone who claims that due to his culture he must be loyal to Lee, I suppose anything can be twisted.

Lin quotes Sister Lee as saying that the Lee father/son duo was somethig "admirable" and "the Lord's doing". I can post some quotes later along with what is said regarding Daystar.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Well for someone who claims that due to his culture he must be loyal to Lee, I suppose anything can be twisted.

Lin quotes Sister Lee as saying that the Lee father/son duo was somethig "admirable" and "the Lord's doing". I can post some quotes later along with what is said regarding Daystar.

Please do quote what you can.

Did you know that "sister" Lee was not Phillip's bio mother? Never did learn what happened to her. Perhaps the book reveals this.

[Freedom]

Daystar is portrayed as a business venture meant to help the saints for migration. Lin claims that Lee decided to shut the business down when they realized that motorhomes weren't selling. The reader might get the impression that it was an honest effort by Lee, and he had everything under control.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Please do quote what you can.

Did you know that "sister" Lee was not Phillip's bio mother? Never did learn what happened to her. Perhaps the book reveals this.

I didn't know that. I have only read maybe 1/3 of the book so far. There is a lot of nonsense to sift through. Kindle doesn't let me generate quotes from my phone, so I have to use the desktop version to do that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Daystar is portrayed as a business venture meant to help the saints for migration. Lin claims that Lee decided to shut the business down when they realized that motorhomes weren't selling. The reader might get the impression that it was an honest effort by Lee, and he had everything under control.

Lin knew enough to discern the facts from the spin. He chose the latter.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

I will just say those in the local churches who think the late 70's and 80's turmoil's is ancient history, think again. Brother Lin, has brought it back to the surface through his perspective.

Do you think Lin would dare publish this without "fellowship" from the Blendeds? But why would they possibly extend their "right hand of fellowship" to this biographical project from one of the rank-and-file? Why risk stirring up the hornets' nest? My thoughts:

1. Now when prospective members being recruited hear of failed business deals and angry "investors" demanding their money back, hear of whispered "turmoils" and "rebellions" in days gone by, they can just tell them, "Read bro Lin's book. He addresses all this. Old news."

2. There is benefit to them from distancing themselves from it. Then if it blows up they can say, "That was brother Phillip Lin." They can say that it wasn't the official line.

3. And if it goes over relatively well with the reading public, they have the veneer of objectivity, like this was an independent source of information about Lee. What would it look like for a publishing house to print a biography of the owner and sole author of the publishing house's output? How truthful and objective would you expect that to be? So now they can pretend Lin's biography is independent, to outsiders, while everybody in the local church system knows that independence is the road to rebellion. And I doubt sincerely that Mr. Lin is being rebellious here. This is not Steve Isitt. This is not "fair and balanced". This is hagiography. The cover makes that clear.

(Hagiography: a book or report about someone's life that makes it seem better than it actually was)

[awareness]

Okay his book is published by Sail On Publishing, with one employee and owner: Philip Lin.
http://www.nonprofitfacts.com/CA/Sai...ublishers.html

http://nonprofitlocator.org/organiza...-on-publishers

http://www.manta.com/c/mb5pkcm/sail-....google.com%2F

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

His book is published by Sail On Publishing, with one employee and owner: Philip Lin.

What?!? And it doesn't say "affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee"?!? This is dangerous precedence, of unaffiliated ministry! What ground, pray tell, does he minister from?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Self-published probably. You can actually write and sell a book on Kindle with $0 invested. You can also have conventional books printed and only pay for the copies you sell with CreateSpace. Anyone can be an author these days.

Just Google CreateSpace and Kindle to learn how. I read this book about it: http://amzn.to/1v33uCi

I'm waiting for Steve Isitt to jump on this.

I am sure Steve won't take that step. He doesn't want to get into a legal tassle with LSM. LSM has their lawyers ready to pounce.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Dave

I am sure Steve won't take that step. He doesn't want to get into a legal tassle with LSM. LSM has their lawyers ready to pounce.

Further reason to speculate that the Blendeds are somewhere in the background behind Phillip Lin, silently smiling and nodding their heads.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay his book is published by Sail On Publishing, with one employee and owner: Philip Lin.
http://www.nonprofitfacts.com/CA/Sai...ublishers.html

http://nonprofitlocator.org/organiza...-on-publishers

http://www.manta.com/c/mb5pkcm/sail-....google.com%2F

It's interesting that Sail On Publishing has 501(c)(3) status or non-profit status. He is not indicating that all proceeds will go to the feeding of the poor or to his church or? He is acting like Lee! Apparently trying to make a profit off of WL's name.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

What we can do, however, is look at deeds. Look at actions. The Greatest Commandment is to love the Lord God with all our heart and soul and strength, and love our neighbor as ourselves. The first part is not easy to assess (unless you are writing for LSM, of course), but the second is easier to see. Lee's actions showed that he loved other things; when Lee's neighbor interfered with these other things (the ministry, his teachings, his organization, his distribution of publications, his control of the local churches) then the neighbor got thrown under the bus. John Ingalls was called his closest co-worker, until JI wasn't convenient to the cause, then everything changed. I don't see love demonstrated there. Nor with many others whom he raised up and quickly threw down. The records are there. The turmoils, the rebellions, the storms, the lawsuits. Discord after discord.

So "love" as used in local church parlance can get dried up pretty quickly if you don't do exactly as they say. They love your participation and support, but they don't love you.

The love you see demonstrated in regard to a Max Rapaort, a John Ingalls, a John So, etc is a type of conditional love as seen in Luke 6:32:

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.

You don't see a love typified by 1 Corinthians 13:4-7

Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

Just taking a look at the table of contents reveals to me a mass of propaganda.

Terry, am I lying?

When I'm in jury duty next Wednesday, I will have most of the day to decipher through the propaganda and spin.

[Freedom]

A quote on the beginning of Phillip Lee's LSM involvement:

Because there were many business affairs in conducting the Life-Study of the Bible, Brother Lee needed one full-time serving one to take charge of it, but he could not find a willing and suitable brother to bear this responsibility. After everything, he asked his son Brother Lee Menzer (Philip Lee) to help. At that time, Brother Philip Lee had a small business in hand, and Brother Lee asked him to put down his business to take this post. Brother Philip willingly accepted this job in order to support his father’s ministry work. So he gave up his small business and wholeheartedly took and dived into his father’s literary ministry work.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (Kindle Locations 1262). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

[Freedom]

Lin on the legacy of Phillip Lee:

Recalling the beginnings of the Anaheim LSM Station in 1974, I think about how everything was ragged and rough, without financial support and with a shortage of manpower. It was a very tough start. However, after years of labor, it became a rather big and well-organized publisher. It was the Lord’s blessing. It was also the hard work of Brother Philip Lee and many faithful saints who gave their whole being to the ministry of Witness Lee. It is appropriate to describe the beginning of LSM by quoting Brother Lee’s wife, Sister Lee, as she told me: “this was the result of the father with his son, two men beginning work like a “swap-meet.” It is admirable. It is also the Lord’s doing.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (Kindle Location 1292). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

A quote on the beginning of Phillip Lee's LSM involvement:

I would like to see, in Lin's book, the quote by Witness Lee where he acknowledged his son's rather "unspiritual" condition, and defended his putting him in charge, by saying that it was a "business decision". I would like to see if Phillip Lin has the brass to print that statement by God's supposed humble little bondslave. I doubt it but I am willing to be surprised.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

I would like to see, in Lin's book, the quote by Witness Lee where he acknowledged his son's rather "unspiritual" condition, and defended his putting him in charge, by saying that it was a "business decision". I would like to see if Phillip Lin has the brass to print that statement by God's supposed humble little bondslave. I doubt it but I am willing to be surprised.

I haven't seen that yet. More quotes will be forthcoming as I have time. There are a number of contradictions in this book, even by Lee himself.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Freedom

There are a number of contradictions in this book, even by Lee himself.

How is that possible?!

[Lisbon]

Did you ever hear of a bond slave bilking his master and friends out of millions of dollars? Or did you ever hear of a bond slave excommunicating his masters leading employees from two thousand miles away. Don't talk about love. Don't talk about caring.

You know the Catholics do elect their pope. The lc only has a form of apostolic accession where no members have any input. They are all so humble and meek.

Lisbon

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by aron

Do you think Lin would dare publish this without "fellowship" from the Blendeds? But why would they possibly extend their "right hand of fellowship" to this biographical project from one of the rank-and-file? Why risk stirring up the hornets' nest? My thoughts:

1. Now when prospective members being recruited hear of failed business deals and angry "investors" demanding their money back, hear of whispered "turmoils" and "rebellions" in days gone by, they can just tell them, "Read bro Lin's book. He addresses all this. Old news."

2. There is benefit to them from distancing themselves from it. Then if it blows up they can say, "That was brother Phillip Lin." They can say that it wasn't the official line.

3. And if it goes over relatively well with the reading public, they have the veneer of objectivity, like this was an independent source of information about Lee. What would it look like for a publishing house to print a biography of the owner and sole author of the publishing house's output? How truthful and objective would you expect that to be? So now they can pretend Lin's biography is independent, to outsiders, while everybody in the local church system knows that independence is the road to rebellion. And I doubt sincerely that Mr. Lin is being rebellious here. This is not Steve Isitt. This is not "fair and balanced". This is hagiography. The cover makes that clear.

(Hagiography: a book or report about someone's life that makes it seem better than it actually was)

You make good points, aron. I'll add one more: If the Blended Brothers and LSM leaders did, in fact, put their stamp of approval on this book, it could allow them to say, "See, we do make room for other publishers!"

Originally Posted by Philip Lin's book

The name Sail On Publishers comes from this theme and is intended to encourage readers to follow suit and to "Sail On"! Sail On Publishers is a nonprofit publisher, which has been registered in California in order to be the first publisher of this book.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ. Sail On Publishers. Preface.

As an aside, don't individuals still have to pay tax on earnings paid to them by a nonprofit?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

I would like to see, in Lin's book, the quote by Witness Lee where he acknowledged his son's rather "unspiritual" condition, and defended his putting him in charge, by saying that it was a "business decision". I would like to see if Phillip Lin has the brass to print that statement by God's supposed humble little bondslave. I doubt it but I am willing to be surprised.

Phillip Lin refers to Phillip Lee as Brother Phillip Lee. Whether Phillip Lee was ever regenerated, I don't know. All signs in his character and behavior does not indicate so.
I do know in the last few months of his life while Phillip was slowly dying from cancer, former elders reached out to Phillip Lee only for their letters to be returned to sender.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Terry

I do know in the last few months of his life while Philip was slowly dying from cancer, former elders reached out to Philip Lee only for their letters to be returned to sender.

Terry, I wasn't familiar with this. Is this posted about elsewhere?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Freedom

A quote on the beginning of Philip Lee's LSM involvement:

You got that right!

Originally Posted by aron

I would like to see, in Lin's book, the quote by Witness Lee where he acknowledged his son's rather "unspiritual" condition, and defended his putting him in charge, by saying that it was a "business decision". I would like to see if Phillip Lin has the brass to print that statement by God's supposed humble little bondslave. I doubt it but I am willing to be surprised.

In the above quoted passage, is Philip Lin implying that Philip Lee may have been more involved in ministry affairs than what his father claimed? Perhaps?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

I would like to see, in Lin's book, the quote by Witness Lee where he acknowledged his son's rather "unspiritual" condition, and defended his putting him in charge, by saying that it was a "business decision". I would like to see if Phillip Lin has the brass to print that statement by God's supposed humble little bondslave. I doubt it but I am willing to be surprised.

The following quote is the closest Lin gets to admitting there were any issues with Phillip Lee, and by the end of the quote it is clear that Lin's attitude is the problem was those who took issue with Phillip Lee:

With the new hall ready for use, it needed many supplementary facilities, such as a sound system, an audio system, a video system, and so forth. All of these systems were carried out by Brother Lee’s son, Brother Lee Men-tze (Philip Lee), with the assistance of two or three electrician brothers. They worked day and night every day with very minimal sleep in the night... This successful evidence had gained Brother Lee’s recognition and trust with regard to Philip Lee’s faithfulness and his ability to execute. This was one unique reason that Brother Lee continued hiring him to take charge of the LSM Leviticus services. Because the work kept him up late in the night— working on the video/ audio systems and the arrangement of the interior rooms— and he felt mounting excessive pressures upon him, Philip Lee’s physical and mental conditions were affected enormously, and his physiological condition changed abruptly. As a result, he became easily irritable, and inadvertently offended people easily. Thus, he offended a few people who did not know anything about him except that he was Brother Lee’s son, and they initially resented Brother Lee’s LSM station. Eventually it turned into opposition to Brother Lee and his ministry in the wiles of God’s enemy Satan. It was a great pity!

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (Kindle Locations 3851-3862). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Lin on the legacy of Phillip Lee:

You got that right!

Faithful human beings giving "their whole being to the ministry of" another human being. As someone who has spent most of his life under the ministry of Witness Lee, this sounds pretty accurate to me!

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Dave

How is that possible?!

Here a good one for you. Lin relates a conversation he had with Phillip Lee. Pay attention to the part in bold:

Brother Philip told me that at the moment when his father accepted him to be the manager of the Living Stream Ministry office, his father was very happy, but his face was also very serious and cautious , as he told him: “Son, you were for the Lord, for the expansion of the work of His, and for the commission of His ministry of life entrusted to your father in taking up this responsibility of the Levites’ services. I believe the Lord will remember you and bless you. But I want you to understand in advance that if American Christians will not accept my Life-Study of the Bible... if they do not accept my Life-Study of the Bible, I will shut the whole Life-Study down!”

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (Kindle Locations 1268-1274). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Later on the following quote is attributed to WL:

In the United States, those who opposed me were very curious that this old China man could speak throughout the year, four times a week without stop, delivering messages and publishing them for the general public; those who opposed me also read them because they wanted to find fault with me...
The more they opposed me, the more I spoke; they needed nonstop research in order to oppose me.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (Kindle Locations 1298-1305). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Have Lee's Life Study been accepted by Christians outside the LC? I don't think so. So Lee contradicted himself here. He said he would shut it down if it was rejected, but then we catch him saying "the more they opposed me, the more I spoke".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

Did you ever hear of a bond slave bilking his master and friends out of millions of dollars? Or did you ever hear of a bond slave excommunicating his masters leading employees from two thousand miles away. Don't talk about love. Don't talk about caring.

You know the Catholics do elect their pope. The lc only has a form of apostolic accession where no members have any input. They are all so humble and meek.

Lisbon

Lisbon, great point. You need that sign which says "the spin stops here."

Reminds me of that "brilliant" MIT professor named Booger who informed us that we all were too "stupid" to understand the decisions our leaders were making "on our behalf."

[aron]

Regarding his sons Philip and Timothy, it seems that through them Lee would have been disqualified to be a local church elder, much less the apostle possessing the ministry of the age. Paul made this clear in Titus 1:6. That fact alone disqualified Lee from authority in the church, irrespective of the details of the shenanigans they were involved in, or not as the case may even possibly be.

But it was people like Philip Lin who obeyed their Asian culture rather than their conscience, and the clear dictates of God's Word, who covered Lee's sins and preserved his status. And Westerners like myself were so enamored of the apparent "good order in the church" that we cast a blind eye from whence it was derived, and how it was maintained.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The following quote is the closest Lin gets to admitting there were any issues with Phillip Lee, and by the end of the quote it is clear that Lin's attitude is the problem was those who took issue with Phillip Lee:

I find this interesting, because I know that in the past, when the full-time trainees set up the Ball Rd or LaPalma Ave facilities for the summer/winter training, they would frequently be asked to pull all-nighters. I don't know exactly, but I believe they assign teams to specific tasks and assign one or two all-nighters for each team. You'd think they might have learned that that's not so healthy?

As an aside, does this mean that Philip Lee set up the 5x5 (or 6x6?) TV rigs they've had for years? Those TV's have occasionally been the tools of mischief, methinks...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

3. And if it goes over relatively well with the reading public, they have the veneer of objectivity, like this was an independent source of information about Lee. What would it look like for a publishing house to print a biography of the owner and sole author of the publishing house's output? How truthful and objective would you expect that to be? So now they can pretend Lin's biography is independent, to outsiders, while everybody in the local church system knows that independence is the road to rebellion. And I doubt sincerely that Mr. Lin is being rebellious here. This is not Steve Isitt. This is not "fair and balanced". This is hagiography. The cover makes that clear.

(Hagiography: a book or report about someone's life that makes it seem better than it actually was)

Reminds me of the concession the Blendeds made to Chicago leader Jim Reetzke in order to secure his endorsement for the quarantine of Titus Chu. Reetzke initially rejected the "One Publication" edict claiming that "Christians have been martyred for their right to publish." In order to win his crucial approval, the Blendeds allowed him to continue to write and print his books, with blended oversight, of course.

By allowing Lin to publish his hagiographic account of Lee, LSM gets it cake and gets to eat it. They secure a much needed "independent" biography, yet bear no responsibility for its veracity.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Reminds me of the concession the Blendeds made to Chicago leader Jim Reetzke in order to secure his endorsement for the quarantine of Titus Chu. Reetzke initially rejected the "One Publication" edict claiming that "Christians have been martyred for their right to publish." In order to win his crucial approval, the Blendeds allowed him to continue to write and print his books, with blended oversight, of course.

By allowing Lin to publish his hagiographic account of Lee, LSM gets it cake and gets to eat it. They secure a much needed "independent" biography, yet bear no responsibility for its veracity.

Anaheim voted against the Chicago Book Room -- before they voted for it.

[Ohio]

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (Kindle Locations 1262). Sail On Publishers.

Because there were many business affairs in conducting the Life-Study of the Bible, Brother Lee needed one full-time serving one to take charge of it, but he could not find a willing and suitable brother to bear this responsibility. After everything, he asked his son Brother Lee Menzer (Philip Lee) to help. At that time, Brother Philip Lee had a small business in hand, and Brother Lee asked him to put down his business to take this post. Brother Philip willingly accepted this job in order to support his father’s ministry work. So he gave up his small business and wholeheartedly took and dived into his father’s literary ministry work.

That ought to be enough to make to make the readers puke.

[Ohio]

This successful evidence had gained Brother Lee’s recognition and trust with regard to Philip Lee’s faithfulness and his ability to execute. This was one unique reason that Brother Lee continued hiring him to take charge of the LSM Leviticus services. Because the work kept him up late in the night— working on the video/ audio systems and the arrangement of the interior rooms— and he felt mounting excessive pressures upon him, Philip Lee’s physical and mental conditions were affected enormously, and his physiological condition changed abruptly. As a result, he became easily irritable, and inadvertently offended people easily. Thus, he offended a few people who did not know anything about him except that he was Brother Lee’s son, and they initially resented Brother Lee’s LSM station. Eventually it turned into opposition to Brother Lee and his ministry in the wiles of God’s enemy Satan. It was a great pity!

Now we can all understand why Phillip was "hitting" on all the female staff. The growing "pressures" within were just more than he could handle.

"A great pity!" Talk about spin! Talk about bearing false witness! Talk about deception! Tell me again what the definition of "is" is?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Phillip Lin refers to Phillip Lee as Brother Phillip Lee. Whether Phillip Lee was ever regenerated, I don't know. All signs in his character and behavior does not indicate so.
I do know in the last few months of his life while Phillip was slowly dying from cancer, former elders reached out to Phillip Lee only for their letters to be returned to sender.

Lin is the first one to call Phillip Lee a "brother."

That's like the Catholic Church canonizing one of their murderous popes.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Now we can all understand why Phillip was "hitting" on all the female staff. The growing "pressures" within were just more than he could handle.

"A great pity!" Talk about spin! Talk about bearing false witness! Talk about deception! Tell me again what the definition of "is" is?

If the situation was really as simple as Phillip Lee being overworked and it was obvious to those such as Lin that his mental condition was deteriorating, then why didn't WL step in and do anything about it?

It makes absolutely no sense at all that WL would risk tarnishing his ministry over someone being under "excessive pressures". As we already know there is much more to the story than is being told.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"A great pity!" Talk about spin! Talk about bearing false witness! Talk about deception! Tell me again what the definition of "is" is?

So there's a spin trying to explain away Phillip's behavior of offending people easily. Maybe there's a slight oversight how Phillip Lee was offended easily which could result in a locality having their shipments held up for an apology. Flagstaff, Eugene, and Vancouver, B.C. to name a few. Who knows how many other localities there were that had their publication orders suspended?

[Freedom]

Here is the quote everyone has been waiting for. The following is Lin's explanation of Daystar. Most of it sounds similar to what I have heard, minus any admission to the damage that it caused. He also explains his involvement in Daystar:

In this context, what was in Brother Lee’s mind was how to steal the wealth of Pharaoh from Egypt to finance this rapid expansion of the Lord’s recovery. Meanwhile, in the United States, during the 1970s, middle-class American retirees liked to move around and live in different places, and automobile homes or motor homes have become one of the lifestyles. And coincidentally, in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, a factory was ready to welcome Brother Lee to operate it; he fellowshipped with elders of the church in Los Angeles about it, and eventually a decision was made to invest in this factory. Brother Lee hired four professionals from the United States and sent them to Taiwan in March 1973 for the construction of motor homes in the factory in Kaohsiung. I was one of the four. Brother Lee also went and lived in Kaohsiung for a little over three months. Because I was born in a city near Kaohsiung and speak the Taiwanese dialect, and I was counted as trustworthy to him, he had a high expectation of my help in his operation of this factory. We stayed in the same house and had many private discussions about factory business; sometimes he would exhort me by whispering to assure me that he was doing this business for the Lord, and wanted me to be faithful and do my best for it. After five to six months of hard work, we finally got the first motor home “model” produced in August. In a pleasant and joyful atmosphere, Brother Lee held a press conference to introduce the first motor home manufactured in Taiwan. Taiwan’s Minister of Economic Affairs and other senior government officials all came to congratulate him. Unfortunately (Note: Rather, I would say that it must be of the Lord’s doing), because of the energy crisis in the United States, those large size automobiles like the motor home, which consume a huge amount of gasoline, were hard to sell. Seeing the adverse situation in the motor home business due to the energy crisis, Brother Lee immediately decided to stop manufacturing and close the factory.
By the end of the year, Brother Lee had cleared all debts. (Note: Because I was one of the small investors, of course, I was one of the debt holders; Brother Lee sent accounting people to my home to clear the debt owed me.)

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (Kindle Locations 3962-3964). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

So there's a spin trying to explain away Phillip's behavior of offending people easily. Maybe there's a slight oversight how Phillip Lee was offended easily which could result in a locality having their shipments held up for an apology. Flagstaff, Eugene, and Vancouver, B.C. to name a few. Who knows how many other localities there were that had their publication orders suspended?

That was probably a blessing in disguise!

All the churches I was familiar with had the opposite problem: How to shut off the steady stream of books coming every month, and how to finance the massive debt accumulating on the shelves of every LC book room.

[Ohio]

It's prolly time to provide a picture of one of these 70's gas guzzlers ...

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Here is the quote everyone has been waiting for. The following is Lin's explanation of Daystar. Most of it sounds similar to what I have heard, minus any admission to the damage that it caused. He also explains his involvement in Daystar:

Phillip Lin indicated he was in Taiwan. He wasn't present in the U.S. How many brothers and sisters were stumbled over their life savings lost to Daystar and being asked to "forgive" Witness Lee of their investment?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Phillip Lin indicated he was in Taiwan. He wasn't present in the U.S. How many brothers and sisters were stumbled over their life savings lost to Daystar and being asked to "forgive" Witness Lee of their investment?

Philip Lin really put a spin on things here. He says that Lee "cleared" all the Daystar debts. It make it sound like everything worked out just fine. He forgot to mention that saints were asked to "forgive" debt owed by Lee. I wonder how many saints did so out of pressure?

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Ohio

By allowing Lin to publish his hagiographic account of Lee, LSM gets it cake and gets to eat it. They secure a much needed "independent" biography, yet bear no responsibility for its veracity.

I only had a sample from Amazon because I refuse to pay $25 for some more of Witness Lee under another name. I got to see the photos with at least two typos (i.e. Austin Spark instead of Austin-Sparks). And why does he go on and on about "Sail On Publishers". Is he afraid some will suspect LSM actually did this for him?

Did he write the introduction? To me it was pure Witness Lee-talk. That means Phillip Lin got fully constituted with the ministry of Witness Lee; he is now a god-man. He surely is now ready to be blended with the deeply spiritual ones.

Maybe that is what he wanted to achieve. A full-blooded parrot and Yes-man.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Philip Lin's book

We stayed in the same house and had many private discussions about factory business; sometimes he would exhort me by whispering to assure me that he was doing this business for the Lord, and wanted me to be faithful and do my best for it. After five to six months of hard work, we finally got the first motor home “model” produced in August. In a pleasant and joyful atmosphere, Brother Lee held a press conference to introduce the first motor home manufactured in Taiwan. Taiwan’s Minister of Economic Affairs and other senior government officials all came to congratulate him.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (Kindle Locations 3962-3964). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

This pretty much says it all, eh?

Isn't it encouraging to know that when Witness Lee held a press conference with the Taiwanese Minister of Economic Affairs, that there was a pleasant and joyful atmosphere? As opposed to, you know, all those other business press conferences, which have unpleasant atmospheres, lacking in joy.

"God, I thank You that I am not like the rest of men -- extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector" (Luke 18:11).

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Friedel

Maybe that is what he wanted to achieve. A full-blooded parrot and Yes-man.

As a kid I heard many times that I should be a "Witness Lee tape recorder." The full-time trainings are often referred to as "Witness Lee duplication centers."

[aron]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Isn't it encouraging to know that when Witness Lee held a press conference with the Taiwanese Minister of Economic Affairs, that there was a pleasant and joyful atmosphere?

Well it's common for local church activities to have a joyful atmosphere. Similar to North Korea, where events are always pleasant and festive, unless you're one of the unfortunates getting executed for not clapping loudly enough.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ng-hard-enough

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Now we can all understand why Phillip was "hitting" on all the female staff. The growing "pressures" within were just more than he could handle.

"A great pity!" Talk about spin! Talk about bearing false witness! Talk about deception! Tell me again what the definition of "is" is?

à la Clintoon ... funny bro Ohio. Because of how PL behaved we of course question if PL was regenerated. Well, because Philip Lin is dishonest in this book I wonder if Lin is regenerated.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's prolly time to provide a picture of one of these 70's gas guzzlers ...

Interesting thing for me was that when I came in to the "local church life" there was a big speech that impressed me. WL was talking about how the function of the church was to be the fullness of the One who fills all in all, how we were the organic Body of the Triune God, how we were supposed to manifest God's glory to the whole earth, blah blah.

Well, one of the things WL contrasted this "proper and normal" church to, was the degraded Denominations who got involved in all sorts of non-church activities, like hospitals, schools, and other secular affairs. No - we were pure, we were heavenly, we were unsullied by the sordid affairs of the world. No "money changers in the temple" for us. No - we looked heavenward.

So what is Daystar? What is the skyscraper(s) being built in Taiwan to "fund the gospel outreach"? What was "Let's go Linko!"?

It is the usual: condemn others and then turn around and do the same thing yourself, or worse, only with rebranding, with a new name and a shiny coat of new paint. And the brain-dead sheep bleat their condemnation of "Christianity" only to do the same thing and even worse. Trust that there will be enough gullible people who refuse to connect the dots. No, they're "too positive for the church life". They'll ignore the obvious disconnect.

All of which is fine and good in the world turns; politics uses this. Sports teams traffic in it. Companies need it. It is called among other things, "Brand loyalty". Or "Faithfulness". Or "Enduring in hope". It is wonderful and necessary to social order. But loyalty to what? Zeal for what? What are we building here, with our motor home factory, and with our skyscrapers? What are we placing our hope in?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by aron

Interesting thing for me was that when I came in to the "local church life" there was a big speech that impressed me. WL was talking about how the function of the church was to be the fullness of the One who fills all in all, how we were the organic Body of the Triune God, how we were supposed to manifest God's glory to the whole earth, blah blah.

Well, one of the things WL contrasted this "proper and normal" church to, was the degraded Denominations who got involved in all sorts of non-church activities, like hospitals, schools, and other secular affairs. No - we were pure, we were heavenly, we were unsullied by the sordid affairs of the world. No "money changers in the temple" for us. No - we looked heavenward.

So what is Daystar? What is the skyscraper(s) being built in Taiwan to "fund the gospel outreach"? What was "Let's go Linko!"?

It is the usual: condemn others and then turn around and do the same thing yourself, or worse, only with rebranding, with a new name and a shiny coat of new paint. And the brain-dead sheep bleat their condemnation of "Christianity" only to do the same thing and even worse. Trust that there will be enough gullible people who refuse to connect the dots. No, they're "too positive for the church life". They'll ignore the obvious disconnect.

All of which is fine and good in the world turns; politics uses this. Sports teams traffic in it. Companies need it. It is called among other things, "Brand loyalty". Or "Faithfulness". Or "Enduring in hope". It is wonderful and necessary to social order. But loyalty to what? Zeal for what? What are we building here, with our motor home factory, and with our skyscrapers? What are we placing our hope in?

The problem with the LC and WL was that they failed the test---time after time: They should have been above reproach in all their dealings with the saints and with the world. Additionally, with their lawsuits etc they have shown no humility. They are arrogant (I don't say this lightly) and believe that whatever they do is God directed so they can do almost anything to reach their objectives. I don't see this behavior in the NT. They don't care what means they use as long as they reach their ends.

[TLFisher]

Stunning to read the problem Lee had with Theodore Austin Sparks in Taiwan, was because he was teaching different things.

More I read, the more inaccuracies, misinformation, and omissions I see in this book.

[Cal]

"But I want you to understand in advance that if American Christians will not accept my Life-Study of the Bible... if they do not accept my Life-Study of the Bible, I will shut the whole Life-Study down!”

Promises, promises...

[aron]

Here is a link to an article by a Westerner living in China, on the custom of not being truthful. Effectively he is saying that:

1. The Chinese are pragmatic and they will say whatever they need to say to get their desired results.

2. The Chinese have a feudalistic notion of loyalty. So they have different sets of rules depending where you are in the clan or not. They may lie to an outsider, to protect an insider. Thus Philip Lin's statement that "Okay I recognize the truth as you (a Westerner) present it, but my loyalty still lies with Witness Lee. To me there's a greater truth than "who did what to whom and when", and that's my affiliation with Witness Lee."

So their truth may be to spin and spin to protect the Mothership, which is reality (i.e. "truth" itself). Their goal is to save the Hive at all costs; that is the "greater truth". Thus, the production of Philip Lin's book, to uphold the public standing of Witness Lee. Truth as we Westerners understand it, (i.e. the "facts", or "what really happened") is optional, or relative to the goal at hand.

http://chinahopelive.net/2011/11/09/...mainland-china

Here's a quote, in red, below:

“Lying” isn’t just a cross-cultural communication pot-hole between Chinese and Euro-Americans, it’s a crater. Conflicting communication styles result in Westerners sometimes thinking their Chinese counterparts are lying even when they actually have no intention of deceiving anyone. The Americans get the (long-standing) impression that the Chinese are devious and deceptive, while the Chinese, who weren’t intending to deceive anyone and were merely being polite and gracious, are annoyed to no end at the simplistic and judgmental Americans.

But there’s another side to Mainland Chinese society, where ethics are simply a non-factor in decision making. Mainland Chinese lie and deceive reflexively in many aspects of their daily lives and relationships; it’s routine, accepted, expected and generally considered unavoidable. If you’re straight, honest and genuine, people will think you’re simple, naive and stupid. Corruption is endemic in every layer of society, and it is common for it to taint thesis papers, resumes and job applications, personal ads, and communication between spouses, parents and children, employees and employers, clients and suppliers, etc.

To someone like Bill Mallon or John Ingalls or Max Rappoport, trying to get at the "truth" about Witness Lee's internal affairs is going to run into some very strongly ingrained cultural resistance. To many of his Asian adherents, the greater truth is loyalty to Witness Lee, at all costs. Including our Judeo-Christian notion of truth: to survive, we non-Asians would stand in the meeting and declare that we were proud to be ostriches with our heads in the sand. The only truth remaining for us was loyalty to the clan. We needed to incorporate Asian values to survive in the local churches of Lee. All of this I tried to address in the thread "The Asian mind and the Western mind."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Here is a link to an article by a Westerner living in China, on the custom of not being truthful. Effectively he is saying that:

1. The Chinese are pragmatic and they will say whatever they need to say to get their desired results.

2. The Chinese have a feudalistic notion of loyalty. So they have different sets of rules depending where you are in the clan or not. They may lie to an outsider, to protect an insider. Thus Philip Lin's statement that "Okay I recognize the truth as you (a Westerner) present it, but my loyalty still lies with Witness Lee. To me there's a greater truth than "who did what to whom and when", and that's my affiliation with Witness Lee."

So their truth may be to spin and spin to protect the Mothership, which is reality (i.e. "truth" itself). Their goal is to save the Hive at all costs; that is the "greater truth". Thus, the production of Philip Lin's book, to uphold the public standing of Witness Lee. Truth as we Westerners understand it, (i.e. the "facts", or "what really happened") is optional, or relative to the goal at hand.

http://chinahopelive.net/2011/11/09/...mainland-china

Here's a quote, in red, below:

“Lying” isn’t just a cross-cultural communication pot-hole between Chinese and Euro-Americans, it’s a crater. Conflicting communication styles result in Westerners sometimes thinking their Chinese counterparts are lying even when they actually have no intention of deceiving anyone. The Americans get the (long-standing) impression that the Chinese are devious and deceptive, while the Chinese, who weren’t intending to deceive anyone and were merely being polite and gracious, are annoyed to no end at the simplistic and judgmental Americans.

But there’s another side to Mainland Chinese society, where ethics are simply a non-factor in decision making. Mainland Chinese lie and deceive reflexively in many aspects of their daily lives and relationships; it’s routine, accepted, expected and generally considered unavoidable. If you’re straight, honest and genuine, people will think you’re simple, naive and stupid. Corruption is endemic in every layer of society, and it is common for it to taint thesis papers, resumes and job applications, personal ads, and communication between spouses, parents and children, employees and employers, clients and suppliers, etc.

To someone like Bill Mallon or John Ingalls or Max Rappoport, trying to get at the "truth" about Witness Lee's internal affairs is going to run into some very strongly ingrained cultural resistance. To many of his Asian adherents, the greater truth is loyalty to Witness Lee, at all costs. Including our Judeo-Christian notion of truth: to survive, we non-Asians would stand in the meeting and declare that we were proud to be ostriches with our heads in the sand. The only truth remaining for us was loyalty to the clan. We needed to incorporate Asian values to survive in the local churches of Lee. All of this I tried to address in the thread "The Asian mind and the Western mind."

Yes you did. And I remember it. Am keeping an eye open to spot it. But never on that thread, that I remember seeing, did you hit the nail on the head so squarely as in this post.

Ya know, I married a Cantonese Chinese girl, full-blooded but 3rd generation Americanized. The one thing that stood out, and stands out about her in my mind today was, she was naturally submissive. She came by it without trying, and certainly not because the Bible, or sisters, told her to. Truly I tell you I've never seen anything like it.

When I was having problems in the church she never did anything wrong. I shielded her from my problems with the church. She was innocent. Yet, because she was with me Mel Porter branded her a serpent too. So we were both out. What amazed me is how she never had to shift her ways, or ingrained Chinese instincts, if you will, she just continued to be naturally submissive.

There were other characteristics that were particularly Chinese to me also. But one thing is for sure, based just upon this one close up example, the Chinese are different, and that's for sure. The devil is in the details, perchance, as they say.

I remember back in Santa Cruz -- shortly after just about a dozen of us "Southgate Sickies" (from Southgate Michigan) came into the LC -- we befriended brother and sister Lee, an elderly Chinese couple in the LC there. She was gung-ho for the LC and he wasn't. He was a retired professor of physics, and played the Sitar, Chinese flute, and various other Chinese instruments. I had to spend time with him. I couldn't help myself. And I liked that he was so close to a movement that came out of China yet didn't want to be a part of it. He was different. He was profound and deep to me.

But his wife on the other hand taught me a lesson early on in the LC. She was doing everything she could to get her husband to go to meetings. She was slipping behind his back and engaging other brothers and sisters to get their help. It was devious, and deceptive, and she knew it, acting cute, like it was all for the Lord. When she saw I was close to him she tried to enlist me in her efforts. I just hugged her and told her to leave it in the Lord's hands. She was, after all, just a lovable old lady, Chinese or otherwise.

So I can easily buy into what you present in red in your post. And thanks, by the way, for posting it. It's a keeper.

Sorry for the length of this post.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

Here is a link to an article by a Westerner living in China, on the custom of not being truthful. Effectively he is saying that:

1. The Chinese are pragmatic and they will say whatever they need to say to get their desired results.

2. The Chinese have a feudalistic notion of loyalty. So they have different sets of rules depending where you are in the clan or not. They may lie to an outsider, to protect an insider. Thus Philip Lin's statement that "Okay I recognize the truth as you (a Westerner) present it, but my loyalty still lies with Witness Lee. To me there's a greater truth than "who did what to whom and when", and that's my affiliation with Witness Lee."

So their truth may be to spin and spin to protect the Mothership, which is reality (i.e. "truth" itself). Their goal is to save the Hive at all costs; that is the "greater truth". Thus, the production of Philip Lin's book, to uphold the public standing of Witness Lee. Truth as we Westerners understand it, (i.e. the "facts", or "what really happened") is optional, or relative to the goal at hand.

http://chinahopelive.net/2011/11/09/...mainland-china

How is this different than simply claiming that Chinese people are liars? Do you see how that might create problems in terms of prejudice against Chinese people? If they are all lying to each other, how have they managed to trust and cooperate with each other enough to create a productive society?

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

If they are all lying to each other, how have they managed to trust and cooperate with each other enough to create a productive society?

Harmonious functioning is based on shared expectations and values. If a blunt American causes someone to lose face, that is perceived as a threat to order. So the American's goal may be "truth at any cost", and the Asian goal may be "preserve social order at any cost." It is not that one system's values are superior to another, but if the different groups don't understand what is important to the other, conflict will ensue.

Notice that the quote used words like "instinctive" and "reflexive"; they may not enumerate it consciously but the expectation is always there. Don't make the other lose face. Social cohesion depends on it. If the truth needs to be managed carefully to that end, then so be it.

[awareness]

The crux of the question is: Is Philip Lin acting Chinese in his tome in support of Witness Lee?

[TLFisher]

Reading through the book, several verses from Levitius comes to mind concerning the history of the so-called recovery:

‘Now if a person sins after he hears a public adjuration to testify when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt.
Or if he touches human uncleanness, of whatever sort his uncleanness may be with which he becomes unclean, and it is hidden from him, and then he comes to know it, he will be guilty. Or if a person swears thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or to do good, in whatever matter a man may speak thoughtlessly with an oath, and it is hidden from him, and then he comes to know it, he will be guilty in one of these.
Leviticus 5: 1, 3-4

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

Harmonious functioning is based on shared expectations and values. If a blunt American causes someone to lose face, that is perceived as a threat to order. So the American's goal may be "truth at any cost", and the Asian goal may be "preserve social order at any cost." It is not that one system's values are superior to another, but if the different groups don't understand what is important to the other, conflict will ensue.

Notice that the quote used words like "instinctive" and "reflexive"; they may not enumerate it consciously but the expectation is always there. Don't make the other lose face. Social cohesion depends on it. If the truth needs to be managed carefully to that end, then so be it.

What I particularly notice is how you avoided my first question. Perhaps there is no difference? Are all Americans blunt? Ah, may. We all may say something, anything perhaps if we preface it with may. You mean to say that truth telling is not superior to lying? By what ethical standard? Or have we like Witness Lee transcended the ethical altogether by Life? That's a defense of a mystical tyrant. Ask Rayliotta about the ethics of the Godfather. The Family lies against the sucker. Fukyama "divides societies into two classes: high trust and low trust. High-trust societies form volunteer and meritocratic organizations that expand in scope and efficiency to reach optimum economies of scale. These commercial and non-profit organizations (which are not dependent on family ties) create a network of efficiencies that benefit commerce, media communication and social change. Low-trust societies, in contrast, rely on the extended family to build commercial, social and political networks. The trouble with the extended-family approach to economic development is that all families will soon run out of blood-line managerial, scientific, literary or artistic talent. The Latin Catholic and Chinese cultures are described as low-trust societies. http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Human-Na...words=fukayama

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Including our Judeo-Christian notion of truth: to survive, we non-Asians would stand in the meeting and declare that we were proud to be ostriches with our heads in the sand.

That is a type of playing politics; to stick your head in the sand as an ostrich and acting oblivious through the pretense of innocence.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

The crux of the question is: Is Philip Lin acting Chinese in his tome in support of Witness Lee?

Well he's already on record that in his culture he has to support him. And this was over his conscience, over God's revealed truth and righteousness, etc.

Remember that poster Eph on here a couple of months ago? He said, "You don't give up 5,000 years of culture that easily."

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

What I particularly notice is how you avoided my first question. Perhaps there is no difference? Are all Americans blunt? Ah, may. We all may say something, anything perhaps if we preface it with may. You mean to say that truth telling is not superior to lying? By what ethical standard? ]

I didn't answer your first question because there is this thing called "culture". Culture means that even though not every single person in a society may exibit trait A, you can still make a generalization about the population, as compared to others. Culture. Pretty self-evident. So your question was... not worth addressing. But if you insist that is my answer.

Regarding truth telling versus lying. Suppose a young child on the subway says, "Mommy, why is that man fat?" He is telling the truth, but mommy says, "Shush child". Sometimes its better to be quiet. Sometimes there is a higher truth. It's called keeping your mouth shut, and exhibiting self control (even when the other party may not be). Perhaps this value is prized higher in Asian cultures than in Western cultures. Just sayin'.

If you read the link I provided, all this seems to be addressed better than I can do so here. In fact I think that's why he wrote it. Because it isn't simply "society X is full of cheats and liars", but there are issues in society X that maybe society Y doesn't have, and misunderstandings might be avoided if we at least become partly aware of them.

When you see the issue of "face" for example, you can better understand Titus Chu v/v the Blendeds, and also Dong Yu Lan. Those 2 ministers would defer to Lee (in fact I witnessed TC being publicly shamed by WL) but not to the Blendeds, not because they suddenly became uppity or arrogant after Lee passed, but because their culture demanded the first and deterred (they might even say forbade) the second. Culture is a very powerful force in human behavior. If we don't examine it critically we miss a lot. Because WN & WL sold their schtick as if it were apart from human culture, they avoided scrutiny. And this led to great loss for many.

[aron]

For an example of the effect of culture on behavior: look at Steve Isitt vs Witness Lee. Lee says, "We should approach the drop-outs. Find out what happened." Sounds good, right?

Unfortunately the Westerner Steve Isitt took him at face value, and went out, and got all the info from people who got steamrolled by the local church system. Suddenly SI is running afoul of WL's desire for good order in the church. WL did want honesty, and openness, and reconciliation, to a degree. But here is the rub -- not at any cost. Not at the cost of instability and opening wounds. Protecting the Mothership was greater in value than finding out what happened.

So WL talked about it, and if there were a low-cost way, he'd have been open to reconciliation and healing. But SI's method had a cost too high. But the differerence with SI is that his cultural disposition is to pay the cost. SI thinks, "Honesty at any price." WL's cultural disposition is that the cost is too high. WL thinks, better to pay lip service and move on.

I think that in those from Asian culture, for people to ask too many questions is to "attack" Witness Lee and the standing order. When they use the word "attack" they really mean it. They don't go, "Oh, people are being open and honest here." They go, "We are under attack." So they interpret what is happening quite differently from someone from a Western background.

SI just wanted the truth, i.e. "what happened". WL wanted to talk about the truth to a limited degree, but the higher truth, to WL, was just to "sail on".

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

I didn't answer your first question because there is this thing called "culture". Culture means that even though not every single person in a society may exibit trait A, you can still make a generalization about the population, as compared to others. Culture. Pretty self-evident. So your question was... not worth addressing. But if you insist that is my answer.

Sometimes, stupid people like me must importune an answer on issues that are self-evident to wise people like yourself. We look around and see one culture calling another liars and the next thing you know they are killing them. Is a generalization like that the same as a stereotype?

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

We look around and see one culture calling another liars

Well its not an easy subject to deal well. I unfortunately am ill-equipped. But I sense there is an issue there and avoiding it (pretending it doesn't exist) comes with a cost of its own. Certainly name-calling isn't the answer either. I don't think I was doing that, nor was the blog I linked to.

Different cultures have different values. Overlooking that, as if somehow we were too spiritual, is to make a generalization as well. "The Local Churches are not tainted by fallen human culture". Um...

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

Well its not an easy subject to deal well. I unfortunately am ill-equipped. But I sense there is an issue there and avoiding it (pretending it doesn't exist) comes with a cost of its own. Certainly name-calling isn't the answer either. I don't think I was doing that, nor was the blog I linked to.

Different cultures have different values. Overlooking that, as if somehow we were too spiritual, is to make a generalization as well. "The Local Churches are not tainted by fallen human culture". Um...

Seems to be an issue between a rock and a hard place, or maybe a slippery matter of more or less? Trait psychology leads to labeling. Labeling leads to prejudice. Prejudice leads to walls. When I see walls I look for a door. Jesus said he was a door. Is there a door in this issue? Or do the walls win?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Seems to be an issue between a rock and a hard place, or maybe a slippery matter of more or less? Trait psychology leads to labeling. Labeling leads to prejudice. Prejudice leads to walls. When I see walls I look for a door. Jesus said he was a door. Is there a door in this issue? Or do the walls win?

Trait=labeling=prejudice=walls. None as disturbing as nuclear warheads aimed at each other. Did it all start with trait psychology? Which came first?

[Freedom]

This is Philip Lin's idea on how the late 80's rebellion started:

For this, in 1986, he started a training called “Full-Time Truth Training in Taiwan,” referred to as FTTT . In order to carry out this task, Brother Lee used a bilingual young brother, A. Yu, instead of a more mature brother, J. Ingalls, or others, to help him with the training. This caused more than a little murmuring and dissenting in the church in Anaheim.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (Kindle Locations 2314-2316). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

I have been previously aware that saints were questioning WL's motives for selecting AY, however, no where have I seen any indication that JI was ambitious to be a FTTT trainer. To the contrary, JI and others spoke out against the training.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by awareness

But never on that thread, that I remember seeing, did you hit the nail on the head so squarely as in this post.

Ditto that.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

Seems to be an issue between a rock and a hard place, or maybe a slippery matter of more or less? Trait psychology leads to labeling. Labeling leads to prejudice. Prejudice leads to walls. When I see walls I look for a door. Jesus said he was a door. Is there a door in this issue? Or do the walls win?

Witness Lee preached against spiritual deadness, lack of intrinsic spiritual reality, etc. He condemned other religious groups for exalting their leaders and building monuments to them. When Witness Lee passed away in 1997, his closest disciples commissioned a large monument to him at his gravesite. As I remember it, the monument is literally a white wall.

I was in high school at the time, but even at that age I was surprised and bothered by the fact that "we" seemed to be doing the same thing we so often criticized "the denominations" for doing. I'll pose a question here: If I were Chinese -- by birth, by background, and by culture -- would this have surprised me (a "white American") as much as it did? Or would I have been more attuned, as a matter of cultural expectation and convention, to view this kind of monument-building as being normal, even predictable?

To be in a ministry where we are convinced that we are free from cultural constraints, and all the while the ministry which we have "sold ourselves out" for is, in reality, steeped in a particular culture -- this is denial. And when the culture of the organization is a culture that is largely unknown to us, I think there can be some value in seeking to understand just how much of what we believed to be "spiritual" or "from the Lord," was actually -- quite literally -- the manifestation of a particular human culture.

[TLFisher]

"Phillip Lee's physical and mental conditions were affected enormously, and his physiological condition changed abruptly. As a result, he became easily irritable, and inadvertently offended people easily." From Chapter 7

Focus is on the word inadvertent. Meaning "not resulting from or achieved through deliberate planning".

"Godfred had been an elder in the church in Irvine, California, for close to ten years, and had recently been appointed as an elder in Anaheim by Brother Witness Lee. Thus we had been put into a position of more intimate fellowship and coordination. I had known Godfred since 1972 and over the years had numerous occasions of fellowship with him. I respected him for his genuineness, wisdom, and devotion to the Lord. Hence, upon returning from Atlanta on Sept. 22, 1987, I made an appointment for dinner with Godfred on September 25, Friday evening.
We sat together in the restaurant, and after some general conversation, I said to him in a serious tone, “Godfred, I would like to ask you a question. Would you please tell me who Philip Lee is? It seems that he is being promoted and is going altogether too far in his involvement in the spiritual side of the work, greatly overstepping his position as a business manager. Have you noticed this? I myself could never agree with this.”
It seemed that my question took him by surprise. We had never discussed these matters before. He hesitated a few moments. Then, in a very grave tone, he replied, “John, the situation is very serious.” If he was surprised by my question, I was somewhat taken aback by his answer. Godfred continued, “I have seen and heard many things in the Living Stream Office in recent months. I cannot go into detail, but I can tell you there is much that is very serious and very wrong.” Then I began to be more alarmed and concerned. Godfred fully agreed that Philip Lee’s involvement in the work was way out of line, but he indicated that there were more serious things than that.
Two days later, on Sept. 27, the Lord’s Day, as we met in the Elders’ Room before the morning meeting on Ball Road, Godfred had a few moments alone with me, and he said, “John, it is very timely that you opened up to me the other night. Let me tell you that the whole situation is sick and corrupt. I have seen and heard too much.” Then I knew that we were really in trouble, though he did not mention any details or any names.
On the following Tuesday, Sept. 29th, Godfred left for a business trip to Europe. On the next day, Wednesday, Sept. 30th, I received a telephone call from a sister who had a prominent position in the Living Stream Ministry Office, asking if she could see me that night. I consented. That evening she sat in my living room and with tears opened her heart to me. She had served sacrificially and faithfully for many years in the LSM office, and now she said she could not tolerate anymore the gross misconduct that was being perpetrated upon some and especially upon her. I had been acquainted with this sister for many years and knew her to be faithful, upright, and trustworthy; therefore, I took her word very seriously. I was amazed that she could put up with such conduct for so long. She stated that she tolerated it only for the sake of Brother Lee and his ministry. She said that she had no other recourse but to resign. I confirmed her intention.
That conversation utterly shocked me. I deeply felt that something must be done to acquaint Brother Lee with the situation and to let him know that we would not tolerate it. I obtained Godfred’s telephone number in Europe and called him a soon as the difference in time zones permitted, telling him the things that had come to my ears. Godfred listened and said that he already knew it. I was amazed. That night I considered what could be done. That we had to go to Brother Lee I was certain."
Speaking the Truth in Love pages 9-10

Now, is gross misconduct something that is inadvertent? As a husband, father, and son, I would not be offended by someone perpetrating gross misconduct on my wife, mother, or daughter?
The question I raised before is not that Phillip Lee "inadvertently" offended people easily. Rather, Phillip Lee was one who was offended easily. If an elder offended Phillip Lee, guess what? The locality who the elder served, had their publication shipments suspended for a personal apology. Flagstaff, Eugene, and Vancouver, B.C. to name a few.

[aron]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

To be in a ministry where we are convinced that we are free from cultural constraints, and all the while the ministry which we have "sold ourselves out" for is, in reality, steeped in a particular culture -- this is denial. And when the culture of the organization is a culture that is largely unknown to us, I think there can be some value in seeking to understand just how much of what we believed to be "spiritual" or "from the Lord," was actually -- quite literally -- the manifestation of a particular human culture.

The wall is fear. We are afraid to question, afraid to think, afraid to raise our hand and say, "Excuse me but there seems to be an issue here."

[TLFisher]

"In this Anaheim situation, he dared not to put his hands in to deal with the situation, but waited quietly on the Lord to work it out. Eventually it was the Lord who won the victory, and the church in Anaheim was purified and moved strongly forward!" Chapter Six Location 2305

This "situation" Phillip Lin is writing about is in part to Phillip Lee and the alleged altercation Phillip had with then elder Max Rapoport in 1978.

John Ingalls spoke regarding gross misconduct being brought to him in 1987, "Ten years previously there had been reports of similar incidents in the LSM office confirmed by several eye-witnesses. "

Speaking the Truth in Love pages 10-11

Of course Witness Lee did not want to put his hands in to deal with the situation. To deal with the situation, meant to deal with his son Phillip.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Terry

"In this Anaheim situation, he dared not to put his hands in to deal with the situation, but waited quietly on the Lord to work it out. Eventually it was the Lord who won the victory, and the church in Anaheim was purified and moved strongly forward!" Chapter Six Location 2305

This "situation" Phillip Lin is writing about is in part to Phillip Lee and the alleged altercation Phillip had with then elder Max Rapoport.

"Ten years previously there had been reports of similar incidents in the LSM office confirmed by several eye-witnesses. "

Speaking the Truth in Love pages 10-11

"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary" (Isa 40:31).

It seems that in this case, those who waited ten years got to see people being abused and damaged for...another ten years.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Trait=labeling=prejudice=walls. None as disturbing as nuclear warheads aimed at each other. Did it all start with trait psychology? Which came first?

More likely trait psychology is just one more car on a very long train.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary" (Isa 40:31).

It seems that in this case, those who waited ten years got to see people being abused and damaged for...another ten years.

I don't know if anyone will ever be able to definitely say why WL didn't "involve" himself in these situations intially, however, I think from what we know now, we can make reasonable guesses. I think it needs to be pointed out that while WL never seemed to be involved much during these "turmoils" while they were in progress, WL seemed to have a habit of getting involved in the aftermath of "turmoils" and using the opportunity to make defamatory statements about brothers whom he once worked with.

Philip Lin's book clearly demonstrates just that. While Lin may think his book serves the purpose of clearing up "misconceptions" about past event, his words contradict many facts that we now know. During the late 70's "turmoil" Lin attributes the problem to brothers who wanted to gain a big increase. He quotes WL as saying the following:

Because of this atmosphere, a door opened for three or four enthusiastic and ambitious evangelists to creep in. Their desires were just to get more people. Up to 1973, everyone’s focus had turned to the work of expanding the church and how to get people, so they had the opportunity to stand up and sound out their ideas. They felt that the number of saints in the Lord’s recovery was too small— only seven to eight thousand— and that we should bring in more people . Such an atmosphere had filled in our midst to a point that we forgot the growth in life, and we paid no attention to the matter of growth in life. From 1973 to 1976, those ambitious ones became rebellious and they worked underground among themselves, planning to take over the Lord’s recovery into their hands. They did not care for the church, neither for the growth in life; they only cared for expansion and getting more people; and in order to reach that goal they did not care about the way to get it. They even said: “You could use filthy hands to get the fish.” That means as long as they were able to get people, it didn’t matter whether or not the approach was legitimate and spiritual.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (p. 156). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

What Lin fails to mentions is that WL was the one who gave Max R a position. Yes, Max later admitted that he was ambitious, but without WL giving him some type of position, nothing would have ever materialized. I think that in respect to both Max and Daystar, WL initiated everything, when things when awry, he just sat back until he found someone to blame.

The same thing goes for what happened in the late 80's. I already posted Lin's statement on what he thought the problem was. Did Lee ever deal with the real problem? In a way he did, but by then (after he fired Phillip Lee), many brothers had come to realize the problems were far greater than Phillip Lee. What is ironic is that Lin can't even admit that Phillip Lee was much of a problem. That is taking into consideration that WL himself fired him eventually.

Lin obviously would rather defend WL than take a minute to think about what really happened and why. Lin was there in Anaheim, he saw everything that happened. It's really too bad for him that he decided to write this book. Now that he has brought up all these things, I think they are fair game for anyone in the LC to discuss.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Witness Lee preached against spiritual deadness, lack of intrinsic spiritual reality, etc. He condemned other religious groups for exalting their leaders and buildling monuments to them. When Witness Lee passed away in 1997, his closest disciples commissioned a large monument to him at his gravesite. As I remember it, the monument is literally a white wall.

I was in high school at the time, but even at that age I was surprised and bothered by the fact that "we" seemed to be doing the same thing we so often criticized "the denominations" for doing. I'll pose a question here: If I were Chinese -- by birth, by background, and by culture -- would this have surprised me (a "white American") as much as it did? Or would I have been more attuned, as a matter of cultural expectation and convention, to view this kind of monumemt-building as being normal, even predictable?

To be in a ministry where we are convinced that we are free from cultural constraints, and all the while the ministry which we have "sold ourselves out" for is, in reality, steeped in a particular culture -- this is denial. And when the culture of the organization is a culture that is largely unknown to us, I think there can be some value in seeking to understand just how much of what we believed to be "spiritual" or "from the Lord," was actually -- quite literally -- the manifestation of a particular human culture.

It took me 13 years to figure that out, and then another 28 to recover from the Recovery. I recommend re-thinking everything from the inside out, rinse and repeat. But, don't despair. Or maybe drag a certain amount of despair into the process too, but keep the spin cycle going as long as necessary.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

It took me 13 years to figure that out, and then another 28 to recover from the Recovery. I recommend re-thinking everything from the inside out, rinse and repeat. But, don't despair. Or maybe drag a certain amount of despair into the process too, but keep the spin cycle going as long as necessary.

And isn't that what aron is doing when he broaches the subject of Asian culture?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Philip Lin's book clearly demonstrates just that. While Lin may think his book serves the purpose of clearing up "misconceptions" about past event, his words contradict many facts that we now know. During the late 70's "turmoil" Lin attributes the problem to brothers who wanted to gain a big increase...

...What Lin fails to mentions is that WL was the one who gave Max R a position. Yes, Max later admitted that he was ambitious, but without WL giving him some type of position, nothing would have ever materialized. I think that in respect to both Max and Daystar, WL initiated everything, when things when awry, he just sat back until he found someone to blame...

...Lin obviously would rather defend WL than take a minute to think about what really happened and why. Lin was there in Anaheim, he saw everything that happened. It's really too bad for him that he decided to write this book. Now that he has brought up all these things, I think they are fair game for anyone in the LC to discuss.

Freedom, the points you raise remind me of Witness Lee's own biography of Watchman Nee. Similar flavor. Lin gives simple, even simplistic, explanations of events we all know are far more complicated.

Sometimes "it's all in the packaging," as they say in marketing. It would be difficult for me to believe that Philip Lin doesn't know perfectly well that there's a lot more to the story. But as aron points out, Lin's conscience would probably be much more offended by sullying the good name of Witness Lee, than it is by presenting a biased version of the facts.

Most children would not go around bad-mouthing their own parents. Some things more important than "facts." View Witness Lee as the spiritual father (which of course many do) and it starts to make sense.

Add in the idea of fool me twice, shame on you, and ... it all starts to coalesce.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

And isn't that what aron is doing when he broaches the subject of Asian culture?

I think so. Today's observation becomes tomorrow's prejudice. And I'm referring to myself not aron. I have found, if I am honest with myself, which I am once in a while, my prejudices are dis-confirmed. Individuals are more complex and defy cultural stereo-types. Not only that, the social science show the limits of stereotypes on a statistical scale. It's a matter of more or less not black and white. But, do I believe that I or Brother Lee transcended our cultures of origin? The preponderance of evidence says otherwise. My response to aron was an attempt to find the limit of his proposition not to refute it. Where is the boundary between observing a cultural trait and racism?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Lin was there in Anaheim, he saw everything that happened. It's really too bad for him that he decided to write this book. Now that he has brought up all these things, I think they are fair game for anyone in the LC to discuss.

Until this book came out, it would be easy for a local church elder to dismiss the late 80's turmoil as ancient history. Now, that Phillip Lin has brought it back to the surface, it is fair game

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Freedom, the points you raise remind me of Witness Lee's own biography of Watchman Nee. Similar flavor. Lin gives simple, even simplistic, explanations of events we all know are far more complicated.

Sometimes "it's all in the packaging," as they say in marketing. It would be difficult for me to believe that Philip Lin doesn't know perfectly well that there's a lot more to the story. But as aron points out, Lin's conscience would probably be much more offended by sullying the good name of Witness Lee, than it is by presenting a biased version of the facts.

Most children would not go around bad-mouthing their own parents. Some things more important than "facts." View Witness Lee as the spiritual father (which of course many do) and it starts to make sense.

Add in the idea of fool me twice, shame on you, and ... it all starts to coalesce.

It seems that it's always easier in life to "be political" rather than to stand up for what's right. On thing that I never really thought about before is that John Ingalls was supported by the church in Anaheim. Lin makes reference to that in his book, and I will provide a quote regarding that at the end of this post. For JI to stand up to WL meant that he not only risked being in good standing with WL, but they very livelihood of him and his family. Regardless whether brother John did everything right, would Minoru or Philip Lin have done the same thing in order to stand up for their principles? Me thinks not.

A fact is worth noting in order to clear many rumors that circulated about how the Anaheim church had cut out financial support for Brother Ingalls. The church in Anaheim did not cut off financial support for Brother Ingalls; the Anaheim church had continuously given Brother Ingalls financial support, including for his phone bill, until he requested to stop.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (p. 160). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think so. Today's observation becomes tomorrow's prejudice. And I'm referring to myself not aron. I have found, if I am honest with myself, which I am once in a while, my prejudices are dis-confirmed. Individuals are more complex and defy cultural stereo-types. Not only that, the social science show the limits of stereotypes on a statistical scale. It's a matter of more or less not black and white. But, do I believe that I or Brother Lee transcended our cultures of origin? The preponderance of evidence says otherwise. My response to aron was an attempt to find the limit of his proposition not to refute it. Where is the boundary between observing a cultural trait and racism?

Where is the boundary between Witness Lee "losing" the virginity of bleating Caucasian sheep and racism?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Until this book came out, it would be easy for a local church elder to dismiss the late 80's turmoil as ancient history. Now, that Phillip Lin has brought it back to the surface, it is fair game

I also have to wonder if Lin is excluded from the "One Publication" edict. He must be, since his publication company is not LSM. Does that mean that it's fair game for me to start my own publication?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

It took me 13 years to figure that out, and then another 28 to recover from the Recovery. I recommend re-thinking everything from the inside out, rinse and repeat. But, don't despair. Or maybe drag a certain amount of despair into the process too, but keep the spin cycle going as long as necessary.

Sounds like a guy who does his own laundry!

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I also have to wonder if Lin is excluded from the "One Publication" edict. He must be, since his publication company is not LSM. Does that mean that it's fair game for me to start my own publication?

One time a full-timer corrected me when I said that our book room only has books by two authors (Watchman Nee and Witness Lee). It turned out I was incorrect because the book room also sells two books called the Bible and the Hymnal. And both of those books have dozens, maybe even hundreds, of authors!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Freedom, the points you raise remind me of Witness Lee's own biography of Watchman Nee. Similar flavor. Lin gives simple, even simplistic, explanations of events we all know are far more complicated.

Sometimes "it's all in the packaging," as they say in marketing. It would be difficult for me to believe that Philip Lin doesn't know perfectly well that there's a lot more to the story. But as aron points out, Lin's conscience would probably be much more offended by sullying the good name of Witness Lee, than it is by presenting a biased version of the facts.

Great observation. Lin's book is worthless as a source of history. It's only value is to "market" Witness Lee and to enhance one's own standing in the Recovery.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I also have to wonder if Lin is excluded from the "One Publication" edict. He must be, since his publication company is not LSM. Does that mean that it's fair game for me to start my own publication?

Lin is covered under the Reetzke exemption clause of the One Publication Edict.

[bearbear]

The title of this book just sounds spooky to me. I know of many congregations that dearly love their pastor, but I think most of them would never go so far as to label them a "bondslave of Jesus Christ". I think most dedicated Christians would agree such labels should be left up to God to decide, since only God knows the hearts of men. If Philip Lin ever intended this book for outsiders, he's not doing a good job because it's just sending out creepy vibes by just the title.

I think I'm also afraid for Philip Lin. If he comes to the judgment seat of Christ, perhaps God will ask him why the only book he wrote was to defend Witness Lee's legacy and not Jesus Christ his Saviour, perhaps revealing the object of his worship. (From a cursory search, it appears Mr. Lin has not published any other works). I think we need to pray for Philip Lin to redirect his heart to Jesus and away from religious idols.

Also, the Chinese side of me is bothered by the price: why is this book 51 bucks and the most expensive kindle book I've ever come across: $20? Perhaps the thought is "you cannot serve God and money, but you can serve Witness Lee and money".

I will stick to John Ingall's STIL which is free of charge. Or better yet just wait until the end of this age for God to be the judge and to reveal all things.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by aron

To someone like Bill Mallon or John Ingalls or Max Rappoport, trying to get at the "truth" about Witness Lee's internal affairs is going to run into some very strongly ingrained cultural resistance. To many of his Asian adherents, the greater truth is loyalty to Witness Lee, at all costs. Including our Judeo-Christian notion of truth: to survive, we non-Asians would stand in the meeting and declare that we were proud to be ostriches with our heads in the sand. The only truth remaining for us was loyalty to the clan. We needed to incorporate Asian values to survive in the local churches of Lee. All of this I tried to address in the thread "The Asian mind and the Western mind."

Perhaps they could also use the story of Rahab and the spies to justify their overlooking the truth. Rahab lied but was blessed by God because she did it for the greater good and her heart was in the right place. One could argue her actions doesn't fall under the commandment for bearing false witness against another, but Leviticus 19:11 does prohibit lying:

'Do not steal. "'Do not lie. "'Do not deceive one another.

Yet had she not lied, she would arguably have broken her oath and committed murder, an even worse sin.

Anything good for the "Lord's Recovery" could be viewed as the greater good, even to the point of violating biblical commands to sue fellow Christians as the LCs are known for. Perhaps Philip Lin thinks he is "hiding Witness Lee" from his captors in the same way Rahab did.

Matthew 11:12
From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.

[aron]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Perhaps they could also use the story of Rahab and the spies to justify their overlooking the truth. Rahab lied but was blessed by God because she did it for the greater good and her heart was in the right place...

I had a similar story told to me when I came into the local churches. I was discussing my job situation with an elder brother and he told me that it was good to "plunder the gold out of Egypt", and since the fleeing Jews robbed the Egyptians of gold which they later made the ark and serving vessels of, while in the desert, we could do the same thing with our jobs. He wasn't condoning theft, of course, but he was giving a spiritual cover to avarice, and greed, and covetousness. He wasn't encouraging anything, but giving me an excuse if I wanted it.

Today I suspect "stealing the gold from Egypt" does have some spiritual connotations, but to give it material connotations of any kind is probably going too far.

[aron]

Originally Posted by bearbear

The title of this book just sounds spooky to me. I know of many congregations that dearly love their pastor, but I think most of them would never go so far as to label them a "bondslave of Jesus Christ". I think most dedicated Christians would agree such labels should be left up to God to decide, since only God knows the hearts of men. If Philip Lin ever intended this book for outsiders, he's not doing a good job because it's just sending out creepy vibes by just the title..

Witness Lee was a bondslave of Christ, like the apostle Paul before him. Okay. But what about Billy Graham? What about Pastor Bob down the street? What about you and I, for that matter?

Why are we giving special titles to special brothers? Are we not making distinctions among ourselves, expressly forbidden by the apostle James, and based clearly upon the repeated teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ? If you want to be great, be the least. The more you trumpet your supposedly special position, the less special you become.

And if you build monuments to your specialness, what are you building? Should not God be doing such, at the Judgment Seat, and not we beforehand? If we try to anticipate God's exaltation, here below, I am afraid we will suffer loss.

Originally Posted by bearbear

I think I'm also afraid for Philip Lin. If he comes to the judgment seat of Christ, perhaps God will ask him why the only book he wrote was to defend Witness Lee's legacy and not Jesus Christ his Saviour, perhaps revealing the object of his worship. (From a cursory search, it appears Mr. Lin has not published any other works). I think we need to pray for Philip Lin to redirect his heart to Jesus and away from religious idols.
...

I will stick to John Ingall's STIL which is free of charge. Or better yet just wait until the end of this age for God to be the judge and to reveal all things.

I wonder if Philip Lin would be willing to present "the rest of the story", as Paul Harvey's radio show was called.

In his defense, Lin here is arguably doing what he thinks is right. But I bet he is doing it reflexively, and instinctively. His upbringing and culture demand such a monument to Lee. His ability to absorb spiritual things is conditioned by his human culture, as was Nee and Lee before him.

As are you and I, of course, which is why we have "discussions". Have you posters noticed how different everyone is? I seem to be unique here, in many ways. Does that mean that I alone am right? That everyone on this forum should agree with me in totality in every point, that we may all be "one" before the Father? Or does it mean, rather, that I have my own dispositions, as does everyone else?

So why were Nee and Lee somehow exempt from this? How could the Little Flock movement be so pure, and free from any taint of fallen human interpretation? That thesis, presented by Lee and swallowed whole by all us gullible rubes here in the USA, was preposterous. We wanted it to be true, probably because it would eliminate a lot of hard work for us all. Don't think, just do what the apostle tells you. Then you are "covered". Don't do anthing without "fellowship". Philip Lin, in his defense, is just functioning within this system.

[aron]

I want to address the issue of bias. Here in Calgary we love our Flames. And my friend Joe lives in Edmonton and he loves the Oilers. Whenever we watch them play, and we discuss what we see in front of us, it is remarkable how different our interpretation is.

I will watch a play and exclaim how "my guy" got mugged by the opponent, and the ref didn't call a penalty! Terrible! Joe laughs, and says, "He barely touched him. Your guy just lost his balance and fell down." Joe's team is composed of thugs, miscreants, and so forth. My team is composed of tough, smart, hard-nosed hockey players.

When my team loses to Joes team it is because the refs didn't call the plays right, and the other team cheated, and played dirty, and the hockey gods weren't smiling and the puck bounced funny. But when my team wins it's because we work hard, play well, and are a good team.

It's called bias. We all do this to some extent. In sports fandom it is pretty obvious. In many phases of life it is less obvious. But Jesus said that to God it is obvious, that we can see the splinter elsewhere and miss the beam in our own situation.

How can we be so sure that the Little Flock raised up by Watchman Nee was so pure? Christianity was deformed, and a pure move of God recovered His original intention for the church, so we were told. And we bought it. Nee's "one-church-per-city" held an unassailable logic, so we thought, and even now we blame the problems on those horrible Blendeds, or Titus Chu who rebelled, or Witness Lee who sullied Watchman Nee's "pure move of God".

But why are we so quick to think there was no bias in the creation and organization of the Little Flock? It goes against every human experience heretofore. Somehow Nee was exempt. ???? And I am putting this idea on this thread because the author of this book Phillip Lin is biased. Witness Lee was biased. So are we all. Welcome to planet earth. If you think everyone is biased but you, then you are arguably the most blind of all.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Where is the boundary between Witness Lee "losing" the virginity of bleating Caucasian sheep and racism?

The short answer is: "I don't know." But, if he fleeced Caucasian sheep, surely he fleeced Chinese sheep as well.

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

... if WL fleeced Caucasian sheep, surely he fleeced Chinese sheep as well.

Interesting if we could know what percentage of American investors of Daystar loudly demanded to know what happened, where was the money? What percentage of Americans wanted financial redress, compared to what percentage that quietly took a bath "for the greater good."

Then compare that to the Asians. I believe the percentages would be skewed, judging by what anecdotal evidence I've heard.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by aron

It's called bias. We all do this to some extent. In sports fandom it is pretty obvious. In many phases of life it is less obvious. But Jesus said that to God it is obvious, that we can see the splinter elsewhere and miss the beam in our own situation.

My elder in church who was also ex-LC told me he noticed LCers, including ex-LC have trouble shaking off a spirit of criticism. He said this because he noticed it in me also so that I could be free of it.

The truth hurts sometimes, but if you think about it, it's true. Most of the Christians I meet today seem to have a much better time at seeing the good in people. People from LC backgrounds on the other hand, myself included will easily see the bad and struggle to see the good. We were trained for many years to criticize Christianity while overlooking our own hypocrisy. After leaving the LCs, we in turn took this subconsciously tuned mindset and turned it against Witness Lee and Watchman Nee.

Think about it, some of us have been out of the LCs for decades, yet we are still be struggling to be free. Many of us may not have even settled into a new church because we see irreconcilable problems with all other congregations. I know it was hard for me as well and it took forever to find a church both my wife and I were comfortable with. Maybe the only way to move on is to be free from this spirit of criticism inherited from the LCs.

Perhaps to get the worst of the LC fully out of our system we should learn to be merciful to others and try to see the good in them. I know I've failed many times in this regard, but perhaps once you realize the beam is in your eye, you can finally make an effort to take it out.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Think about it, some of us have been out of the LCs for decades, yet we are still be struggling to be free. Maybe the only way to move on is to be free from this spirit of criticism inherited from the LCs.

Perhaps to get the worst of the LC fully out of our system we should learn to be merciful to others and try to see the good in them. I know I've failed many times in this regard, but perhaps once you realize the beam is in your eye, you can finally make an effort to take it out.

There is a lot to be said for this bearbear. Forgiveness is not only for the person you forgive, it's for you. It should set you free from a lot of negative feelings.

Someone once said that holding a grudge is like drinking poison in order to kill the other person. At some point you just have to let it go and move on. You may not have all your questions answered, but you have to move on.

I hope nobody goes to their grave still majoring in figuring out and setting everything right about the LC.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

There is a lot to be said for this bearbear. Forgiveness is not only for the person you forgive, it's for you. It should set you free from a lot of negative feelings.

Someone once said that holding a grudge is like drinking poison in order to kill the other person. At some point you just have to let it go and move on. You may not have all your questions answered, but you have to move on.

I hope nobody goes to their grave still majoring in figuring out and setting everything right about the LC.

I agree that there is a lot to be said here. The spirit of criticism I have received due to being in the LC is strong and deeply ingrained in me.

I am used to having critical thoughts about everyone besides me, and I am used to being a target of all kinds of criticism. I can't say that I know how to "shake off" this part of me. That is part of wht I am here. I think we are all in this together, trying to release ourselves from this bondage. The spirit of criticism in the LC started all the way at the top with WL, the COTA (Criticizer of the Age).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I agree that there is a lot to be said here. The spirit of criticism I have received due to being in the LC is strong and deeply ingrained in me.

I think a way out of this self-inflicted damage (criticism, & bitterness toward others) is the objectivity we may gain by seeing ourselves in others. The same spirit that we see in others (the splinter) may also operate in us (as the beam). So looking back and asking "what went wrong" may indeed show us the way forward. It was not bad old Nee or bad old Lee or bad Blendeds We, but all of us fallen humanity which succumbs to the siren charms of Gods adversary.

So today I was thinking about 2 events. One was WL publicly shaming TC in a training. The other was one of the blendeds doing the same, from the podium, to one of the rank-and-file "brothers" during a conference at my old church. I was thinking, Would this behavior, of public shaming, be acceptable in my Congregational church? Absolutely not! Then why was it accepted, even expected, in the local church? I argue because the social culture required it. To know who was behind whom you have to see who shames whom in public. All this is necessary for a well-ordered, functioning society, in certain cultures. But other cultures don't figure out who is behind whom that way. They have other less public means.

So it dawned on me that what I was watching here was fallen human culture, masquerading as spiritual organization. And how much do my behaviors also reflect my culture? The website I linked had two key words for me: "instinctive" and "reflexive". We don't examine it, we just do it. Nee and Lee were not exempt. Nobody is. So our discussions today can help us find those hidden forces operating in us all, and free us.

And I would argue that this process of being free is the best thing we can do for others. "Physician, heal thyself": when others see us being enlightened, and freed, then maybe they will be emboldened to examine the chains that bind them. Certainly one chain is culture.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

But why are we so quick to think there was no bias in the creation and organization of the Little Flock? It goes against every human experience heretofore. Somehow Nee was exempt. ???? And I am putting this idea on this thread because the author of this book Phillip Lin is biased. Witness Lee was biased. So are we all. Welcome to planet earth. If you think everyone is biased but you, then you are arguably the most blind of all.

So true aron. It's a struggle not to be biased. Especially when it comes to delivery of messages. Whether you're in the local churches or in non-LC churches, there is a propensity to prefer one brother's speaking over another.
Perhaps that's why apostle James spoke the word in James chapter 2 on the Sin of Partiality. Being partial is part of our flesh. Which is why this book Sacrifice and Sail On is a product of flesh.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

Interesting if we could know what percentage of American investors of Daystar loudly demanded to know what happened, where was the money? What percentage of Americans wanted financial redress, compared to what percentage that quietly took a bath "for the greater good."

Then compare that to the Asians. I believe the percentages would be skewed, judging by what anecdotal evidence I've heard.

In the locality where I attended, I don't recall anyone loudly demanding anything. They were loudly saying "Amen" to whatever Witness Lee and the elder saying. I don't have any data on the questions you raise but I do appreciate that you recognize that we are talking about behavior which are not all or none in any ethnic group but rather ones that are more or less in every group.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

So true aron. It's a struggle not to be biased. Especially when it comes to delivery of messages. Whether you're in the local churches or in non-LC churches, there is a propensity to prefer one brother's speaking over another.
Perhaps that's why apostle James spoke the word in James chapter 2 on the Sin of Partiality. Being partial is part of our flesh. Which is why this book Sacrifice and Sail On is a product of flesh.

The need for a man in the flesh, like bro Lee, is a carnal need.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by aron

Interesting if we could know what percentage of American investors of Daystar loudly demanded to know what happened, where was the money? What percentage of Americans wanted financial redress, compared to what percentage that quietly took a bath "for the greater good."

Then compare that to the Asians. I believe the percentages would be skewed, judging by what anecdotal evidence I've heard.

aron, would this imply that Chinese and Korean Recovery members may have been more likely to quietly take a bath, or that they may have been wiser and more cautious before investing in Lee's business propositions in the first place?

Or perhaps, a little of both, eh?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

The short answer is: "I don't know." But, if he fleeced Caucasian sheep, surely he fleeced Chinese sheep as well.

He surely did. And some of the Chinese sheep watched in silence while Caucasian sleep were getting their own wool pulled over their eyes.

"LOL"

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

He surely did. And some of the Chinese sheep watched in silence while Caucasian sleep were getting their own wool pulled over their eyes.

"LOL"

Comic/tragic. No wonder you like mob movies look what you witnessed as a kid. You're Brother Witness Liotta.

[Freedom]

In the last chapter of his book, Lin addresses WL's financial dealings. This is also where he addresses Daystar. He says a number of inaccurate things that I wanted to point out along with some contradictions. Regarding the aftermath of Daystar Lin states:

Looking back, we can say that although Brother Lee was a competent business builder, but it seems that the Lord did not want him to do business to make money for Him, because he was not born for that! In this matter of making money for the Lord, Brother Lee seemed never to have any successes in his life. If we look at it from man’s view point, this case shows his weakness and failure just as he himself once admitted that as a fallen human being, he also have had his weakness and failure...


Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (p. 272). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

So here Lin excuses the failure of Daystar as a matter of WL not being a business man. Notice the part in bold where Lin states that Lee never seemed to have success in making money for the Lord. Shortly after stating this, Lin include a copy of WL's will. Here is an excerpt of WL's will:

Following the Lord’s leading, I established the Gospel Bookroom and the Living Stream Ministry both to spread the messages of His recovery. The purpose of such establishment is not for building up an enterprise for myself or my children to secure any gain. In order to protect the copyright from confusion, I decided that the Gospel Bookroom and the Living Stream Ministry should pay me a royalty. Any excess that I received would be offered to the Lord for His use. Later, the royalty I received became more than before. In addition to offering to the Lord, I used the rest to support those of you children who are in need. At the beginning of 1994, while I was resting in the hospital, I felt that although what I received from my royalty payment was a result of my writing, the source of such writing is the word of the Lord. I vowed to the Lord that after I am taken away by the Lord, beginning from the year after that, I will offer all the royalty to the Lord.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (p. 277). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Notice how Lee's own words contradict what Lin just stated. LSM got to the point where it was bringing "excess". Yes, WL had "success" in generating money. This success was LSM. What particularly catches my attention is where WL says "Later, the royalty I received became more than before". What exactly does this mean? Does this mean he went from receiving just a little money to receiving a large amount of money. The way this is worded it implies that without stating it explicitly.

I'm not here to judge WL on his financial dealings, however, I don't like the thought that Lin wishes to portray the image of Lee being "pure" in his finances. For starters, if LSM had "excess" in later years, why did Lee not take the opportunity to repay some of those who lost money from Daystar who "forgave" him his debts? Well, I guess technically that would have to be done under the table.

Finally, I wanted to post a quote of what Lin has to say regarding brothers whom he labels as "rebellious":

Those rebellious ones say that Brother Witness Lee used LSM to preach the Word of God in order to make financial gains from the saints and to establish an enterprise to accumulate financial fortune for him and his children. In order to make known and to explore the senseless and false rumors, unfounded foulness, arrogant allegations and also to give, at the same time, an excellent example for those with a pure heart loving and serving the Lord to follow, I have included below a copy of the will of Brother Witness Lee to his children in English, which was handed to me from his son Brother Philip Lee.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (p. 276). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Apparently Lin feels that no one had any right to question WL's finances. That is hard to swallow given all we know about Lee's financial failures. I really feel that Lee had the inability to let himself be held accountable for his personal choices.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Philip Lin really put a spin on things here. He says that Lee "cleared" all the Daystar debts. It make it sound like everything worked out just fine. He forgot to mention that saints were asked to "forgive" debt owed by Lee. I wonder how many saints did so out of pressure?

The other side of the coin from former LC elder Doug Krieger,


"The L.C. needed someone to sell its motor homes--the entire enterprise (in retrospect) was nothing more than a vain attempt by W.L. to build his financial empire here in America via cheap labor in Taiwan. My subjective knowledge of this "scheme" was that it was illegal, immoral and unethical to the core--it was a vast rip off of God's people--a shame to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ! Many saints lost their life savings in this bogus venture.

I was asked to help in this now defunct and exposed sham--although there were full-time sales people doing the job. Before W.L. and his ilk decided to excommunicate me, I was able to sell 5 of these wildebeests (the only guy that ever sold any to anyone aside from selling it to ourselves!) - For a time this "saved me from excommunication" (by the way there was the spurious charge that my excommunication or being asked to "leave Berkeley" (which Dave Mattison and Jim Miller requested of me and Doug Shearer to do) was based upon "divisiveness" (a most ambiguous charge in that I was immediately heralded in Anaheim as "the savior of the Recovery") - that ignoble title lasted one week or less. Then, when I asked for my promised commission for the sale and "cash in hand" of these vehicles, Max Rapaport smashed me by telling me that when I requested my financial commissions as promised that I would NOT receive anything and that "your opinions count as nothing."

W.L. - after I appealed to him (for I was the only one who had done all the sales out of my own resources and had received no compensation throughout the two-month effort--unlike virtually all sales and staff members) realized that what Max had done (although I understand now that W.L. had asked Max to "stick it to me" (i.e., no compensation)) was encouraged by W.L. in an attempt to secure more funds for his nefarious efforts--efforts now embracing sons Timothy and Phillip."

http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?t=39611

[TLFisher]

Sacrifice and Sail On Chapter 6 Kindle Location 2305

"All of this culminated in a meeting in Anaheim August 28, 1988, in which Brother Ingalls gave 8 points on the so-called truth; in his view, he said the Lord's recovery had deviated and changed in nature. This was followed by Brother Godfred's speaking on the so-called "standing of the Church in Anaheim." After they finished speaking, Brother Al Knoch confirmed he agreed with what they said. Their speaking was absolutely a direct attack on Brother Lee and his ministry, and also an attempt to cut the church off from Brother Lee's ministry.
Brother Minoru Chen and I were in Anaheim as elders objecting to the things the other three elders did and to the unseemly things taking place in the meetings."

The following is John Ingalls testimony of the same event including a time with brother Lee several days before from Speaking the Truth in Love pages 39-40.

"On Thursday, August 25th, Brother Lee asked me to come to his home for further fellowship. He said then that he would ask Godfred and Al to come to his home the following day, Friday. It seemed strange to me that he would separate us, asking me to come on one day and them on another. But he said I could come too on Friday if I liked. On Thursday alone with me, Brother Lee asked me what changes I thought he should have. This greatly surprised me. Perhaps he was thinking of my fellowship with him on June 22nd, when I told him that if he did not have some change, it would be difficult for the churches to go on. I said, "Brother Lee, please give me a moment to collect my thoughts." I was concerned what I should say to him. Then I proceeded to mention a few of the concerns previously mentioned. Moreover, I tried to impress him that I never tried to use the term "autonomy" in all of my speaking. Throughout these months I had told him this several times. I stated that I was burdened to speak about local administration together with universal fellowship (as we have in our hymn, #824, authored by Brother Lee and translated from Chinese: Administration local, each answering to the Lord; Communion universal, upheld in one accord.) He responded, "that’s my teaching." I agreed that it was indeed his teaching. So what was wrong?
The next afternoon, Friday, August 26th, I joined Godfred and Al at Brother Lee’s home. Godfred spoke strongly, asking Brother Lee first if he had spoken anything against us recently. He replied that he had not. Then Godfred reasoned with him: How is it that you speak against autonomy, considering that a problem, but you will not deal with the problems that we brought to your attention. Godfred spoke earnestly and impressively. He said, "the center of the church should be Christ, but He has been replaced by you and your ministry." Brother Lee was touched by what Godfred said, and perhaps considering that what he had just alleged afforded some light for clearing up the problem, he said, "I like to hear that." I recall the scene vividly, and his words still echo in my ears. It seemed that this time Brother Lee appreciated the frank fellowship and was trying to warm up to us. But we could not seem to make any real progress. Brother Lee remarked that everything that had happened in Europe which had caused so great a problem between the churches and the Living Stream Ministry was just a misunderstanding. After the meeting Godfred told us that he wanted to leave the eldership and was fully disgusted with the whole situation.



SIXTEEN POINTS
August 28, 1988


As the day drew near for special fellowship with the church as we had announced, Godfred, Al and I came together for prayer and fellowship regarding the content of the coming gathering. We only knew that we needed to clear up some matters, and set a direction for the church, and we had been praying individually for guidance concerning the specific points that should be covered. I proposed to the brothers that we briefly expound a number of basic matters according to the Word of God that set forth the proper standing of the church, touching especially the aspects both of truth and practice that related to our current situation. The brothers consented. After some consideration we decided that I would cover eight points concerning the truth and Godfred would cover eight points regarding the practice; in conclusion Al would give a testimony of confirmation.
The appointed time arrived for the meeting. (Brother Lee meanwhile was in San Gabriel, meeting with the Chinese-speaking saints.) This time, we felt, was very crucial to our going on. There were over two hundred saints on hand, including some on the Chinese-speaking side who understood English (a good number considering our usual attendance). Brothers Minoru Chen and Philip Lin with the three of us sat together in the front. We launched into our burden and experienced much strengthening, release, and anointing. As contemplated, I covered the points concerning our standing related to the truth. This touched the following points (in a greatly abridged form):
1. Our standing in relation to the Word of God. It is our sole authority, our constitution, and we should check everything by it.
2. Our standing concerning the church. In this age the church is central and supreme; no other corporate body is recognized by the New Testament.
3. Concerning the genuine oneness. It is organic; it can never be organized or forced. Spiritual leaders should not divide us.
4. Concerning other Christians. We should never mock or belittle other Christians with an elitist attitude; rather, we should love, honor, and receive them all.
5. Concerning our vocation. It is to build up the Body of Christ, not any work or ministry.
6. Concerning our purpose or aim. It is to be the Lord’s testimony; we are not here for any work.
7. Concerning the ministry. It is the imparting of God into His people to produce the church. It is not the ministry of any one person; we all have a share in it.
8. Concerning the apostles. They are always plural, and there are a number of them on the earth today. We should not exalt any apostle or servant of God beyond what is written.
The full text of my points as well as Godfred’s plus Al’s testimony is included in the Appendix (see page 79, Appendix B).
I spoke honestly and frankly according to the solid principles revealed in the Word, which we had been taught and which we had believed and held for years, applying some of the points to our present situation. I was not aiming at Brother Lee. I was burdened to present the basic truths concerning our standing and correct some misconceptions held by the saints. The present need demanded that we touch specifically the matters which we addressed. I have heard Brother Lee repeat a number of times what he had been told by a brother. "These sixteen points are sixteen bullets aimed at you {Brother Lee}." That is not true. If anything hit him it is not because we were aiming at him.
Godfred followed and covered eight points regarding our practice:
1. In relation to church administration. It should be local, with no central control. The elders in each place should seek the Lord directly for his timely leading according to the need in their locality.
2. The Living Stream Ministry Office. It is a business office and has no authority over the church. As the church we disassociate ourselves from certain practices and conduct there that we find intolerable.
3. The Life Studies and Christian literature in general. We should never allow spiritual materials to become a crutch or replacement for the reading of the Bible. To insist upon reading only LSM material or to oppose the reading of LSM material is going to far.
4. The church book sales. We will continue this service, but we will no longer advertise or promote any books.
5. The semi-annual trainings. We will no longer interrupt our church life for the trainings. Anyone who wishes to attend the trainings should feel free to do so.
6. The other churches. We should respect and highly esteem all other churches, but we should not compel the church in our locality to practice like other churches.
7. Various practices. In all these matters we must practice generality. Any practice which is not sinful we should not oppose; neither should we impose it.
8. The gospel. There is no particular way to preach the gospel; any proper way is good.
Godfred spoke earnestly and to the point with a good spirit. He apologized to the church on our behalf for coming under the influence of external pressures in past years and not seeking the Lord’s leading directly according to the local need. He confessed to the saints on our behalf the promoting of an improper relationship with the LSM office, so that we declared our oneness with that office and thus associated ourselves with its conduct. The blame for that relationship, he said, must be borne by us elders, and not put on the doorstep of the office.
Godfred closed with this statement, which I want to quote in full: "Our reason for having this fellowship is not to vindicate anyone or to condemn anyone, or to do anything for ourselves. We are having this fellowship for the purpose of bringing us all back to the Lord Himself. He is our Head, He is our center; and He should be the entire unique content of the church life! We hope that the things we have briefly mentioned will clear up the past so that we all can go forward together positively as the church in our city." This was a fitting conclusion to the sixteen points.
Al Knoch then followed with an appropriate confirming testimony, saying that we were not there to oppose anything which the Lord had given us through the years. He cited questions being raised by saints in local churches in Europe, where he had recently visited with his family. They were asking, "Are we really the local church with a general standing, open to every Christian in our city? Or are we a sect?" These are legitimate and timely questions. Then he added, "They found out that gradually they were becoming a very special kind of ‘church’, not a local church…." Al also apologized for his part in all the promotions and for all that he had done and said.
When Al finished I spoke just a few words regarding our going on, how we needed much prayer and the Word. We did not have time to impress these matters upon the saints, so we just made a few announcements, expecting that the meeting would soon be brought to a close.
When I sat down a number of brothers, most of whom were in the home meetings Godfred and I visited a few weeks previously (see pages 37 and 38), were very burdened to speak and had come to the meeting well-prepared. They felt that what we had spoken had left the job only half done, and they desired to complete it. Therefore, they stood one by one crying out against various evils and especially remonstrating against sin being tolerated and sinful persons being put into a position of influence. One brother quoted Watchman Nee’s word that the judgment of sin is the basis of oneness. (Love One Another, pp. 148-149). The pent-up feelings of some of them burst out in strong protest against practices and abuses they could brook no longer. Although we sympathized with a number of their burdens, we felt the spirit of the meeting had changed, and there was considerable stridency and rancor. That left a bad taste. Accusations were made and some personal matters were raised that should have been handled in private, not in that forum. The meeting began to erupt in an exchange of words at the end, and Godfred arose and with God-given wisdom calmed the storm and turned the saints to pray. Thus concluding the meeting. We regretted that it should end in such a manner.
Toward the conclusion of the session as we were starting to pray, Minoru arose and made a couple of statements which I want to note for the record. He said that he agreed in principle with all the points that we had made, but he stated that he wanted to reserve himself regarding some matters; and concerning some of the points, particularly those made by Godfred, he stated that he would not say in a definite way that he agreed or disagreed. He also referred to Godfred’s apology for participating in certain promotions, which, he said, took place mainly in 1986. (He was alluding to the promotion of the LSM office and Philip Lee.) He said that he wanted to amen what Godfred had shared and declared that there was an excessive amount of this promotion, thereby bringing the saints into confusion and despondency, and the church into suffering. He also wanted to ask the forgiveness of the whole church for his part in this very matter."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Apparently Lin feels that no one had any right to question WL's finances. That is hard to swallow given all we know about Lee's financial failures.

Lin is following the principle of "Spiritual Authority" by Watchman Nee wherein to question the delegated authority is rebellion.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

Lin is following the principle of "Spiritual Authority" by Watchman Nee wherein to question the delegated authority is rebellion.

That, and Witness Lee claimed that his ministry's financial dealings were his own personal business, since it was his "personal ministry."

For anyone who hasn't had the opportunity to hear Witness Lee's phone conversation with Boston elder Sal Benoit in 1978, I repost it again here. (Thanks to bearbear for linking to the transcript.)

A couple of nuggets from Witness Lee:

"All the donations
were donated
to the Living Stream ….
It all went to the Living Stream account.
That is legal.
Living Stream is a legal, tax deduction ...
Co-pation, corporation.
That’s it.
About Daystar, that is not your business.
No, I don’t answer you.
I have no responsibility to answer anyone about this" (p. 3 of transcript).

"Okay. The ministry is my personal ministry and
this is incorporated.
I’m not responsible to
anyone. I’m only responsible to the government" (p. 5 of transcript).

Audio: http://mustune.com/sal-benoit-witness-lee/

Transcript: http://www.laymansfellowship.com/public/Transcript-SalBenoitAndWitnessLee-PhoneCall.pdf

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

That, and Witness Lee claimed that his ministry's financial dealings were his own personal business, since it was his "personal ministry."

For anyone who hasn't had the opportunity to hear Witness Lee's phone conversation with Boston elder Sal Benoit in 1978, I repost it again here. (Thanks to bearbear for linking to the transcript.)

A couple of nuggets from Witness Lee:

"All the donations
were donated
to the Living Stream ….
It all went to the Living Stream account.
That is legal.
Living Stream is a legal, tax deduction ...
Co-pation, corporation.
That’s it.
About Daystar, that is not your business.
No, I don’t answer you.
I have no responsibility to answer anyone about this" (p. 3 of transcript).

"Okay. The ministry is my personal ministry and
this is incorporated.
I’m not responsible to
anyone. I’m only responsible to the government" (p. 5 of transcript).

Audio: http://mustune.com/sal-benoit-witness-lee/

Transcript: http://www.laymansfellowship.com/public/Transcript-SalBenoitAndWitnessLee-PhoneCall.pdf

As the MOTA, Lee apparently saw himself as answerable to no one but God whereas, we were all answerable to him as our delegated authority.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by zeek

As the MOTA, Lee apparently saw himself as answerable to no one but God whereas, we were all answerable to him as our delegated authority.

It's a shame that even though Lin readily admits that Lee wasn't perfect, he dismisses his failures as minor issues. Actually, I think if Lee wasn't viewed as the MOTA, then his failures wouldn't be such a big deal.

Because Lee felt he was accountable to no one, it changes everything. Because of Lee's status in the LC and the broad impact of his failures, there is good reason to question his financial dealings.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by bearbear

My elder in church who was also ex-LC told me he noticed LCers, including ex-LC have trouble shaking off a spirit of criticism. He said this because he noticed it in me also so that I could be free of it.

The truth hurts sometimes, but if you think about it, it's true. Most of the Christians I meet today seem to have a much better time at seeing the good in people. People from LC backgrounds on the other hand, myself included will easily see the bad and struggle to see the good. We were trained for many years to criticize Christianity while overlooking our own hypocrisy. After leaving the LCs, we in turn took this subconsciously tuned mindset and turned it against Witness Lee and Watchman Nee.

Think about it, some of us have been out of the LCs for decades, yet we are still be struggling to be free. Many of us may not have even settled into a new church because we see irreconcilable problems with all other congregations. I know it was hard for me as well and it took forever to find a church both my wife and I were comfortable with. Maybe the only way to move on is to be free from this spirit of criticism inherited from the LCs.

Perhaps to get the worst of the LC fully out of our system we should learn to be merciful to others and try to see the good in them. I know I've failed many times in this regard, but perhaps once you realize the beam is in your eye, you can finally make an effort to take it out.

bearbear, I think it is God's loving shepherding that an elder, a former ex-member, could discern this in you. Perhaps you could start a new thread with these points elaborated.

I have never met a member or former member of the LC's that was not inflicted to some extent with this spirit of criticism. Nee and Lee passed on this "spiritual disease" to all of us, and that's why they were so confident that we were "wrecked" for Christianity. Up until now, I have simply referred to this as the "ministry of condemnation." (2 Cor 3.9) It is thus far easier for ex-members to enter into the world than it is to enter into fellowship in another congregation.

This disease has made us all critical, even to the extent of giving us a spirit of criticism. It is so easy to perceive the bad, rather than noticing the good in others and in various circumstances. We have become skeptics and suspicious of everything. I see this in myself, my extended family, the saints I am close to, and in all those who have posted on these forums.

I don't believe there is any magic "cure" for this disease. Ours is an uphill struggle, constantly repudiating the old ingrained ways, and exercising our hearts to love, to be merciful, to be compassionate, to be complimentary, to believe all things. (I Cor 13.7)

Mark 7.22-23 has been helpful to me ...

Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

An "evil eye" is an eye that sees evil. We in the Recovery were trained to see evil, to see evil in everyone except Lee. That "evil" which we see in everyone else is dangerous because it can enter our heart and defile us. It enables us to judge all others and excuse ourselves. This evil eye then fuels our pride and blindness.

[Freedom]

An "evil eye" is an eye that sees evil. We in the Recovery were trained to see evil, to see evil in everyone except Lee. That "evil" which we see in everyone else is dangerous because it can enter our heart and defile us. It enables us to judge all others and excuse ourselves. This evil eye then fuels our pride and blindness.

What I think makes matters worse is that in the LC we can't criticize things that are clearly wrong, even when it would be beneficial to do so. In my experience, I feel like I have held a lot inside, so my natural reaction is to want to speak what's on my mind.

I remeber not too long ago one of the elders in my LC criticized Rick Warren, Greg Laurie and Billy Graham as being those who preach the "low gospel". All I heard was "amen" when that was said. I really felt like standing up and tellling him off for making a statement like that.

I think my point is that there are plenty of situations where it might be okay to criticize or point out something wrong. There are also situations that we may be just as wrong as the person we think is wrong. I feel that the LC has really contributed to making this a confusing issue to deal with.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

What I think makes matters worse is that in the LC we can't criticize things that are clearly wrong, even when it would be beneficial to do so. In my experience, I feel like I have held a lot inside, so my natural reaction is to want to speak what's on my mind.

I remember not too long ago one of the elders in my LC criticized Rick Warren, Greg Laurie and Billy Graham as being those who preach the "low gospel". All I heard was "amen" when that was said. I really felt like standing up and tellling him off for making a statement like that.

I think my point is that there are plenty of situations where it might be okay to criticize or point out something wrong. There are also situations that we may be just as wrong as the person we think is wrong. I feel that the LC has really contributed to making this a confusing issue to deal with.

What you say is very true. We were taught to speak when we should have been quiet, and taught to be quiet when we should have spoken up.

Ecclesiastes 3.7 says, "A time to tear apart and a time to sew together; A time to be silent and a time to speak."

It's too bad in the Recovery that we often did not know what time it was! We were on Lee's time, and not God's time.

And Freedom ... now is the time, and this is the place ... for you to speak up! ... And to Give Thanks to God!

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have never met a member or former member of the LC's that was not inflicted to some extent with this spirit of criticism. Nee and Lee passed on this "spiritual disease" to all of us, and that's why they were so confident that we were "wrecked" for Christianity. Up until now, I have simply referred to this as the "ministry of condemnation." (2 Cor 3.9) It is thus far easier for ex-members to enter into the world than it is to enter into fellowship in another congregation.

You may be correct in general but not for the reasons you are stating. Before I became involved in the LC I was a junior attending an AOG Bible College in Santa Cruz, Calif. and had previously been an active Christian for 5 years since I was 17 e.g. I preached on the streets every week to win souls to Christ. I left the LC in 1978 after having been in the LC for about 9 years and 2 migrations later. I had been very active in the LC in recruiting Christians and the unsaved on campuses but I left not because I was overly critical as much as realizing that this is not what I signed up for. After I left I started attending an AOG church and became involved with the congregation teaching adult Sunday school etc. However, after a year or so I realized that I just couldn’t continue. Again, it wasn’t that I was critical but it was just that I didn’t want to be a part of it anymore. I had received 9 years of hearing that these churches were the daughters of Babylon and that Christ was against religion. Also, we were taught that we had the inside revelation as to the workings of God on the earth with the apostle as the leader and other teachings seemed superficial comparatively. I tried to go back to other churches over the next few years but it just didn’t work for me for several reasons. As I have stated previously, I focused on my work and family over the next few years as a result.

In any case, from an Evangelical Christian/Biblical standpoint it is either you are in the world or living the devout Christian life. However, I don’t have that narrow perspective. For me, I am still a seeker and I read and have read extensively in several areas of interest as well as being very active in the Unitarian Church (President, Leader on several groups etc, as well as giving many talks to the congregation over the years). The last talk I gave a couple months ago or so ago was on James Luther Adams, the most prominent Unitarian theologian of the 21^st Century where I shared that when he was in Germany in 1937 he saw firsthand how Christians succumbed to the Nazis. The bottom line: don’t stick your head in the sand in regards to the social/political issues surrounding your life. I read the Bible all the time, not from a theological standpoint but how it addresses many of the issues of today e.g. poverty, women, etc. It is the most important book of the last 2000 years influencing western civilization. One thing I like about the Unitarians--they aren't trying to cram some believe it or else doctrine down my throat but they are one of the most active socially groups in our area and work with other churches to feed and clothe the poor and the downtrodden etc.

In regards to the book we are talking about on this thread. Lin has his head in the sand and can't see what is in front of him or is unwilling to see and confront the issues and problems of Witness Lee. He should never have written such a book which is so full of misinformation. But he is being a "good" Christian and follower of the Apostle WL.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Ohio

bearbear, I think it is God's loving shepherding that an elder, a former ex-member, could discern this in you. Perhaps you could start a new thread with these points elaborated.

I have never met a member or former member of the LC's that was not inflicted to some extent with this spirit of criticism. Nee and Lee passed on this "spiritual disease" to all of us, and that's why they were so confident that we were "wrecked" for Christianity. Up until now, I have simply referred to this as the "ministry of condemnation." (2 Cor 3.9) It is thus far easier for ex-members to enter into the world than it is to enter into fellowship in another congregation.

This disease has made us all critical, even to the extent of giving us a spirit of criticism. It is so easy to perceive the bad, rather than noticing the good in others and in various circumstances. We have become skeptics and suspicious of everything. I see this in myself, my extended family, the saints I am close to, and in all those who have posted on these forums.

I don't believe there is any magic "cure" for this disease. Ours is an uphill struggle, constantly repudiating the old ingrained ways, and exercising our hearts to love, to be merciful, to be compassionate, to be complimentary, to believe all things. (I Cor 13.7)

Mark 7.22-23 has been helpful to me ...

An "evil eye" is an eye that sees evil. We in the Recovery were trained to see evil, to see evil in everyone except Lee. That "evil" which we see in everyone else is dangerous because it can enter our heart and defile us. It enables us to judge all others and excuse ourselves. This evil eye then fuels our pride and blindness.

Thanks for the discussion on being critical in this thread and also in the comments some have made in my "How Much to Throw Out" thread. I think this has caused my spouse and I to pray in the car when traveling to our new church meetings that We would saved from being judgmental, superior and critical. Soon we plan to meet with the pastor and maybe I'll ask him if he detects any judgmental- ism in us.

[awareness]

Outstanding posts bro's Ohio and bearbear. And of course I resent .. er ah .. resemble those remarks.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I don't believe there is any magic "cure" for this disease. Ours is an uphill struggle, constantly repudiating the old ingrained ways, and exercising our hearts to love, to be merciful, to be compassionate, to be complimentary, to believe all things.

I don't know that it's a disease -- being critical -- or if so, that its in need of being cured. It's our defenses, of falling for anything like the LC again. Isn't that a good thing? Like a brother or sister telling you, "maybe the Lord is trying to teach or show you something." If you're not inclined to be critical, you'll prolly find yourself being manipulated, by those who wish to make you in their image. I guess some are okay with that. But not me. I'm critical.

Originally Posted by Ohio

An "evil eye" is an eye that sees evil.

Well the evil eye is another thing. What a concept! I agree we should be more concerned with the evil I, and not just see evil in others.

But rest assured. If evil is afoot, I hope I have an eye out for it.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

What I think makes matters worse is that in the LC we can't criticize things that are clearly wrong, even when it would be beneficial to do so. In my experience, I feel like I have held a lot inside, so my natural reaction is to want to speak what's on my mind.

That's how I am also. I have kept in so much for so long, because the Local Church culture/system does not want expression of thought. I no longer meet in this environment except when I visit my parents. Even when I do visit, there's confirmation I have made the proper decision to leave.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

Sacrifice and Sail On Chapter 6 Kindle Location 2305

" Their speaking was absolutely a direct attack on Brother Lee and his ministry, and also an attempt to cut the church off from Brother Lee's ministry."

The following is John Ingalls testimony of the same event including a time with brother Lee several days before from Speaking the Truth in Love pages 39-40.


1. Our standing in relation to the Word of God. It is our sole authority, our constitution, and we should check everything by it.

2. Our standing concerning the church. In this age the church is central and supreme; no other corporate body is recognized by the New Testament.

3. Concerning the genuine oneness. It is organic; it can never be organized or forced. Spiritual leaders should not divide us.

4. Concerning other Christians. We should never mock or belittle other Christians with an elitist attitude; rather, we should love, honor, and receive them all.

5. Concerning our vocation. It is to build up the Body of Christ, not any work or ministry.

6. Concerning our purpose or aim. It is to be the Lord’s testimony; we are not here for any work.

7. Concerning the ministry. It is the imparting of God into His people to produce the church. It is not the ministry of any one person; we all have a share in it.

8. Concerning the apostles. They are always plural, and there are a number of them on the earth today. We should not exalt any apostle or servant of God beyond what is written.

Godfred followed and covered eight points regarding our practice:

1. In relation to church administration. It should be local, with no central control. The elders in each place should seek the Lord directly for his timely leading according to the need in their locality.

2. The Living Stream Ministry Office. It is a business office and has no authority over the church. As the church we disassociate ourselves from certain practices and conduct there that we find intolerable.

3. The Life Studies and Christian literature in general. We should never allow spiritual materials to become a crutch or replacement for the reading of the Bible. To insist upon reading only LSM material or to oppose the reading of LSM material is going to far.

4. The church book sales. We will continue this service, but we will no longer advertise or promote any books.

5. The semi-annual trainings. We will no longer interrupt our church life for the trainings. Anyone who wishes to attend the trainings should feel free to do so.

6. The other churches. We should respect and highly esteem all other churches, but we should not compel the church in our locality to practice like other churches.

7. Various practices. In all these matters we must practice generality. Any practice which is not sinful we should not oppose; neither should we impose it.

8. The gospel. There is no particular way to preach the gospel; any proper way is good.

Godfred spoke earnestly and to the point with a good spirit. He apologized to the church on our behalf for coming under the influence of external pressures in past years and not seeking the Lord’s leading directly according to the local need. He confessed to the saints on our behalf the promoting of an improper relationship with the LSM office, so that we declared our oneness with that office and thus associated ourselves with its conduct. The blame for that relationship, he said, must be borne by us elders, and not put on the doorstep of the office.
Godfred closed with this statement, which I want to quote in full: "Our reason for having this fellowship is not to vindicate anyone or to condemn anyone, or to do anything for ourselves. We are having this fellowship for the purpose of bringing us all back to the Lord Himself. He is our Head, He is our center; and He should be the entire unique content of the church life! We hope that the things we have briefly mentioned will clear up the past so that we all can go forward together positively as the church in our city." This was a fitting conclusion to the sixteen points.

Toward the conclusion of the session as we were starting to pray, Minoru arose and made a couple of statements which I want to note for the record. He said that he agreed in principle with all the points that we had made, but he stated that he wanted to reserve himself regarding some matters; and concerning some of the points, particularly those made by Godfred, he stated that he would not say in a definite way that he agreed or disagreed. He also referred to Godfred’s apology for participating in certain promotions, which, he said, took place mainly in 1986. (He was alluding to the promotion of the LSM office and Philip Lee.) He said that he wanted to amen what Godfred had shared and declared that there was an excessive amount of this promotion, thereby bringing the saints into confusion and despondency, and the church into suffering. He also wanted to ask the forgiveness of the whole church for his part in this very matter.

Where is the attack Phillip Lin is referring to? Key words I underlined are apologized and confessed. As I read from John's account, Godfred and Minoru asked for forgiveness for their role in promoting the LSM office. Sacrifice and Sail On appears to have left this portion out.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know that it's a disease -- being critical -- or if so, that its in need of being cured. It's our defenses, of falling for anything like the LC again. Isn't that a good thing?

Discernment comes with experience and the knowledge of the scriptures. Of course, it's a good thing. The Lord Himself and the apostles all have warned us in their writings.

A spirit of criticism takes this to an extreme. Consider those who cannot fellowship with any other Christians, cannot maintain meaningful friendships due to endless disagreements, cannot enjoy peaceful marital relations due to nit-picking, etc. all are indicators that things are not healthy with us. Check within whether, during times of conflict, we can find anything good in the situation. Can we still trust people? Are we skeptical of everything and everyone?

In the midst of conflict and tension, the apostle Paul said, "whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is righteous, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is honorable, if there is any virtue or praise, keep thinking about these things."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Where is the attack Phillip Lin is referring to? Key words I underlined are apologized and confessed. As I read from John's account, Godfred and Minoru asked for forgiveness for their role in promoting the LSM office. Sacrifice and Sail On appears to have left this portion out.

There was no attack by John Ingalls. Never was one. Nada. Zilch. Negatory.

When faced with the truth, when faced with prophets sent by God, what did Lee do? Did he have ears to hear? Did he repent? No, he did not.

Instead Lee did to John Ingalls what the Pharisees did to the Prophets.

The only difference was in the aftermath. The Pharisees erected monuments to the Prophets they killed. Lee and the Blendeds, however, just removed every trace of Ingalls from their history.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Ohio

A spirit of criticism takes this to an extreme. Consider those who cannot fellowship with any other Christians, cannot maintain meaningful friendships due to endless disagreements, cannot enjoy peaceful marital relations due to nit-picking, etc. all are indicators that things are not healthy with us. Check within whether, during times of conflict, we can find anything good in the situation. Can we still trust people? Are we skeptical of everything and everyone?

Just today I came across a piece of scripture where it seems Jesus predicts the result of the LC -> ex-LC experience as you have just described it. The context is set in the last days, but the pattern seems to match so well it cannot be ignored.

Matthew 24:11-13
"11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved."

Not only did we inherit a spirit of criticism, but perhaps many even came to know a level of wickedness and hypocrisy we thought was not possible from who we believed were men of God. Since many of us looked up to Witness Lee and considered him our spiritual father, we felt betrayed and deceived (Matt 24:11) when we discovered the truth that he only viewed us as pawns, or as "saints who lost their virginity". From what I've seen with my Dad in regards to Titus Chu also, it seems that many felt used and as a result our trust towards others was broken.

The natural response to this according to Matthew 24:11-12 is for one's love to grow cold after being deceived by authority figures (v11) and experiencing wickedness (v12). The following verse 13 then suggests that letting our love grow cold actually implies a letting go of faith.

It seems like there is always a temptation to blame God when things like this happen, but Jesus never promised that we would not encounter such horrible experiences after following him, in fact it seems like he warns us to expect such things in Matthew 24:11-13 as well as many other places such as:

John 16:33
"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."

I think this is why Jesus gave us the parable of the sower, whereby he gives us the secret for enduring testing and tribulation until we bear fruit.

Luke 8:15
As for that in the good soil, they are those who, (1) hearing the word, hold it fast in an (2) honest and good heart, and (3)bear fruit with patience.

The good soil of Luke 8:15 contains three pointers for persevering until the end which I'm going to personally keep in mind.

1. hold fast to the word of God (don't let go, don't give up trying to understand God's word (Matt 13:19), trust in it and live it out)
2. maintain an honest and good heart (through fellowship with Jesus, ask God to clean our heart daily and rid any areas that are unpleasing to him, including a spirit of criticism/judgment, Psalm 51:10)
3. endure with patience (the rocky place believer previously believed but fell away when tested because he was not rooted deeply enough in Luke 8:13, the key to enduring may be to be deeply rooted in Jesus through relationship so that when trials and testing come we are not stumbled)

1 Peter 4:12-13
Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

Acts 14:22
where they strengthened the believers. They encouraged them to continue in the faith, reminding them that we must suffer many hardships to enter the Kingdom of God.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Where is the attack Phillip Lin is referring to? Key words I underlined are apologized and confessed. As I read from John's account, Godfred and Minoru asked for forgiveness for their role in promoting the LSM office. Sacrifice and Sail On appears to have left this portion out.

Yes, it left that part out. Taking into consideration that Minoru asked for forgiveness for promoting the LSM office and that Philip Lin admits that these brothers were right according to the truth, it is quite twisted that Lin would turn everything around and accuse brothers of "attacking" WL and his ministry.

I remember back when I would attend trainings and hear brothers like Minoru speak. I always thought that maybe they were some kind of role model or a brother I should strive to be like. I have lost every ounce of repect for Philip Lin, Minoru and any other BB who perpetuates these lies. It saddens me to see so many in the LC who will take in anything that brothers like Minoru say.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's a shame that even though Lin readily admits that Lee wasn't perfect, he dismisses his failures as minor issues. Actually, I think if Lee wasn't viewed as the MOTA, then his failures wouldn't be such a big deal.

Because Lee felt he was accountable to no one, it changes everything. Because of Lee's status in the LC and the broad impact of his failures, there is good reason to question his financial dealings.

Indeed there appears to be a growing consensus on this website that, whatever we conclude about Lee's spiritual ministry, it was his use of the MOTA doctrine that resulted in an authoritarian structure that was and continues to be the deal breaker.

[Freedom]

Also, it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out that brothers like Philip Lin and Minoru chose the "political" route because they couldn't see any future for themselves in a group besides the LC. I know that brothers like JI when on to continue practicing their own version of the LC, however, for most who consider leaving the LC, the idea of going into some other type of church they spent their whole lives criticizing might not be that appealing.

I know many in the LC who are unhappy, but they know nothing else. It is probably safe to say that many have let the LC define who they are as a person, so what are they supposed to do?

With this whole subject that was brought up of how critical the LC makes us, it is understandable why so many either leave the LC and don't ever find somewhere else to go or stay in the LC and remain unhappy. I feel like many critical attitudes I have held in the past slowly became reinforced "facts" in my mind. I am now having to undo all this. It is not easy, and I haven't even left the LC yet.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Also, it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out that brothers like Philip Lin and Minoru chose the "political" route because they couldn't see any future for themselves in a group besides the LC. I know that brothers like JI when on to continue practicing their own version of the LC, however, for most who consider leaving the LC, the idea of going into some other type of church they spent their whole lives criticizing might not be that appealing.

I know many in the LC who are unhappy, but they know nothing else. It is probably safe to say that many have let the LC define who they are as a person, so what are they supposed to do?

With this whole subject that was brought up of how critical the LC makes us, it is understandable why so many either leave the LC and don't ever find somewhere else to go or stay in the LC and remain unhappy. I feel like many critical attitudes I have held in the past slowly became reinforced "facts" in my mind. I am now having to undo all this. It is not easy, and I haven't even left the LC yet.

Yes, I have seen that. It wasn't my experience because I had a positive experience in "Christianity" before coming to the church. I committed my life to Christ among the Pentecostals after growing up a Prebyterian and losing my way. I participated in many Christian groups on campus including Intervarsity, The Baptist Student Union and a group of Charismatic Christians. No group is above criticism. We were just suppressing what we saw in the local church because it was taboo to express it. I was attracted to the local church because the local ground was presented as a means of recovering Christian unity, but in practice it was false unity. It took me 13 years to figure that out.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

It took me 13 years to figure that out.

And Philip Lin may die before he figures it out.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I have lost every ounce of repect for Philip Lin, Minoru and any other BB who perpetuates these lies. It saddens me to see so many in the LC who will take in anything that brothers like Minoru say.

After they came to the GLA filing lawsuits and attempting to destroy churches, i too lost all respect for them, in fact, they have revealed their true nature as dogs and evil workers. Apostle Paul faced the likes of these and said "beware!"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Also, it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out that brothers like Philip Lin and Minoru chose the "political" route because they couldn't see any future for themselves in a group besides the LC. I know that brothers like JI when on to continue practicing their own version of the LC, however, for most who consider leaving the LC, the idea of going into some other type of church they spent their whole lives criticizing might not be that appealing.

I know many in the LC who are unhappy, but they know nothing else. It is probably safe to say that many have let the LC define who they are as a person, so what are they supposed to do?

With this whole subject that was brought up of how critical the LC makes us, it is understandable why so many either leave the LC and don't ever find somewhere else to go or stay in the LC and remain unhappy. I feel like many critical attitudes I have held in the past slowly became reinforced "facts" in my mind. I am now having to undo all this. It is not easy, and I haven't even left the LC yet.

In your heart you have already left.

Unless the Lord directs you to sever ties, there are reasons to stay in touch with LC folks depending on your situation. Let's face it, the older we are, the more we are shaped, and our circle of companions are fairly established.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I was attracted to the local church because the local ground was presented as a means of recovering Christian unity, but in practice it was false unity. It took me 13 years to figure that out.

It took me 30 years. I'm a little slow.

Since Titus Chu hid the Anaheim events from us, i never saw Anaheim's true colors until, ironically, TC got quarantined.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Also, it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out that brothers like Philip Lin and Minoru chose the "political" route because they couldn't see any future for themselves in a group besides the LC. I know that brothers like JI when on to continue practicing their own version of the LC, however, for most who consider leaving the LC, the idea of going into some other type of church they spent their whole lives criticizing might not be that appealing.

I feel like many critical attitudes I have held in the past slowly became reinforced "facts" in my mind.

First John Ingalls and Minoru Chen. Until recent years, following his departure from the so-called recovery, John had traveled to speak at various in conferences in Oregon, Virginia, and Ghana just to name a few and not restricted just to the fellowship in Westminster. Some of which I have found on various websites. One in particular http://www.christiantapeministry.com/
On Minoru. I wish had known then what I knew now. I met Minoru at a conference in Eugene, Oregon 1996. At the time I had not known Al Knoch was living up the road in Salem, Oregon or about John Ingalls book. Had, I would have wanted to bring it up.

Speaking about your critical attitudes becoming reinforced facts. I think that could be a product of your spirit, but lacking any content to justify why you feel "inwardly disturbed". If you're like me, you just know your spirit is convicted about something and sometimes it becomes expressed as a critical observation.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

Indeed there appears to be a growing consensus on this website that, whatever we conclude about Lee's spiritual ministry, it was his use of the MOTA doctrine that resulted in an authoritarian structure that was and continues to be the deal breaker.

The doctrine of deputy authority and the doctrine of ground of locality are unpublished essential matters of faith in the LSM/LC culture.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

Indeed there appears to be a growing consensus on this website that, whatever we conclude about Lee's spiritual ministry, it was his use of the MOTA doctrine that resulted in an authoritarian structure that was and continues to be the deal breaker.

This is a good "top-down," "big picture" kind of explanation. What it leaves out is the myriad strange behaviors and manipulations that can (and often are) fostered in the kind of environment that zeek describes.

[Friedel]

I wonder how this matches up with Philip Lin's drivel.

Article published in The Spokesman Review, Spokane, WA, 17 December 1978.

(I have retained the paragraph formatting, corrected the spelling of "Gruhler" and put in [ ] dates that were wrong. I highlighted one or two statements.)

Ex-official reveals fear, loathing in ‘Local Church’

By John Dart
Los Angeles Times

DENVER – The one-time heir-apparent to the leadership of a little known, intensely devout Christian sect called the “Local Church” has urged that parents get their offspring out of the California-based movement “any way they can.”

Max D. Rapoport, considered the No. 2 man in the Local Church until his resignation last September, broke a two-month silence to tell of what he called dangerous psychological fears and pressures applied to members.

The Local Church, which has 5,000 to 7,000 U.S. members and tens of thousands of followers in Taiwan and the Philippines, is run from Anaheim, Calif., where its prophet, Witness Lee, has lived for several years.

Lee, 74, reached by telephone for a rare and brief interview, declined to say anything about Rapoport but he denied there are psychological pressures on members or great demands on them to conform to his wishes.

“In our church everyone is so free. We are free in thinking,” Lee said.

But interviews with Rapoport and other former members here last week revealed a story of adulation of Lee as divinely inspired and members’ fears for what God may do to them if they stray or leave.

Sal Benoit, leader of the Boston branch of the church from the 1960s until he left about two months ago, observed in a telephone interview: “You don’t know how insidious it is until you come out. And then you are amazed you could have been in it and not seen through it.” He called the pressures of the church “excruciating.”

Evangelical cult-fighter, Jack Sparks of Berkeley, Calif., in a book describing seven religious groups, said, “The brainwashing, or mind bending, of the ‘Local Church’ is, I believe, the most powerful and lasting of any cult on the contemporary religious scene.”

Rapoport said he did not realize how much fear is a factor in member loyalty until him and his wife were criticized by members last August.

The 46-year-old ex-salesman resigned Sept. 29 as president of The Church in Anaheim (each congregation takes the name of its city) and as a board member of the Living Stream Ministry, the sect’s nonprofit corporation.

After moving to the Denver area and buying an alarm business in Boulder. Colo., Rapoport said he first hesitated to talk publicly about his experiences because of fear. The news from Guyana about the mass suicide of People’s Temple members changed his mind, he said.

Rapoport said the Local Church has no propensity to violence, but the fear of divine retribution is subtly and effectively conveyed.

Followers are warned, by examples cited, that ex-members sometimes die suddenly or become mentally ill because of God’s disfavor. “Practically, all the people I’ve seen who have left the movement live in morbid fear that something will happen to them.” He also claimed to know 13 persons in the church who suffered nervous breakdowns because of the pressures.

Joan Geiger of Denver said she left last March after a nervous breakdown, an attempted suicide and advice by a psychiatrist to get out of the movement. Her contacts with the sect began in 1964, while she was doing graduate work at Baylor University and continued later while she was assistant dean of women at Radford (Va.) College.

“Women in the Local Church have an especially hard time because of doctrines they have about submission to men,” Mrs. Geiger said. Divorced women like herself, or single women, are urged to take the church elders as their male authority, she said.

Rapoport said the church makes it plain that good members will isolate themselves from television, movies, newspapers and sports. They must give unquestioning loyalty to Lee, who is hailed by followers as “the oracle of God on earth today,” according to Rapoport.

A spokesman for the church, elder Eugene Gruhler of Anaheim, said Rapoport’s general characterizations of the movement and Lee’s role are “utterly false”.

Gruhler said he “personally never heard” stories told about accidents and tragedies befalling defectors.

Gruhler said it simply was “not true” that followers regard Lee as “infallible and divinely inspired.”

Lee himself said of Rapoport’s remarks to the Los Angeles Times, “I don’t say what he says. I preach the Bible. I teach people according to the Word of God.”

Asked whether he considers himself God’s special oracle or a modern-day prophet, Lee said merely, “God speaks through his servants.”

Lee is not the sect’s founder, but rather was an intimate associate of Nee Tuo Sheng, known as Watchman Nee, who started the movement in 1920 in China.

Not satisfied with Christianity as taught by Western missionaries in China, Nee determined that there should be only one Christian church in each city, based on his interpretation of the New Testament.

When the Communist Party swept into power in the late 1940s, Lee went to Taiwan but Nee remained behind. Imprisoned in 1952 on charges of being a U.S. spy (termed ‘‘false” by the Local Church), Nee died in a Shanghai jail the same year [wrong], shortly before his scheduled release.

The Local Churches in Taiwan today have an estimated 25,000 members.

Missionary work in America began in the early 1960s when a brother-in-law of Nee, Samuel Chang, migrated to Los Angeles. Lee visited Chang several times and then decided in 1963 to stay in this country.

After a church in one city was well-established a group of two or three dozen members would move to another city to start a Local Church there.
It has not attracted the public attention that other sects or cults have, partly because it generally shuns publicity. Its meeting halls have no identifying signs or crosses on the outside.

Members consider it the only true Christian church and they are advised not to associate with persons in other denominations.

Active members are expected to attend three or four meetings a week and rise early for “morning watch” prayer. A popular method of worship is “pray-reading” – reading Scripture verses prayerfully and enthusiastically in assemblies or small groups.

Samuel Chang once characterized this as “eating’’ the word of God.

Twice yearly, all members who can do so are urged to attend a 10-day training session in Anaheim. About 3,000 gather each time to hear Lee give three talks a day.

Rapoport said anyone who attends might be called upon the next day to repeat something that Lee said.

Rapoport said there is “tremendous pressure” on those attending to memorize as much as they can in case they are put to the test.

The fear of humiliation in meetings for failure is strong, according to Rapoport and other ex-members.

Periodic burnings of prized personal possessions occur. “All of us had to give up our individuality. We would have a ‘burning’ of a television set or pictures of your baby at birth or of your marriage,” Rapoport said. “I’ve attended many of them.”

Ex-member Mickey Bulce, who joined the church in Texas in 1967, said he once burned a Bible that he had used from earlier times.

Rapoport had been converted to charismatic-style Christianity in the late 1960s after getting into trouble as an LSD user. He and his wife helped drug-plagued youths at a Teen Challenge center In Garden Grove, Calif.

But in June 1979 [1969?], impressed by the teachings of Lee, Rapoport joined the church and by 1976 had moved into a prominent leadership position because of his abilities as a public speaker, businessman and organizer.

Although Gruhler denies the Local Church is making a concerted effort to discredit Rapoport, ex-members say Rapoport is being represented as a Judas and one who tried to achieve more authority.

Rapoport said his disenchantment with the movement began about 18 months ago when Lee refused to act on his demand that Lee’s son, Philip, be removed as head of the Living Stream Ministry after a church member accused Philip of an immoral act.

Attempts to reach Philip Lee for comment were unsuccessful. Witness Lee said his son does not like to answer to such charges.

Rapoport said his standing in the Local Church seemed to erode gradually after that incident. His eventual decision to leave, he said, also was helped by his opposition to charging members $50 each for twice-yearly training sessions and $25 for each videotape of Lee s talks. He estimated that the Living Stream Ministry takes about $400,000 a year from such religious material.

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 government agencies.

“All of the people I know in the Local Church are real, born-again Christians, including Witness Lee,” Rapoport said.

They “are the most zealous Christians I’ve ever met,” he said. But he indicated he started questioning some practices after he himself was perceived to be rocking the boat.

Thus, Rapoport said, he now feels that parents of members – the bulk of who are in their 20s and 30s – should pray that their offspring will leave.
Otherwise, he recommended even the controversial methods of “deprogramming” members be employed by parents, if necessary.

The resignations by Rapoport and Benoit reportedly have led to 80 defections out of 400 Boston members and 150 departures among Colorado members. Some disaffection has been reported also in Anaheim and Tempe, Ariz.

But Benoit said there was little likelihood the Local Church would suffer a major split in the ranks or dissolution in this country.

“It would be very hard to bring it down,” he said.

[Freedom]

At one point in the book, Lin puts in the following quote by WL:

From 1945 to 1984, I found out that in both the English-speaking world and the Chinese-speaking world, there was not a weighty spiritual book published. There were numerous publications, but they were all just like the newspapers, a hodgepodge of a lot of things. I checked around, but no one could point a book out to me about expounding the Scriptures or about the supplying of life, or about the light of divine truth that had some amount of weight. No!

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (pp. 55-56). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Really? Not a single weighty spiritual book? I suppose WL wasn't talking about books by WN, because plenty of WN books were published in that time period. That is, unless WL doesn't consider WN books to be "weighty".

On a more serious note, there were plenty of books published during this time period, even ones that WL referenced. Does WL feel he gets to decide what constitutes a "weighty" book?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

At one point in the book, Lin puts in the following quote by WL:


Really? Not a single weighty spiritual book? I suppose WL wasn't talking about books by WN, because plenty of WN books were published in that time period. That is, unless WL doesn't consider WN books to be "weighty".

On a more serious note, there were plenty of books published during this time period, even ones that WL referenced. Does WL feel he gets to decide what constitutes a "weighty" book?

I was in a meeting (early-mid 80's) where Lee was boasting in his own ministry, and then abruptly looks over at John Ingalls and queries him yo name one book of spiritual value since after WWII.

John had this look on his face like, "how in the world am I supposed to know?" Was now Ingalls responsible for reading every Christian book published over the past half century? I don't think John answered the question because it was not a question that was answerable. How indicative of Lee's manipulative ways! Put Ingalls on the spot publicly to confirm his absurd claim. What if John would have responded, "well I can name a few off the top of my head," Lee would then have immediately shut him down and shamed him for his "ignorant response."

[zeek]

Could Witness Lee have possibly believed this?

“In our church everyone is so free. We are free in thinking,” Lee said.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by zeek

Could Witness Lee have possibly believed this?

Originally Posted by Ohio

I was in a meeting (early-mid 80's) where Lee was boasting in his own ministry, and then abruptly looks over at John Ingalls and queries him yo name one book of spiritual value since after WWII.

John had this look on his face like, "how in the world am I supposed to know?" Was now Ingalls responsible for reading every Christian book published over the past half century? I don't think John answered the question because it was not a question that was answerable. How indicative of Lee's manipulative ways! Put Ingalls on the spot publicly to confirm his absurd claim. What if John would have responded, "well I can name a few off the top of my head," Lee would then have immediately shut him down and shamed him for his "ignorant response."

I never saw Lee speak in person, however, if this is how he really was, it's no surprise that everyone would be intimidated by him. In the same part of the book, actually in the same excerpt of WL, he claims he told saints to read other books to see what they could find:

While working, I had been observing and paid much attention to Christian publications. Although I had no time to read, I asked the brothers and sisters, and even urged them to read publications published by others. I always held the attitude that we cannot work behind closed doors.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (p. 55). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

I wonder how many brothers and sisters actually read other books? I would bet that some did, especially in the early days. I'm sure they found books that were helpful. But wouldn't people have been too intimidated to tell Lee if they found a helpful book that wasn't from his ministry? Then again Lee should have known (being the MOTA and all) that you can't prove a negative.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Friedel

Article published in The Spokesman Review, Spokane, WA, 17 December 1978.

Thanks for posting, Friedel. Very interesting.

Here's a link to the article: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...=6767%2C820767

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

That, and Witness Lee claimed that his ministry's financial dealings were his own personal business, since it was his "personal ministry."

For anyone who hasn't had the opportunity to hear Witness Lee's phone conversation with Boston elder Sal Benoit in 1978, I repost it again here.

Here's a link to the youtube video. Transcript is available via subtitles/closed captioning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWHJC7E83hU

[TLFisher]

Kindle Location 205 of Sacrifice and Sail On

"In writing a person's testimony, the most important principle to follow is to avoid flattery, exaggeration, and exhortation, which might portray a "perfect person."

"When I wrote this book, I was very cautious and faithful. The Holy Spirit strictly controlled me not to mold Witness Lee into a so-called "perfect person."

Phillip Lin may say the Holy Spirit strictly controlled him not to mold Witness Lee into a so-called perfect person.

What would Phillip say the Holy Spirit strictly controlled him in respect to Theodore Austin Sparks?

Same question can even be asked in respect to the brothers who were quarantined.

[TLFisher]

Kindle Location 1262 of Sacrifice & Sail On

"Because there were many business affairs in conducting the Life-Study of the Bible, Brother Lee needed one full-time serving one to take charge of it, but he could not find a willing and suitable brother to bear this responsibility. After everything, he asked his son Brother Lee Menzer (Philip Lee) to help. At that time, Brother Philip Lee had a small business in hand, and Brother Lee asked him to put down his business to take this post. Brother Philip Lee willingly accepted this job in order to support his father's ministry work. So he gave up his small business and wholeheartedly took and dived into his father's literary ministry work."

I take since the Life-Study trainings began around 1974, this is the time frame Philip Lin is referring to. Right after the failed Daystar venture. Well, not exactly a failure. Is there any truth to Timothy Lee benefiting $1 million or more from the failed venture? As I am reading through the book, I have seen no mention of Timothy Lee.
This might be a stretch to say Witness Lee wanted to take care of his children. Timothy benefited from Daystar. Philip may have been jealous and ask, "what about me father?"
As a result Witness names Philip as the one to manage his "office". I doubt it was a matter of Witness not being able to find any brother "willing and suitable".

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Kindle Location 1262 of Sacrifice & Sail On

"Because there were many business affairs in conducting the Life-Study of the Bible, Brother Lee needed one full-time serving one to take charge of it, but he could not find a willing and suitable brother to bear this responsibility. After everything, he asked his son Brother Lee Menzer (Philip Lee) to help. At that time, Brother Philip Lee had a small business in hand, and Brother Lee asked him to put down his business to take this post. Brother Philip Lee willingly accepted this job in order to support his father's ministry work. So he gave up his small business and wholeheartedly took and dived into his father's literary ministry work."

I take since the Life-Study trainings began around 1974, this is the time frame Philip Lin is referring to. Right after the failed Daystar venture. Well, not exactly a failure. Is there any truth to Timothy Lee benefiting $1 million or more from the failed venture? As I am reading through the book, I have seen no mention of Timothy Lee.
This might be a stretch to say Witness Lee wanted to take care of his children. Timothy benefited from Daystar. Philip may have been jealous and ask, "what about me father?"
As a result Witness names Philip as the one to manage his "office". I doubt it was a matter of Witness not being able to find any brother "willing and suitable".

This seems to be a pattern with WL. He couldn't find anyone to do X. Or like the quote I posted a few days ago:

From 1945 to 1984, I found out that in both the English-speaking world and the Chinese-speaking world, there was not a weighty spiritual book published.

Because he claims he couldn't find anyone to manage his office, he put Philip Lee in charge. Because he claims there weren't any "weighty" spiritual books published, that greatly elevates the status of his books. Is it just a coincedence that he couldn't find anyone to manage his office? I seriously doubt it. Could WL reasonably say that their wasn't a "weighty" spiritual book published without reading every single spiritual book that was published between 1945-1984? Unfortunately, I think most in the LC will take these statements at face value.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Because he claims he couldn't find anyone to manage his office, he put Philip Lee in charge. Because he claims there weren't any "weighty" spiritual books published, that greatly elevates the status of his books. Is it just a coincedence that he couldn't find anyone to manage his office? I seriously doubt it. Could WL reasonably say that their wasn't a "weighty" spiritual book published without reading every single spiritual book that was published between 1945-1984? Unfortunately, I think most in the LC will take these statements at face value.

Just mory hypocrisy. Lee also deflected the criticism for hiring his profligate son by saying, "don't i have the right to hire an unbelieving cook?"

As if Phillip's role at LSM was as benign as Chef Gordon Ramsey.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Terry

Kindle Location 1262 of Sacrifice & Sail On

"Because there were many business affairs in conducting the Life-Study of the Bible, Brother Lee needed one full-time serving one to take charge of it, but he could not find a willing and suitable brother to bear this responsibility. After everything, he asked his son Brother Lee Menzer (Philip Lee) to help. At that time, Brother Philip Lee had a small business in hand, and Brother Lee asked him to put down his business to take this post. Brother Philip Lee willingly accepted this job in order to support his father's ministry work. So he gave up his small business and wholeheartedly took and dived into his father's literary ministry work."

"He could not find a willing and suitable brother to bear this responsibility." Lin gives these cozy, vague, pat explanations. It reminds me of Lee's explanations about Nee's excommunications.

Nee was said to be "living with a woman" who was actually his mother, refused to say anything other than, "Yes" (because he was living with his mother), and everyone was too stupid, or too reckless, to figure it out.

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ead.php?t=3489

Nee was said to be excommunicated the second time, because he was running a business. Which not only doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it also raises the question of whether he might (possibly) have been imprisoned by the Communist government for anything (anything) other than his Christian faith.

Either we should be simplistic and swallow Lin's simplistic explanations whole. Or, we should acknowledge that if it sounds like there was more going on, it's because there probably was.

Lin's account is to Lee what Lee's account is to Nee.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Philip Lin's book on Witness Lee

In writing a person's testimony, the most important principle to follow is to avoid flattery, exaggeration, and exhortation, which might portray a "perfect person"...When I wrote this book, I was very cautious and faithful. The Holy Spirit strictly controlled me not to mold Witness Lee into a so-called "perfect person." Of course, I also did not hesitate to describe in detail his admirable traits, which merit recommending. I hope that everything I wrote about Witness Lee in this book will be beneficial to future generations. This was the governing principle in my writing.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ. Mission Viejo, CA: Sail On Publishers. Preface.

Compare Lin's caution with Lee's caution:

Originally Posted by Witness Lee's book on Watchman Nee

After much consideration, my solution to all these points is this: Since I have been under Brother Nee's teaching, edifying, and perfecting, and since he was a brother I respected, observed, and weighed for a quarter of a century, the accuracy of my writing about him should be guaranteed. As to the motive, the heart-searching God is the Judge! As to the influence and issue, the merciful Lord is the blessing. Much endeavor has been exercised to avoid flattery, exaggerations, and the exaltation of men, and the Holy Spirit has been the Guide and Controller of this writing. Thus, I desire to see this writing accomplished unto the good pleasure of the Triune God for His rich blessing.

Lee, Witness (1991). Watchman Nee: A Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age. Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry. P. 5.

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Witness Lee's book on Watchman Nee
After much consideration, my solution to all these points is this: Since I have been under Brother Nee's teaching, edifying, and perfecting, and since he was a brother I respected, observed, and weighed for a quarter of a century, the accuracy of my writing about him should be guaranteed. As to the motive, the heart-searching God is the Judge! As to the influence and issue, the merciful Lord is the blessing. Much endeavor has been exercised to avoid flattery, exaggerations, and the exaltation of men, and the Holy Spirit has been the Guide and Controller of this writing. Thus, I desire to see this writing accomplished unto the good pleasure of the Triune God for His rich blessing.

Lee, Witness (1991). Watchman Nee: A Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age. Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry. P. 5.

Concerning the trial and imprisonment of Watchman Nee the following paragraph from Watchman Nee: A Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age is all that Witness Lee wrote about it:

In the spring of 1952, he was arrested and imprisoned; and in the summer of 1956, after a long trial, he was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. He was, however, never released.

Only one paragraph. Lily Hsu wrote a whole book on that.

My question is simple: did Witness Lee know the truth about Nee's imprisonment or was it an inconvenient truth he chose to ignore?

My next question is even more simple: how many inconvenient truths about Witness Lee did Philip Lin ignore? Or is his dissertation a determined attempt to obfuscate the truth about Witness Lee?

Do you all realize what role his book is going to play in the immediate and even distant future? It is going to become the de facto "official" biography of Witness Lee in the Local Church: written by a former elder in the Church in Anaheim, where Witness Lee resided. He would have known everything. All other books, those written by John Ingalls and who else, will become unimportant footnotes in Witness Lee's history.

Sacrifice and Sail On was designed to drown out all the voices of the "opposition".

Footnote: I have been considering for a while now posting something about the publisher, Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) and the author of The God-Men, Neil T Duddy. I wasn't all that clear about the details so I looked it up. I came across a site maintained by someone calling himself Kevin “the NorthWest” (real name Kevin Paul), apparently a self-styled prophet. Since he states that Non-commercial use [is] permitted, I took the liberty to copy the following from one page:

The book [The God-Men] was proved libelous in a court of law. During the court case Witness Lee did not even use a lawyer, considering his hold upon reality so sharp that the opposing party didn't have a chance. Not even Satan's smarter brain had a chance! Witness had too much of a renewed mind! As to the right or wrong of taking brothers to court, well that will be tried in the next age, but the courts awarded damages in the amount of 11.5 million dollars to Witness Lee and the local churches.

What happened to the author of that book? Well, since the folks he worked with at Spiritual Counterfeits Project went bankrupt as a result of this court case, he fled to Switzerland to have some wealth left. But it seems he did not escape the judgment of God. His kids shortly thereafter got on drugs and he went mountain climbing, fell off the mountain and died. As far as I know, his body has never been found to this very day. This should be a warning to us to not sow discord and division contrary to the truth. (My emphasis.)

On my first reading I thought he was being facetious but then it became clear he was deadly serious. I had heard on more than one occasion that the author of The God-Men, Neil Duddy's death in Nepal (?) was divine retribution for his criticism of Witness Lee and the Local Church.

Do they teach that at FTT, albeit privately?

If you want to check out the website of Kevin “the NorthWest”, here is the link:

http://www.lostkeysrevelation.com/chapter06.html

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Friedel

Do you all realize what role his book is going to play in the immediate and even distant future? It is going to become the de facto "official" biography of Witness Lee in the Local Church: written by a former elder in the Church in Anaheim, where Witness Lee resided. He would have known everything. All other books, those written by John Ingalls and who else, will become unimportant footnotes in Witness Lee's history.

Sacrifice and Sail On was designed to drown out all the voices of the "opposition".

No offense meant at all, but who cares?

Any person with objective common sense will realize Philip Lin's book is the biased work of an undiscerning sycophant. Such books end up collecting dust on the back shelves of Half-Price Books, next to titles about HIV being the creation of the World Health Organization and instructions on how to board the Mother Ship when the Comet Hale-Bopp flies by. The only people who take them seriously are "homers" like Kevin "the Northwest."

I understand that this new book is "news." But it is basically just a self-published personal essay by one writer with no editor and probably no proof-reader. If turgid works like this and the "biography" of Nee by Witness Lee are the best official records the Recovery can produce, then there isn't much to worry about.

Needy and gullible youth, as we were, will always be vulnerable to this kind of thing. That's why parents need to educate their children. But intelligent, informed adults just throw this junk back on the stack, shake their heads and move on.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Friedel

Do you all realize what role his book is going to play in the immediate and even distant future? It is going to become the de facto "official" biography of Witness Lee in the Local Church: written by a former elder in the Church in Anaheim, where Witness Lee resided. He would have known everything. All other books, those written by John Ingalls and who else, will become unimportant footnotes in Witness Lee's history.

Sacrifice and Sail On was designed to drown out all the voices of the "opposition".

Questions to consider:
Did Phillip write this book on his initiative or was it suggested he should?
Due to personal characterizations, was this book published under a different publisher to remove any liability from LSM should someone want to sue for defamation or slander?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

No offense meant at all, but who cares?

Any person with objective common sense will realize Philip Lin's book is the biased work of an undiscerning sycophant. Such books end up collecting dust on the back shelves of Half-Price Books, next to titles about HIV being the creation of the World Health Organization and instructions on how to board the Mother Ship when the Comet Hale-Bopp flies by. The only people who take them seriously are "homers" like Kevin "the Northwest."

I beg your pardon! I care!

At least I used to. I swallowed Lee's bio of Nee completely, elevating him to perfect God-Man status. I waited 14 years for that book to come out, THE definitive word on the 20th century MOTA.

Guess I had little of that "objective common sense" you been talking about.

And you should take those comets more seriously! I spent a couple of my best years packaging the ion engine controls for NASA's rocket tracking Halle's comet. Good stuff them comets!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I beg your pardon! I care!

lol. I just meant the notion that Lin's book will define on how Lee is remembered is not worth the worry.

His book is clearly a puff piece that no one outside the LC is going to be fooled by. Except, that is, for comet hoppers!



LCers, on the other hand, are going to believe what they want to, that is, what they are told. That's why you swallowed Lee's myth about Nee. They need prayer, because reasoning and arguing with them is a waste of time.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

lol. I just meant the notion that Lin's book will define on how Lee is remembered is not worth the worry.

His book is clearly a puff piece that no one outside the LC is going to be fooled by. Except, that is, for comet hoppers!



LCers, on the other hand, are going to believe what they want to, that is, what they are told. That's why you swallowed Lee's myth about Nee. They need prayer, because reasoning and arguing with them is a waste of time.

Given the $50 price tag on a hard copy of Lin's book, I doubt they will sell many, even among the LC, unless there is something going on that I don't know about. I guess the main issue is that for someone who wants to know about Lee, what do they go to? For biographies on Nee, there is Against the Tide, Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age, and now Dr. Hsu's book. Thus, there should be enough information for the reader to make up their own mind about Nee.

Since Nee is known in the Christian world outside the LC, I guess it makes sense that people would be curious about his life. I don't know how many people outside the LC know about Lee, but since BFA is distributing his bible (and now ministry books as well ), maybe people are getting curious about who WL was.

Lin stated at the beginning of his book, that one of the reasons for writing it was because he noticed a growing interest (of those in the LC) regarding the early days of the LC in America. This does make sense, because for the younger generation who may have never even seen Lee in person, so little is known about him other than everything that is read is taken from his ministry. From my experience growing up in the LC, I always got the impression that LC history was "off limits", so I never asked any questions. Now I don't know whether that is really the case everywhere or not, but I can state quite certainly that most of the younger generation know very little of who Lee was.

I knew very little of LC history or WL until I started exploring writings on the internet. To me, it always seemed a bit odd that so many would follow Lee's ministry completely, and give themselves 100% to the LC (such as attending the FTTA), without having at least a little concern for who Lee really was. The irony of it all is that because of the true LC history, it goes without saying that it is a subject that they would want to avoid altogether.

Perhaps Lin's book was an honest attempt at fulling the need of the average LC person who wants to know a little about the history of the LC and WL. Did he tell everyone the whole story? No, but they can't have anyone reading what is here on this site, can they? I suspect that by Lin addressing issues such as Daystar and Philip Lee, they hope to gain the trust of the reader by giving the impression that they addressed all the issues that have been brought up on the internet (that some in the LC may have read). Eventually the BB's have to come to terms with the fact that they can't filter what is on the internet, so maybe they are hoping by giving the illusion of "transparency" with writings such as Lin's book they can gain the trust of those who feel that the whole story isn't being told.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

From my experience growing up in the LC, I always got the impression that LC history was "off limits", so I never asked any questions.

Perhaps Lin's book was an honest attempt at fulling the need of the average LC person who wants to know a little about the history of the LC and WL. Did he tell everyone the whole story? No, but they can't have anyone reading what is here on this site, can they? I suspect that by Lin addressing issues such as Daystar and Philip Lee, they hope to gain the trust of the reader by giving the impression that they addressed all the issues that have been brought up on the internet (that some in the LC may have read). Eventually the BB's have to come to terms with the fact that they can't filter what is on the internet, so maybe they are hoping by giving the illusion of "transparency" with writings such as Lin's book they can gain the trust of those who feel that the whole story isn't being told.

"Read my lips", the Blended Brothers have been just as transparent as President Obama.

I too grew up in the local churches, but in a different generation. My experiences, brothers and sisters who were there in 1960's have a far different view of LC history than those that came in following decades. I will say also from my experience it is taboo to ask about Max Rapoport, Philip Lee, and the late 80's turmoil.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

"Read my lips", the Blended Brothers have been just as transparent as President Obama.

I too grew up in the local churches, but in a different generation. My experiences, brothers and sisters who were there in 1960's have a far different view of LC history than those that came in following decades. I will say also from my experience it is taboo to ask about Max Rapoport, Philip Lee, and the late 80's turmoil.

I guess everyone has different experiences. I have been around saints from all across the board, even some who have been around since the 60's. I do feel that those from the current young generation have a completely different perspective of the LC than those who have been around for a while. I get the feeling that those from my generation don't really understand what the LC is really about other than they know all the fundamental LC doctrines. I think that most who grew up in the LC (including myself) really got it ingrained that we were better than other Christians.

Many of the older saints I know have a collection of non-LSM Christian books, multiple Bible versions, Bible commentaries, etc. How many of this generation (such as college students, FTTA attendees and graduates) have ever read a Christian book not published by LSM? How many have ever read a version of the Bible besides the Recovery Version? All of the older generation has done this. I know that some older saints appreciate other works besides LSM books, they just don't give them the same precedence. Things are completely different with the younger generation. Because no one talks much about non-LSM material or the "history" of the LC, the current generation assumes it's not important and doesn't even bother to talk about it.

So I think my point is that it seems peculiar that this generation of the LC doesn't seem much concerned with questioning things or knowing how we got here. Why do we only use the Recovery Version? Why do we read points out of the HWMR in meetings instead of having something more structured? Why is it so hard to get outsiders to "appreciate" the idea of one church in each city that we think is so special?

The older LC generation knows all the "whys". This generation accepts everything at face value. This generation is happy to do these practices because that's all they know, especially if they grew up in a LC environment.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Freedom

So I think my point is that it seems peculiar that this generation of the LC doesn't seem much concerned with questioning things or knowing how we got here. Why do we only use the Recovery Version? Why do we read points out of the HWMR in meetings instead of having something more structured? Why is it so hard to get outsiders to "appreciate" the idea of one church in each city that we think is so special?

The older LC generation knows all the "whys". This generation accepts everything at face value. This generation is happy to do these practices because that's all they know, especially if they grew up in a LC environment.

I think that is very sad. Because basically you are saying their parents raised them to be dopes. And as far as I'm concerned that's child abuse. Like raising your kids to hate black people, or raising fat kids and never teaching them they should control their weight. It's flat-out child abuse. It makes me damn mad to think about such things. I really hate the LC sometimes for what it does to people.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Things are completely different with the younger generation. Because no one talks much about non-LSM material or the "history" of the LC, the current generation assumes it's not important and doesn't even bother to talk about it.
The older LC generation knows all the "whys". This generation accepts everything at face value. This generation is happy to do these practices because that's all they know, especially if they grew up in a LC environment.

I think the part about the history especially in Southern California, an entire generation of young people (those who graduated from high school 86-90) were lost. Maybe LSM wants to revise history to prevent it from happening again?
I've been in home meetings where older saints would talk about Daystar in whisper or about experiences from the 70's.
When it comes to the turmoil's, it's like a family embarrassment most relatives know, but don't want to talk about it.

As for the younger generations, it's just like any other denomination....it's all they know and don't have experience with other Christian assemblies.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think that is very sad. Because basically you are saying their parents raised them to be dopes. And as far as I'm concerned that's child abuse. Like raising your kids to hate black people, or raising fat kids and never teaching them they should control their weight. It's flat-out child abuse. It makes me damn mad to think about such things. I really hate the LC sometimes for what it does to people.

Unfortunately it's all too often the case. I know that I never questioned anything for the longest time. I can't honestly say that while growing up it ever struck me as odd that we only read WL books. It wasn't until my college years did I start questioning things more.

I know that many people who I grew up with really struggled because of LC practices. I know that I did. Many dropped out along the way. Some are constantly in and out, and then somehow end up going to the FTTA.

I think what happens is that many "church kids" just assume that their struggles are their own fault and not so much a problem related to LC teachings or practices. I see some who struggle while growing up, only to come back and fully immerse themselves into the LC. Do they do that because they really like the LC, or because they still have it in the back of their mind that the LC is some sort of "solution" to all of life's problems?

I don't think that parents are intentionally out to raise their kids as "dopes", however, that is the end effect. What saddens me is to see so many go off to the training getting married, etc, having no idea what awaits for the in the future. No one can learn from LC history, because it's been hidden (at least the real history).

I often wonder how those who have dedicated 2 years to attend the FTTA will feel when the next LC split occurs and their whole paradigm of the LC is shattered. History will eventually repeat itself, and there is now a whole generation who doesn't even know what's coming.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I think what happens is that many "church kids" just assume that their struggles are their own fault and not so much a problem related to LC teachings or practices.

One problem is honesty is not encouraged and when you try to be honest, you might be discarded as being negative.
Fact- life isn't always going to be positive and calling on the Lord three times isn't going to change it either. We all need to pray and to pray for one another.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Terry

One problem is honesty is not encouraged and when you try to be honest, you might be discarded as being negative.
Fact- life isn't always going to be positive and calling on the Lord three times isn't going to change it either. We all need to pray and to pray for one another.

Unless there is an atmosphere where openness and honesty is encouraged it will never happen. The structure of the LC by its very nature does not permit this type of atmosphere. It starts with the BB to the elders in a locality. The atmosphere is designed to reduce friction so that there is not the free flow of information. With very little friction there may be the illusion of peace and harmony but it is merely an illusion. The structure is designed so as not to be democratic so it will never be open and any friction will appear as disharmony and negative.

I am sure this example has been used in the past but if you look at the Roman Catholic Church, it is a similar structure except the RCC have been at it so long they can tolerate very limited disharmony. When the Pope dies the Cardinals come together and elect a new Pope by voting. If you read Acts 1:24-26 that’s the way they did it at the beginning. The big difference is that the Apostles didn’t set up a Pope but just added an Apostle to make the number 12 so after Jesus returned to establish the Kingdom of God they could rule over the 12 tribes of Israel.

What’s the difference with the LC? When WL died they came together and decided upon the BB to replace WL (I don’t know the history as to whether WL set up the BB before he died or if they voted or someone appointed them etc). The LC operates more like the RCC as opposed to the early church with the LCs ruling class. As long as all opposition is oppressed and there are those willing to accept it, it will continue.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think that is very sad. Because basically you are saying their parents raised them to be dopes. And as far as I'm concerned that's child abuse. Like raising your kids to hate black people, or raising fat kids and never teaching them they should control their weight. It's flat-out child abuse. It makes me damn mad to think about such things. I really hate the LC sometimes for what it does to people.

I never realized how much abuse i actually had to survive in my childhood. Like they say, it could have been worse.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think that is very sad. Because basically you are saying their parents raised them to be dopes. And as far as I'm concerned that's child abuse. Like raising your kids to hate black people, or raising fat kids and never teaching them they should control their weight. It's flat-out child abuse. It makes me damn mad to think about such things. I really hate the LC sometimes for what it does to people.

But bro Igzy that would mean that many of us were abused. I was raised being indoctrinated with Southern Baptist doctrines and dogma.

And yes, looking back now, I see it as a form of abuse. Abuse that instilled a proclivity in me, making me willing to accept & join the local church.

Abuse that I'm still trying to work thru. I think I'm in need of SBA (Southern Baptist Anonymous). In short, I'm a recovering Southern Baptist. And The Recovery just made matters worse ... fed the addiction, so to speak ... enabling it. Now I'm trying to get free from both. But the abuse growing up filled me with so much Kool-Aid that removing it might result in full system failure. It's a chance I have to take.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Dave

Unless there is an atmosphere where openness and honesty is encouraged it will never happen. The structure of the LC by its very nature does not permit this type of atmosphere. It starts with the BB to the elders in a locality. The atmosphere is designed to reduce friction so that there is not the free flow of information. With very little friction there may be the illusion of peace and harmony but it is merely an illusion. The structure is designed so as not to be democratic so it will never be open and any friction will appear as disharmony and negative.

Typically when a brother or sister speaks openly in honesty and truthfulness, but the content is not conducive to the ministry, expect to have the following verse quoted:

"Reject a factious man after a first and second warning," Titus 3:10

As if a brother's honesty to speak the truth in love is received as being divisive and speaking "differently".

To keep the illusion everything is positive, when a brother or sister is prophesying, it's okay to put down the church next door or your friends and relatives who are Christians as long as the ministry and the local churches are exalted.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Typically when a brother or sister speaks openly in honesty and truthfulness, but the content is not conducive to the ministry, expect to have the following verse quoted:

"Reject a factious man after a first and second warning," Titus 3:10

As if a brother's honesty to speak the truth in love is received as being divisive and speaking "differently".

To keep the illusion everything is positive, when a brother or sister is prophesying, it's okay to put down the church next door or your friends and relatives who are Christians as long as the ministry and the local churches are exalted.

I don't know many who would dare speak something that's not from the ministry. I think the BB's and elders have certainly done a good job at creating an environment that is insulated from any speaking that doesn't involve the ministry. It is nearly impossible to fight against it.

I remember back when the BB's were talking about all their "one publication" edict, they said something to the effect that both reading the pure Word (non-LSM interpreted) and saying that we don't need the interpreted Word is arrogant. Essentially what they did was to say that anyone who thinks they can receive light from the Word apart from the ministry is an arrogant person. Of course, no one wants to be labeled as being arrogant, so these subtle tactics employed by the BB's tend to work. For someone who doesn't know better, it's not too hard to take a statement like that to heart.

Actually, when I try to come to the pure Word, it is not all that easy to do. It goes without saying that the Bible is not an easy book to understand. I don't think for a second that I am anything special when it comes to understanding the Bible. Ironically, what has made me arrogant is being in the LC my whole life. It has caused me to think that I know what everything in the Bible is talking about. If someone talks about the book of James, I automatically start thinking about how it's a book that wasn't written according to "God's economy". I have memorized parts of outlines for some books of the Bible, and I know some footnotes almost by memory. All of these things really lessen dependency on the Word. While growing up, I even read Life Studies messages on books of the Bible where I had not read the actual book yet.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

Typically when a brother or sister speaks openly in honesty and truthfulness, but the content is not conducive to the ministry, expect to have the following verse quoted:

"Reject a factious man after a first and second warning," Titus 3:10

As if a brother's honesty to speak the truth in love is received as being divisive and speaking "differently".

To keep the illusion everything is positive, when a brother or sister is prophesying, it's okay to put down the church next door or your friends and relatives who are Christians as long as the ministry and the local churches are exalted.

Or how about an accusation of being a stumbling block? Truth is a building block, not a stumbling block. Don't confuse them with the truth ... God forbid ... or Lee forbid ... or Blended Brother's forbid.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Terry

Typically when a brother or sister speaks openly in honesty and truthfulness, but the content is not conducive to the ministry, expect to have the following verse quoted:

"Reject a factious man after a first and second warning," Titus 3:10

As if a brother's honesty to speak the truth in love is received as being divisive and speaking "differently".

To keep the illusion everything is positive, when a brother or sister is prophesying, it's okay to put down the church next door or your friends and relatives who are Christians as long as the ministry and the local churches are exalted.

You may or may not have heard of the Cambridge Platform of 1649 but it is the basis of congregational type of churches throughout the world or shall I say the basis for democracy in churches today. It is based on the Bible and a couple verses quoted among hundreds is Galatians 2:14-15, "...how can you compel the Gentiles to live like the Jews...we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith..." Acts 26:6-7, "...I stand here on trial on account of my hope....It is for this hope...that I am accused." The apostles asking for democracy. Acts 6:3 "Therefore, friends, select from among yourselves seven men of good standing, whom we may appoint to this task." After the apostles, appointments ended.

The real problem came in with Eusebius (265 AD-340 AD) who wrote a ten volume book, "The History of the Church" and was the first person to put the canon together. The problem is that he supported a letter, "First Clement" which was a letter from the bishop in Rome to the church in Corinth [sent from "...the church of God in Rome" to "the church of God in Corinth" (1:1)] telling them that they needed to change the elders in their church. This is the first trace of apostolic succession so as to change leadership in another church (Corinth) from Rome since the apostles died.

In any case, there is no hope without some openness and it isn't going to happen in the LC.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I remember back when the BB's were talking about all their "one publication" edict, they said something to the effect that both reading the pure Word (non-LSM interpreted) and saying that we don't need the interpreted Word is arrogant. Essentially what they did was to say that anyone who thinks they can receive light from the Word apart from the ministry is an arrogant person. Of course, no one wants to be labeled as being arrogant, so these subtle tactics employed by the BB's tend to work. For someone who doesn't know better, it's not too hard to take a statement like that to heart.

Right. It's arrogant for us to read the text on our own. But for them to stand on a podium and declare that the one ministry, given by the God of the Universe, for "our age," is the ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee...this could never be called "arrogant." And if "they" just happen to be registered as the legal and financial officers of the same publishing company that publishes the works of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee...this could never be called a "conflict of interest."

And if anyone -- such as me -- dares to use the terms "arrogant" or "conflict of interest," in this context -- then that one -- such as me -- is "factious."

It's all so simple if you just let it be simple. Where the simpleness is leading you, well, that's another matter.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Terry

Typically when a brother or sister speaks openly in honesty and truthfulness, but the content is not conducive to the ministry, expect to have the following verse quoted:

"Reject a factious man after a first and second warning," Titus 3:10

As if a brother's honesty to speak the truth in love is received as being divisive and speaking "differently".

To keep the illusion everything is positive, when a brother or sister is prophesying, it's okay to put down the church next door or your friends and relatives who are Christians as long as the ministry and the local churches are exalted.

That's so true, Terry. The need for positivity often does not include those outside the Lord's Recovery.

Even though phrases from the past such as "poor, poor Christianity" are not so common anymore, it is still quite common to hear so many comparisons drawn between their group and all the other groups. Their group is referred to as "the Lord's Recovery," "the Body," and "the church life," while other groups are labeled as "the denominations" and "divisive." What's positive about that?

If you're involved with a Christians on Campus club, try to maintain involvement with another Christian club on campus, and see what kind of reaction you get. Sooner or later, you may find that you are "better off" if the full-timers know that your fellowship is reserved for their group alone. What's positive about that?

[TLFisher]

Sacrifice and Sail On Chapter 4 Kindle Location 1402

The second testimony came in 1962 when he was clear that the Lord would keep in the United States to spread the Lord's recovery to the Western World. He said that in December of 1962 he began to serve in the church in Los Angeles. By then the number of saints in the church was very small. Concerning financial support, the church in Taipei and churches in the Far East did not give him any support, because they thought that he went to the golden land of America, so he did not need any financial support from them;

However a former Texas elder wrote on the same period as found on http://www.makingstraightthewayofthe...DonBookch1.pdf

"In 1962, there was a World’s Fair in Seattle, Washington. (The Space Needle was built on this occasion.) Witness Lee and his son, Timothy, had an exhibit at the fair. They displayed and attempted to sell manufactured goods from Taiwan. They had raised funds from members of the local churches in Taiwan. The endeavor was a failure and the products stored in a warehouse. The problems created by this business failure made it difficult for Witness Lee to return to the churches in Taiwan in good graces. But I believe this human failure opened the
door for a blessing for many of the seeking Christians in the USA in those early years (since Witness Lee remained in this country as a result of the problem, and ministered.)
Watchman Nee had visited the USA in the late 1930s and had received a poor impression due to the extreme materialism. He told Witness Lee that the USA was Egypt and he had little hope that the Lord would do much there. On the other hand, Witness Lee had grown up under the care of American Southern Baptist missionaries from Texas. He had a great appreciation for the USA. He came for a visit in 1958. He visited Brother Nee’s brother-in-law and former business partner, Samuel Chang, in Southern California. He also visited a co-worker of Brother Nee named Stephen Kaung in New York City. He spoke to some Christian groups during these visits.

In Los Angeles, at Westmoreland Chapel, he met a young man named John Ingalls. John would become a pioneer in the local church movement, and a minister of the truth concerning the experience of the indwelling Christ and of the vision of a practical authentic New Testament Church Life. In the spring of 1962, Samuel Chang and John Ingalls were in fellowship one evening with Eugene Gruhler Sr., of New York City. Brother Gruhler encouraged them to go
ahead, as they were so clear in their desire to practice the church life as taught by Watchman Nee. That night while driving home, John Ingalls had a deep and clear impression from the Lord that they should begin. On May 27, 1962, John Ingalls began with about 20 others to gather in the Lord’s name to practice the church life as revealed in the book, The Normal Christian Church Life by Watchman Nee. John urged Witness Lee to join him and the few others who gathered. Witness Lee joined them on November 30, 1962."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Sacrifice and Sail On Chapter 4 Kindle Location 1402

The second testimony came in 1962 when he was clear that the Lord would keep in the United States to spread the Lord's recovery to the Western World. He said that in December of 1962 he began to serve in the church in Los Angeles. By then the number of saints in the church was very small. Concerning financial support, the church in Taipei and churches in the Far East did not give him any support, because they thought that he went to the golden land of America, so he did not need any financial support from them;

However a former Texas elder wrote on the same period as found on http://www.makingstraightthewayofthe...DonBookch1.pdf

"In 1962, there was a World’s Fair in Seattle, Washington. (The Space Needle was built on this occasion.) Witness Lee and his son, Timothy, had an exhibit at the fair. They displayed and attempted to sell manufactured goods from Taiwan. They had raised funds from members of the local churches in Taiwan. The endeavor was a failure and the products stored in a warehouse. The problems created by this business failure made it difficult for Witness Lee to return to the churches in Taiwan in good graces. But I believe this human failure opened the
door for a blessing for many of the seeking Christians in the USA in those early years (since Witness Lee remained in this country as a result of the problem, and ministered.)
Watchman Nee had visited the USA in the late 1930s and had received a poor impression due to the extreme materialism. He told Witness Lee that the USA was Egypt and he had little hope that the Lord would do much there. On the other hand, Witness Lee had grown up under the care of American Southern Baptist missionaries from Texas. He had a great appreciation for the USA. He came for a visit in 1958. He visited Brother Nee’s brother-in-law and former business partner, Samuel Chang, in Southern California. He also visited a co-worker of Brother Nee named Stephen Kaung in New York City. He spoke to some Christian groups during these visits.

In Los Angeles, at Westmoreland Chapel, he met a young man named John Ingalls. John would become a pioneer in the local church movement, and a minister of the truth concerning the experience of the indwelling Christ and of the vision of a practical authentic New Testament Church Life. In the spring of 1962, Samuel Chang and John Ingalls were in fellowship one evening with Eugene Gruhler Sr., of New York City. Brother Gruhler encouraged them to go
ahead, as they were so clear in their desire to practice the church life as taught by Watchman Nee. That night while driving home, John Ingalls had a deep and clear impression from the Lord that they should begin. On May 27, 1962, John Ingalls began with about 20 others to gather in the Lord’s name to practice the church life as revealed in the book, The Normal Christian Church Life by Watchman Nee. John urged Witness Lee to join him and the few others who gathered. Witness Lee joined them on November 30, 1962."

I read Don's writings before I joined this forum. I was taken aback to read a completely different version of local church history than I was aware of. One of the things that was interesting to find out is that WL didn't come to the U.S. to bring "the Recovery" here, nor did he intend to start anything. The impression that I get is that brothers like John Ingalls and Samuel Chang wanted to start something, and they were going to do it with or without Lee. I assume they sought Lee for advice, and because of Lee's business failures he couldn't return to Taiwan, so he saw the opportunity to become their de facto leader.

I was always put under the impression the Lee came here with the specific purpose of starting something in the US, and that everything was initiated by him. It appears to not be the case at all, however, Lin is happy to push this perspective of Lee.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I remember back when the BB's were talking about all their "one publication" edict, they said something to the effect that both reading the pure Word (non-LSM interpreted) and saying that we don't need the interpreted Word is arrogant.

I was told that "coming back to the pure word of God," was the strategy of the enemy, and that "ambitious ones" in the Recovery like Titus Chu always use this tactic to build up their own following.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Sacrifice and Sail On Chapter 4 Kindle Location 1402

The second testimony came in 1962 when he was clear that the Lord would keep in the United States to spread the Lord's recovery to the Western World. He said that in December of 1962 he began to serve in the church in Los Angeles. By then the number of saints in the church was very small. Concerning financial support, the church in Taipei and churches in the Far East did not give him any support, because they thought that he went to the golden land of America, so he did not need any financial support from them;

After being active in the Recovery for 30 years, and then studying them for 10 more, I have reached the sobering conclusion that no rendition of church history by LSM (whether in the near or distant past) has ever been honest, accurate, or objective, and that every single account of church history from LSM is biased, dishonest, and self-serving.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

After being active in the Recovery for 30 years, and then studying them for 10 more, I have reached the sobering conclusion that no rendition of church history by LSM (whether in the near or distant past) has ever been honest, accurate, or objective, and that every single account of church history from LSM is biased, dishonest, and self-serving.

Christians have a long history of lying, going back to their earliest days. They can't be trusted any more than non-Christians. Especially the zealots, who are the worst. And that, of course, includes Lee and the leadership in the Recovery.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Terry

However a former Texas elder wrote on the same period as found on http://www.makingstraightthewayofthe...DonBookch1.pdf

Thanks for the link, Terry. Is this from Don Rutledge?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Christians have a long history of lying, going back to their earliest days. They can't be trusted any more than non-Christians. Especially the zealots, who are the worst. And that, of course, includes Lee and the leadership in the Recovery.

I have read many quality church histories and biographies. They are well received and critiqued by peers as accurate, unbiased and objective.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Christians have a long history of lying, going back to their earliest days. They can't be trusted any more than non-Christians. Especially the zealots, who are the worst. And that, of course, includes Lee and the leadership in the Recovery.

Hmm, so is that the truth, Christian?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have read many quality church histories and biographies. They are well received and critiqued by peers as accurate, unbiased and objective.

Some of you may remember the old "Overcomers" email listserve. Back in the 90's, there were some email forwards sent to the list, claiming that NASA scientists had discovered the "missing" day from the Bible (the day the earth stood still in Joshua). I seem to remember another about NASA scientists using the Bible to avert a terrible meteor collision w/Earth.

Eventually someone replied to the list that these were, of course, hoaxes. Whoever sent it out said they wondered why Christians felt the need to come up with these silly stories.

I wonder the same thing...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hmm, so is that the truth, Christian?

I'm lying right now ....

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I was always put under the impression the Lee came here with the specific purpose of starting something in the US, and that everything was initiated by him.

He was already in the check-in line at the airport to fly back to Taiwan "when the Lord told him to stay" – that is how I heard it.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Friedel

He was already in the check-in line at the airport to fly back to Taiwan "when the Lord told him to stay" – that is how I heard it.

Was he wearing headphones?

[rayliotta]

(just kidding)

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

After being active in the Recovery for 30 years, and then studying them for 10 more, I have reached the sobering conclusion that no rendition of church history by LSM (whether in the near or distant past) has ever been honest, accurate, or objective, and that every single account of church history from LSM is biased, dishonest, and self-serving.

Acts 5:1-2
But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Local church history as presented by LSM/LSM-coworkers is a type of Acts 5:1-2. They hold back if not for personal gain, but to refrain from loss of respect. In order to keep the respect intact many in the local churches have for them, their is a need to reject transparency.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Friedel

He was already in the check-in line at the airport to fly back to Taiwan "when the Lord told him to stay" – that is how I heard it.

Friedel, do you have any insight into what would have enabled Lee to later return to Taiwan in good standing at various points in time? Did he still have a core group of followers even after his business failures there?

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Friedel, do you have any insight into what would have enabled Lee to later return to Taiwan in good standing at various points in time? Did he still have a core group of followers even after his business failures there?

I have no specific information about the situation but I can only hazard a guess after having read some about the trouble he had had. I believe his problems there might have stemmed from difficulties with elders over money lost or even with individuals.

When he returned for a conference around the 1970s, he took with him a large number of Americans. He then accused the Taiwanese of being "old"; he introduced a new "louder" version of the meeting life and received overwhelming support. Thereby he affirmed his authority, wiping away any form of opposition.

Perhaps someone can help me with some specific details.

[Indiana]

http://www.lordsrecovery.us/SailingO...TruthAgain.pdf

Therefore, seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not.
But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor
handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth,
commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God 2 (Cor. 4:1-2)


Dear brother Philip Lin,

........

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Indiana

http://www.lordsrecovery.us/SailingO...TruthAgain.pdf

I got a 404 error ...

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Therefore, seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not.
But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor
handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth,
commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God 2 (Cor. 4:1-2)


Dear brother Philip Lin,

........

I will be reading this with great interest. Now that Philip Lin has brought up matters that have been considered "closed" in the LC, the BB's need to be ready to address these issues honestly. Are they really naive enough to believe that current LC members such as myself are not going to read these things? LC members owe it to themselves to get a complete view of what the LC is, including the "hidden things of dishonesty".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Indiana

http://www.lordsrecovery.us/SailingO...TruthAgain.pdf

Therefore, seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not.
But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor
handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth,
commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God 2 (Cor. 4:1-2)


Dear brother Philip Lin,

........

Bro Steve has written a masterful challenge to Philip Lin, to explain why he wrote a book fawning over Witness Lee, to the point of whitewashing the truth.

Kudos bro Steve. Job well done. Thanks.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Steve has written a masterful challenge to Philip Lin, to explain why he wrote a book fawning over Witness Lee, to the point of whitewashing the truth.

Kudos bro Steve. Job well done. Thanks.

This is a really good dismantling of Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. Perhaps God allowed Philip Lin to write his book so that brother Steve could respond in kind. There seems to be a need to crystallize all the historical testimonies and content in this forum into a format that is easily accessible by others and it seems that Steve is doing this job. Not everyone has the time/energy to browse through thread after thread to get to the meat of things in LC history.

It's also too bad LSM dismantled FPR on ministrybooks.org. It's an undeniable testimony of how far off the rails Witness Lee went when you compare his record against the facts. It's clear as day that the same evil spirits that influenced Mao Tse Tung and Eli in the book of Samuel were also influencing Witness Lee. As Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 1:9 "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."

Existing LC members would do well to read writings such as this so perhaps they could gather the wisdom to run away to other healthier fellowships, as the same strongholds and evil spirits that existed back then are probably still there wreaking havoc in the LCs today as it looks like they have never been dealt with.

[OBW]

I have read about 1/3 of the most recently linked pdf (I remember that it is about 52 pages in standard pdf format). I think that the material is great.

I really wish that Steve took as much time formatting for clarity as he does gathering and arranging the material. The use of color and indentations continues to confuse as to what are quotes and what is his editorializing.

In large sections, he does well, fully left-justifying his own words, and indenting the quotes from others. And providing some differentiation in color or font between the actual quote and the source.

Then in another, his words, while still in his own font, are imbedded in the indented area. And the colors used on certain quotes (such as from something Lee spoke/wrote) are not used on another similar quote just a paragraph or two later.

I've been asked to purchase his book for someone else and I will do that. I just hope that he has a better time figuring out what is what. I appreciate Steve's comments and for the most part the way it is pieced together. I still disagree with some of his characterizations of whether what was before all of this was really so wonderful and worthy of the desire for return that he exibits, but at the same time, it makes his assessment stronger because he is not just someone (like me) who would be satisfied if the thing just folded and all those who live off of the LSM had to go get real jobs. And the dear ones who are bottled up in there were free to pursue God without the fog of Lee, the LSM and the LRC.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Existing LC members would do well to read writings such as this so perhaps they could gather the wisdom to run away to other healthier fellowships, as the same strongholds and evil spirits that existed back then are probably still there wreaking havoc in the LCs today as it looks like they have never been dealt with.

One reason we all love the Bible -- God's word -- is because it is an accurate and honest portrayal of history. The book of Acts, for example, was written by a close friend and traveling companion of Apostle Paul. The book of Acts accurately portrays Paul (Saul) as a murderer. It was Saul who instigated and authorized the stoning of Steven, the first martyr after Jesus ascended into heaven. The writers of the New Testament, especially Luke in the book of Acts, could have easily hidden this atrocious and unspeakable "act" from the Gentile world, but they did not, just as the Bible did not hide King David's acts behind the cloak of royalty.

We cannot say the same about any the accounts of Witness Lee by LSM. Of course, they admit superficial generalizations like, "nobody's perfect" and "we all make mistakes," but the Bible never did this with any of her most notable men in history, from Moses to Peter. Only Jesus was perfect. Let me repeat. Only Jesus was perfect! One more time. Only Jesus was perfect!

But not so for the common LC'er. I know I was there actively serving for almost 30 years. I was indoctrinated by LSM to believe that Nee and Lee were the closest thing ever to the "perfect suffering God-man" that ever existed in the church age. Every so-called "storm" in the annals of Nee and Lee historical revisionism was twisted and re-spun to the faithful as "persecution by ambitious men who only wanted to overthrow the Minister Of The Age."

How disgusting! How very deceptive!

Philip Lin, who clearly knows better, should be ashamed of himself.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We cannot say the same about any the accounts of Witness Lee by LSM. Of course, they admit superficial generalizations like, "nobody's perfect" and "we all make mistakes," but the Bible never did this with any of her most notable men in history, from Moses to Peter. Only Jesus was perfect. Let me repeat. Only Jesus was perfect! One more time. Only Jesus was perfect!

But not so for the common LC'er. I know I was there actively serving for almost 30 years. I was indoctrinated by LSM to believe that Nee and Lee were the closest thing ever to the "perfect suffering God-man" that ever existed in the church age. Every so-called "storm" in the annals of Nee and Lee historical revisionism was twisted and re-spun to the faithful as "persecution by ambitious men who only wanted to overthrow the Minister Of The Age."

How disgusting! How very deceptive!

Philip Lin, who clearly knows better, should be ashamed of himself.

This is a very good point. It is also the thing that disgusts me the most about Lin's book. It goes without saying that no one is perfect, so why must this be clarified with respect to Lee? The very fact that these types of statements are made implies that many view Lee as "perfect". What's worse is that they think that by simply admitting that Lee was imperfect magically erases his mistakes and all the damage he caused.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I still disagree with some of his characterizations of whether what was before all of this was really so wonderful and worthy of the desire for return that he exhibits ...

For many of us, the early church life was a wonderful time. It was to us a reenactment of the early NT church, both of which, however, were still filled with all sorts of problems. That time in America was a real move of the Holy Spirit, not just in the LC's, but among nearly all God's children.

Witness Lee gave structure to some in that movement, which on the one might have been beneficial, but eventually became a cause of degradation. Talking to some of his loyalists, however, one might think that the entire Jesus People movement was God's poured out blessing on Witness Lee for coming to the US. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is a very good point. It is also the thing that disgusts me the most about Lin's book. It goes without saying that no one is perfect, so why must this be clarified with respect to Lee? The very fact that these types of statements are made implies that many view Lee as "perfect". What's worse is that they think that by simply admitting that Lee was imperfect magically erases his mistakes and all the damage he caused.

Brother Francis Ball said it best regarding Lee's failures when he publicly declared, "I'd rather be an ostrich with his head in the sand."

Such were the gross venerations in Lee-Land. Fortunately for us, the Bible record was never like that.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is a very good point. It is also the thing that disgusts me the most about Lin's book. It goes without saying that no one is perfect, so why must this be clarified with respect to Lee? The very fact that these types of statements are made implies that many view Lee as "perfect". What's worse is that they think that by simply admitting that Lee was imperfect magically erases his mistakes and all the damage he caused.

And the imperfections of "degraded Christianity" were brought up, again and again, usually based on Witness Lee's growing up Protestant in Mainland China in the 1920s and 1930s. As if he could pronounce judgment on all Christian fellowship based on that experience alone. And then, when the faults of the LC were mentioned, he and his followers would shrug and say, "nobody's perfect". It reminds me of the NT parable of the servant who beat his fellows and threw them into jail, but when his own creditors came he begged for mercy. The servant expected different treatment for himself than he'd given to others.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For many of us, the early church life was a wonderful time. It was to us a reenactment of the early NT church, both of which, however, were still filled with all sorts of problems. That time in America was a real move of the Holy Spirit, not just in the LC's, but among nearly all God's children.

Witness Lee gave structure to some in that movement, which on the one might have been beneficial, but eventually became a cause of degradation. Talking to some of his loyalists, however, one might think that the entire Jesus People movement was God's poured out blessing on Witness Lee for coming to the US. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I would agree that you had a wonderful time in the early LRC. But I would disagree that it was really about the LRC or Lee, but the freedom and the opportunity to view the Christian life an experience beyond the mold of the old-line denominations.

But Jesus people and the LRC weren't the only things happening back then. Just the more outwardly boisterous. And that is appealing. Not necessarily spiritually. There were many independent groups that were beginning at that time. And many of them were not so outwardly boisterous, so Lee had fun just calling them more of the same. But they were not.

In fact, the explosion of separate section 501(c)(3) filings is not because there are suddenly a whole lot of Christians that are so divided, but because the hold over those Christians by the old-line denominations was failing. Yet for the most part, despite the "name" appearance of division, they are more one with the others that the LRC is with any of them, and even within it own original ranks. Bible churches are mostly new. A few existed before 1960. In fact, of all the different groups of churches that arose, it is fair to say that few had the historical path of destruction that the LRC has had. And for the few that did, the result was usually because a wayward leader was tossed out, not because he forced everyone else out.

We were there reason that anything was wonderful. The LRC was not the cause. Lee did not provide structure, he provided less control than he wanted. Just to hook us. That cannot be spun as positive. He was never positive. Virtually everything he taught had worms hanging on it. The flour bin had too many rat hairs. And the smell of garlic was overwhelming.

No. The whole experience was not worms, rats, and garlic. But what Lee provided was infested with it. We provided the rest. Eventually our part could not keep Lee out and was overrun by his myths and endless genealogies.

Originally Posted by aron

And the imperfections of "degraded Christianity" were brought up, again and again, usually based on Witness Lee's growing up Protestant in Mainland China in the 1920s and 1930s. As if he could pronounce judgment on all Christian fellowship based on that experience alone. And then, when the faults of the LC were mentioned, he and his followers would shrug and say, "nobody's perfect". It reminds me of the NT parable of the servant who beat his fellows and threw them into jail, but when his own creditors came he begged for mercy. The servant expected different treatment for himself than he'd given to others.

Very nice aron. I was speaking with a long time LCer just recently, when I asked him if he thought that brother Lee was infallible he said "absolutely not!". But I asked him to give me just one thing that he thought that Lee was wrong about and he could not come up with anything, not one thing. He just had a sheepish smirk and shrugged his shoulders. I asked him if maybe just maybe he was wrong about "poor poor christianity" and he said "absolutely not!". I told him God bless you and I rest my case.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cliffhanger

Very nice aron. I was speaking with a long time LCer just recently, when I asked him if he thought that brother Lee was infallible he said "absolutely not!". But I asked him to give me just one thing that he thought that Lee was wrong about and he could not come up with anything, not one thing. He just had a sheepish smirk and shrugged his shoulders. I asked him if maybe just maybe he was wrong about "poor poor christianity" and he said "absolutely not!". I told him God bless you and I rest my case.

This attitude is what exactly defined Laodicea.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Cliffhanger

Very nice aron. I was speaking with a long time LCer just recently, when I asked him if he thought that brother Lee was infallible he said "absolutely not!". But I asked him to give me just one thing that he thought that Lee was wrong about and he could not come up with anything, not one thing. He just had a sheepish smirk and shrugged his shoulders. I asked him if maybe just maybe he was wrong about "poor poor christianity" and he said "absolutely not!". I told him God bless you and I rest my case.

I've sat there on LaPalma Ave with thousands of fellow local church'ers, listening to "blended brothers" talk about what they will say to Witness Lee when they "see him again." Didn't Witness Lee also, when he was alive, talk about Watchman Nee as if he would have to "answer" to him someday?

Why do they go so far out of their way to say, "Lee was just a man"? Could it be -- is it even possible -- that they're uncomfortable with their own attitudes toward him?

[aron]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I've sat there on LaPalma Ave with thousands of fellow local church'ers, listening to "blended brothers" talk about what they will say to Witness Lee when they "see him again." Didn't Witness Lee also, when he was alive, talk about Watchman Nee as if he would have to "answer" to him someday?

Why do they go so far out of their way to say, "Lee was just a man"? Could it be -- is it even possible -- that they're uncomfortable with their own attitudes toward him?

My sense is that they try to have it both ways. Of the group they say, "We are special. We are the sole move of God on the earth today. If you are not with us, you are doing absolutely nothing to build up the Body of Christ on earth according to God's heart's desire." Then to others outside, they say, "We are just a group of Jesus-loving Christians. We are no different." So they can be either 'unique' or 'jest reg'lar folks' depending on the need at hand.

Likewise, Lee was either the unique 'wise master builder' raised up by God to be used to 'end the age', or he was 'just a man' like any other redeemed and regenerated Christian. Depending on how you needed to characterize him at the moment.

And they don't see any contradiction. Supposedly, it's all for the building up of the Body. And they take Paul's "all things to all men" to a new level, I think.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by aron

And they don't see any contradiction. Supposedly, it's all for the building up of the Body. And they take Paul's "all things to all men" to a new level, I think.

I suppose the ends justify the rhetoric?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

What's worse is that they think that by simply admitting that Lee was imperfect magically erases his mistakes and all the damage he caused.

Or Lee's imperfection is meant to excuse any mistakes he made or damage he caused.
We may not know the quantity exactly, but many have been stumbled by the damage.....

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Or Lee's imperfection is meant to excuse any mistakes he made or damage he caused.
We may not know the quantity exactly, but many have been stumbled by the damage.....

People's perspectives on Lee vary greatly, that is why it's so easy for the BB's and even Lee himself to put a spin on things. To some Lee could say that he never controlled anyone, and they would believe it. To others he could say "Going with God’s oracle, surely there is the deputy authority of God in this oracle. Whoever speaks for God, he surely has certain divine authority." So which is it? It seems like it all changes to fit the situation.

People like me who never met Lee or saw him speak in person have no idea of who he was other than various writings regarding him which can be here. It turns out that these writings show just how bad the damage that was cause by Lee's mistakes. All the BB's can do to address that is say that Lee made mistakes, just like everyone else. They are probably hoping that we will feel that maybe we shouldn't judge Lee for his mistakes. Well that might work if he was just like you and me, but because his mistakes were so great, they can't be simply ignored.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

All the BB's can do to address that is say that Lee made mistakes, just like everyone else. They are probably hoping that we will feel that maybe we shouldn't judge Lee for his mistakes. Well that might work if he was just like you and me, but because his mistakes were so great, they can't be simply ignored.

No question we all have sinned with the exception of one. In regards to Lee or any other Christian minister, how they conduct their lives affects many. So if there's a brother or sister who stop going on because mistakes weren't addressed, how do you quantify it?
Do you criticize the person who gave too far respect to the minister?
Or do you criticize the minister for the pride of life?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

They are probably hoping that we will feel that maybe we shouldn't judge Lee for his mistakes. Well that might work if he was just like you and me, but because his mistakes were so great, they can't be simply ignored.

For me it all boils down to this -- did people get hurt by Lee's "mistakes."

I'm not talking about someone like brother Ohio getting disillusioned by various disappointing events, NO, not at all. I'm referring to those who lost their life's savings to Daystar, and then being told that it was your fault for "losing your virginity." I'm talking about devoted sisters who get molested by the LSM Office Manager while fulfilling some voluntary Levitical service for The Ministry. I'm recalling all those men of God who had given their lives to build up Lee's little kingdom, and then got their reputations squeezed through the wringer washer for simply obeying their conscience and speaking up for God and for the children of God.

Nobody but Lee's trained sycophants would dare to call these events "mistakes."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

NO, not at all. I'm referring to those who lost their life's savings to Daystar, and then being told that it was your fault for "losing your virginity." I'm talking about devoted sisters who get molested by the LSM Office Manager while fulfilling some voluntary Levitical service for The Ministry. I'm recalling all those men of God who had given their lives to build up Lee's little kingdom, and then got their reputations squeezed through the wringer washer for simply obeying their conscience and speaking up for God and for the children of God.

Nobody but Lee's trained sycophants would dare to call these events "mistakes."

What would blended brothers and co-workers say to that? Would there be compassion or would there be callousness?
To categorize these events as "mistakes" is deeply insensitive.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

What would blended brothers and co-workers say to that?

Just deny, like they always have.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For me it all boils down to this -- did people get hurt by Lee's "mistakes."

I'm not talking about someone like brother Ohio getting disillusioned by various disappointing events, NO, not at all. I'm referring to those who lost their life's savings to Daystar, and then being told that it was your fault for "losing your virginity." I'm talking about devoted sisters who get molested by the LSM Office Manager while fulfilling some voluntary Levitical service for The Ministry. I'm recalling all those men of God who had given their lives to build up Lee's little kingdom, and then got their reputations squeezed through the wringer washer for simply obeying their conscience and speaking up for God and for the children of God.

Nobody but Lee's trained sycophants would dare to call these events "mistakes."

Exactly, very well put. There is just something sickening when you hear about so many well-intentioned saints who got back-stabbed. It's hard to believe that all this can just be called "mistakes". I wasn't even there, so I can't even imagine what it was like for all those who got manipulated in these situations.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Terry

No question we all have sinned with the exception of one. In regards to Lee or any other Christian minister, how they conduct their lives affects many. So if there's a brother or sister who stop going on because mistakes weren't addressed, how do you quantify it?
Do you criticize the person who gave too far respect to the minister?
Or do you criticize the minister for the pride of life?

The New Testament makes a distinction between 1) making mistakes / stumbling into sin versus 2) a lifestyle held in bondage by sin resulting in regular, continual practice of sinning which is wickedness or iniquity.

John says whoever says he does not sin is a liar (1 John 1:8). While we're still in the flesh we'll all make mistakes and stumble into sin. Yes no one is perfect until we receive our glorified bodies. One example is David who had a heart for God like no other, but fell into even the most serious sins such as adultery and murder but later repented.

But John also says whoever knows God cannot continue to sin in 1 John 3:6
"No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him."

The type of continual sinning John is referring to results from a wicked heart that is held in bondage to the lusts of the flesh (fame, love of money, power etc) [Gal 5:19-21].

This follows John 8:34-36 (ESV), where Jesus says:
"Very truly I tell you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin... So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."

Jesus also said whoever drinks of the water he gives will no longer thirst (John 4:14). It implies when we have truly found Jesus, he will fulfill all our needs, and we will no longer have a need to thirst/hunger after worldly lusts that once held us captive.

http://www.laymansfellowship.com/pub...opleChange.pdf

"[Witness Lee] referred to the title he has used for the Holy Spirit – "the all-inclusive Spirit of Christ as the
consummation of the processed Triune God" – and asked who made such a title. Webster? he
asked. Then he answered his own question, "That Lee! Lee has to be famous! Lee! Lee! Lee must
have the credit! And if you listen to me, you do not listen to Lee, you listen to the very God in His
oracle spoken by me." A little later in his message he said, "Going with God’s oracle, surely there
is the deputy authority of God in this oracle. Whoever speaks for God, he surely has certain
divine authority. I’m claiming this for Lee!"

If the accounts of Witness Lee are true, it does seem that he was held under bondage of sin (love of money, fame, power for him and his sons) for much of his ministry, which would then be classified by scriptures as wickedness and not occasional mistakes. If Lee had repented and made amends and changed his ways then it would be evidence otherwise, but the publication of Fermentation of the Present Rebellion indicates that he cemented his position and also the book was never retracted.

2 Timothy 2:19
Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness."

Acts 8:13
for I can see that you are full of bitter jealousy and are held captive by sin."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by bearbear

If the accounts of Witness Lee are true, it does seem that he was held under bondage of sin (love of money, fame, power for him and his sons) for much of his ministry, which would then be classified by scriptures as wickedness and not occasional mistakes. I

Lee was gripped by a kind of spiritual megalomania, convincing himself and others that he was today's Moses, whose every fault and failure was covered by a judgmental God, bent on protecting Lee regardless. Nee suffered similarly. Hence, any corrective word, any exposure of failures, or any "negative" speaking was deemed the persecution of the enemy.

This kind of self-aggrandizement (pride?) seemed to be the root of everything else. I dont think it was the love of money per se with Lee. He also loved his legacy and reputation above everything to the point that he would "lynch" any and all who would even speak up concerning his profligate sons. Both he and his sons believed they were above any earthly law, and expected their followers to protect them from any and all consequences.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee was gripped by a kind of spiritual megalomania, convincing himself and others that he was today's Moses, whose every fault and failure was covered by a judgmental God, bent on protecting Lee regardless. Nee suffered similarly. Hence, any corrective word, any exposure of failures, or any "negative" speaking was deemed the persecution of the enemy.

This kind of self-aggrandizement (pride?) seemed to be the root of everything else. I dont think it was the love of money per se with Lee. He also loved his legacy and reputation above everything to the point that he would "lynch" any and all who would even speak up concerning his profligate sons. Both he and his sons believed they were above any earthly law, and expected their followers to protect them from any and all consequences.

Yes, I think he loved his position and reputation above all. How else could everything he did be explained?

I think his business failings began as honest attempts to meet financial certain needs the churches and his ministry. The problem came in when he attempted to cover up and distort the reality of these business failings. Because it is clear that Daystar involved illegal activities (which I'm sure Lee was eventually made aware of), in order to save his reputation he had no choice to cover everything up. How would things have looked if the "MOTA" ended up in jail for money laundering? I guess part of the problem is that Lee could not bring himself to admit that he was not cut out as a business man. At least Philip Lin is willing to admit this much.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Yes, I think he loved his position and reputation above all. How else could everything he did be explained?

I think his business failings began as honest attempts to meet financial certain needs the churches and his ministry. The problem came in when he attempted to cover up and distort the reality of these business failings. Because it is clear that Daystar involved illegal activities (which I'm sure Lee was eventually made aware of), in order to save his reputation he had no choice to cover everything up. How would things have looked if the "MOTA" ended up in jail for money laundering? I guess part of the problem is that Lee could not bring himself to admit that he was not cut out as a business man. At least Philip Lin is willing to admit this much.

Anyone can fail at business, and there is no shame in that. But Lee took it two steps further. Firstly he forced the churches to pay for all his losses, then he attacked the reputations of any brother who stood up to him.

This happened in the 50's in Taipei, where Lee forced the church to sell its property to pay his bad business debts. Lee told us repeatedly that the Lord sent him to the USA, when the real story was the church ran him out of the country. Did he ever fess up and learn his lesson? No, because the same thing happened with Daystar.

It's easy to say that WL was only attempting to care for the workers, but what does history tell us? When Daystar finally collapsed, President Timothy Lee walked away with $1 Million. LSM later spent $14 Million on the Harvest House lawsuit. Then LSM spent $30+ Million on the LaPalma campus. Where is all their "love and care" for needy people, for the workers, for the volunteers, and for the serving saints?

I was church treasurer for ten years, so I know these things from the inside out. We always had a "needy saints" fund, but never put a dollar into that fund because both Anaheim and Cleveland were constantly squeezing us for more. So "caring for the needy" was a big farce. I abruptly quit my service as church treasurer the day I was accused of starving the children of the full-timers for not sending enough money to Cleveland. I had been putting local needs first, like paying the mortgage and the utilities.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Anyone can fail at business, and there is no shame in that. But Lee took it two steps further. Firstly he forced the churches to pay for all his losses, then he attacked the reputations of any brother who stood up to him.

This happened in the 50's in Taipei, where Lee forced the church to sell its property to pay his bad business debts. Lee told us repeatedly that the Lord sent him to the USA, when the real story was the church ran him out of the country. Did he ever fess up and learn his lesson? No, because the same thing happened with Daystar.

It's easy to say that WL was only attempting to care for the workers, but what does history tell us? When Daystar finally collapsed, President Timothy Lee walked away with $1 Million. LSM later spent $14 Million on the Harvest House lawsuit. Then LSM spent $30+ Million on the LaPalma campus. Where is all their "love and care" for needy people, for the workers, for the volunteers, and for the serving saints?

I recently came across the following photo of WL standing next to a Daystar motorhome, so I though that I would post it . After all, a picture is worth a thousand words. The funny thing is, after seeing this picture, I can imagine the "business man" side of Lee.

It's hard to know for sure regarding Lee's intentions, but after the dust settled after these business ventures, the reality of it all is sad, that's for sure. Wouldn't LSM care more about making things right with the Daystar investors rather than suing other Christians or purchasing a campus?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I recently came across the following photo of WL standing next to a Daystar motorhome, so I though that I would post it . After all, a picture is worth a thousand words. The funny thing is, after seeing this picture, I can imagine the "business man" side of Lee.

I got a bunch of Daystar pics, but I never saw this one. Good Job!

The writing on the building in the background suggests it was taken in Taiwan; perhaps at the Phosphorus plant where the monstrosity was built.

Maybe Igzy or UntoHim can shrink it down to fit the screen.

I have heard that LSM used some pretty girls in bikinis to model the Daystar. Like to see a few pics of that!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

No question we all have sinned with the exception of one. In regards to Lee or any other Christian minister, how they conduct their lives affects many. So if there's a brother or sister who stop going on because mistakes weren't addressed, how do you quantify it?
Do you criticize the person who gave too far respect to the minister?
Or do you criticize the minister for the pride of life?

Isn't it a two way street, between a leader and followers?

As far as I know the local church has a power to entrap the minds of followers -- for sure, that's for real -- but other than that there's nothing holding anyone in the local church. All of them are free to walk away, any time. Many have.

It's the followers that empower the leader. Without them the leader is not a leader, and is nothing, just another passing person.

But the leader isn't innocent either. The leader, in this case Witness Lee, has to have something to offer. Witness Lee offered a unique fresh high sounding interpretation of the Word of God from the Bible. And offered a system whereby you could give your life to it: Originally advertised as Christ and the Church. But eventually became Lee and The Ministry.

Then all that's needed to establish a cult, from the leader is, a gift for deception. And Lee was adept at hiding immorality and larceny. He covered for Watchman Nee, and his sons, and his criminal business dealings.

And there you have it, a system of the willing deceiver and the willingly deceived. A system dynamic that requires both the leader and followers ; that empowers both ways, to establish and empower, in the end, the leader .... à la Witness Lee.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by awareness

Isn't it a two way street, between a leader and followers?

As far as I know the local church has a power to entrap the minds of followers -- for sure, that's for real -- but other than that there's nothing holding anyone in the local church. All of them are free to walk away, any time. Many have.

It's the followers that empower the leader. Without them the leader is not a leader, and is nothing, just another passing person.

But the leader isn't innocent either. The leader, in this case Witness Lee, has to have something to offer. Witness Lee offered a unique fresh high sounding interpretation of the Word of God from the Bible. And offered a system whereby you could give your life to it: Originally advertised as Christ and the Church. But eventually became Lee and The Ministry.

Then all that's needed to establish a cult, from the leader is, a gift for deception. And Lee was adept at hiding immorality and larceny. He covered for Watchman Nee, and his sons, and his criminal business dealings.

And there you have it, a system of the willing deceiver and the willingly deceived. A system dynamic that requires both the leader and followers ; that empowers both ways, to establish and empower, in the end, the leader .... à la Witness Lee.

Everyone is responsible for making their own decisions, but scripture places more responsibilities on those in authority than followers:

James 3:1 says "Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly."

And Jesus has harsh words for those who lead others astray. Regarding these folks, it's the only occurrence in scriptures where the Good Shepherd recommends suicide:

Luke 17:1-2 (AMP)
"And [Jesus] said to His disciples, Temptations (snares, traps set to entice to sin) are sure to come, but woe to him by or through whom they come! It would be more profitable for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were hurled into the sea than that he should cause to sin or be a snare to one of these little ones [lowly in rank or influence]."

According to the amplified bible, Jesus isn't just referring to children, but those who are "Lowly in rank or influence".

Would it have been better for Lee to bust the emergency doors open and tie a millstone around his neck to jump into the Pacific Ocean during his flight from Taiwan to the US in 1962?

On the one hand, a lot of people did get their first contact with Jesus through Lee's ministry. But many lives were also destroyed, including existing Christians who came from other denominations. This group probably had the greatest disappointment. Many probably left their denominations due to disillusionment, only to get disillusioned again in Lee's ministry. It's God's grace if any of these folks still held on to their faith.

Yet all things work together for good (Romans 8:28).

[bearbear]

Philip Mantoufa, now a church pastor in Indonesia shares a powerful testimony on CBN:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CXs...ature=youtu.be

He was sexually molested by a church leader as a youth, the same person who he looked up to and got him interested in God. He subsequently lost his faith and wanted to have nothing to do with Jesus.

After leading a rebellious life in the occult, he had a powerful encounter with Jesus years later and returned back to his faith.

Mantoufa said he "banged on heaven's door" asking God why he allowed a trusted authority figure to abuse him during his youth.

He never received a detailed explanation, but the answer he got from God was "I am who I am, I am not like people and I love you".

That also reminds me of a leader in my church who was sexually molested by a church youth leader when he was young. For years he asked Jesus why he allowed what happened to him. One night he got a dream where he revisited the time and place where he was sexually abused. However instead of him being molested, he saw Jesus taking his place during the horrific ordeal. Later he felt the Lord was telling him that he was right there with him it occurred and he felt his pain as much as he did and that Jesus was taking the shame away from him onto himself.

Matthew 25:40
And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Mantoufa said he "banged on heaven's door" asking God why he allowed a trusted authority figure to abuse him during his youth.

He never received a detailed explanation, but the answer he got from God was "I am who I am, I am not like people and I love you".

That also reminds me of a leader in my church who was sexually molested by a church youth leader when he was young. For years he asked Jesus why he allowed what happened to him. One night he got a dream where he revisited the time and place where he was sexually abused. However instead of him being molested, he saw Jesus taking his place during the horrific ordeal. Later he felt the Lord was telling him that he was right there with him it occurred and he felt his pain as much as he did and that Jesus was taking the shame away from him onto himself.

Matthew 25:40
And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

It seems like everyone of us has some sort of testimony where we could blame God, "how could you let this happen to me?" This can go on for years as fiery darts are constantly shot at us from God's enemies. I believe the answer can only be found when we see Jesus hanging on the cross with outstretched arms. Look at what God allowed His perfect, holy, sinless Son to endure. Before His death, even Jesus uttered something similar, "Eli, Eli, how could you let this happen to me?"

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I recently came across the following photo of WL standing next to a Daystar motorhome... The funny thing is, after seeing this picture, I can imagine the "business man" side of Lee.

It's hard to know for sure regarding Lee's intentions, but after the dust settled after these business ventures, the reality of it all is sad, that's for sure. Wouldn't LSM care more about making things right with the Daystar investors rather than suing other Christians or purchasing a campus?

To me the problem is not that Lee was a "business man" on the side, or even that he bilked people out of money. The problem is that he preached the opposite. Doesn't anyone remember the sermon (message) given by Lee that the Church was to be pure and unsullied by the world? Doesn't anyone remember Lee castigating the Baptists and Presbyterians for building hospitals and founding universities? This was not our calling, Lee firmly asserted.

Suddenly we find out he'd been asking the saints for "investments" in his business scheme, run by his son. What a hypocrite. How could anyone sit in meetings where Lee lambasted "Christianity" for failing its mission, when he was even moreso? How could they walk out of that meeting with their consciences still intact? At some point, the disconnect between message and action had to become too strong.

For me the main thing was the lack of love. No care for our neighbor. Just "good building material" sought to "consummate the New Jerusalem". I had a penchant for dragging in the dregs of society, and they couldn't assimilate well with Recovery culture. It wasn't forbidden, but it became clear that I was being independent, and the "move on the campuses" was where it was at. So I left. I was still pickled in "God's economy" brine, but at least I was free from LSM's "building the Body" ideas. News flash: if God had wanted "good building material" then He sent His Son to the wrong planet.

Secondly, we'd loved one another. We didn't give speeches about it, but we lived together, ate together, went to meetings together, set up chairs in the meeting halls together, preached the gospel together, and went to each other's families and presented the name of Jesus together. Then, the Anaheimians showed up, declared that Lee had pronounced us "dormant", and grouped us into geographic sectors and declared that we were "vital groups". I remember the passive, confused, and discouraged looks in the meeting. The World Sector Leaders had arrived, and love had scurried out the door with its tail between its legs. Fear was now the Boss.

[OBW]

Not to say that this is the whole truth or the answer, but even where God attempts to shepherd us in certain directions, we are free to go where our eyes, ears, emotions, etc., take us. He does not deny us our choosing. And that does not mean that our choosing is always bad. But being in the LRC was, in my case, a function of a linkage to Watchman Nee (of whom we actually had limited, but appealing knowledge). If I knew then what I know now, I might not have been as interested in it. That goes for both Lee and the LRC as well as Nee. There were always worms in the meal. But they were only eggs waiting to hatch from our vantage point, therefore hidden.

Yet God allowed it. Just like he allowed the fall. We do not need to reform our past to have a glorious present and future. Just know where you are now and remain in it (if it is worthy of remaining in).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

News flash: if God had wanted "good building material" then He sent His Son to the wrong planet.

Too funny!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

At some point, the disconnect between message and action had to become too strong.

That's what cinched it for me. That Lee was not practicing what he preached.

Originally Posted by aron

News flesh: if God had wanted "good building material" then He sent His Son to the wrong planet.

Misanthropic ... but seems to be true.

But he commanded us to love them; those on this planet. And that too seems impossible ... cuz we're of this wrong planet.

If God doesn't step in we have no hope in the Christian sense of hope. We can't reach up, so God has to reach down ... if we're ever gonna reach the Christian ideal; which, by the way, is the Christian ideal.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Misanthropic ... but seems to be true.

But he commanded us to love them; those on this planet. And that too seems impossible ... cuz we're of this wrong planet.

If God doesn't step in we have no hope in the Christian sense of hope. We can't reach up, so God has to reach down ... if we're ever gonna reach the Christian ideal; which, by the way, is the Christian ideal.

There is hope. There is one "good building material", and His name is Jesus Christ. Our faith is in Him, not ourselves. But I argue that Lee led us to look away from Jesus. There was the local church, then the Body of Christ, then the ministry, then God's deputy authority, then God's dispensing, then God's present move on the earth, then this, then that. All of it confusing and stumbling the saints.

I still have my old RecV. Yesterday I was reading in Revelations chapter 1. The footnotes are really something. One note said that unless you are in the local churches, you can't figure out the book of Revelation. Like the book was closed until the recovery of the local churches. What unchristian hubris, and what a distraction from the person of Jesus Christ. Like the tables have flipped, and now instead of Christ showing us the Father you have the local churches (of Lee) showing us Christ. Like He was inaccessible until Lee showed up with his teachings.

That kind of teaching I don't like. But I am willing to live with imperfect people, because I myself am imperfect. And Jesus taught again and again, if you have mercy on them, God will have mercy on you. So the poor building material all around me is an opportunity for me to find God's favor, and grace.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

There is hope. There is one "good building material", and His name is Jesus Christ. Our faith is in Him, not ourselves. But I argue that Lee led us to look away from Jesus. There was the local church, then the Body of Christ, then the ministry, then God's deputy authority, then God's dispensing, then God's present move on the earth, then this, then that. All of it confusing and stumbling the saints.

I still have my old RecV. Yesterday I was reading in Revelations chapter 1. The footnotes are really something. One note said that unless you are in the local churches, you can't figure out the book of Revelation. Like the book was closed until the recovery of the local churches. What unchristian hubris, and what a distraction from the person of Jesus Christ. Like the tables have flipped, and now instead of Christ showing us the Father you have the local churches (of Lee) showing us Christ. Like He was inaccessible until Lee showed up with his teachings.

That kind of teaching I don't like. But I am willing to live with imperfect people, because I myself am imperfect. And Jesus taught again and again, if you have mercy on them, God will have mercy on you. So the poor building material all around me is an opportunity for me to find God's favor, and grace.

There are certain aspects of Lee's ministry that I look at now and wonder to myself how I fell for it all. The footnotes in Revelation are a prime example of that. Once I started questioning Lee's ministry, it didn't take me long to realize that I needed to drop my "elitist" attitude. It is rather addicting to think that you have a "unique" vision that no one else has, and in my experience, it is hard to let go of this. Even though I fully realize that the LC is not all that it's made out to be, I find myself still reverting to this mindset unintentionally.

When I set aside the elitism and ideas of Lee being the MOTA, I still find that it is hard to get past the notion that he at least had the ability to put "everything together", or interpret the meaning of everything the Bible talks about. There are certainly positive aspects of Lee's ministry, and I have to admit that there are things here and there that have helped me. In respect to all of this, one thing that was an eye-opener was when I read Nigel Tome's "LSM's Plagiarism" paper. It would have never occurred to me that perhaps Lee's putting "everything together" was his compiling of things that others had already seen. Of course, in the LC, I wasn't exposed to the writings of anyone but Lee, so for all I knew, everything that is contained in his ministry is what he saw. Sometimes I go and read Wikipedia articles on certain Biblical topics, and it amazes me how interpretations that I though were "unique" to the LC are actually commonly accepted interpretations. So with respect to some of the more fundamental things, it turns out Lee's ministry isn't so "unique" as we were led to think.

I got so accustomed to WL's straw man arguments with respect to other Christians, that I really believed that "other Christians" were as he described. It seems Lee had a bad habit of misattributing certain characteristics to Christians and then attacking this made up image of Christians. Since I was uniformed, I believed it all. It wasn't until I developed relationships with other non-LC Christians that I realized the LC has it all wrong.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It is rather addicting to think that you have a "unique" vision that no one else has, and in my experience, it is hard to let go of this. Even though I fully realize that the LC is not all that it's made out to be, I find myself still reverting to this mindset unintentionally.

That my friend is PRIDE. It has afflicted us all, and is hard to let go. I have a few friends, after leaving the LC, promptly hooked up with an even more exclusive group. It is just so hard not to think that we are better than any others.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That my friend is PRIDE. It has afflicted us all, and is hard to let go. I have a few friends, after leaving the LC, promptly hooked up with an even more exclusive group. It is just so hard not to think that we are better than any others.

Yes, pride is a big problem. It is hard to get over. And the LC is especially hypocritical with respect to pride. Pride is condemned, yet the elitist attitude is what creates it.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

For me the main thing was the lack of love.

I would add lack of grace. Phillip Lin's book, he could have given grace to the brothers he once served with in Anaheim. No grace was to be given.
How many brothers and sisters could have been ministered with grace and love?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

I would add lack of grace. Phillip Lin's book, he could have given grace to the brothers he once served with in Anaheim. No grace was to be given.
How many brothers and sisters could have been ministered with grace and love?

Since Minoru was in Anaheim along with Philip Lin, I have to wonder how they could go on for so long knowing the truth and choosing to ignore it. I have heard Minoru speak many times, and I used to have some amount of respect for him. Once I discovered all the things that happened in Anaheim, I lost all respect for him. Since Philip Lin admitted his loyalty to Lee was something of his culture, I assume Minoru would admit the same. So there is something seriously wrong with the consciences of both of these brothers.

Because both of these brothers know the truth, and were there in Anaheim, neither of them could honestly say that they buy into Lee's imagined "global conspiracy theory" in the late 80's. So I think in both of their cases, their actions were based on wanting to remain loyal to Lee. I can understand that they chose loyalty to Lee over the truth. What is most concerning, however, is their total disregard of brotherly love and the lack of grace to receive brothers whom Lee labeled as "rebellious".

The same Savior who died for Minoru and Philip Lin, also died for all the brothers whom Lee slandered by labeling them as "rebellious". This is a basic aspect of the Christian faith. I'm not sure that Minoru and Philip Lin understand this.

1 John 4:20 - If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Since Minoru was in Anaheim along with Philip Lin, I have to wonder how they could go on for so long knowing the truth and choosing to ignore it. I have heard Minoru speak many times, and I used to have some amount of respect for him. Once I discovered all the things that happened in Anaheim, I lost all respect for him. Since Philip Lin admitted his loyalty to Lee was something of his culture, I assume Minoru would admit the same. So there is something seriously wrong with the consciences of both of these brothers.

Because both of these brothers know the truth, and were there in Anaheim, neither of them could honestly say that they buy into Lee's imagined "global conspiracy theory" in the late 80's. So I think in both of their cases, their actions were based on wanting to remain loyal to Lee. I can understand that they chose loyalty to Lee over the truth. What is most concerning, however, is their total disregard of brotherly love and the lack of grace to receive brothers whom Lee labeled as "rebellious".

The same Savior who died for Minoru and Philip Lin, also died for all the brothers whom Lee slandered by labeling them as "rebellious". This is a basic aspect of the Christian faith. I'm not sure that Minoru and Philip Lin understand this.

I know from Ohio's post's, Titus Chu regards Witness Lee as a spiritual father. Likely many of these blended brothers do also. My point as you have also pointed out, it was Jesus who died for our sins.

Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 1 Corinthians 1:13

The nature of grace I see practiced in the local churches can be characterized as Us and Them. If you're not for us, you're against us.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Since Philip Lin admitted his loyalty to Lee was something of his culture, I assume Minoru would admit the same. So there is something seriously wrong with the consciences of both of these brothers.

Because both of these brothers know the truth, and were there in Anaheim, neither of them could honestly say that they buy into Lee's imagined "global conspiracy theory" in the late 80's. So I think in both of their cases, their actions were based on wanting to remain loyal to Lee. I can understand that they chose loyalty to Lee over the truth. What is most concerning, however, is their total disregard of brotherly love and the lack of grace to receive brothers whom Lee labeled as "rebellious".

It's all contextual for them. Everything applies within their group that they refer to as the "church life" and the "Body." Once someone is outside of that sphere, then all they want to know is whether you're "rebellious" or "negative" about "the ministry" (as HERn recently posted on another thread).

It just so happens that about 99.99% (literally) of Christians worldwide are not in the Lord's Recovery. So...what gives?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That my friend is PRIDE. It has afflicted us all, and is hard to let go. I have a few friends, after leaving the LC, promptly hooked up with an even more exclusive group. It is just so hard not to think that we are better than any others.

I wonder if you might be referring to the JW's?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

It's all contextual for them. Everything applies within their group that they refer to as the "church life" and the "Body." Once someone is outside of that sphere, then all they want to know is whether you're "rebellious" or "negative" about "the ministry" (as HERn recently posted on another thread).

It just so happens that about 99.99% (literally) of Christians worldwide are not in the Lord's Recovery. So...what gives?

The thing that bothers me is that Philip Lin, Minoru, and the rest of the BB’s claim to adhere to a ministry that has “recovered” every truth in the Bible, yet they willingly choose not to love and receive their fellow brothers who have left the LC (or were kicked out) . Furthermore this attitude is held towards Christians at large, which is evidenced by their numerous lawsuits and unwillingness to accept non-LSM ministries. The hypocrisy completely obvious, yet they continually misrepresent what the LC is and the teachings encompassed by the LC. I’m not sure what drives it all. Someone could say that it’s all loyalty to Lee, but I think there’s more to it than just that.

It seems that most of these brothers are convinced that the LC is truly something unique and set apart from everyone else. I think this attitude might create these ideas of not wanting to “waste time” with other Christians or other ministries. While growing up, I heard it said many times that the LC is the realization of the church in Philadelphia (the church of brotherly love). My experience seemed to attest to it being something special and full of love. For example, I could visit any LC with the expectation of receiving hospitality and a warm welcome. Those in my LC have always been happy to give hospitality. This paradigm all fell apart once I realized that the scope of loving and receiving others is limited to those who follow the ministry. My point is that it’s all too easy to get caught up in some of the more positive aspects of the LC and end up with a distorted view of what it is.

I think when someone thinks the LC is something that it’s not, then it becomes easy to justify their actions such as “quarantining” brothers, suing other Christians, etc. In Lin’s book he calls WL a “Bond Slave of Jesus Christ”. Lee’s trail of destruction is simply his “mistakes”. In Lin’s view, nothing that Lee did was even remotely of concern or worthy of critique. I’m sure the BB’s also feel the same way. I really feel that the BB’s are so caught up in what they think the LC is, that they are blind to what it has become.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The thing that bothers me is that Philip Lin, Minoru, and the rest of the BB’s claim to adhere to a ministry that has “recovered” every truth in the Bible, yet they willingly choose not to love and receive their fellow brothers who have left the LC (or were kicked out) . Furthermore this attitude is held towards Christians at large, which is evidenced by their numerous lawsuits and unwillingness to accept non-LSM ministries. The hypocrisy completely obvious, yet they continually misrepresent what the LC is and the teachings encompassed by the LC. I’m not sure what drives it all. Someone could say that it’s all loyalty to Lee, but I think there’s more to it than just that.

What I have placed in bold as I quote Freedom can be simplified as Us versus Them.
Christians at large view all born again believers as comprising the Body of Christ past, present, and future. While in the local churches, the view is only those meeting with the LSM branded local churches as the Body of Christ exclusively.
There is more to it. I can say pride, but it's more than pride. Perhaps some are dependent on LSM maintaining revenue from Local churches for their living. If the other side of the coin was acknowledged, there's a fear local churches would separate in mass from dependence on LSM for their Christian publications.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

There is more to it. I can say pride, but it's more than pride. Perhaps some are dependent on LSM maintaining revenue from Local churches for their living. If the other side of the coin was acknowledged, there's a fear local churches would separate in mass from dependence on LSM for their Christian publications.

I think that is definitely part of the issue. If saints in the LC started to think for themselves, that might mean they stop using the HWMR, other LSM books and not attend the semi-annual trainings. That would represent a significant revenue drop for the LSM. Since the BB's all seem to all play a part in the LSM some how, they have to push LSM publications on everyone.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I think that is definitely part of the issue. If saints in the LC started to think for themselves, that might mean they stop using the HWMR, other LSM books and not attend the semi-annual trainings. That would represent a significant revenue drop for the LSM. Since the BB's all seem to all play a part in the LSM some how, they have to push LSM publications on everyone.

Right. The Blended Brothers have a conflict of interest. And a vested interest in shaping the ministry to enhance "the bottom line" of Living Stream Ministry. Lee has become their commodity. Their loyalty is to that of every corporation: to the bottom line.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Since the BB's all seem to all play a part in the LSM some how, they have to push LSM publications on everyone.

My view of LSM publications going back to my youth is it should supplement from reading the Bible and not to become a crutch in place of the Bible.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

My view of LSM publications going back to my youth is it should supplement from reading the Bible and not to become a crutch in place of the Bible.

I don't recall what I personally thought about it prior to 1987. But after that time, my conclusion has grown to be that LSM needs no supplementation other than some lighter fluid to get the flames going.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

My view of LSM publications going back to my youth is it should supplement from reading the Bible and not to become a crutch in place of the Bible.

The current view is that the reading of the Bible should supplement the reading of ministry materials. I may have said this before, but since I am a "church kid" there were times that I read Life-Study messages on books of the Bible before I had actually read the book itself. How sad is that? I didn't know any better either.

[TLFisher]

Resuming my reading of Sacrifice and Sail On, Phillip Lin indicates in Chapter 5

"Eventually, a false rumor of two aspects was being spread. The first aspect was that Brother Nee changed his concept about practicality of the church, the ground of the church, after the Second World War. The second aspect was that because Brother Lee is so much for the practicality of the church life, he is different from Watchman Nee." Location 1650 of 4086.

I don't know about these false rumors Phillip Lin is referring to. However from reading Watchman Nee books based on messages from the 1930's, I do notice a difference when he resumed his ministry in 1948. That is the relationship of the work versus the church. Pre-World War II the work is to support the churches (Antioch) . Post-World War II it's churches to support the work (Jerusalem). In other words the churches need to hand everything over to the work. Much as it is today among the local churches.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Resuming my reading of Sacrifice and Sail On, Phillip Lin indicates in Chapter 5

"Eventually, a false rumor of two aspects was being spread. The first aspect was that Brother Nee changed his concept about practicality of the church, the ground of the church, after the Second World War. The second aspect was that because Brother Lee is so much for the practicality of the church life, he is different from Watchman Nee." Location 1650 of 4086.

I don't know about these false rumors Phillip Lin is referring to. However from reading Watchman Nee books based on messages from the 1930's, I do notice a difference when he resumed his ministry in 1948. That is the relationship of the work versus the church. Pre-World War II the work is to support the churches (Antioch) . Post-World War II it's churches to support the work (Jerusalem). In other words the churches need to hand everything over to the work. Much as it is today among the local churches.

Both Nee and Lee were the same. They both changed for the worse. Early-Nee and early-Lee were similar, and later-Nee and later-Lee were similar.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I recently came across the following photo of WL standing next to a Daystar motorhome, so I though that I would post it . After all, a picture is worth a thousand words. The funny thing is, after seeing this picture, I can imagine the "business man" side of Lee.

It's hard to know for sure regarding Lee's intentions, but after the dust settled after these business ventures, the reality of it all is sad, that's for sure. Wouldn't LSM care more about making things right with the Daystar investors rather than suing other Christians or purchasing a campus?

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but the photo with the star on the front of the behemoth and the name "Daystar"? From what I know about that name it either refers to Satan (somewhere in Isaiah) or Jesus (somewhere in the books of Peter). Does this strike anyone as being a "bit out there"?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but the photo with the star on the front of the behemoth and the name "Daystar"? From what I know about that name it either refers to Satan (somewhere in Isaiah) or Jesus (somewhere in the books of Peter). Does this strike anyone as being a "bit out there"?

Isaiah 14:12 How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! ESV

I am no expert here, maybe some here might be able to explain the usage of "Day Star" instead of "Lucifer". For Isaiah 14:12 there are some translations such as the ESV that read "day star" instead of Lucifer (apparently there is a lot of debate about this too). There are yet other translations that say "morning star". So depending on who you talk to, I think "day star" can be equated with "Lucifer".

[TLFisher]

In reading Sacrifice and Sail On, I found the author Phillip Lin to be very disingenuous towards T.Austin Sparks. Writing in generalities and omitting details. Portraying T.Austin Sparks as a brother seeking a following.

The following is from chapter 5:

From 1949 to 1957, the number of saints in the churches in the whole increased dramatically, from three to five hundred to more than twenty thousand; even when in 1955 a visitor from England, Brother Austin Sparks said to us that in his whole life he had never come across so many good audiences like the saints in Taiwan. This was God's blessing brought in out of the oneness of the churches in the island.

But two years later in 1957, the negative wind of the "cold" bacteria had to Taiwan by Brother Sparks in his second visit, and this caused irreparable losses for the Lord's recovery.

In 1954, leading brothers in the church in Taipei felt the need to the famous Western spiritual ministry Brother T. Austin Sparks for fellowship. Brother Lee reluctantly agreed to their proposal. In 1955, Brother Sparks received the invitation and came to Taiwan, and he rendered his spiritual help to minister Christ to the churches in Taiwan. Churches on the whole island of Taiwan received much help from his ministry. Through this mutual fellowship, he saw and was very well aware that the Lord's recovery in Taiwan did have some things of Christ, and the practice of the local church life.
In 1957, Brother Sparks was invited for a second time to come to Taiwan. This time he negatively touched the ground of the church and the practices of the church and was very critical to many practices of the church. Because of this criticism, several brothers who had been somewhat critical of Brother Lee's ministry on the building up of the local churches were greatly affected; those brothers had secretly talked about a plan and decided that if Brother Lee rejected Brother Sparks, they would reject Brother Lee. Later on, Brother Lee got to know that those brothers were influenced by Brother Sparks and were dissenters.

The following is an excerpt from Herald Hsu's testimony which provides detail on Sparks' visits to Taiwan which Philip Lin did not know about or chose to omit.
http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/lc_hsu.html

"When TAS visited Taiwan for the first time, Witness Lee introduced TAS and said, “Brother Sparks' ministry was introduced and spread to the whole of China through Watchman Nee. We will work with him!” Thirteen months later TAS again came to Taiwan.That was in January 1957."

We asked TAS in 1957, “What is wrong with not following the methods of Christianity and only following the Biblical examples?” TAS answered, “If the Holy Spirit leads you to follow some Biblical examples (Biblical examples are not perfect and are not laws), there is nothing wrong with that, but you don’t need to say so!” He meant that you don’t need to proclaim: 'this is the Church Truth and every church must go this way! Otherwise, you are not a church, but only a concubine'. This was Watchman Nee’s exposition on the Locality Law in Chinese; Witness Lee was the strongest exponent of this teaching in the Far East, and this teaching has now taken hold around the world. This teaching was, and still is, leading people to exclusiveness and division! Due to this concubine insult, all other Chinese Christian bodies from then to this day are speaking against Watchman Nee’s groups. We have mentioned Adam’s fall was because he stretched out his hand; this Locality Law leading to exclusiveness and division is also one of the falls due to man’s hand being stretched out! We need to be careful!

One Friday evening in 1957, Witness Lee asked me (the only worker) to stay in Taipei, because he would talk to TAS about the Locality Law (or church ground). A total of five people attended that meeting: TAS, Poul Madsen, Witness Lee (???), Zhang Wu-chen (???), and Zhang Yu-lan (???). I stayed downstairs in the worker’s home waiting to hear the report. The meeting finished before 9:00pm. Witness Lee came to the worker’s home immediately to talk to me, and said, “I (Lee) asked TAS: If there are five different Christian groups in Taipei City, which one is the real church? TAS thought for a little while and said: 'If those five Christian groups are really born again by the Holy Spirit (i.e. they have Christ in their hearts), then they are all churches, because the church is measured by Christ.'" The three Chinese there were deeply influenced by Watchman Nee’s Locality Law or Church Ground teaching. TAS saw by their faces that they did not agree, so he asked: "What do you mean by Church Ground?" Witness Lee said: "Drawing from the 'type' in the Old Testament, Israel could not build the temple in Babylon, nor in the desert, but only in Jerusalem on the original ground." TAS said: "Yes. But what is Jerusalem's original ground?" Lee said: "It is where the Holy Spirit for the first time built the church on one locality, one church in Acts." TAS immediately knew that was the teaching of Watchman Nee’s book "Rethinking of our Mission" (1939 published in Honor Oak), so he said: "This is your interpretation! As far as I know the real Church Ground is not one locality, one church, but is Christ Himself!" When I heard this it was a shock to me because I also held fast to Nee’s teaching at that time. It was really a great shake-up to me personally to realize that Jerusalem's original ground is not one locality, one church, but is Christ Himself!

Then Witness Lee argued with TAS saying, "We say that the Church Ground is one locality one church, which means Unity in one city." TAS said: "If you mean that the Church Ground means Unity in one city, it means that you agree with my opinion, and disagree with yourselves! One locality or one church teaching or other teachings cannot bring Unity among Christians. Only Christ Himself can bring Christians true Unity, not only in one place, but also in other places! The truth is: Things divide; Christ unites!" When I heard this, it was a second shock to me; in fact, the Church Ground teaching collapsed within me and I totally abandoned that teaching from that moment.

Witness Lee argued again, but TAS said, “If you follow the Holy Spirit's leading and do something according to the examples in the New Testament, that is good, but don’t say 'this is the only way'! The Holy Spirit is too big to comprehend.” (As I understand it he meant: Don’t say that other Christian bodies are all concubines and are not the Church.) Then TAS said: "There is no need to continue this kind of meeting!" And immediately the meeting ended!

Before 9:00pm, Witness Lee came to the worker’s home where I was waiting and told me all of the above. He said: "We will never invite TAS into our midst again!"However, because I was totally changed through what I'd heard, I argued with him till after midnight – in fact until 1:00am. One thing I remember saying was, “TAS never intended to control or to capture our work, he only ministers Christ to us! If you don’t work with TAS or you refuse his ministry, which is Christ Himself, then that means you shut out Jesus Christ (Rev. 3:20)! That is a very serious and dangerous matter!” Finally, Brother Lee seemed to be convinced by me, and said, “I will work with him (TAS) again!” and I was appeased.I said to brother Lee, “If brother Watchman Nee were here tonight, he would change his position on the Locality Law”! But Brother Lee seemed to disagree with me. (This conversation was on the Friday night.)
The next Monday morning, brother TAS continued his messages on“The Persistent Purpose of God”. When he spoke (chapter nine, page 69 of the book by the same name) he said,“We must be very careful not to make Christ, or His Church, smaller than it really is. We must not make Christ smaller than God has made Him. We may not make Him just our Christ, our little Christ, the Christ that belongs to us, the Christ of our particular locality!”Witness Lee didn’t like translating this paragraph into Chinese! On the same day, at around 3:00pm, Witness Lee came to the workers’ home to see me. He angrily hit the table and shouted at me, “We hold fast on Church Ground, why did we become a Little church, a Little Christ?” I was astonished and deeply silent! It seemed to me that Witness Lee would no longer work with TAS in the future! All of the conversations above were in private, not in public. At that time I reasoned, "Whether Witness Lee works with TAS or not, it does not matter! I have been getting a New Bible (seeing everywhere the living Christ) through TAS's ministry by the Holy Spirit! The greatest need of every local church is spiritual food (the living Christ). The elementary principles of Christ (i.e. spiritual milk) are good but are not enough; we must go on and learn obedience through suffering to reach full growth (i.e. solid food). If the elementary principles become merely traditions, we lose the freshness and impact of life: ‘The grapes of Eshcol became raisins’ (Num 13:23). We have to abide in and minister new light and life - the new living Christ from the Bible - and feed Christians with solid food." Now I had begun to get this from the Bible! At the end of 1958, Witness Lee sent me to Gao-Xiong (the second largest city in Taiwan) to serve.

1959 - In the sovereignty of God, 1959 was the beginning of a tragic and terrible year for Watchman Nee’s groups (including Witness Lee). The reason: In April, after one of the Thursday evening meetings on John chapter 4, at around 8:40pm, Witness Lee (with an angry red face) made a public (not private) announcement when all the co-workers of the Taiwan churches and the local saints were gathered together in Taipei. This announcement consisted of:

(1) His formal proclamation: "From now on, I will no longer work with TAS." This contradicted his public announcement and comment in 1955: “We are going to work with TAS! He is like refined pure gold and a pressed diamond! In 1934 Watchman Nee introduced TAS and spread his ministry to the whole of China!” We were all glad to hear that in 1955, which was the first time TAS visited the Far East.Watchman Nee also referred to TAS as a spiritual man several times while he was in Shanghai in 1947. This meant that in effect, Witness Lee had stated that he would no longer work with spiritual people from 1959 onwards.

2) He spoke evilly against TAS: He used Shandong dialect in speaking against TAS: “????
(??)?????????????(?????????)?????”! Which translated means "TAS’s message (little church, little Christ) is like passing gas"!

When I heard Witness Lee’s terrible words, my whole body was shocked and I was shaken right to the core. I sighed in my heart, “O dear brother Lee, what are you doing?! Why?! Those dirty words... let it not even be named among us, as is fitting for saints – Eph. 5:3!”

(3) He cursed himself: Using Jacob's words he said: “If there is a division among us due to my refusing to work with TAS, I shall go down to Sheol in mourning!” (Gen. 37:35). ( ??????????????????????????????????!)! )

This was the first time ever that there had been no prayer at the end of the meeting, and everybody went home sad! The day after, Witness Lee was sick.He didn’t do any public speaking for the next six months.

In fact, since 1961, Watchman Nee’s (including Witness Lee's) groups in Manila, and subsequently in Singapore, Bangkok, Hong Kong and Taiwan, all divided. Even today, forty years after this division, those who followed Nee’s Locality teaching and work, continue to divide and be exclusive! It’s a tragedy! In principle, those who followed Witness Lee’s co-workers and elders, including a lot of the second generation were, and are, really experiencing “going down to Sheol in mourning”.Finally some of them separated from W. Lee!

After this public announcement, whereby Lee said that he would never work with TAS again, I went back to Gao-Xiong the very next morning.Following the leading of the Holy Spirit I prepared to leave brother Lee’s co-worker relationship. Thanks be to the Lord, my wife got a teaching job in Gao-Xiong high school. Since then, I have never participated in brother Lee’s co-workers meetings. At the time, some leading brothers and sisters came to my home and wanted to support and follow me. I said to them, “No! Don’t follow me! I am nothing! If you follow me now, after three years, you will want to kill me because I am not your ideal Christian! You and I need to pray that God reveals His Son in us, so that we will all follow Him!Because of TAS’s ministry, the Holy Spirit opened my eyes and I really began to see the revelation of Jesus Christ and Him crucified.My life has been changing and in a revolutionary way! Please study TAS's books and receive the revelation of God’s Son by the Holy Spirit! Then we can work together in that day with heavenly vision.”

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Terry

In reading Sacrifice and Sail On, I found the author Phillip Lin to be very disingenuous towards T.Austin Sparks. Writing in generalities and omitting details. Portraying T.Austin Sparks as a brother seeking a following.

The following is from chapter 5:

From 1949 to 1957, the number of saints in the churches in the whole increased dramatically, from three to five hundred to more than twenty thousand; even when in 1955 a visitor from England, Brother Austin Sparks said to us that in his whole life he had never come across so many good audiences like the saints in Taiwan. This was God's blessing brought in out of the oneness of the churches in the island.

But two years later in 1957, the negative wind of the "cold" bacteria had to Taiwan by Brother Sparks in his second visit, and this caused irreparable losses for the Lord's recovery.

In 1954, leading brothers in the church in Taipei felt the need to the famous Western spiritual ministry Brother T. Austin Sparks for fellowship. Brother Lee reluctantly agreed to their proposal. In 1955, Brother Sparks received the invitation and came to Taiwan, and he rendered his spiritual help to minister Christ to the churches in Taiwan. Churches on the whole island of Taiwan received much help from his ministry. Through this mutual fellowship, he saw and was very well aware that the Lord's recovery in Taiwan did have some things of Christ, and the practice of the local church life.
In 1957, Brother Sparks was invited for a second time to come to Taiwan. This time he negatively touched the ground of the church and the practices of the church and was very critical to many practices of the church. Because of this criticism, several brothers who had been somewhat critical of Brother Lee's ministry on the building up of the local churches were greatly affected; those brothers had secretly talked about a plan and decided that if Brother Lee rejected Brother Sparks, they would reject Brother Lee. Later on, Brother Lee got to know that those brothers were influenced by Brother Sparks and were dissenters.

I'm not sure who Herald Hsu is. But I think this passage from Philip Lin's book stands pretty well on its own. Is there any real question that he's describing a kind of partisan politics? "Brother Lee got to know that those brothers were influenced by Brother Sparks and were dissenters." Dissenters from what? Why, dissenters from Witness Lee's ministry, of course!

The bottom line is, Watchman Nee and Witness Lee had some kind of diplomatic immunity from being called dissenters, even as they condemned all the other groups.

If TAS uses the word "concubine," then it is an "insult." But when Witness Lee used terms like "daughters of the whore" ... what is that?

Seems fairly transparent, dont'cha think?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I'm not sure who Herald Hsu is. But I think this passage from Philip Lin's book stands pretty well on its own. Is there any real question that he's describing a kind of partisan politics? "Brother Lee got to know that those brothers were influenced by Brother Sparks and were dissenters." Dissenters from what? Why, dissenters from Witness Lee's ministry, of course!

The bottom line is, Watchman Nee and Witness Lee had some kind of diplomatic immunity from being called dissenters, even as they condemned all the other groups.

If TAS uses the word "concubine," then it is an "insult." But when Witness Lee used terms like "daughters of the whore" ... what is that?

Seems fairly transparent, dont'cha think?

Brother Lee was "passing gas."

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Lee was "passing gas."

He did that, too?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

The bottom line is, Watchman Nee and Witness Lee had some kind of diplomatic immunity from being called dissenters, even as they condemned all the other groups.

If TAS uses the word "concubine," then it is an "insult." But when Witness Lee used terms like "daughters of the whore" ... what is that?

Seems fairly transparent, dont'cha think?

I never heard the other half of the story. All I know is what I heard all the time growing up, that TAS wasn't "clear" regarding the ground of the church. Well, it seems that once you know the other half of the story, TAS understood WL's argument and position, he just didn't agree with it. As we know WL didn't like people who disagreed with him.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I never heard the other half of the story. All I know is what I heard all the time growing up, that TAS wasn't "clear" regarding the ground of the church. Well, it seems that once you know the other half of the story, TAS understood WL's argument and position, he just didn't agree with it. As we know WL didn't like people who disagreed with him.

Yeah, they're dissenters.

Jumpin' Jack Flash!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness=

Brother Lee was "passing gas."

'nough said.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I'm not sure who Herald Hsu is. But I think this passage from Philip Lin's book stands pretty well on its own.

Herald Hsu was one of Witness Lee's co-workers in Taiwan 1949 until 57/58. Phillip Lin didn't get into the details of the 1955 and 1957 visit by T.Austin Sparks. Everything was fine with Sparks' fellowship until Sparks "touched" the ground of locality doctrine.
I believe Sparks did understand the ground of locality doctrine, but saw emphasis on the doctrine leads to division.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Dissenters from what?

Who knows what the dissent was. Perhaps they dissented against church property used to pay Lee family debt? That could have occurred later in the 1950's.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Herald Hsu was one of Witness Lee's co-workers in Taiwan 1949 until 57/58. Phillip Lin didn't get into the details of the 1955 and 1957 visit by T.Austin Sparks. Everything was fine with Sparks' fellowship until Sparks "touched" the ground of locality doctrine.
I believe Sparks did understand the ground of locality doctrine, but saw emphasis on the doctrine leads to division.

I listened to a recording of James Barber where he presented a "history" of "the Recovery" and what Lin says regarding Sparks is strikingly similar to what James Barber said. Obviously, their source is the same, that source being WL.

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I listened to a recording of James Barber where he presented a "history" of "the Recovery" and what Lin says regarding Sparks is strikingly similar to what James Barber said. Obviously, their source is the same, that source being WL.

Witness Lee on several occasions mentioned the speaking of T. Austin-Sparks in 1957. He loved to tell how how he was translating for TAS but when he mentioned "little Christ, little church", he stopped translating and continued speaking himself.

I asked Herald Hsu himself about that. He said that Witness Lee was lying every time he told that. He said he "almost stopped" but continued to translate until the end of that meeting and for the rest of the conference meetings.

I do not know if Philip Lin mentioned it but Witness Lee visited TAS in London, I believe in 1958, therefore after the two visits by Austin-Sparks in 1955 and 1957. Lee's infamous "passing gas" statement followed in 1959. (Please correct me if I have the dates wrong.)

Naturally, they would like to play down the influence Austin-Sparks had on Witness Lee. I believe I did post it on the old Bereans forum that the well-known LSM logo was actually a crib from an earlier design by TAS. I remember at least one occasion where Witness Lee boasted about how inspired he was in designing that logo.

I am sure he "borrowed" a lot more from Austin-Sparks. One of the series of messages printed by TAS as "The Octave of Redemption" was more or the less the basis for another title by Witness Lee. And there could be more.

But this is the kicker. When you look at any and all publications by TAS it has the following note:

In keeping with T. Austin-Sparks' wishes that what was freely received should he freely given and not sold for profit, and that his messages be reproduced word for word, we ask if you choose to share these messages with others, to please respect his wishes and offer them freely – free of any changes, free of any charge (except necessary distribution costs) and with this statement included.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Friedel

Naturally, they would like to play down the influence Austin-Sparks had on Witness Lee. I believe I did post it on the old Bereans forum that the well-known LSM logo was actually a crib from an earlier design by TAS. I remember at least one occasion where Witness Lee boasted about how inspired he was in designing that logo.

I am sure he "borrowed" a lot more from Austin-Sparks. One of the series of messages printed by TAS as "The Octave of Redemption" was more or the less the basis for another title by Witness Lee. And there could be more.

But this is the kicker. When you look at any and all publications by TAS it has the following note:

In keeping with T. Austin-Sparks' wishes that what was freely received should he freely given and not sold for profit, and that his messages be reproduced word for word, we ask if you choose to share these messages with others, to please respect his wishes and offer them freely – free of any changes, free of any charge (except necessary distribution costs) and with this statement included.

I had been told years earlier in particular Witness Lee's The Economy of God came from a conference Sparks gave. When and where these messages were delivered by Sparks, there's far too many to research in order to validate the claim.
In regard to TAS publications, same can be said for messages delivered at West Coast Conferences. Messages Stephen Kaung and brothers give are printed verbatim and free of charge.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Friedel

Witness Lee on several occasions mentioned the speaking of T. Austin-Sparks in 1957. He loved to tell how how he was translating for TAS but when he mentioned "little Christ, little church", he stopped translating and continued speaking himself.

I asked Herald Hsu himself about that. He said that Witness Lee was lying every time he told that. He said he "almost stopped" but continued to translate until the end of that meeting and for the rest of the conference meetings.

I do not know if Philip Lin mentioned it but Witness Lee visited TAS in London, I believe in 1958, therefore after the two visits by Austin-Sparks in 1955 and 1957. Lee's infamous "passing gas" statement followed in 1959. (Please correct me if I have the dates wrong.)

Naturally, they would like to play down the influence Austin-Sparks had on Witness Lee. I believe I did post it on the old Bereans forum that the well-known LSM logo was actually a crib from an earlier design by TAS. I remember at least one occasion where Witness Lee boasted about how inspired he was in designing that logo.

I am sure he "borrowed" a lot more from Austin-Sparks. One of the series of messages printed by TAS as "The Octave of Redemption" was more or the less the basis for another title by Witness Lee. And there could be more.

But this is the kicker. When you look at any and all publications by TAS it has the following note:

In keeping with T. Austin-Sparks' wishes that what was freely received should he freely given and not sold for profit, and that his messages be reproduced word for word, we ask if you choose to share these messages with others, to please respect his wishes and offer them freely – free of any changes, free of any charge (except necessary distribution costs) and with this statement included.

It sounds like Lee had a big lack of respect for TAS. That is really troubling, especially if Lee made frequent use of his ministry.

[TLFisher]

From Kindle location 1992 of Sacrifice and Sail On:

"There were some evil reports that condemned the churches in the Lord's recovery, saying that we had only followed Witness Lee. Fearing that we would be deceived by His enemy Satan, Brother Lee was very strong in telling us that we should follow the New Testament ministry, which "ministers Christ, builds up the church." We should not follow a person, nor to follow him."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

From Kindle location 1992 of Sacrifice and Sail On:

"There were some evil reports that condemned the churches in the Lord's recovery, saying that we had only followed Witness Lee. Fearing that we would be deceived by His enemy Satan, Brother Lee was very strong in telling us that we should follow the New Testament ministry, which "ministers Christ, builds up the church." We should not follow a person, nor to follow him."

What Lin fails to mention here is that this is followed shortly by a roundabout statement that the ministry that is the NT ministry is the one which "ministers Christ, builds up the church." (Same thing slightly rearranged.) Then somewhere later on, there is the declaration that "our brother" (Lee) has been faithfully serving us with the unique NT ministry.

This allows everyone to say they are following the NT ministry and not say they are following Lee, all the while absolutely following Lee because "no one else is brining us the NT ministry" or something like that.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

From Kindle location 1992 of Sacrifice and Sail On:

"There were some evil reports that condemned the churches in the Lord's recovery, saying that we had only followed Witness Lee. Fearing that we would be deceived by His enemy Satan, Brother Lee was very strong in telling us that we should follow the New Testament ministry, which "ministers Christ, builds up the church." We should not follow a person, nor to follow him."

Lin makes a deceptive statement here. It is also full of loaded language. What stood out to me is that he calls the claim churches were following Lee an "evil report". I have to ask, what makes such a report evil? Since following the ministry of one man (Lee) is the basis for being considered as part of the "Recovery", then such a report could not possibly be false. I'm sure Lin is also very well aware of that. The hidden innuendo is that they consider pointing out certain facts the equivalent spreading an "evil report".

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Terry

From Kindle location 1992 of Sacrifice and Sail On:

"There were some evil reports that condemned the churches in the Lord's recovery, saying that we had only followed Witness Lee. Fearing that we would be deceived by His enemy Satan, Brother Lee was very strong in telling us that we should follow the New Testament ministry, which "ministers Christ, builds up the church." We should not follow a person, nor to follow him."

Um, yeah. You betcha!

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Lin makes a deceptive statement here. It is also full of loaded language. What stood out to me is that he calls the claim churches were following Lee an "evil report". I have to ask, what makes such a report evil? Since following the ministry of one man (Lee) is the basis for being considered as part of the "Recovery", then such a report could not possibly be false. I'm sure Lin is also very well aware of that. The hidden innuendo is that they consider pointing out certain facts the equivalent spreading an "evil report".

On the flip side, those individuals and LC's whom have decided not to follow a man and his ministry have been quarantined. Go figure.

I agree with OBW, from the LC perspective, it's simply a matter of thinking that no one else has brought them what Lee did, so they have no choice but to follow him. I know in the past when I have tried to voice concerns regarding the fact that we only use one version of the Bible or only read LSM materials, they defend the practice by saying that other books/ministries have little value. Since the NT ministry is equated with Lee's ministry, they can follow Lee all they want without thinking for a second that they are actually following him.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Since the NT ministry is equated with Lee's ministry, they can follow Lee all they want without thinking for a second that they are actually following him.

Schizophrenia (in a general non-medical sense) anyone!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

On the flip side, those individuals and LC's whom have decided not to follow a man and his ministry have been quarantined. Go figure.

I agree with OBW, from the LC perspective, it's simply a matter of thinking that no one else has brought them what Lee did, so they have no choice but to follow him. I know in the past when I have tried to voice concerns regarding the fact that we only use one version of the Bible or only read LSM materials, they defend the practice by saying that other books/ministries have little value. Since the NT ministry is equated with Lee's ministry, they can follow Lee all they want without thinking for a second that they are actually following him.

And if everything else has little or no value, then you have prequalified your source as only being the very one that you claim you are not just following because he is who he is. No, you are following him because he is the only one who teaches the right stuff.

Laws are funny things. Back when they last did a serious overhaul of the US tax system (1986) there was a littering of special provisions that, if you knew how to read between the lines, were drafted to exclude a very specific taxpayer (large taxpayer from the home jurisdiction of some congressman whose vote was needed) from the effect of some provision. There was one such provision that I came across that described a particular size of company in a very specific industry in a rather small state (Arkansas). The specifics would not cover more than one company unless there were doppelganger companies existing in Arkansas.

That is the kind of nuanced "we don't follow a particular person" that the LRC declares. The so fully qualify the kind of materials that will be permitted such that there is only one who can fill the void, then declare that it is not about the person.

Yeah, right. And Elvis really did visit my grocery store last week.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Lin makes a deceptive statement here. It is also full of loaded language. What stood out to me is that he calls the claim churches were following Lee an "evil report". I have to ask, what makes such a report evil? Since following the ministry of one man (Lee) is the basis for being considered as part of the "Recovery", then such a report could not possibly be false. I'm sure Lin is also very well aware of that. The hidden innuendo is that they consider pointing out certain facts the equivalent spreading an "evil report".

I suppose anything that is remotely critical of Lee's ministry or exposes the hypocrisy of the recovery is labeled as evil. You can speak the truth instead of covering up a lie and be considered giving evil reports.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

From Kindle location 1992 of Sacrifice and Sail On:

"There were some evil reports that condemned the churches in the Lord's recovery, saying that we had only followed Witness Lee. Fearing that we would be deceived by His enemy Satan, Brother Lee was very strong in telling us that we should follow the New Testament ministry, which "ministers Christ, builds up the church." We should not follow a person, nor to follow him."

I don't doubt Witness Lee said all these things. However Witness Lee passed away in 1997. So he's no longer around to say "We should not follow a person, nor to follow him." Yet this is what the nature of the recovery through the publications has become. Through the heavy emphasis of footnotes to the Holy Word for Morning Revival. To have fellowship with or in the local churches, there's is no fellowship unless the fellowship is based on LSM publications which as we know is dependent wholly on the ministries of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee.
So Witness Lee can say not to follow a person, nor to follow him, but the blended brother, coworkers, elders, etc cannot say they have not followed him they have. Otherwise, how can they still condemn the brothers who did not line up with the direction of Lee's ministry via LSM?

On another note, referring to the New Testament ministry, why is there an inability or unwillingness to receive brothers outside the LSM nature of fellowship who minister the New Testament ministry?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

On another note, referring to the New Testament ministry, why is there an inability or unwillingness to receive brothers outside the LSM nature of fellowship who minister the New Testament ministry?

The problem is the definition of "the New Testament ministry." They define it so precisely and consistently in line with the teachings of Lee and the LSM/LRC that no other can come close to teaching that. So there will be no new source of teaching.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

I don't doubt Witness Lee said all these things. However Witness Lee passed away in 1997. So he's no longer around to say "We should not follow a person, nor to follow him."

WL often talked about "following a man." He spoke this in context of of his following Nee. He said, "If the man leads us to God, we should follow him."

And all the Blendeds on the front rows nodded.

According to Acts 20.30, those ones who may have at one time led us to God will later "rise up, speaking perverted things, drawing away the disciples to themselves," and away from God. Sadly, Paul's tragic prophecy to the elders in Ephesus has once again happened among us.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem is the definition of "the New Testament ministry." They define it so precisely and consistently in line with the teachings of Lee and the LSM/LRC that no other can come close to teaching that. So there will be no new source of teaching.

Really? Is "the new Testament ministry" really that narrow? If that's the view of blended brothers and co-workers, that's why the so-called local churches are at best ministry churches.
Next thing you might hear as an absolute statement coming from a blended brother:
the Body of Christ is comprised only of believers meeting practically in the local churches.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Ohio

WL often talked about "following a man." He spoke this in context of of his following Nee. He said, "If the man leads us to God, we should follow him."

And all the Blendeds on the front rows nodded.

Question: Since there are no clergy and no hierarchy in "The Lord's Recovery" why is it that at trainings and conferences the "most blended" of the brothers sit on the front row while the "hoping to be blended" brothers sit in the next rows followed by the "no chance in Hades to be blended" brothers and other riffraff in the remaining rows?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by HERn

Question: Since there are no clergy and no hierarchy in "The Lord's Recovery" why is it that at trainings and conferences the "most blended" of the brothers sit on the front row while the "hoping to be blended" brothers sit in the next rows followed by the "no chance in Hades to be blended" brothers and other riffraff in the remaining rows?

That is a hoot!!

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

Question: Since there are no clergy and no hierarchy in "The Lord's Recovery" why is it that at trainings and conferences the "most blended" of the brothers sit on the front row while the "hoping to be blended" brothers sit in the next rows followed by the "no chance in Hades to be blended" brothers and other riffraff in the remaining rows?

Hmmm, I think I know the answer to this one. There is clergy in the LC, at least in the form of a two-tier system. There are the BB's and then the "small potatoes". A prime example of this is whenever there is something such as a regional conference, it is always the BB's who come to speak. It is never involves local brothers speaking.

[TLFisher]

The following is from Kindle location 1998 of Sacrifice and Sail On

"Today the so-called "accepting many ministries" is a layman's saying and is nonbiblical."

Really? Nonbiblical?

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord

Above from 1 Corinthians 12, apostle Paul says there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. Is this nonbiblical?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

The following is from Kindle location 1998 of Sacrifice and Sail On

"Today the so-called "accepting many ministries" is a layman's saying and is nonbiblical."

Really? Nonbiblical?

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord

Above from 1 Corinthians 12, apostle Paul says there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. Is this nonbiblical?

Really, a whole book could be written refuting what Lin says. I had to take a break from reading it because there is some much propaganda. I do think this book provides valuable insight into the underlying attitudes that are contained within the LC.

I completely agree that WL had an unbiblical view of ministries. The implications of WL's view are disturbing.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I had to take a break from reading it because there is some much propaganda. I do think this book provides valuable insight into the underlying attitudes that are contained within the LC.

Same here. I had taken a break from reading the book. Slowly getting back to it.
What would you consider the underlying attitudes to be?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Same here. I had taken a break from reading the book. Slowly getting back to it.
What would you consider the underlying attitudes to be?

Several things stand out to me:
1) Lin seems overly defensive of Lee as a person. He uses his close association to Lee to attempt to gain credibility and justify Lee's actions.

2) The book seems to be a defense and promotion of WL's teachings, rather than simply Lin's perspective of Lee (His stated purpose in writing this book).

3) Finally and most importantly, the book is written from the arrogant perspective of all historical/world events of the last 100 years revolving around what Nee and Lee were doing at the same points in time. Here is an example:

In November 1948, the US presidential election committee declared that the candidate of the US Democratic Party, Harry Truman, had won the election . After Communist Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe and after the outbreak of the Korean War, the United States became alarmed about the threat of communism to Western democracies. In order to contain the Chinese Communists and the Soviet Union, Truman accepted General MacArthur’s suggestion and changed his ongoing China policy of dumping Chiang’s KMP and favoring Mao’s Communist Party, He put Taiwan into his Pacific defense line and treated Taiwan as one unsinkable aircraft carrier for the United States in Southeast Asia; he also began to strengthen links with Taiwan. Brother Lee credited this as the doing of the Lord.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (p. 13). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

I'm not claiming for a second that the Lord didn't use some of these events, but for Lee to attribute these things to the Lord "opening a door" for his ministry is quite a stretch. There are many more examples of this view in Lin's book.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Really, a whole book could be written refuting what Lin says.

True. It would be like in baseball tossing a hitter a hanging curveball. Bringing up the past Philip Lin makes it too easy to refute. Especially in areas where he leaves out important details.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I'm not claiming for a second that the Lord didn't use some of these events, but for Lee to attribute these things to the Lord "opening a door" for his ministry is quite a stretch. There are many more examples of this view in Lin's book.

All true followers of Lee have been convinced that the God of the universe has made Lee the center of His universe.

Its hard to believe that i once believed that too.

[Freedom]

Here are two more quotes that demonstrate the same mindset:

As we look back today at what I heard forty-one years ago from Brother Lee, I cannot help but to say that Brother Lee was so right. Taiwan is better off today than it was forty-one years ago in every aspect, spiritually and physically. I admire Brother Lee’s insightful perception. This is the Lord’s mercy and the blessing of the church. Brother Lee said: “From 1922 to 1949, the mainland of China was a nursery for the Lord’s recovery. But in 1949 the Lord had made a big turn from the mainland of China toward Taiwan.”

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (p. 15). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

The Lord used the Roman Empire to get the gospel in good shape for further advancement. He used Germany to support the Reformation. He used the British Empire to spread the Gospel and to expand the divine truth to the ends of the earth. But the Lord still had one thing that had not been accomplished. To Brother Lee’s understanding, this was why the Lord had reserved a part of the earth for this purpose. He was referring to the United States of America.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (p. 33). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

In the first quote I posted, Lin includes a statement where Lee says that in 1949, the Lord made a "big turn" for Taiwan. Well it just so happens that was the year that Lee fled to Taiwan. The underlying implication is that Lee's going to Taiwan was the Lord making a "big turn towards Taiwan". Again, I'm not trying to question what events were or weren't of the Lord, however, I just have a problem with Lee attempting to claim that whatever the Lord was doing at the time involved him as a central figure.

In the second quote, what struck me is that Lin had just finished talking about Taiwan, and then began discussing Democracy, the Roman Empire, and how the Lord "reserved" the United States. Obviously, Lee felt his work here was the Lord's move here. I thought to myself if I were to ask someone in the LC what year the Lord started a work in the U.S., what answer would I get? I would expect to hear an answer like 1962, when Lee decided to stay here.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the second quote, what struck me is that Lin had just finished talking about Taiwan, and then began discussing Democracy, the Roman Empire, and how the Lord "reserved" the United States. Obviously, Lee felt his work here was the Lord's move here. I thought to myself if I were to ask someone in the LC what year the Lord started a work in the U.S., what answer would I get? I would expect to hear an answer like 1962, when Lee decided to stay here.

I'm sure Lin conveniently left out the fact that the church in Taipei ran Lee out of town for forcing the church to sell property to pay off Lee's debts from bad business dealings.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm sure Lin conveniently left out the fact that the church in Taipei ran Lee out of town for forcing the church to sell property to pay off Lee's debts from bad business dealings.

Not knowing how old Philip Lin is, how old was he during the 1950's? A pre-teen? A teen? He's not from Taipei, but from another part of Taiwan. Just he gathered information on Sparks to describe Sparks in an unfavorable light, it goes both ways.
A basic underlying attitude that exists is the "cover Noah" principle. Lee may have done many things that could portray him unfavorably, but he's "covered by the brothers." All the while brothers outside the LSM fellowship are described negatively.

[Freedom]

On a bit of a different subject, there is a section in Lin's book that discusses the translation of the RcV. The specifics of translation itself are not what I wanted to bring up, but something Lin says in regards to the KJV and CUV (Chinese Union Version) Bibles. Here is an excerpt:

Furthermore, some translations omitted certain crucial points in the original text; we found out and corrected them. For example, in Matthew 10: 32, The Chinese Union Version Bible as well as the King James Version Bible both translated this phrase as: “Whoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.” This portion of the text according to the original text should be translated as: “Everyone therefore who will confess in ME before men, I also will confess in HIM before my Father who is in the heavens.” The King James Version of the Bible missed “in ME” in the first half and also missed “in HIM” in the last half. In other words, according to both Versions, in the first half, we are missed out in the Lord; and in the last half, the Lord is missed out in us, therefore, the text omits to describe the organic union that takes place between the two... It is very unfortunate and reckless that both the King James Version and the Chinese Union Version had not translated such points as these accurately.

With regard to the translation of the New Testament Recovery Version, we are not boasting.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (pp. 61-62). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Notice what Lin says at the end of this all. He claims the KJV rendering of a verse is reckless. To me, it's one thing to say that you like a certain translation over another one, but to call a well-respected translation of the Bible reckless, just because you don't like it? That's really pushing it.

It goes without saying that each translation of the Bible has it's pluses and minuses, so it should come as no surprise that people are going to find things they don't like about the KJV or any other version. That doesn't mean that the KJV translators did a reckless job, or engaged in reckless scholarship. I wonder if Philip Lin has any evidence to support his statement? If not, maybe he needs to retract his statement.

Lin's statement, that they are not boasting regarding the translation of the RcV contradicts what he just said prior to that. Because Lin claims that one of the best selling versions of the Bible of all time is a reckless translation, it might make the reader believe that the RcV is a far superior translation. Had he simply compared the RcV to other translations, I wouldn't consider that to be boasting. But to say what he said about the KJV and CUV, yes that does seem like he's boasting.

Finally, in contrast to the translation work of the KJV, I think there is evidence to believe that the RcV translation was reckless, and that WL engaged in reckless behavior along with his son. Here is the example that comes to mind:

RECOVERY VERSION TRANSLATION DEBACLE
...
To my utter amazement I was informed the following day by Godfred, who received a telephone call from Philip, that our work was being immediately terminated, and the translation would be moved to Texas. Kerry had reported what Bill Duane had said to Philip Lee, and Philip blew up, totally misinterpreting what Bill Duane had said, and calling his father in Taiwan to report the whole affair. He believed that Bill had referred to him, Philip Lee, as the Devil, when he said, “We should not give any ground for the devil to come in.” Using a Chinese proverb, he said that if you treat the dog evilly, then in effect you render the same treatment to the dog’s master, signifying Brother Lee. If you call the general manager of the LSM the Devil, then you call his boss, Brother Lee the same. By this twist of facts and logic, Philip concluded that we were attacking both him and his father. Godfred was appalled and totally disgusted with Philip Lee’s reaction and the way the whole affair was being handled. He was outraged, more so than me, considering that we who had been so closely and deeply involved in the work for years and burdened for its final completion were so abruptly being relieved of our responsibility and replaced. He pointed out to me that this was an example of Phillip’s untenable, growing influence over the work and over his father.

John Ingalls, Speaking the Truth in Love

[Ohio]

Kerry had reported what Bill Duane had said to Philip Lee, and Philip blew up, totally misinterpreting what Bill Duane had said, and calling his father in Taiwan to report the whole affair. He believed that Bill had referred to him, Philip Lee, as the Devil, when he said, “We should not give any ground for the devil to come in.” Using a Chinese proverb, he said that if you treat the dog evilly, then in effect you render the same treatment to the dog’s master, signifying Brother Lee. If you call the general manager of the LSM the Devil, then you call his boss, Brother Lee the same. By this twist of facts and logic, Philip concluded that we were attacking both him and his father.

I guess I like some of these old Chinese proverbs.

Phillip Lee, the reprobate son, could rightly be called the Devil by those he abused and molested. If his Daddy decides to take it that personally, then maybe we should lower our respect for him too.

I live next to a couple of uncontrolled Akitas, which are sometimes known as "silent killers," since they attack without warning. On several occasions last year we and other neighbors were attacked by one of these dogs. Had I been packing "heat," I would have readily shot the bitch without a bit of remorse. WL employed his son as the "LSM Office" the same way my neighbors employ their dogs. In this regard, shooting Lee's "dog" is like shooting his master. IIRC, it was John Ingalls himself who personally stopped one brother in Anaheim from shooting Phillip Lee for molesting his wife. Some dogs need to be shot. It's the only way to protect ourselves.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I guess I like some of these old Chinese proverbs.

Phillip Lee, the reprobate son, could rightly be called the Devil by those he abused and molested. If his Daddy decides to take it that personally, then maybe we should lower our respect for him too.

I live next to a couple of uncontrolled Akitas, which are sometimes known as "silent killers," since they attack without warning. On several occasions last year we and other neighbors were attacked by one of these dogs. Had I been packing "heat," I would have readily shot the bitch without a bit of remorse. WL employed his son as the "LSM Office" the same way my neighbors employ their dogs. In this regard, shooting Lee's "dog" is like shooting his master. IIRC, it was John Ingalls himself who personally stopped one brother in Anaheim from shooting Phillip Lee for molesting his wife. Some dogs need to be shot. It's the only way to protect ourselves.

Lin's book obviously tells just side of the story, the story that everyone in the LC has been told, minus a few things. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, I believe he is attempting to use his personal relationship with W. Lee as a way to persuade the reader that his book presents the whole story. On the subject of the RcV translation work, Lin fails to mention the matters related to the LSM office politics. He was there, he knows very well what was going on. I would respect him a little more had he at least made some admission that there were some problems surrounding the RcV translation project. However, he fails to mention that important bit of information and proceeds to attack other tranlations in attempt to bring more credibility to the RcV.

LSM would have everyone believe that RcV is the best translation and study Bible out there. Maybe it has certain strengths, that is something other people can debate. From a historical perspective, however, no matter how good anyone says the RcV actually is, what happened in the late 80's with the work on the RcV is something that should be taken into consideration. What I mean by this is that when you consider the actions of W. Lee in regards to this project, how can you retain any respect for his footnotes and contribution to the translation? Actions always speak louder than words. The RcV is not simply a Bible. It is a work that is representative of the politics of W. Lee, P. Lee, and the LSM.

In the section of his book on the RcV, Lin makes the following statement:

Three years later, in 1991, after extensive revision, augmentation, and improvement, the English edition of the Recovery Version of the New Testament was published in Anaheim, California, by Living Stream Ministry. This is the most representative piece of Brother Lee’s literature ministry besides his oral preaching ministry for supplying and nourishing churches around the globe.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (p. 57). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Lin is correct about the RcV being representative of Lee's literature ministry, just not in the way he was thinking. The RcV represents the politics and corruption related to publishing house of W. Lee's literature ministry, the LSM.

[awareness]

Furthermore, some translations omitted certain crucial points in the original text; we found out and corrected them. For example, in Matthew 10: 32, The Chinese Union Version Bible as well as the King James Version Bible both translated this phrase as: “Whoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.” This portion of the text according to the original text should be translated as: “Everyone therefore who will confess in ME before men, I also will confess in HIM before my Father who is in the heavens.” The King James Version of the Bible missed “in ME” in the first half and also missed “in HIM” in the last half. In other words, according to both Versions, in the first half, we are missed out in the Lord; and in the last half, the Lord is missed out in us, therefore, the text omits to describe the organic union that takes place between the two... It is very unfortunate and reckless that both the King James Version and the Chinese Union Version had not translated such points as these accurately.

With regard to the translation of the New Testament Recovery Version, we are not boasting.

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (pp. 61-62). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

What's reckless is slinging the word reckless around toward Bible translations & translators. It also reveals their ignorance and bias.

The KJV is based upon The Majority Text, or from the majority of the manuscripts we have available. Plus, when the KJV was translated they didn't have Critical Text manuscripts, the earlier manuscripts, that the Nestle-Aland is based upon, that the RcV is based upon.

Last but not least, neither the Majority Text, nor the Critical text, translates Matt 10:32 as it is translated in the RcV.

That's their bias sticking out like a sore thumb, putting Matt 10:32 on the torture rack, to make it say what Lee wants it to say, to support Witness Lee's mingling doctrine.

Therefore, it's the translators of the RcV that are being reckless. Their judgment of reckless translators comes back to bite them in the rear. As they judge they are judged.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

What's reckless is slinging the word reckless around toward Bible translations & translators. It also reveals their ignorance and bias.

The KJV is based upon The Majority Text, or from the majority of the manuscripts we have available. Plus, when the KJV was translated they didn't have Critical Text manuscripts, the earlier manuscripts, that the Nestle-Aland is based upon, that the RcV is based upon.

Last but not least, neither the Majority Text, nor the Critical text, translates Matt 10:32 as it is translated in the RcV.

That's their bias sticking out like a sore thumb, putting Matt 10:32 on the torture rack, to make it say what Lee wants it to say, to support Witness Lee's mingling doctrine.

Therefore, it's the translators of the RcV that are being reckless. Their judgment of reckless translators comes back to bite them in the rear. As they judge they are judged.

I don't know if Philip Lin's statement about the KJV is also representative of his peers in the LC, but he has made an utter fool of himself for saying that.

Given the time frame in which the KJV was written (and subsequently revised), I think it the final product is a solid translation. Of course, it's not the most relevant today, but I can't really say that I've come across anyone besides Lin who has had a basic disrespect for it. I'm not saying this to promote the KJV, and I don't think anyone is obligated to respect it. It's just the fact that it has remained relevant and so widely used for over 400 years attests to it not being a "reckless" translation, translated by "reckless" translators. Yet somehow despite all of this, Lin thinks he knows best.

I guess at the heart of the issue is what awareness says, that W. Lee needed verses translated a certain way to fit is doctrinal positions. In Lin's mind, this is a justification for attacking other translations of the Bible. While they are at it, they better remove all the KJV songs and Psalms that are found at the end of the Hymnal .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

What's reckless is slinging the word reckless around toward Bible translations & translators. It also reveals their ignorance and bias.

The KJV is based upon The Majority Text, or from the majority of the manuscripts we have available. Plus, when the KJV was translated they didn't have Critical Text manuscripts, the earlier manuscripts, that the Nestle-Aland is based upon, that the RcV is based upon.

Last but not least, neither the Majority Text, nor the Critical text, translates Matt 10:32 as it is translated in the RcV.

That's their bias sticking out like a sore thumb, putting Matt 10:32 on the torture rack, to make it say what Lee wants it to say, to support Witness Lee's mingling doctrine.

Therefore, it's the translators of the RcV that are being reckless. Their judgment of reckless translators comes back to bite them in the rear. As they judge they are judged.

I read Matt 10.32 in the old RecVers by John Ingalls et. al., and it's just like so many other good translations, but this latest translation by Robichaux is almost weird. This is not the only verse which Robichaux has altered for the worse.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Given the time frame in which the KJV was written (and subsequently revised), I think it the final product is a solid translation. Of course, it's not the most relevant today, but I can't really say that I've come across anyone besides Lin who has had a basic disrespect for it. I'm not saying this to promote the KJV, and I don't think anyone is obligated to respect it. It's just the fact that it has remained relevant and so widely used for over 400 years attests to it not being a "reckless" translation, translated by "reckless" translators. Yet somehow despite all of this, Lin thinks he knows best.

In the context of singing pslams, music is put to the words in King James. If a change a word here or there based on translation, the songs we sing from Psalms become awkward.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

In the context of singing pslams, music is put to the words in King James. If a change a word here or there based on translation, the songs we sing from Psalms become awkward.

Oh, I was being sarcastic

On a more serious note, I was always under the impression that WL sometimes used the KJV, especially with the Old Testament. Obviously that would have changed over time, but I am pretty sure I've seen verses quoted from the KJV in older ministry materials, possibly Life Studies too.

[TLFisher]

The following is from kindle location 2006 of Sacrifice and Sail On in Chapter 5.

The Bible shows us that there can be many apostles and prophets, but they all bear the same one ministry, which is the ministry for supplying Christ and the building up of the church. There were rumors spreading that the so-called local churches had to listen to one person's speaking, that is, Witness Lee's speaking. They thought that we just listen to one man's speaking and accepted one man's ministry, not accepting other's ministries. This is a lie. This is wrong.

I agree with Philip this is wrong, but it happens. How would one explain many localities in the Great Lakes area being cut off? How would one explain The Holy Word for Morning Revival? If it is not Witness Lee's word, it is Watchman Nee's with scripture to support their ministry portion.
Does this mean Philip Lin is now repenting for being one with the "One Publication" edict?

I seem to recall an event per Steve Isitt where an elder spoke these words that led to a sister ceasing from meeting "If you're not here for Brother Lee and his ministry, then you might as well not be here."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Oh, I was being sarcastic

On a more serious note, I was always under the impression that WL sometimes used the KJV, especially with the Old Testament. Obviously that would have changed over time, but I am pretty sure I've seen verses quoted from the KJV in older ministry materials, possibly Life Studies too.

The KJV was always used in conferences and church meetings with numerous "authorized" changes. All of us had our KJV Bibles with changes scribbled in the margins. As each book of the NT was translated for the Life-Study semi-annual trainings, we discarded the "modified" KJV when reading those scriptures, and read the RecVers (1st Ed.) which was actually a good translation, loosely based on the 1901 ASV.

In those days we did not have the NLT, NIV, NET, NASB, etc. as these were either not available or just published and being vetted by the Christian public.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

The following is from kindle location 2006 of Sacrifice and Sail On in Chapter 5.

The Bible shows us that there can be many apostles and prophets, but they all bear the same one ministry, which is the ministry for supplying Christ and the building up of the church. There were rumors spreading that the so-called local churches had to listen to one person's speaking, that is, Witness Lee's speaking. They thought that we just listen to one man's speaking and accepted one man's ministry, not accepting other's ministries. This is a lie. This is wrong.

These were not rumors. Lee's books, teachings, and RecVers was crammed down our throats in a multitude of ways. Who is Lin trying to deceive? Which planet has he been living on? Who is the real liar?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

These were not rumors. Lee's books, teachings, and RecVers was crammed down our throats in a multitude of ways. Who is Lin trying to deceive? Which planet has he been living on? Who is the real liar?

Before the Life Study messages began, there were books of other ministries available in the bookroom.
Cannot say that now. You're not going to find books by RC Sproul or Francis Chan. Philip Lin needs to admit the nature of the recovery has changed over the decades. Prophesying now is according to the ministry of Lee and Nee and not according to our daily walk in the Lord throughout the week.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Terry

The following is from kindle location 2006 of Sacrifice and Sail On in Chapter 5.

The Bible shows us that there can be many apostles and prophets, but they all bear the same one ministry, which is the ministry for supplying Christ and the building up of the church. There were rumors spreading that the so-called local churches had to listen to one person's speaking, that is, Witness Lee's speaking. They thought that we just listen to one man's speaking and accepted one man's ministry, not accepting other's ministries. This is a lie. This is wrong.

Thanks, Terry. I burst out laughing when I read this quote.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I don't know if Philip Lin's statement about the KJV is also representative of his peers in the LC, but he has made an utter fool of himself for saying that. .

I think poor Philip Lin has the Witness Lee disease. That is, the idea that whatever Lee touches, speaks, or does, is golden, while everyone else, or even the KJV, is rust.

This makes Lin's book comical ... and sad.

Lin is a Lee mythmaker ....

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think poor Philip Lin has the Witness Lee disease. That is, the idea that whatever Lee touches, speaks, or does, is golden, while everyone else, or even the KJV, is rust.

This makes Lin's book comical ... and sad.

Lin is a Lee mythmaker ....

Evidently so. I had to laugh when I read some of the things that Lin wrote. Much of this is so far-fetched that it would make no sense to anyone who has not been involved in the LC. At the same time it's all very sad. Some people in the LC will actually read this stuff and believe it.

I'm just so glad that I've been able to see past some of this stuff. A few years ago, I might have believe every word of what was written in that book. What's worse is that I would have been happy to participate in efforts to recruit people to the LC.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by awareness

This makes Lin's book comical ... and sad.

Yes. And I like it. Perhaps there's a little too much truth hidden behind these attempts to cast everything in a certain light.

They say sometimes things get "lost in translation." Is it possible that in Lin's book, a few things have been "found in translation"?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

What's worse is that I would have been happy to participate in efforts to recruit people to the LC.

These efforts whether in BFA or in campus work I wouldn't call gospelize, but proselytize.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

These efforts whether in BFA or in campus work I wouldn't call gospelize, but proselytize.

Proselytism is the most reasonable explanation. I was thinking about this today. When I read Lin's book, it all seems so ridiculous. Most in the LC wouldn't say that, so it definitely requires a certain mindset to believe the view of Lee that Lin presents. I don't think this mindset occurs overnight. There is conditioning involved. LCers learn that versions of the Bible besides the RcV are "reckless" translations. They learn there there aren't multiple ministries. It's all rather ridiculous, however, the groupthink is so pervasive that if I were to attempt to use a different version of the Bible in the meetings or use the term "ministry" in reference to something besides LSM, what would the reaction be?

This is something that really troubles me sometimes. The situation is all so clear to me. Both sides of the story are available on the internet, but the LC is so closed off to the truth. They continually reinforce even the most ridiculous of the types of things found it Lin's book. It's all so sad.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is something that really troubles me sometimes. The situation is all so clear to me. Both sides of the story are available on the internet, but the LC is so closed off to the truth. They continually reinforce even the most ridiculous of the types of things found it Lin's book. It's all so sad.

Troubles You? I'm surprised you haven't popped a cork by now. Seeing both sides, and still having a foot in the local church, if not more, and then finding out the hidden history of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee, something has to blow. How in the world are you holding it together?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

Troubles You? I'm surprised you haven't popped a cork by now. Seeing both sides, and still having a foot in the local church, if not more, and then finding out the hidden history of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee, something has to blow. How in the world are you holding it together?

Good question. I can't say for sure, but I think it's a matter of my current situation being tolerable enough to focus on choosing the best time to leave rather than simply picking up and leaving. I'm sure the time will come, and I've distanced myself enough that I've been able to regain some sanity .

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Good question. I can't say for sure, but I think it's a matter of my current situation being tolerable enough to focus on choosing the best time to leave rather than simply picking up and leaving. I'm sure the time will come, and I've distanced myself enough that I've been able to regain some sanity .

Hang in there bro ... hang in there ... and many blessings to you ...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Troubles You? I'm surprised you haven't popped a cork by now. Seeing both sides, and still having a foot in the local church, if not more, and then finding out the hidden history of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee, something has to blow. How in the world are you holding it together?

Remember awareness ... Freedom is in a "local" church, and the brothers and sisters in each "local" church have complete independence and autonomy from any and all outside ministries ... or so they say.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Both sides of the story are available on the internet, but the LC is so closed off to the truth.

The truth? The LSM leadership and LC elders cannot handle the truth. Paraphrasing Chris Wilde it would be reopening old wounds. Apparently the culture has been over the last several decades "pretend it doesn't exist". Why do you think when Steve Isitt wrote In Wake of the New Way, Dan Towle was quick to offer his fellowship to have Steve cut off?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm surprised you haven't popped a cork by now. Seeing both sides, and still having a foot in the local church, if not more, and then finding out the hidden history of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee, something has to blow. How in the world are you holding it together?

Ya know awareness back in the mid to late 90's I went on in the local churches knowing about the antics of Phillip Lee and the hidden histories. As long as no one brought it up I was fine. It wasn't until "the brothers" began referring to "the rebellious ones", did they ignite a simmering fuse. I couldn't stay in the local churches at that time without "blowing a gasket".

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Proselytism is the most reasonable explanation.

I say that because for what it would take in pure evangelism would be considered a waste of time. If ones hearing the gospel, whether or not they receive salvation, if these ones are not "new ones" added to the local churches, they are considered a waste of time. Or so I have been told.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Ya know awareness back in the mid to late 90's I went on in the local churches knowing about the antics of Phillip Lee and the hidden histories. As long as no one brought it up I was fine. It wasn't until "the brothers" began referring to "the rebellious ones", did they ignite a simmering fuse. I couldn't stay in the local churches at that time without "blowing a gasket".

My situation has been that I got to the point where I realized that I need to leave, but I haven't felt the urgency to do so.

I remember a while back, some brothers were talking about how in the LC, they don't "throw anyone off the boat", meaning that they don't get rid of people who don't necessarily match up to their standards. When I hear that, I immediately thought to myself of all the stories that I've read where people have been "thrown off the boat", either because they expressed a divergent opinion or could meet the standard of attending the FTTA, or whatever else the case may be. So with that in mind, it almost makes me want to stay to prove them wrong. I don't want to purposely do anything that is going to create unnecessary problems, I just want everyone to see for themselves what happens to someone who chooses not to go along with the groupthink. Maybe it's already a lost cause. I might leave before that ever happens, who knows.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

So with that in mind, it almost makes me want to stay to prove them wrong. I don't want to purposely do anything that is going to create unnecessary problems, I just want everyone to see for themselves what happens to someone who chooses not to go along with the groupthink. Maybe it's already a lost cause. I might leave before that ever happens, who knows.

Well, next time brother Maximus RK comes to town, Awareness and Indiana can show up to stand to be one with you.

Seriously as these brothers can attest, they have been accused of using the ministry to attack the ministry. In other words blowing the whistle that the recovery is off course.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

Well, next time brother Maximus RK comes to town, Awareness and Indiana can show up to stand to be one with you.

Seriously as these brothers can attest, they have been accused of using the ministry to attack the ministry. In other words blowing the whistle that the recovery is off course.

I'd love to see my old pal Kangas again. We'd have a lot of catching up to do, to say the least.

[TLFisher]

Kindle Location 2020 Chapter 5 of Sacrifice and Sail On

But I told Brother Nee, "Even if one day you do not take this way, I will still take this way. I am not taking this way because of you, and I will not leave this way because of you. I have seen that this is the Lord's way. I have seen the vision."

For those that have watched the movie Apollo 13. There's a point in the movie where Apollo 13 had to be precise in their course to re-enter earth's atmosphere. A little off one way and Apollo 13 would burn up. A little off in the other direction and Apollo 13 would bounce off the earth's atmosphere.

Related to the brothers and sisters who left in the late 80's would say they were precise in following the vision, but it was LSM that led the recovery to the other direction and caused so many to veer off course.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Kindle Location 2020 Chapter 5 of Sacrifice and Sail On

But I told Brother Nee, "Even if one day you do not take this way, I will still take this way. I am not taking this way because of you, and I will not leave this way because of you. I have seen that this is the Lord's way. I have seen the vision."

For those that have watched the movie Apollo 13. There's a point in the movie where Apollo 13 had to be precise in their course to re-enter earth's atmosphere. A little off one way and Apollo 13 would burn up. A little off in the other direction and Apollo 13 would bounce off the earth's atmosphere.

Related to the brothers and sisters who left in the late 80's would say they were precise in following the vision, but it was LSM that led the recovery to the other direction and caused so many to veer off course.

Lee was precise, so precise, that he inevitable veered off the course that he set. My impression of those who left in the 80's is that they didn't have the intention to leave the overal "vision" that Lee gave them. They were just pointing out the differences between "old Lee" and the "up to date Lee". I've become convinced that anyone who tries to follow Lee to a 'T' will fail. Here is little excerpt that I came across in Lin's book that shows just how ridiculous Lee really was:

In the autumn of 1974, we began designing the Anaheim church meeting hall and LSM station on Ball Road in Anaheim. Because I was a professional structural engineer, I had the opportunity to work with him [W. Lee] on this building project... Because he was the one who knew the most about the intended usage of this venue, we had to follow his ideas throughout the design processes... The project was completed in June 1976, then he taught us what kind of furniture to buy and where to put it. Sometimes we tried to be smart in placing furniture, bookshelves, wall paintings, and hanging scrolls. When he came to check what we did, he would find something inappropriate, then he would correct us by way of educating us. I remember one day after we hung a wall painting, he came and looked at it, and he felt that the height was wrong. Then he corrected us and taught us, and he said that when hanging a wall painting the focus point of the object should be about ten to fifteen degrees above the slant line of sight . When we followed his instructions, we always found that his way was just right...

Lin, Philip (2014-07-02). Sacrifice and Sail On: My View of Witness Lee, A Bond Slave of Jesus Christ (pp. 237-238). Sail On Publishers. Kindle Edition.

I think the takeaway from what Lin says is that more than anything else, Lee didn't have the best way. What he had was the incessant need to micromanage and correct people in arbitrary ways. I can only imagine how difficult that it must of been to spend day after day following him and attempting to keep him happy. An impossible task...

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Is this why they moved so many walls around?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Is this why they moved so many walls around?

I think the reason so many walls were moved around is because the one who knew best didn't really know best . If he knew best, then what reason would there be to change the building after the fact?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Is this why they moved so many walls around?

Originally Posted by Freedom

I think the reason so many walls were moved around is because the one who knew best didn't really know best . If he knew best, then what reason would there be to change the building after the fact?

In other words, Lee really didn't know what he liked. He was an evolution in process at the expense of everyone else, caring little for proper change orders and mandatory inspections. Wasn't there some secret rooms for Phillip that the inspectors didn't get to see? Didn't he just arbitrarily decide to move the elevator one day?

Must have been a nightmare working with him as the structural engineer, and then concocting the dream of an all-knowing MOTA who alone can hang a picture.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

Related to the brothers and sisters who left in the late 80's would say they were precise in following the vision, but it was LSM that led the recovery to the other direction and caused so many to veer off course.

But even those who left in the 80s (of which I am a part) what was the "vision" that we were following? Would we still claim the same vision we had then?

In my case, I have come to see that the vision that was seen (or at least seeable) prior to that time was not a vision that we as Christians should be giving ourselves to. It may be that the fact that even the LRC, LSM, and Lee himself were changing course caused many who still held to the old LRC vision to leave. But for many of us we have since had the opportunity to reassess that vision and now reject it. Yet for others, there is something about that vision that they cannot get out of their system. They continue to view all others in Christianity through the "old vision" lens of the LRC and wander. Some are so bold as to be either trying to fix they existing LRC and take it back to that older vision while others are trying to recreate it elsewhere.

The real question is whether that vision was ever something worth the focus that we gave it. Did the new way really change the LRC from a good vision to a bad one, or rather from one "off the mark" vision to yet another such vision? My review of the teachings of Lee going back to the early US LRC and even before have convinced me that while there may have been an enjoyable group of people prior to the changes that began in the mid-70s, the underlying teachings were not a worthy "vision" for us to be following.

I do not know all of the dynamic of the 60s, but what you and others remember was not the whole of the LRC. It was LRC lite and it was allowed so that you had something hooking you to be there and to stay there. You were convinced that Lee provided all those benefits. It was a lie. And as the further teachings of Lee, along with the new way came to be, you finally had the whole "vision."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

And as the further teachings of Lee, along with the new way came to be, you finally had the whole "vision."

I didn't have the whole vision until I got on these local church forums. Then I got the whole vision of Nee and Lee ... or at least a big ugly chunk of it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

I didn't have the whole vision until I got on these local church forums. Then I got the whole vision of Nee and Lee ... or at least a big ugly chunk of it.

I will have to admit that there were aspects of what has been called "the vision" are not a singular, commonly-held thing. Now or ever. There is the version that Lee had and that has been pushed by the LSM and the BBs since. But that is not entirely embraced by many people.

And the way I like to think of it is like a smorgasbord of teachings and thoughts. Unlike a lunch buffet where they want you to fill up on salad and then eat less of the meat, this one uses all kinds of salads and vegetables and regular meats to attract you into the restaurant. The goal is to eventually get you to go straight for the rack of golden calf which is the result of Nee and Lee throwing the words of scripture into the fire and bringing out these strange teachings. The vision they want you to have is almost entirely about that "strange fire" that they brought. But when some say vision, they are really overlaying the term vision onto the less formal, and therefore more enjoyable "church life" that they had at that time.

Note that church life has now mostly been replaced by ministry station life. But the "vision" lives on. It is the vision that Lee always had. But it is not the vision that those there in the earliest days were "captured" by. When we sang "Jesus Christ, I'm captured by thy beauty" we weren't talking about the "church life." We were talking about Christ. I do think that at least some of what we attributed to be Christ was actually our positive emotional state. That is not entirely problematic, but I believe that it is often a substitute for Christ. We think that Christ is enjoyment. And when we say "Christ is life" we do not consider that it should mean that our life should be as his life, but that we have received something that is "better" than our life and is therefore enjoyable. Yes, the life of Christ is better than ours, but the life we live in and through it is not always enjoyable. And it is not euphoria at all levels. Yes, that can happen at times. But it was a thing sought. We sought something "better" than the way of the denominations of our past. And we found it in a group that was a cross between a Jesus People group and an inner life group.

All at the expense of a life of obedience to the command of righteousness and true unity. Instead we got unity only with a very small subset of Christians and a life that was obedient only to what came from "my spirit" and disdained anything that smacked of following a commandment.

And what came from "my spirit" was defined to be consistent with "the ministry" and therefore the special "golden calf" meat from the smorgasbord Lee set for us. And with the ministry station life they now have, the multi-item buffet has been replaced by an all-you-can-eat menu of Lee's golden calf. No vegetables. No salad. Not even dessert.

I believe that the LRC (as something to look back on favorably) was never more than a dream of something that could be, provided by someone who always intended something else. Therefore the hope of the old LRC is the hope of something that was never intended (and may have never really happened) but only tolerated.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

The real question is whether that vision was ever something worth the focus that we gave it. Did the new way really change the LRC from a good vision to a bad one, or rather from one "off the mark" vision to yet another such vision?

The so-called NEW WAY served to expose Lee's domination of the entire Recovery. Lee and Company, in the guise of world evangelization, used the new way to lord it over the movement, and purge out all resistance.

Prior to that, there was a Christian "vision" which many espoused in the Recovery. The history of events in Anaheim, culminating in those "16 Points" by Ingalls et. al. served to highlight the major points of difference between the "vision" most of us held, and what really was in the mind of W. Lee.

Originally Posted by awareness

I didn't have the whole vision until I got on these local church forums. Then I got the whole vision of Nee and Lee ... or at least a big ugly chunk of it.

Eventually I concluded that the "vision" was no vision at all. For peons like me it simply meant a lifelong devotion to Lee and his successors, willing to put up with any and all bullship coming my way.

My comment here may seem a little base, but it's better at this point for me to be straightforward and honest, communicating in simple and understandable terms, than to try to understand the doublespeak hypocrisy coming out of Anaheim by their seasoned wordsmiths.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The so-called NEW WAY served to expose Lee's domination of the entire Recovery. Lee and Company, in the guise of world evangelization, used the new way to lord it over the movement, and purge out all resistance.

Prior to that, there was a Christian "vision" which many espoused in the Recovery. The history of events in Anaheim, culminating in those "16 Points" by Ingalls et. al. served to highlight the major points of difference between the "vision" most of us held, and what really was in the mind of W. Lee.


Eventually I concluded that the "vision" was no vision at all. For peons like me it simply meant a lifelong devotion to Lee and his successors, willing to put up with any and all bullship coming my way.

My comment here may seem a little base, but it's better at this point for me to be straightforward and honest, communicating in simple and understandable terms, than to try to understand the doublespeak hypocrisy coming out of Anaheim by their seasoned wordsmiths.

Such a post by Ohio shows the utter frustration that he and others have on this forum in dealing with the falsehoods displayed in Local Church leadership. Philip Lin capsulizes those falsehoods in his book, magnifying the problem, and makes a big target for the contributors on this forum to address.


"Take away from Me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.
But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream."

Amos 5:21-25

Ron Kangas, of Living Stream Ministry, expressed his displeasure during a Puget Sound area conference about the “lawless users of the internet”, who he referred to as unhappy former Local Church members. He has given his audience and readers the misleading impression that all users and all posts by them are of one description – “lawless”. He is quite concerned about this online activity, but not his own lawless statement or LSM’s 36-year-old path of devastation initiated by a momentous meeting of leaders that changed the course of local churches to this day with Witness Lee and Max Rapoport setting the pace for a big movement, with charts and statistics and a new center of attention. Thus, a new era of the local churches began, and a renegade history of LSM has been established which online users are compelled to address.

The book of Acts never records such a history of a publishing house running rampant in turning the course of local churches into a federation of churches, under one global leadership in a movement, ultimately to officially organize and institutionalize the churches under a one publication policy. Having deviated from their original course, leaders in this renegade movement have moved away from Christ alone to a systematized church life featuring a man and a ministry, having changed the nature of “the recovery’ in the process.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Having deviated from their original course, leaders in this renegade movement have moved away from Christ alone to a systematized church life featuring a man and a ministry, having changed the nature of “the recovery’ in the process.

Although I appreciate your strong and straightforward calling out of the leaders of the LC movement, I must make one point perfectly clear.

It is dangerous and misleading to speak or think of the movement Nee and Lee started as the thing we considered "the recovery" while in it. That idea must be buried, for it is the very belief in it and that they are it that emboldens the people of that movement to continue to do everything in their power to continue it no matter who they hurt. The fanatical belief that they are on the cutting edge of "God's move" is the very root of the mindset that makes them so unreasonable. This is why all of us must abandon the notion that the LC was any thing special apart from the rest of God's people. It was simply a movement, a movement in which God was present, sometimes strongly, but no more than he is capable of being present in any gathering of his devoted followers at any time and place.

There was and is no "God's recovery" in the sense the LC defined it. God has always been working to bring any and all people to live according to his intent. This working is more commonly called salvation, leading, guidance, the outworking of his purpose. The idea that there is a special "thread" of movement, over and above his general working in the world and church at large is not supportable scripturally and is again just fuel on the fire of the remnant mentality of the LC members--the same mentality which make them so unreasonable, unreachable and so capable of running over anyone who gets in their way.

This is a plea to everyone. DROP IT PLEASE. Thank you.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It is dangerous and misleading to speak or think of the movement Nee and Lee started as the thing we considered "the recovery" while in it. That idea must be buried, for it is the very belief in it and that they are it that emboldens the people of that movement to continue to do everything in their power to continue it no matter who they hurt.

I know that I often write in too convoluted a manner. And sometimes (most-times?) write way too much.

But this pair of sentences that Igzy wrote here are troubling in several ways. First, you need to read it over and over a few times until what it says sinks in. This is especially true of the first sentence. But once you get it . . . you get it.

It even seems to suggest that what we thought was "the recovery" was not what it really was. And while that is at least partly true for some, it is clear (and clear in what Igzy wrote) that it cannot be separated from the movement of Nee and Lee. And to continue to stand for "the recovery," no matter what you think that is, is to support and embolden those who will continue it as a thing that in no way resembles anything "of God."

And we need to drop "God's recovery" and "the Lord's recovery" because to continue to speak of it is to continue to give life to an exclusivist aberration of theology espoused by Nee and embellished to dire extremes by Lee and his successors.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I know that I often write in too convoluted a manner. And sometimes (most-times?) write way too much.

But this pair of sentences that Igzy wrote here are troubling in several ways. First, you need to read it over and over a few times until what it says sinks in. This is especially true of the first sentence. But once you get it . . . you get it.

It even seems to suggest that what we thought was "the recovery" was not what it really was. And while that is at least partly true for some, it is clear (and clear in what Igzy wrote) that it cannot be separated from the movement of Nee and Lee. And to continue to stand for "the recovery," no matter what you think that is, is to support and embolden those who will continue it as a thing that in no way resembles anything "of God."

And we need to drop "God's recovery" and "the Lord's recovery" because to continue to speak of it is to continue to give life to an exclusivist aberration of theology espoused by Nee and embellished to dire extremes by Lee and his successors.

Yes, that's what I meant!

I know Steve means well and I don't mean to pick on him, but he must realize that by stating or implying that Lee's movement was ever "The Recovery" he is actually empowering them to continue the behavior that drives him crazy.

The only way Lee's movement is ever going to stop believing they are "The Recovery" is to start believing they never were.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes, that's what I meant!

I know Steve means well and I don't mean to pick on him, but he must realize that by stating or implying that Lee's movement was ever "The Recovery" he is actually empowering them to continue the behavior that drives him crazy.

The only way Lee's movement is ever going to stop believing they are "The Recovery" is to start believing they never were.

It was only a "Recovery" with respect to many of us coming out of some antiquated and lifeless denomination.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It was only a "Recovery" with respect to many of us coming out of some antiquated and lifeless denomination.

It was what you made of it?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

It was what you made of it?

Yeah, I got recovered.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes, that's what I meant!

I know Steve means well and I don't mean to pick on him, but he must realize that by stating or implying that Lee's movement was ever "The Recovery" he is actually empowering them to continue the behavior that drives him crazy.

The only way Lee's movement is ever going to stop believing they are "The Recovery" is to start believing they never were.

http://www.amazon.com/People-Cant-Dr.../dp/080072111X

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yeah, I got recovered.

...Sweet!...

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Ron Kangas, of Living Stream Ministry, expressed his displeasure during a Puget Sound area conference about the “lawless users of the internet”, who he referred to as unhappy former Local Church members. He has given his audience and readers the misleading impression that all users and all posts by them are of one description – “lawless”. He is quite concerned about this online activity, but not his own lawless statement or LSM’s 36-year-old path of devastation initiated by a momentous meeting of leaders that changed the course of local churches to this day with Witness Lee and Max Rapoport setting the pace for a big movement, with charts and statistics and a new center of attention. Thus, a new era of the local churches began, and a renegade history of LSM has been established which online users are compelled to address.

If Ron wants to make such statements, he needs to qualify what he says. Otherwise, throwing out generic accusations is simply a tactic to keep those in the LC from reading what's on the internet. If Ron or any other of the BB's don't like the things that are written on the internet, they should come and engage in the discussion. The fact that they're not willing to do so just shows that they have no intention in addressing the very issues that make them so unhappy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

If Ron wants to make such statements, he needs to qualify what he says. Otherwise, throwing out generic accusations is simply a tactic to keep those in the LC from reading what's on the internet. If Ron or any other of the BB's don't like the things that are written on the internet, they should come and engage in the discussion. The fact that they're not willing to do so just shows that they have no intention in addressing the very issues that make them so unhappy.

What Blended Ron Kangas is doing is no different than what the politicians do -- fearmongering. They make the internet a boogeyman or a bugbear -- a fear device used to manipulate the immature and uninformed members of the LC. Usually with the more thoughtful folks, the device merely backfires.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

If Ron wants to make such statements, he needs to qualify what he says. Otherwise, throwing out generic accusations is simply a tactic to keep those in the LC from reading what's on the internet. If Ron or any other of the BB's don't like the things that are written on the internet, they should come and engage in the discussion. The fact that they're not willing to do so just shows that they have no intention in addressing the very issues that make them so unhappy.

Maybe I should invite Ron over to my home for mutual fellowship over his concerns next time he's in the northwest? Seriously! Due to an unwillingness to actively listen is what leads LC-specific forums as this to exist.
Not just recently, but for decades whenever the brothers say "don't listen", "don't read", that will only lead brothers and sisters to see what don't listen or don't read is all about. For some couples it goes back to the era of The God-men book or The Mindbenders books. Within the last ten years when Ron made referenced The Thread of Gold, that only provided Jane Anderson with another market of potential readers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Not just recently, but for decades whenever the brothers say "don't listen", "don't read", that will only lead brothers and sisters to see what don't listen or don't read is all about. For some couples it goes back to the era of The God-men book or The Mindbenders books. Within the last ten years when Ron made referenced The Thread of Gold, that only provided Jane Anderson with another market of potential readers.

It's like a couple of smokers telling their children not to smoke cigarettes.

Kangas is telling others, "do as I say, not as I do!"

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Kangas is telling others, "do as I say, not as I do!"

Apparently even elders obey his commands and remain ignorant to the other side of the story. As a result, consciences remain disengaged.

[TLFisher]

From kindle version Sacrifice and Sail On (location 2066 of Chapter 5)


"Brother Lee was so concerned in his heart that we may be deceived by the sleight and craftiness of men,"

• Daystar
• Philip Lee
• Linko
• Quarantines
• Overseas Christian Stewards

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Terry

Apparently even elders obey his commands and remain ignorant to the other side of the story. As a result, consciences remain disengaged.

What started my investigation was some unethical (in my opinion) behavior I observed in a couple of places. I figured if there was some rottenness there was likely to be more. I'd do the same for any authority figure or group that had the capacity to influence me or my family. I don't think deputy authority should be a "get out of jail card" for anyone...just saying.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

What started my investigation was some unethical (in my opinion) behavior I observed in a couple of places. I figured if there was some rottenness there was likely to be more. I'd do the same for any authority figure or group that had the capacity to influence me or my family. I don't think deputy authority should be a "get out of jail card" for anyone...just saying.

It's out of respect and partiality certain ones get a free pass. By observation, elders get a free pass until they touch the parent's child. It's akin to throwing down the gauntlet. Even the most passive of brothers and sisters will expect a contrite apology from the elder.

In regard to my previous post over the past 20 years at least there were elders involved in direct fellowship (Dan Towle, Dick Taylor, Minoru Chen, etc) and then there were elders (outside Southern California) who only knew what they were told.
I remember being in Puget Sound area home meetings (1993/1994) listening to a brother referring to "the rebellious ones". I didn't know if the reference was the ones who left Seattle for Scottsdale or what happened in Anaheim. If the context was Anaheim, that the Seattle area brothers did not know what they're talking about. These elders and responsible ones only knew what they were told and took it as being gospel. They were not in direct fellowship as had been the case with Southern California area elders.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Ron Kangas, of Living Stream Ministry, expressed his displeasure during a Puget Sound area conference about the “lawless users of the internet”, who he referred to as unhappy former Local Church members. He has given his audience and readers the misleading impression that all users and all posts by them are of one description – “lawless”.

It's not lawless when there's the absence of law. Injustice is running roughshod over brothers and sisters and it happens these so-called "lawless users of the internet" have risen up against the injustice perpetrated against brothers and sisters. More fitting would be to say vigilante justice. If elders and co-workers won't keep their peers in check, someone needs to call them on it.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

It's not lawless when there's the absence of law. Injustice is running roughshod over brothers and sisters and it happens these so-called "lawless users of the internet" have risen up against the injustice perpetrated against brothers and sisters. More fitting would be to say vigilante justice. If elders and co-workers won't keep their peers in check, someone needs to call them on it.

Virtually every conference and training given by BB's that I have attended has featured various generic references to "negative ones" or writings on the internet. When I was there in those situations, it seemed peculiar that they made such a big deal out of something they were so tight-lipped about, however, on the other hand, these phrases like "lawless users of the internet" struck fear into my heart. Eventually I realized that I had nothing to lose by doing some research on the internet. It bugged me that the BB's made such a big deal about it, and I felt like I had the right to know what was on the internet. Actually, I always had the right to know, but apparently brothers like Ron don't like the 1st amendment.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Virtually every conference and training given by BB's that I have attended has featured various generic references to "negative ones" or writings on the internet. When I was there in those situations, it seemed peculiar that they made such a big deal out of something they were so tight-lipped about, however, on the other hand, these phrases like "lawless users of the internet" struck fear into my heart. Eventually I realized that I had nothing to lose by doing some research on the internet. It bugged me that the BB's made such a big deal about it, and I felt like I had the right to know what was on the internet. Actually, I always had the right to know, but apparently brothers like Ron don't like the 1st amendment.

Here's a joke for ya --

Q. What did Pontius Pilate say to Thomas Jefferson?
A. What is free speech?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Virtually every conference and training given by BB's that I have attended has featured various generic references to "negative ones" or writings on the internet. When I was there in those situations, it seemed peculiar that they made such a big deal out of something they were so tight-lipped about, however, on the other hand, these phrases like "lawless users of the internet" struck fear into my heart. Eventually I realized that I had nothing to lose by doing some research on the internet. It bugged me that the BB's made such a big deal about it, and I felt like I had the right to know what was on the internet. Actually, I always had the right to know, but apparently brothers like Ron don't like the 1st amendment.

Generally speaking, we should admonish others not to waste their time on useless things and internet trivia. I used to agree with Ron Kangas when it came to internet opposers like Jim Moran. I read his stuff, and he had nothing that alarmed me about LSM or the LC's. Likewise, there were other sites which focused on trinitarian modalism and other esoteric topics. So what!

But then some ex-members began to use the internet to post the writings of former, yet well-respected, members who had been publicly maligned by Lee. Before that time I had just trusted Lee and Chu because I had no other access to information. I never heard "the rest of the story," nor their side of the story, and the GLA elders and workers were all on board with Lee's version of events. But soon John Ingalls' account Speaking The Truth In Love was made available for all to read.

Slowly momentum grew via the old Berean forum. For a while, before and after the TC quarantine, the place was buzzing with activity from all manner of LC members. John Myer wrote his book, as well as Nigel Tomes and numerous others. All were addressing serious LC/LSM issues for the first time in history on the internet. For the first time ever we were getting real insider information. We were communicating in the language we knew all too well. We were hearing from past and current members from all around the globe. We were getting "here a little, there a little," and the whole picture was forming right before our eyes, and it wasn't very pretty.

That's what LSM fears the most. Insiders talking. Insiders with real stories that need to be told.

[TLFisher]

From Kindle Location 2073 0f 4086 in Chapter 5

Why did we have a problem with Brother Sparks? Brother Sparks came here [Taiwan] and most of his speaking involved the words of the ministry to supply Christ and to build up the church; unfortunately, there was a part of his speaking that was not from words of that ministry; they were a different teaching. Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 3:1 said: "that you might charge certain ones not to teach different things." The different things here are the different teachings.

It seems the problem was not so much Sparks teaching different things as Philip Lin would want the reader to believe, but the problem was Sparks not endorsing the doctrine of locality. That is what Lin may define as "teaching different things".

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

From Kindle Location 2073 0f 4086 in Chapter 5

Why did we have a problem with Brother Sparks? Brother Sparks came here [Taiwan] and most of his speaking involved the words of the ministry to supply Christ and to build up the church; unfortunately, there was a part of his speaking that was not from words of that ministry; they were a different teaching. Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 3:1 said: "that you might charge certain ones not to teach different things." The different things here are the different teachings.

It seems the problem was not so much Sparks teaching different things as Philip Lin would want the reader to believe, but the problem was Sparks not endorsing the doctrine of locality. That is what Lin may define as "teaching different things".

It is a game of semantics. If it is different from your teaching (the doctrine of locality) then you declare that it is a different teaching. And in plain words it is true.

The problem is that the standard is not just whatever you teach v whatever they teach, but what the Bible teaches v what someone else teaches. Nee, Lee, and Lin believe that their teaching is from the Bible, therefore anything that is different is different according to this verse. But you have to first determine if the doctrine of locality is actually from the Bible. And so far it fails miserably as a prescriptive teaching, therefore as something we should consider doctrine.

In fact, the unity of the body of Christ is much greater than locality, but is seen in the lives of all Christians relative to the lives of all other Christians without reference to locality. If this unity can be seen in any way, then it is what it is. Drawing an artificial, secular line around a grouping and insisting that they all have the same elders, and checkbook and follow the teachings of teacher X is never prescribed. Growing in righteousness and being seen as Christ-like in all our living is prescribed. Joining together with others is. Which others and how the boundaries between that group of others and the next group of others is defined, if at all, is not prescribed.

But the LCM wants their doctrine of locality so badly that they will part ways over it and even become antagonistic over it. Unlike so-called poor Christianity that continues to have people speak at their churches that are not doctrinally aligned in all ways. We read books by those of both Calvinist and Arminian persuasions. We read from writers who are evangelical (virtually any sub-group of them) and from the others — even RCC. We note where we differ on things, but do not condemn the others to outer darkness over it.

And the reason that we can generally get along despite our differences is that we understand the differences as not being the kind of differences that Paul spoke against.

The unity with the body can be seen in a simple illustration. About 2 years after joining with the LCM, one of my mother's aunts had just moved to town and she invited us to go with her to church one Sunday. So for the first time in 2 years, we found ourselves in the Assemblies of God. Typical service as I remember them. A little more lively than Baptists at the time, but otherwise not much different. But it was the first Sunday of the month so there was communion. And my mother insisted that we not partake because their table was divisive. There was something that bothered me about that position at the time, but I let it go.

But years later it occurred to me that the AOG opens their table to all that claim Christ as savior. (I realize some groups want internal evidence of your salvation via their own inspection under various methods, but I do not see it as a function of exclusivity as much as care for the condition of those partaking as being worthy of it.) Yet while we in the LCM would open our table to anyone who comes into our meeting and claims Christ as savior, we refrain from joining others anywhere else because we declare theirs to be flawed and in disunity. I now see that the only disunity in the LCM position is that they willfully divide from others in this way when the others do not divide from them. The others continue to display their unity whether you are at their place or they are at yours. But the LCM only accepts themselves as having proper standing and therefore being one with others would be wrong.

Seems that the command of Christ was that they would be one, so intentionally refraining from oneness would be in contradiction to the command. Even the RCC is slowly coming around to that way of thinking. But not the LCM. Their circle of unity stops at the edge of the property where each meeting hall is found. If you don't come to them, there is no unity. And coming to them means adopting their doctrines.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

And my mother insisted that we not partake because their table was divisive. There was something that bothered me about that position at the time, but I let it go.

But years later it occurred to me that the AOG opens their table to all that claim Christ as savior. (I realize some groups want internal evidence of your salvation via their own inspection under various methods, but I do not see it as a function of exclusivity as much as care for the condition of those partaking as being worthy of it.) Yet while we in the LCM would open our table to anyone who comes into our meeting and claims Christ as savior, we refrain from joining others anywhere else because we declare theirs to be flawed and in disunity. I now see that the only disunity in the LCM position is that they willfully divide from others in this way when the others do not divide from them. The others continue to display their unity whether you are at their place or they are at yours. But the LCM only accepts themselves as having proper standing and therefore being one with others would be wrong.

I have heard similar from an LSM elder. Taking the table with a non-LSM church is the same as partaking in division.
Apart from these Local ministry churches, I have met with a Baptist assembly and a Community church assembly. Both "opens their table to all that claim Christ as savior". Both see their assemblies part of the Body of Christ as a local expression. The Local ministry churches see themselves as the only ones having proper standing and all others are illegitimate.
What is the proper standing based on? Until I see a Local church that can set aside the LSM publications, I'll say their so-called proper standing is based on a Christian publisher and its publications. If their proper standing is on Christ alone, drop the publications.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

I have heard similar from an LSM elder. Taking the table with a non-LSM church is the same as partaking in division.
Apart from these Local ministry churches, I have met with a Baptist assembly and a Community church assembly. Both "opens their table to all that claim Christ as savior". Both see their assemblies part of the Body of Christ as a local expression. The Local ministry churches see themselves as the only ones having proper standing and all others are illegitimate.
What is the proper standing based on? Until I see a Local church that can set aside the LSM publications, I'll say their so-called proper standing is based on a Christian publisher and its publications. If their proper standing is on Christ alone, drop the publications.

I have heard it called spiritual fornication to break bread with denominations -- basically any congregation not connected with LSM. It's no wonder these dear folks are spooked by Lee and the Blended fearmongers.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have heard it called spiritual fornication to break bread with denominations -- basically any congregation not connected with LSM. It's no wonder these dear folks are spooked by Lee and the Blended fearmongers.

I have heard similar things said. I was in a position several times where I had to attend a non-LSM denomination and there so happened to be a communion. I chose not to partake of it out of fear that I would greatly offend the Lord.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I have heard similar things said. I was in a position several times where I had to attend a non-LSM denomination and there so happened to be a communion. I chose not to partake of it out of fear that I would greatly offend the Lord.

Yes. And it's attitudes like these, which I also used to share, that give rise to this question: Who is really being worshiped? Who, exactly, are they really afraid of, when they fear to worship elsewhere?

[Cal]

The doctrine of locality isn't really about everyone being one in a city anyway.

It isn't about oneness at all.

It's about everyone being subordinate to handpicked LC elders.

It's about having an excuse to discredit anyone who doesn't fall in line.

It's about control.

Period.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The doctrine of locality isn't really about everyone being one in a city anyway.

It's isn't about oneness at all.

It's about everyone being subordinate to handpicked LC elders.

It's about having an excuse to discredit anyone who doesn't fall in line.

It's about control.

Period.

I would never have agreed with Igzy's conclusions while I was part of the LC, and that's mainly because they were so slick at manipulating and controlling all available information.

But if one would step back, gather all the facts of history, and then arrive at an honest and conclusive determination of these facts, one would be forced to arrive at this same conclusion, and no other.

Any other conclusion of the facts and events of history with LSM requires heavy doses of denial and delusion, commonly referred to as "drinking Kool-Aid."

It has for many years seemed so strange that every thing we know about Lee came directly from Lee. How convenient, how misleading, how evil, how deceptive, and you could go on. I would like to know and hear more of Herald Shu.
Lisbon

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The doctrine of locality isn't really about everyone being one in a city anyway.

It isn't about oneness at all.

It's about everyone being subordinate to handpicked LC elders.

It's about having an excuse to discredit anyone who doesn't fall in line.

It's about control.

Period.

What keeps coming to mind, for me, is the line "Diotrephes loves to be first" (in 3 John 9-11). Probably the idea of "locality" wasn't consciously tied to a desire to control. I bet Nee really believed the truth of his message. That's why he was so persuasive. But notice what followed hard upon his presentation of locality. Nee required deputy authority. Now we begin to see the real Nee emerging. Un-biblical, non-scriptural ideas were needed to prop up and continue the "locality" idea, there on his local ground. Suddenly it wasn't about local ground but the so-called 'Jerusalem principle', and 'handing over', and 'lining up'.

Likewise with Lee. Oneness was indeed desirable, circa 1962 Texas and S. California, and elsewhere. And I bet that Lee believed in his merchandise. He had Bible verses to prove it! But what was necessary, later, for the upkeep of the so-called oneness? That there be only one apostle. And that it terminate with Lee, whose ministry could only continue via deputized teams of curators, parsing over the "apostle's" writings. Completely un-biblical, and completely necessary to keep the whole thing lurching forward, or at least not imploding from its own dead weight. It seems that traditions of men are later required to paper over cracks in the theological formulations. And in the papering over we can see human motives emerge.

I doubt Diotrephes stood up in the meeting and said, "You know, folks, I have a control issue. I like to be first, and be the Top Dog. So how about we all get in line, here?" No, he probably couched it in some spiritual mumbo jumbo, even quoted Jesus and Paul. Diotrephes probably pointed out some apparent need, or lack, there on the ground, and offered people his solution. He probably sold his snake oil as a necessary formulation for holding the whole shebang together, and prospering in the will of the Lord. But behind it was something much more simple. An inability to surrender and let God be in control... The situation seemed dire... Strong leadership was needed! God needed a deputy to step in!

So some theological formulation was concocted to solve the issue at hand, and its formulator(s) then could "massage the message" until it put them where they wanted to be, all along. But John called it for what it was.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I have heard similar things said. I was in a position several times where I had to attend a non-LSM denomination and there so happened to be a communion. I chose not to partake of it out of fear that I would greatly offend the Lord.

Whether those in the local churches choose to admit it, they're meeting in division just as they condemn other non-LSM churches being in. In my opinion a far greater offense to the Lord in regard to communion is:

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. I Corinthians 11:27-28

Though there have been few, I cannot recall it being a practice to pause before taking the table to examine ourselves within the congregation, for the purpose of not taking the table in an unworthy manner.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

What keeps coming to mind, for me, is the line "Diotrephes loves to be first" (in 3 John 9-11). Probably the idea of "locality" wasn't consciously tied to a desire to control. I bet Nee really believed the truth of his message.

This is exactly why the overarching authority model embraced by the LCM, including the local ground and the MOTA, cannot be correct. All you need is a charismatic leader with good intentions claiming to be championing "God's true cause" and who is to disagree with him? He means well, right? So do all the people who think he's enlightened.

God doesn't give us that kind of authority precisely because of its potential for abuse, and the fact that it leads to self-perpetuating error. There is no way to correct the error. All disagreement is seen as attack. All dissenters are seen as fatal enemies. All such "attacks" are met with redoubled determination to stand firm.

Such a thing takes on a life of its own. It has no fail-safe mechanism. Change becomes hopeless. It grinds on and on grinding people up. We are witnesses to it.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

What keeps coming to mind, for me, is the line "Diotrephes loves to be first" (in 3 John 9-11). Probably the idea of "locality" wasn't consciously tied to a desire to control. I bet Nee really believed the truth of his message. That's why he was so persuasive. But notice what followed hard upon his presentation of locality. Nee required deputy authority. Now we begin to see the real Nee emerging. Un-biblical, non-scriptural ideas were needed to prop up and continue the "locality" idea, there on his local ground. Suddenly it wasn't about local ground but the so-called 'Jerusalem principle', and 'handing over', and 'lining up'.

I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church. 3 John 9-10

Appears from verse 9 John wrote something not of himself, but on behalf of others. The last phrase is key. Unjustly accusing and forbids those who desire to receive and these ones are put out of the church.

What does this remind you of? To me it's a reminder of quarantines. In quarantines brothers are unjustly accused. In the spirit of 3 John 10, those who desire to receive quarantined brothers are put out of the church.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The doctrine of locality isn't really about everyone being one in a city anyway.

It isn't about oneness at all.

It's about everyone being subordinate to handpicked LC elders.

It's about having an excuse to discredit anyone who doesn't fall in line.

It's about control.

Period.

That's right. Time to beat a dead horse when it comes to the issue of picking elders. In the LC, there's the trend to overlook 1 Titus 1:6 for the sake of gifted, capable, and responsible brothers. While in non-LC churches I had met with, there is no over looking Titus 1:6. If this qualification is not met, you may be able to serve in the church, but not as an elder.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

What keeps coming to mind, for me, is the line "Diotrephes loves to be first" (in 3 John 9-11).

I doubt Diotrephes stood up in the meeting and said, "You know, folks, I have a control issue. I like to be first, and be the Top Dog. So how about we all get in line, here?" No, he probably couched it in some spiritual mumbo jumbo, even quoted Jesus and Paul. Diotrephes probably pointed out some apparent need, or lack, there on the ground, and offered people his solution. He probably sold his snake oil as a necessary formulation for holding the whole shebang together, and prospering in the will of the Lord. But behind it was something much more simple. An inability to surrender and let God be in control... The situation seemed dire... Strong leadership was needed! God needed a deputy to step in!

This reminded me of Paul's admonition to the Corinthians, (1.12) "Now I mean this, that each of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, ..."

I read this verse hundreds of times, and never applied it to myself, but rather to all those "out there" in Christianity. I guess I had some image in my mind that the early saints in Corinth robotically walked around with sandwich signs repeating "I am of Paul, I am of Paul, I am of Paul." Because Lee constantly taught us that these verses applied to others, I never made the connection to him and myself.

Likewise this verse about "Diotrephes loves to be first." I lived in a program for years with Lee in Anaheim, and Chu in Cleveland who both "loved to be first, wanted to be first, had to be first, and fought to be first," yet I never I never connected the situation in John's time to my own.

What was I thinking!?!

[Lisbon]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Here's a joke for ya --

Q. What did Pontius Pilate say to Thomas Jefferson?
A. What is free speech?

We are all quite aware that this forum is typically very sober and deathly at times. After all many of us essentially passed thru death in our stays in the LC. So it struck me to my depths when I read about Pontius. I haven't laughed that heartedly in many moons.

Thanks rayliotta.

Lisbon

[TLFisher]

From Kindle Location 2199 of 4086 in Chapter 6

"With Brother Lee, we can testify that his living was the best interpretation of what he taught. In the 1980's, he released many messages on taking Christ as our person and living Him out. He himself had put that into practice. He often said that he had been repenting for not being faithful and living Christ in his daily life. What he lived out and worked out was the very essence of the message he constantly delivered to churches in the recovery."

From Witness Lee's A Word of Love:

"The Lord can testify for me that I don’t condemn anyone…We love people. We love the opposers, and we love the top rebels. I really mean it. We love them and do not hate them. Who am I? I am not qualified to condemn or hate. Am I perfect? Even the prophet Isaiah when he saw the Lord, said, “Woe is me, for I am finished / For I am a man of unclean lips, / And in the midst of an unclean people I dwell” (Isa. 6:5). Who is clean today? If we criticize people and say something bad about them, we are not clean."

Prior to his death, there was no indication of loving the opposers or even the top rebels. With Witness Lee now been gone for 17 and a half years, how much of his speaking have the Blendeds taken to heart and lived out? Do they love the top rebels? Words without action is simply clanging cymbals.

The following is a good word from the attached pdf Basic Need:

"Do we really love the “opposers”, even the “top rebels” as brother Lee said we should do? Is our view of them fair? Is our view of each one right according to God? Is the Person of Christ involved in our judgment of them? I can testify that in my little bit of contact with a few former elders, their spirit of love and careful manner today in handling the saints is evident, such that I have not seen in the recovery. Their testimony in this regard is that once they left the church life, they began to seek the Lord Himself. He was their Shepherd, and they learned to shepherd and care for one another. They did not become unsaved when they left the church, and they did not become beasts of the field wandering about like Nebuchednezzar. They have learned the way of shepherding and caring for one another’s needs. These were the casualties of the new way.

We should listen to their stories and their testimonies, brothers? If “something is wrong” among us, maybe listening with respect and regard to our brothers and sisters will help us to understand our lack of feeling and sensitivity to the Lord’s heart and mind for others, even those He bought with His own precious blood and had brought at one time into the church. Not walking “according to love”, brothers, is surely our basic failure; and walking in love our greatest need."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

From Kindle Location 2199 of 4086 in Chapter 6

"With Brother Lee, we can testify that his living was the best interpretation of what he taught. In the 1980's, he released many messages on taking Christ as our person and living Him out. He himself had put that into practice. He often said that he had been repenting for not being faithful and living Christ in his daily life. What he lived out and worked out was the very essence of the message he constantly delivered to churches in the recovery."

From Witness Lee's A Word of Love:

"The Lord can testify for me that I don’t condemn anyone…We love people. We love the opposers, and we love the top rebels. I really mean it. We love them and do not hate them. Who am I? I am not qualified to condemn or hate. Am I perfect? Even the prophet Isaiah when he saw the Lord, said, “Woe is me, for I am finished / For I am a man of unclean lips, / And in the midst of an unclean people I dwell” (Isa. 6:5). Who is clean today? If we criticize people and say something bad about them, we are not clean."

Prior to his death, there was no indication of loving the opposers or even the top rebels. With Witness Lee now been gone for 17 and a half years, how much of his speaking have the Blendeds taken to heart and lived out? Do they love the top rebels? Words without action is simply clanging cymbals.

The following is a good word from the attached pdf Basic Need:

"Do we really love the “opposers”, even the “top rebels” as brother Lee said we should do? Is our view of them fair? Is our view of each one right according to God? Is the Person of Christ involved in our judgment of them? I can testify that in my little bit of contact with a few former elders, their spirit of love and careful manner today in handling the saints is evident, such that I have not seen in the recovery. Their testimony in this regard is that once they left the church life, they began to seek the Lord Himself. He was their Shepherd, and they learned to shepherd and care for one another. They did not become unsaved when they left the church, and they did not become beasts of the field wandering about like Nebuchednezzar. They have learned the way of shepherding and caring for one another’s needs. These were the casualties of the new way.

We should listen to their stories and their testimonies, brothers? If “something is wrong” among us, maybe listening with respect and regard to our brothers and sisters will help us to understand our lack of feeling and sensitivity to the Lord’s heart and mind for others, even those He bought with His own precious blood and had brought at one time into the church. Not walking “according to love”, brothers, is surely our basic failure; and walking in love our greatest need."

I'm not sure if the BB's every have considered the kind of "culture" that they have helped promote in the LC. It is a culture that is repressive. It took me a long time to build up the courage to register and start posting here, given that I was (and still am) a current LC member. The terms of opposer or rebel are serious terms to be applied to someone in the LC and those terms are used to keep many in line. When W Lee went and claimed that he loved the "rebels", I don't see that as anything other than lip service, pretending that he is open to receive everyone. His actions up until his death tell a different story. The actions of the BB's tell that same story. For Lee's sake, I hope that his repentance was genuine. The effects of his attitude are still present and as destructive as ever.

[TLFisher]

Sacrifice and Sail On from Chapter 6 Kindle location 2230 of 4086

"Since 1952 when Brother Nee was put into prison in Mainland China, Witness Lee undertook and continued Watchman Nee's ministry and commission of the building up of the Body of Christ. Suddenly, Brother Lee became the target of enemy attacks, and waves of opposition and rebellion, one after another, were targeted at him. But he did not react according to his own personal desire or interest."

Why did suddenly Witness Lee become the target of enemy attacks. That's generally the terminology for unfavorable criticism. Could part of the problem be Lee's own unyielding personality? A basic description is fellowship flowing in only one direction.
How come following Nee's imprisonment, we never hear of other brothers Watchman Nee discipled?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Sacrifice and Sail On from Chapter 6 Kindle location 2230 of 4086

"Since 1952 when Brother Nee was put into prison in Mainland China, Witness Lee undertook and continued Watchman Nee's ministry and commission of the building up of the Body of Christ. Suddenly, Brother Lee became the target of enemy attacks, and waves of opposition and rebellion, one after another, were targeted at him. But he did not react according to his own personal desire or interest."

Why did suddenly Witness Lee become the target of enemy attacks. That's generally the terminology for unfavorable criticism. Could part of the problem be Lee's own unyielding personality? A basic description is fellowship flowing in only one direction.
How come following Nee's imprisonment, we never hear of other brothers Watchman Nee discipled?

Critiquing Lee's ministry, such as what is done here by those who Ron calls "the lawless users of the internet" is equated with attacks from the enemy. I'm sure back during that time, those who critiqued Lee were labeled in the same manner. I would argue that many of Lee's problems were brought on by his own doing. While it might be true that some have purposely taken his ministry out of context, there are plenty of ways in which he left his ministry open for that.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I would argue that many of Lee's problems were brought on by his own doing.

If his attitude in 1950's Taiwan was "my way or the highway", it left no room for mutual fellowship. I'm sure many of Lee's antagonists received Nee's ministry in China as Herald Hsu among others had and were unaccustomed to one-sided fellowship.
I never had impression of one-sided fellowship from Lee's peer Stephen Kaung and I don't know much about Lee's other peers also discipled by Watchman Nee.
I do believe as an effective organizer, Lee didn't like obstacles which is why he wanted his way and which may explain why he was closed to concerns during the late 1980's and why he suggested experienced elders should consider resigning in the mid-1980's. They were likely perceived as obstacles to LSM compared to younger inexperienced co-workers who had the ambition to follow Witness Lee's lead.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

I never had impression of one-sided fellowship from Lee's peer Stephen Kaung and I don't know much about Lee's other peers also discipled by Watchman Nee.

This may be true. But there is evidence that at least some of the groups that were following SK are now folding since their spiritual father has retired. I have relatives in one city that met with others under his ministry and they are now essentially disbanded. Makes you wonder about the true value of so much of the "rich" ministry of even Nee. It still takes a central figure to keep it tied together and moving forward (or at least not collapsing).

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

It still takes a central figure to keep it tied together and moving forward (or at least not collapsing).

A question and a comment. My question is, do the "rebel forces" of TC & DYL cooperate? Do leaderships of both sects have strategic pow-wows, or at least acknowledge the existence of the other? If so, do they entertain the idea of "two leaders of the age", versus one?

My comment is, it seems to me that DYL has an heir apparent. Son named Pedro. Someone to keep it all together and moving forward. Not sure about TC.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

there is evidence that at least some of the groups that were following SK are now folding since their spiritual father has retired.

Was reading chapter 3 of Myers' book. I quote below.

http://www.assemblylife.com/chapter3.pdf

"Anyone who has spent time in the Local Churches should be familiar with the famous declaration that Witness Lee made toward Watchman Nee. He reportedly told his mentor, “Even if you would not take this way, I will continue to take it.” “This way,” as loosely interpreted, meant the way of leaving denominations, practicing the local church pattern, keeping scriptural truth, choosing spiritual life, and accepting the cross of Christ in daily situations. W.Lee’s boldness at the time was an admirable resolve not to allow himself or his life’s work to become part of a man-following culture. Unfortunately, his noble ethic was not transferred to those who came after him. In a very strange twist, “this way” gradually became inseparable from W.Lee himself—his personal revelation, convictions, decisions, and directions."

The "way" becomes a set of beliefs, practices, orienting around the minister himself. And when the minister passes on, as all who are of flesh do, his followers re-orient themselves around his supposedly closest disciples. Nee supposedly left us Lee, and Lee likewise the Blendeds. This would seem to follow the pattern of Jesus leaving John behind, who left Papias, or Paul leaving a Timothy behind, one who could set things in order as the Master wished.

Who can answer the question: "What would Witness Lee want to do here?" Whoever best can answer that is the de facto leader. If in fact God captivated the move of His Spirit to one person on earth, and others only as they "lined up" behind this person, then okay. But how do we know that God only has one person on the earth who is the "man of the hour", his Deputy Authority whom all must submit to, and how do we know this was Witness Lee?

Does Philip Lin discuss this, or does he take it for granted, as a self-evident proposition? Typically what I see in the Living Stream ministry is set of revolving assumptions. 'Brother X speaks Gods current revelation.' Later, 'Brother X is God's "man of the hour" with the "ministry of the age" '. How do we know he's the apostle of the age? Because he speaks God's current revelation! How do we know he's speaking God's word for man today? Because he's the apostle of the age! You have all these declarations as if they were self-evident truths, but really there's nothing independent to back them up, except a string of similar declarations.

[OBW]

I note that in another place there is some discussion of addictions. I don't know if that really applies, but there is something in a couple of recent posts that made me think about the constant need for the illusion of activity and of new speaking. If it ever became just a further dig into what we thought we already knew, it would not be sufficient to hold it together.

It seems that at least part of the glue that holds the LCM together is the constant activity. If it ever slows down too much, and they are ever given some time and space to think and begin to have lives of their own, it would collapse. While a poor analogy, it is sort of like mob mentality. It is the activity of some that attracts the activity of others that attracts even more until there is a mentality that everyone asserts was not intended and was not of their own doing. But if the center of the activity ceases, the mob disperses.

The LCM is centered around all this constant emphasis on teachings and relative isolation from the Word, and virtually complete isolation from normal teachings of Christianity, coupled with meeting after meeting, and trainings and conferences to use up your vacation. You are unable to think "what am I doing, and why?"

Add to that the oriental culture and mentality that aron has so diligently given us even more on in the past days, and you get Philip Lin happy to have his head in the sand. And the LCM is busy trying to instill this mentality into the whole of the members.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

I note that in another place there is some discussion of addictions. I don't know if that really applies, but there is something in a couple of recent posts that made me think about the constant need for the illusion of activity and of new speaking. If it ever became just a further dig into what we thought we already knew, it would not be sufficient to hold it together.

It seems that at least part of the glue that holds the LCM together is the constant activity. If it ever slows down too much, and they are ever given some time and space to think and begin to have lives of their own, it would collapse. While a poor analogy, it is sort of like mob mentality. It is the activity of some that attracts the activity of others that attracts even more until there is a mentality that everyone asserts was not intended and was not of their own doing. But if the center of the activity ceases, the mob disperses.

The LCM is centered around all this constant emphasis on teachings and relative isolation from the Word, and virtually complete isolation from normal teachings of Christianity, coupled with meeting after meeting, and trainings and conferences to use up your vacation. You are unable to think "what am I doing, and why?"

Add to that the oriental culture and mentality that aron has so diligently given us even more on in the past days, and you get Philip Lin happy to have his head in the sand. And the LCM is busy trying to instill this mentality into the whole of the members.

There was a point in time where I was so busy with LC activities, that I didn't really spend the time to consider some of the things that bothered me. It's not that there weren't things back then that bothered me, it's just that I was so consumed with going to meeting after meeting, I couldn't accept the idea in the back of my head that there could be something wrong with it all.

In a way, it seemed that once my situation changed and it wasn't possible to be doing LC activities 24/7 (a.k.a. coming to terms with the real world), I realized it was just this whole fantasy world I was living in. Like OBW said, it was almost an addiction, an addiction to "high peak truths", the "up-to-date" speaking, getting lauded for attending trainings, and whatever else it may have been. Once you start to realize some of these things aren't all the special, it's like your world starts to collapse around you. I don't need the BB's to regurgitate the "high-peak" truths. It's just mumbo jumbo. Nonsensical phrases crammed into a single sentence.

[TLFisher]

Chapter 6 Location 2282 of 4086

"From 1971 to 1973, because of the practice of migration, the number of saints in the church in Los Angeles increased rapidly, and it produced a false idea that the church should go to a place near campus and use unscrupulous methods to get young people to join. The idea of expanding work and increasing numbers had overridden the way of the growth in spiritual life, this gave an opportunity to some of the ambitious leading ones among the young people work in churches to plan to take over the Lord's Recovery."

Location 2296 of 4086

"It was my privilege that I often had the opportunity in those years to drive Brother Lee around and to run errands for him. Because I was often at his side, my eyes saw these things happen and how he acted in response to this type of storm and I cannot but bow down my head to worship the Lord. Brother Lee was really a man who feared God, a man who denied his self for Christ's sake. In this Anaheim situation, he dared not put his hands in to deal with the situation, but just quietly waited on the Lord to work it out. Eventually it was the Lord who won the victory, and the church in Anaheim was purified and moved strongly forward!"

When Philip said, "The idea of expanding work and increasing numbers had overridden the way of the growth in spiritual life", that seems very similar to the new way of the late 1980's.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Chapter 6 Location 2282 of 4086

"From 1971 to 1973, because of the practice of migration, the number of saints in the church in Los Angeles increased rapidly, and it produced a false idea that the church should go to a place near campus and use unscrupulous methods to get young people to join. The idea of expanding work and increasing numbers had overridden the way of the growth in spiritual life, this gave an opportunity to some of the ambitious leading ones among the young people work in churches to plan to take over the Lord's Recovery."

Location 2296 of 4086

"It was my privilege that I often had the opportunity in those years to drive Brother Lee around and to run errands for him. Because I was often at his side, my eyes saw these things happen and how he acted in response to this type of storm and I cannot but bow down my head to worship the Lord. Brother Lee was really a man who feared God, a man who denied his self for Christ's sake. In this Anaheim situation, he dared not put his hands in to deal with the situation, but just quietly waited on the Lord to work it out. Eventually it was the Lord who won the victory, and the church in Anaheim was purified and moved strongly forward!"

When Philip said, "The idea of expanding work and increasing numbers had overridden the way of the growth in spiritual life", that seems very similar to the new way of the late 1980's.

It irks me to see how dishonest Lin is with what he writes. He states "it produced a false idea that the church should go to a place near campus and use unscrupulous methods to get young people to join."
Is this not the case even today? He talks about this as if it's a problem that happened in the past related to people like Max. How does the LC currently engage in campus work? They go to places with a campus and use unscrupulous methods to get young people to join. Like I just posted on another thread, there is a disturbing amount of dishonesty with how those associated with the LC present themselves on campus. When people ask "What church are you from?" or "What church are you associated with?" a typical response might be "We are Christians of various backgrounds." To me, that response is unscrupulous. No need to hide what church you go to. Is pushing the RcV Bible to students seeking a simple Bible study not unscrupulous? Students have no idea when they contact "Christians on Campus" that it is an outreach arm of the LC.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

"In this Anaheim situation, he dared not put his hands in to deal with the situation, but just quietly waited on the Lord to work it out."

In this Anaheim situation didn't Witness Lee bring Max to Anaheim from San Diego?
In 1974 wasn't Max appointed by Witness Lee to be the coordinator of the one new man?
In this Anaheim situation didn't Witness Lee give Max free reign to "mess up the elders"?
In this Anaheim situation didn't Max have an altercation with Philip Lee?

I suggest it was not until the altercation did it become an "Anaheim situation".
Of course providing this other side of the story Philip Lin conveniently omitted.

[TLFisher]

Chapter 6 Location 2310 0f 4086

"In order to carry out this task, Brother Lee used a bilingual young brother, A. Yu, instead of a more mature brother, J. Ingalls, or others, to help him with the training. This caused more than a little murmuring and dissenting in the church in Anaheim."

Philip Lin's book is the first time I heard of this.
Why would there be dissenting? It was only logical to select a brother fluent in Chinese and English. Besides wasn't John working on the Recovery translation with Al Knoch and Bill Duane?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

In this Anaheim situation didn't Witness Lee bring Max to Anaheim from San Diego?
In 1974 wasn't Max appointed by Witness Lee to be the coordinator of the one new man?
In this Anaheim situation didn't Witness Lee give Max free reign to "mess up the elders"?
In this Anaheim situation didn't Max have an altercation with Philip Lee?

I suggest it was not until the altercation did it become an "Anaheim situation".
Of course providing this other side of the story Philip Lin conveniently omitted.

As far as I know Lee gave Max his position, so Lee himself was ultimately responsible for all that happened. Max was an easy scapegoat.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Chapter 6 Location 2310 0f 4086

"In order to carry out this task, Brother Lee used a bilingual young brother, A. Yu, instead of a more mature brother, J. Ingalls, or others, to help him with the training. This caused more than a little murmuring and dissenting in the church in Anaheim."

Philip Lin's book is the first time I heard of this.
Why would there be dissenting? It was only logical to select a brother fluent in Chinese and English. Besides wasn't John working on the Recovery translation with Al Knoch and Bill Duane?

When I read that it's almost like Lin is implying that John was offended that Lee didn't bring him to Taiwan. I notice, however, that Lin says "J. Ingalls, or others..." So what really was Lin's point in mentioning John's name other than trying to imply a motive like ambition or jealousy?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When I read that it's almost like Lin is implying that John was offended that Lee didn't bring him to Taiwan. I notice, however, that Lin says "J. Ingalls, or others..." So what really was Lin's point in mentioning John's name other than trying to imply a motive like ambition or jealousy?

It could be in Anaheim one person raised the question to Minoru or Philip, and a mountain was made out of a molehill.
Just as Philip described J. Ingalls as a mature brother; as a mature brother he was not likely to be offended as a younger immature brother would be.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When I read that it's almost like Lin is implying that John was offended that Lee didn't bring him to Taiwan. I notice, however, that Lin says "J. Ingalls, or others..." So what really was Lin's point in mentioning John's name other than trying to imply a motive like ambition or jealousy?

Since LSM operatives needed a motive for why such a precious brother like John Ingalls would initiate a global conspiracy to topple Lee, they invented their two standard accusations -- unforgiven offenses and hidden ambitions. Just because Lee's minions had not a shred of evidence to support such claims is besides the point. Besides how does one defend oneself of the accusation of being "offended and ambitious?"

[TLFisher]

Chapter 6 Location 2318 of 4086

"In the summer of 1987, before coming to Anaheim, two brothers, John So from Germany and Joseph Fung from Hong Kong, had been secretly working out their plan to revolt. They planned on working on the elders of the church in Anaheim and on some other coworkers, and on instigating saints with their dissenting thoughts to undermine the saints' hearts for the ministry of Brother Lee. Anaheim's Ingalls and Atlanta's Mallon, two leading coworkers, had been murmuring about the training in Taiwan and the work of the ministry station in Taipei. With these two leading coworkers concurrence, the dissension was immediately strengthened, and they both were very active in the United States to recruit the leading ones closely associated with them in the past. At the same time, they further spread evil reports against Brother Lee's ministry station operation in Taipei and about a personnel scandal in the office of the station. While they were working out their plots against his work, Brother Lee still treated them as his coworkers and tried to fellowship with them either by long-distance phone calls from Taiwan or later by face-to-face fellowship in Anaheim. He tried to resolve the issue together. However, while they outwardly pretended to heed Brother Lee's fellowship, they secretly were extending their plot against Brother Lee's work."

Witness Lee tried to fellowship with whom? Ingalls? Ingalls tried to fellowship with Lee at least a dozen times.
The elders in Orange County tried to be councilatory in resolving the issue together.

What Philip Lin is trying to paint as a conspiracy, is normally described as fellowship.
It would be just the same as saying whenever Ron Kangas and James Lee come to Seattle, the elders they have fellowship with privately can be termed a conspiracy.

The picture Philip Lin is trying to portray is disingenuous towards the brothers he served with. After 25 years, Lin is trying to sell the same picture. So much for grace and love.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg5MoyHRK6U

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Phillip Lin

Anaheim's Ingalls and Atlanta's Mallon, two leading coworkers, had been murmuring about the training in Taiwan and the work of the ministry station in Taipei.

It seems that a reoccurring theme in Lin's book is that of only telling half of the story. Lin never mentioned why Ingalls or Mallon weren't so excited about the FTTT. Lin should have included that list of statements made by trainers in the training. Most anyone who sees what kind of things were being said would agree that Ingalls and Mallon rightfully criticized the training.

Originally Posted by Phillip Lin

At the same time, they further spread evil reports against Brother Lee's ministry station operation in Taipei and about a personnel scandal in the office of the station. While they were working out their plots against his work, Brother Lee still treated them as his coworkers and tried to fellowship with them either by long-distance phone calls from Taiwan or later by face-to-face fellowship in Anaheim. He tried to resolve the issue together. However, while they outwardly pretended to heed Brother Lee's fellowship, they secretly were extending their plot against Brother Lee's work.

Evil reports huh? Is it evil to speak the truth? Does speaking the truth constitute a global plot against Lee? Once again, Lin throws out accusations without providing a context for the situation.

[TLFisher]

Chapter 6 Location 2334 of 4086

"All of this culminated in a meeting in Anaheim on August 28, 1988 in which Brother Ingalls gave eight points on the so-called truth; in his view, he said that the Lord's recovery had deviated and changed in nature. This was followed by Brother Godfred's speaking on the "standing of the church in Anaheim." After they finished speaking, Brother Al Knoch confirmed that he agreed with what they said. Their speaking was absolutely a direct attack on Brother Lee and his ministry, and also an attempt to cut off the church from Brother Lee's ministry. Brother Minoru Chen and I were in Anaheim as elders objecting to the things the other three elders did and to the unseemly things taking place in the meetings."

Here are some excerpts from Speaking the Truth in Love that provide a different perspective in Anaheim.

"In the Spring of 1988 Minoru Chen had returned from his stay in Taiwan as a trainer in the FTTT to resume his eldership in Anaheim, as appointed by Brother Lee in February 1986. Yet for some months he had hardly any contact with us. On Thursday evening, August 18th, Godfred and I had a long and frank fellowship with him. Godfred spoke at length, presenting his realization of the misconduct in the LSM office. I gave an account of my realization of the whole situation and our present standing. Minoru listened passively to our fellowship. Due to the lateness of the hour he was unable to reply adequately. We had confronted Minoru with reports that he had spoken negatively about us behind our backs to others about grave concerns he had for us, his fellow elders. He admitted that he had done this to the leading brothers in the Chinese-speaking work.
On Friday evening, August 26th Godfred, Al, and I came together with Philip Lin and Minoru Chen, the two elders on the Chinese-speaking side. Altogether we constituted the five elders of the church in Anaheim. We noted that this was the first time ever that all five of us had come together for fellowship. That was remarkable, since we had all been in the position of elders since February 1986, two and one half years prior to that time. " page 38 Speaking the Truth in Love

"Toward the conclusion of the session as we were starting to pray, Minoru arose and made a couple of statements which I want to note for the record. He said that he agreed in principle with all the points that we had made, but he stated that he wanted to reserve himself regarding some matters; and concerning some of the points, particularly those made by Godfred, he stated that he would not say in a definite way that he agreed or disagreed. He also referred to Godfred’s apology for participating in certain promotions, which, he said, took place mainly in 1986. (He was alluding to the promotion of the LSM office and Philip Lee.) He said that he wanted to amen what Godfred had shared and declared that there was an excessive amount of this promotion, thereby bringing the saints into confusion and despondency, and the church into suffering. He also wanted to ask the forgiveness of the whole church for his part in this very matter." Page 41 Speaking the Truth in Love

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

"All of this culminated in a meeting in Anaheim on August 28, 1988 in which Brother Ingalls gave eight points on the so-called truth; in his view, he said that the Lord's recovery had deviated and changed in nature. This was followed by Brother Godfred's speaking on the "standing of the church in Anaheim." After they finished speaking, Brother Al Knoch confirmed that he agreed with what they said. Their speaking was absolutely a direct attack on Brother Lee and his ministry, "

Following are quotes from Speaking the Truth in Love which is the basis for Philip Lin saying "Their speaking was absolutely a direct attack on Brother Lee and his ministry".

"1. Our standing in relation to the Word of God. It is our sole authority, our constitution, and we should check everything by it.
2. Our standing concerning the church. In this age the church is central and supreme; no other corporate body is recognized by the New Testament.
3. Concerning the genuine oneness. It is organic; it can never be organized or forced. Spiritual leaders should not divide us.
4. Concerning other Christians. We should never mock or belittle other Christians with an elitist attitude; rather, we should love, honor, and receive them all.
5. Concerning our vocation. It is to build up the Body of Christ, not any work or ministry.
6. Concerning our purpose or aim. It is to be the Lord’s testimony; we are not here for any work.
7. Concerning the ministry. It is the imparting of God into His people to produce the church. It is not the ministry of any one person; we all have a share in it.
8. Concerning the apostles. They are always plural, and there are a number of them on the earth today. We should not exalt any apostle or servant of God beyond what is written.
The full text of my points as well as Godfred’s plus Al’s testimony is included in the Appendix (see page 79, Appendix B).
I spoke honestly and frankly according to the solid principles revealed in the Word, which we had been taught and which we had believed and held for years, applying some of the points to our present situation. I was not aiming at Brother Lee. I was burdened to present the basic truths concerning our standing and correct some misconceptions held by the saints. The present need demanded that we touch specifically the matters which we addressed. I have heard Brother Lee repeat a number of times what he had been told by a brother. "These sixteen points are sixteen bullets aimed at you {Brother Lee}." That is not true. If anything hit him it is not because we were aiming at him.
Godfred followed and covered eight points regarding our practice:
1. In relation to church administration. It should be local, with no central control. The elders in each place should seek the Lord directly for his timely leading according to the need in their locality.
2. The Living Stream Ministry Office. It is a business office and has no authority over the church. As the church we disassociate ourselves from certain practices and conduct there that we find intolerable.
3. The Life Studies and Christian literature in general. We should never allow spiritual materials to become a crutch or replacement for the reading of the Bible. To insist upon reading only LSM material or to oppose the reading of LSM material is going to far.
4. The church book sales. We will continue this service, but we will no longer advertise or promote any books.
5. The semi-annual trainings. We will no longer interrupt our church life for the trainings. Anyone who wishes to attend the trainings should feel free to do so.
6. The other churches. We should respect and highly esteem all other churches, but we should not compel the church in our locality to practice like other churches.
7. Various practices. In all these matters we must practice generality. Any practice which is not sinful we should not oppose; neither should we impose it.
8. The gospel. There is no particular way to preach the gospel; any proper way is good." Page 40

Where is the direct attack Philip is referring to? If there's any direct attack, that would be Minoru speaking behind the back of John, Godfred, and Al to fellow leading brothers in the Chinese work.
It has also been established from February 1986-August 26 1988, these five elders in Anaheim never had fellowship together until Friday night August 26, 1988.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It seems that a reoccurring theme in Lin's book is that of only telling half of the story. Lin never mentioned why Ingalls or Mallon weren't so excited about the FTTT. Lin should have included that list of statements made by trainers in the training. Most anyone who sees what kind of things were being said would agree that Ingalls and Mallon rightfully criticized the training.

Evil reports huh? Is it evil to speak the truth? Does speaking the truth constitute a global plot against Lee? Once again, Lin throws out accusations without providing a context for the situation.

Lin's book is only believed in the vacuum of the LCM. Once someone begins to ask questions about the "charges" and accusations in his book, then his fairytale quickly unravels.

For decades I heard about how both Nee in China and Lee in Taiwan and the US were constantly persecuted from within and without. I used to believe the stories, since I was indoctrinated into thinking that Nee and Lee were God's unique MOTAs. Once one learns the "rest of the story," however, and can weigh the facts of history independently, their little "house of cards" quickly comes crashing down.

What was called "persecution" for all those years, most likely was brothers sent by God as prophets to the LCM. These men of God, like Ingalls and Mallon, were only speaking their conscience attempting to protect the saints from this abusive ministry. They assumed that Lee did not know the character of his two profligate sons Timothy and Phillip. They assumed that WL would stand up for righteousness.

Were they ever wrong!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Evil reports huh? Is it evil to speak the truth?

From the plain truth in the word concerning Jesus the Son of God we got distracted to the "revealed truth" concerning the ground of the church. Then from the ground of the truth we went to a focus on the church. Then from the church we went to the Deputy Authority in the church. Then from the deputy authority we went to the ministry. Then from the ministry we went to the oracle. God's oracle alone speaks the truth; everything else is potentially an "evil report".

This is where unbridled subjectivism will take you, folks. Reality, or truth, is whatever you need it to be at any given moment. Look where we went, after 40 years of none able to restrain the madness of the prophet: to a system of complete subjectivism, hermetically sealed. With Philip Lin now designated as its spokesperson.

Like Ohio said, this story only works in a vacuum. Even then it looks pretty wobbly... it has all of its subjectivist red flags waving high. The protagonist - so pure... what a paragon of virtue! Everyone else - so fallible! What an incredible gift to humanity this glorious leader is! What did "the brothers" say -- "We owe him our lives"...

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Like Ohio said, this story only works in a vacuum. Even then it looks pretty wobbly... it has all of its subjectivist red flags waving high. The protagonist - so pure... what a paragon of virtue! Everyone else - so fallible! What an incredible gift to humanity this glorious leader is! What did "the brothers" say -- "We owe him our lives"...

On the one hand it is frustrating to read how Lin has hidden so much of the story. On the other hand, it is scary how easily his version of things would be swallowed in the LC. I'm inclined to think that even those who could see past Lin's version of the story would be happy to settle with an attitude of "it doesn't matter, it was too long ago".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

This is where unbridled subjectivism will take you, folks. Reality, or truth, is whatever you need it to be at any given moment. Look where we went, after 40 years of none able to restrain the madness of the prophet: to a system of complete subjectivism, hermetically sealed. With Philip Lin now designated as its spokesperson.

Like Ohio said, this story only works in a vacuum. Even then it looks pretty wobbly... it has all of its subjectivist red flags waving high. The protagonist - so pure... what a paragon of virtue! Everyone else - so fallible! What an incredible gift to humanity this glorious leader is! What did "the brothers" say -- "We owe him our lives"...

It was Titus Chu, my regional "Apostle," the one who "raised up" all the brothers around me, who told John Ingalls that he "owed Lee even his life."

Even more troublesome is the bolded portion above. In the Bible, God's holy word, all men are flawed and ridden with sin -- even the best and most faithful servants of God. Even Abraham, the so-called father of our faith, had serious failures, and the Bible is faithful to record some of them, just to let us know one thing -- only God is perfect. Then He sent His Only-Begotten Son into the world, thus fulfilling every jot and tittle of the law, and He alone walked on earth as a perfect, sinless man.

That all changed with THE consummate MOTA, this paragon of virtue, this incredible gift to humanity, this glorious leader. According to the prophecy, the only dignity for the Beloved Lamb of God was His tomb with the rich. (Is 53.9; Mt 27.59-60) Thus, even in death the Savior has nothing on this glorious consummate MOTA Lee, who has an entire Memorial Park called Grace Terrace with the Highway of Transfiguration to forever extol his dusty remains.

Imagine what enduring hardships the burial remains of the Apostles and other servants of God have been forced to tolerate, some of them for almost 2,000 years. The wordsmiths at LSM have articulated this so dearly ...

But a closer look reveals that the dignity and heritage of such facilities have been steadily eroded, until today, at least in this part of the country, cemeteries that serve the general public have often taken on a frivolous-even idolatrous atmosphere. At certain times of the year particularly, the setting has become altogether common, completely devoid of the sanctification that was such a part of the testimony of the believers during their lifetime. The Bible clearly points us to the importance that the saints of old afforded the matter of their earthly resting-place.

Note that last bolded word afforded. That's all that really matters folks -- can you afford it?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's all that really matters folks -- can you afford it?

No price is too great!

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That all changed with THE consummate MOTA, this paragon of virtue, this incredible gift to humanity, this glorious leader. According to the prophecy, the only dignity for the Beloved Lamb of God was His tomb with the rich. (Is 53.9; Mt 27.59-60) Thus, even in death the Savior has nothing on this glorious consummate MOTA Lee, who has an entire Memorial Park called Grace Terrace with the Highway of Transfiguration to forever extol his dusty remains.

Imagine what enduring hardships the burial remains of the Apostles and other servants of God have been forced to tolerate, some of them for almost 2,000 years. The wordsmiths at LSM have articulated this so dearly ...

Note that last bolded word afforded. That's all that really matters folks -- can you afford it?

I took a look at this website. I'm kind of shocked.... Not sure what to say. One area is named the "Terrace of Exaltation" Really?!? Yeah, no thanks. I've just decided what cemetery I don't want to be buried at.

This subject is probably worth of it's own thread, but it got me thinking, what are the implications of a LSM devotee not being buried here? Presumabally it doesn't matter where you're buried. Do they think being buried here gives someone a greater standing in the next life? Apparently they think so, they cared where Lee was buried, enough that they reburied him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I took a look at this website. I'm kind of shocked.... Not sure what to say. One area is named the "Terrace of Exaltation" Really?!? Yeah, no thanks. I've just decided what cemetery I don't want to be buried at.

This subject is probably worth of it's own thread, but it got me thinking, what are the implications of a LSM devotee not being buried here?

I think we were all shocked to see LSM peddling grave sites.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think we were all shocked to see LSM peddling grave sites.

It seems they have found a way to justify selling gravesites using WL's ministry. The website is filled with quotes from the LS of Genesis. It really bugs me how they use his ministry like that. Stuff like: "It was Brother Lee's desire that..." Didn't they do that with the FTT center in Boston? It seems like they pulled out something WL said to show how he wanted had eventually wanted a training center in Boston.

This idea that all other cemeteries besides their own are to be considered "unsanctified" is a bit troubling. It's a highly subjective statement to begin with. As Ohio put it, what does that imply for all the believers who have died before there was such thing as an LSM cemetery? It almost seems as if the LC holds some superstitions about death as well. Does it really matter that much where someone is buried? Many people have been buried in less-than-ideal places by common standards.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It seems they have found a way to justify selling gravesites using WL's ministry. The website is filled with quotes from the LS of Genesis. It really bugs me how they use his ministry like that. Stuff like: "It was Brother Lee's desire that..." Didn't they do that with the FTT center in Boston? It seems like they pulled out something WL said to show how he wanted had eventually wanted a training center in Boston.

This idea that all other cemeteries besides their own are to be considered "unsanctified" is a bit troubling. It's a highly subjective statement to begin with. As Ohio put it, what does that imply for all the believers who have died before there was such thing as an LSM cemetery? It almost seems as if the LC holds some superstitions about death as well. Does it really matter that much where someone is buried? Many people have been buried in less-than-ideal places by common standards.

Think about how many of the Lord's faithful witnesses -- real martyrs -- never even got a decent burial for their remains, or for that matter what about all those burned at the stake. Does our God really need a proper mummified body in order to successfully resurrect us on the last day? If so, then what will God do for John Huss, who was burned at the stake with his ashes thrown into the river, and John Wycliffe in England whose dead body was then exhumed after 60 years, and then also burned to ashes? Must God gather their ashes from the ocean floor? These two were the real "fathers" of the Recovery, if such a thing even exists in God's eyes.

Using the voluminous works of Lee and Nee and throwing in some disjointed O.T. scriptures, the wordsmiths on the LaPalma Campus can basically justify anything they want nowadays. Real estate investments, failed business opportunities, cemetery plots, mail-order brides -- you name it, LSM has the wherewithal to package it up, spiritualize it, sanctify it with a few choice quotes, and then sell it to the remaining faithful. As long as the ends justify the means, the blended consciences are fully assuaged.

Philip Lin's book is thus an easy sell. Put one on my standing order!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I'm inclined to think that even those who could see past Lin's version of the story would be happy to settle with an attitude of "it doesn't matter, it was too long ago".

I believe that's probably the case for some. Point is not that it happened 25+ years ago, the point is principle of telling the truth.
Do the brothers at LSM/DCP/BFA, etc want their testimony to be passing off falsehood as being truth?
Though many of the events in chapter 6 from Sacrifice and Sail On happened when I was in college (1986-1990), the book is less than 2 years old.
It's obvious through Philip's words, the attitude towards his former peers as elders for the Church in Anaheim has not changed in 25 years. There is no love. There is no grace.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

I believe that's probably the case for some. Point is not that it happened 25+ years ago, the point is principle of telling the truth.
Do the brothers at LSM/DCP/BFA, etc want their testimony to be passing off falsehood as being truth?
Though many of the events in chapter 6 from Sacrifice and Sail On happened when I was in college (1986-1990), the book is less than 2 years old.
It's obvious through Philip's words, the attitude towards his former peers as elders for the Church in Anaheim has not changed in 25 years. There is no love. There is no grace.

I find the events that happened 25-30 years ago to be relevant to me personally even though I had no idea what was going on then. One reason I find those events to be so relevant is because they offer a window into the true colors of the LC. For those who are fully immersed in the LC, it is not an easy view to come by. Even back in 2005 when they issued their "One Publication" mandate, I hardly blinked an eye. It wasn't until I got a clear view of how the FTT started, how the churches became completely "ministry-centric" that I started realizing that something was wrong with the system.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I find the events that happened 25-30 years ago to be relevant to me personally even though I had no idea what was going on then. One reason I find those events to be so relevant is because they offer a window into the true colors of the LC. For those who are fully immersed in the LC, it is not an easy view to come by. Even back in 2005 when they issued their "One Publication" mandate, I hardly blinked an eye. It wasn't until I got a clear view of how the FTT started, how the churches became completely "ministry-centric" that I started realizing that something was wrong with the system.

I lived thru the quarantines of the late 80's from a distance, but since the GLA leadership (Titus Chu) stood with WL, the actual events were hidden from us. We heard about chaotic meetings in Anaheim, where the saints threw LSM books off the shelves and shouted out complaints about WL, but leaders in the GLA were instructed to write letters to the Anaheim elders to chastise them for allowing their saints to become unruly and, God forbid, disrespect Lee.

No one bothered to ask what it was that so upset the saints. The thought never crossed my mind. How dare they? What's wrong with those saints? don't they know this is the Lord's Recovery? Have they lost their vision?

The recent quarantines with the "One Publication Edict" caused me to start studying our history from an objective viewpoint. Then I read Ingalls' account STTIL of the events. I also read So's and Mallon's and others. I compared them to Lee's account in Fermentation. Read them both, and let the reader decide who is being honest and truthful. After that, I slowly began to question every bit of history I ever heard from Lee and company. How can anything they have said be trusted.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I lived thru the quarantines of the late 80's from a distance, but since the GLA leadership (Titus Chu) stood with WL, the actual events were hidden from us. We heard about chaotic meetings in Anaheim, where the saints threw LSM books off the shelves and shouted out complaints about WL, but leaders in the GLA were instructed to write letters to the Anaheim elders to chastise them for allowing their saints to become unruly and, God forbid, disrespect Lee.

No one bothered to ask what it was that so upset the saints. The thought never crossed my mind. How dare they? What's wrong with those saints? don't they know this is the Lord's Recovery? Have they lost their vision?

The recent quarantines with the "One Publication Edict" caused me to start studying our history from an objective viewpoint. Then I read Ingalls' account STTIL of the events. I also read So's and Mallon's and others. I compared them to Lee's account in Fermentation. Read them both, and let the reader decide who is being honest and truthful. After that, I slowly began to question every bit of history I ever heard from Lee and company. How can anything they have said be trusted.

What were the saints reacting against?

I did not read the accounts of Mallon, So, and Ingalls until the past ten years.
I read Fermentation 1990 when I was in college. It struck me as ideal for a Hollywood movie script. Too unbelievable to be real. Yet my reaction after reading the book, what's John Ingalls side of the story?

If so and so says he's so-called ambitious to "take over the recovery", how come John waited 25+ years? That doesn't make sense. Same for the other brothers.
If you want to fault these brothers for anything, it's their inability to change. The nature of the recovery was changing and they were not.
The nature of fellowship in the recovery was changing and they were not.

For the same reasons you want to fault these brothers, one can only wish there were more leading brothers like them; principled, integrity, and under the headship of Christ.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

What were the saints reacting against?

This is a very good question to ask. You would think that saints in the "Lord's Recovery" would know how to behave themselves right?

From the quotes of seen from Fermentation and also Lin's descriptions in his book, it's readily apparent that only one side of the story is being told. WL called the saints something like "riotous" and Lin talks about "unseemly things". Neither, however, addresses the simple question of why the situations were taking place. It didn't happen for no reason.

I was thinking back to when the "One Publication Edict" was released. Like I had mentioned, it didn't really bother me at first. When people like Nigel started producing writings to address concerns about it, all the sudden the BB's started talking about how the ministry was now "under attack". That was enough to scare me. As someone who was under the ministry, it was simple enough to sit their and believe it all. It took me much longer to ask why everyone had become so upset over "One Publication".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is a very good question to ask. You would think that saints in the "Lord's Recovery" would know how to behave themselves right?

From the quotes of seen from Fermentation and also Lin's descriptions in his book, it's readily apparent that only one side of the story is being told. WL called the saints something like "riotous" and Lin talks about "unseemly things". Neither, however, addresses the simple question of why the situations were taking place. It didn't happen for no reason.

I was thinking back to when the "One Publication Edict" was released. Like I had mentioned, it didn't really bother me at first. When people like Nigel started producing writings to address concerns about it, all the sudden the BB's started talking about how the ministry was now "under attack". That was enough to scare me. As someone who was under the ministry, it was simple enough to sit their and believe it all. It took me much longer to ask why everyone had become so upset over "One Publication".

For decades Lee and company had "inoculated" us against even asking the simple "why." This was so contrary to normal life filled with the daily "who, what, why, where, and how?" Your little snippet above just highlights what we went thru for years -- someone soberly addresses the "One Publication Bull," and it becomes another round of persecution from rebellious "lepers."

When a child is two years old, and constantly asks his parents "why," they are not obligated to provide detail explanations. Neither should they feel their authority is being challenged. But when the child grows up, he does need his questions answered satisfactorily.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When a child is two years old, and constantly asks his parents "why," they are not obligated to provide detail explanations. Neither should they feel their authority is being challenged. But when the child grows up, he does need his questions answered satisfactorily.

I think you make a good analogy. Even with simple things, I think most in the LC have learned not to ask "why".

An example that comes to mind is how over the past few years, I've seen an increased push to get everyone to do PSRP. Even before I had many concerns about the LC, this practice of PSRP struck me as somewhat odd. I had gone to a few meetings where I realized later that what they had us doing during the meeting was PSRP. I remember during a semi-annual training, during the study session, we used the whole time to pray-read and memorize the outline. Now that was pretty boring, and I was also quite troubled.

Anyways, getting back to what I was saying, if I were to actually ask why PSRP is something that we need to do, I'm sure they wouldn't like that. In fact, it could be consider attacking WL's ministry, because he was the one who said to do PSRP.

When everyone has to hold their concerns inside, it ends up erupting into situations like what happened in the late 80's. I have no doubt that those who were acting up, or who were throwing books in the trash were just expressing years of pent-up frustration and concerns. It is clear that after 25-30 years LC leadership has yet to come to terms with that.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When everyone has to hold their concerns inside, it ends up erupting into situations like what happened in the late 80's.

This kind of ministry is tailor-made for turmoils, storms, rebellions, divisions, or whatever you call them. Because either everybody has to be "one with the prophet", or if they say anything it is called and accusation and an attack. How can you have any kind of normal, give-and-take relationship with someone in this environment? How can you have a mutually beneficial relationship? It is all, "give, give".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When everyone has to hold their concerns inside, it ends up erupting into situations like what happened in the late 80's. I have no doubt that those who were acting up, or who were throwing books in the trash were just expressing years of pent-up frustration and concerns. It is clear that after 25-30 years LC leadership has yet to come to terms with that.

Originally Posted by aron

This kind of ministry is tailor-made for turmoils, storms, rebellions, divisions, or whatever you call them. Because either everybody has to be "one with the prophet", or if they say anything it is called and accusation and an attack. How can you have any kind of normal, give-and-take relationship with someone in this environment? How can you have a mutually beneficial relationship? It is all, "give, give".

I agree with both of your comments here, but I should add for the record, that a volunteer sister serving at LSM was molested by the "Office Manager" Phillip Lee and all the saints in Anaheim by that time had become convinced that Witness Lee was orchestrating the coverup.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

all the saints in Anaheim by that time had become convinced that Witness Lee was orchestrating the coverup.

I could understand the logic. Not so much because of his son, but Lee was one to take care of those loyal. Lee's M.O. whenever there was an issue, one party would be asked to move to another geographical area.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For decades Lee and company had "inoculated" us against even asking the simple "why." This was so contrary to normal life filled with the daily "who, what, why, where, and how?" Your little snippet above just highlights what we went thru for years -- someone soberly addresses the "One Publication Bull," and it becomes another round of persecution from rebellious "lepers."

Indeed. Why? One question no LC elder can adequately answer is if quarantined brothers are to be treated as "lepers", how come they aren't treated as lepers in the positive sense?

"But when the cloud had withdrawn from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. As Aaron turned toward Miriam, behold, she was leprous. Then Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord, I beg you, do not account this sin to us, in which we have acted foolishly and in which we have sinned. Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother’s womb!” Moses cried out to the Lord, saying, “O God, heal her, I pray!” But the Lord said to Moses, “If her father had but spit in her face, would she not bear her shame for seven days? Let her be shut up for seven days outside the camp, and afterward she may be received again.” So Miriam was shut up outside the camp for seven days, and the people did not move on until Miriam was received again." Number 12:10-15

I underlined the portion the camp did not move until Miriam was received again. In the so-called recovery culture, when someone is to be treated as a "leper", they are to be treated permanently as a leper.
Let's be real and don't use Old Testament types and just call it for what it is, unscripturally based excommunications.
Whether its 10 years or 25 years, so-called "rebellious lepers" are still rejected.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Indeed. Why? One question no LC elder can adequately answer is if quarantined brothers are to be treated as "lepers", how come they aren't treated as lepers in the positive sense?

"But when the cloud had withdrawn from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. As Aaron turned toward Miriam, behold, she was leprous. Then Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord, I beg you, do not account this sin to us, in which we have acted foolishly and in which we have sinned. Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother’s womb!” Moses cried out to the Lord, saying, “O God, heal her, I pray!” But the Lord said to Moses, “If her father had but spit in her face, would she not bear her shame for seven days? Let her be shut up for seven days outside the camp, and afterward she may be received again.” So Miriam was shut up outside the camp for seven days, and the people did not move on until Miriam was received again." Number 12:10-15

I underlined the portion the camp did not move until Miriam was received again. In the so-called recovery culture, when someone is to be treated as a "leper", they are to be treated permanently as a leper.
Let's be real and don't use Old Testament types and just call it for what it is, unscripturally based excommunications.
Whether its 10 years or 25 years, so-called "rebellious lepers" are still rejected.

I think for the excommunications to work, they had to pass it off for something that it was not, that being the need to quarantine who they considered "rebellious lepers". I personally don't think any of those who have been quarantined by the LC were necessarily rebellious. They simply expressed divergent viewpoints, or exposed Lee's deviation from his earlier ministry. Nothing wrong with that. Since excommunication isn't unheard of in a general Christian setting, I think Lee could have taken that route. The problem with doing so would have been that he wouldn't have a valid reason to excommunicate them. When action was taken to excommunicate Philip Lee, there was a valid reason. But to excommunicate brothers who so many saints respected? That wouldn't fly so well. So Lee had to call it a "quarantine" instead and release his Fermentation book to support it.

I will also state that I believe Lee was the "rebellious" one in these situations, especially in the late 80's. How so? Lee defiantly ignored the fellowship of brothers who he considered to be his coworkers. Lee didn't deal with the situation of immorality with the seriousness that he should have. He also promoted himself as God's sole Oracle. How much more rebellious can someone get?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I will also state that I believe Lee was the "rebellious" one in these situations, especially in the late 80's. How so? Lee defiantly ignored the fellowship of brothers who he considered to be his coworkers. Lee didn't deal with the situation of immorality with the seriousness that he should have. He also promoted himself as God's sole Oracle. How much more rebellious can someone get?

Thus says the Lord of hosts,
“Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you.
They are leading you into futility;
They speak a vision of their own imagination,
Not from the mouth of the Lord.
“They keep saying to those who despise Me,
‘The Lord has said, “You will have peace”’;
And as for everyone who walks in the stubbornness of his own heart,
They say, ‘Calamity will not come upon you.’
“But who has stood in the council of the Lord,
That he should see and hear His word?
Who has given heed to His word and listened?
“Behold, the storm of the Lord has gone forth in wrath,
Even a whirling tempest;
It will swirl down on the head of the wicked.
“The anger of the Lord will not turn back
Until He has performed and carried out the purposes of His heart;
In the last days you will clearly understand it.
“I did not send these prophets,
But they ran.
I did not speak to them,
But they prophesied.
“But if they had stood in My council,
Then they would have announced My words to My people,
And would have turned them back from their evil way
And from the evil of their deeds.

Jeremiah 23:16-22

Point being after 25 years, LSM leadership has not repented from the evil way of bearing false witness against their brothers.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Think about how many of the Lord's faithful witnesses -- real martyrs -- never even got a decent burial for their remains, or for that matter what about all those burned at the stake. Does our God really need a proper mummified body in order to successfully resurrect us on the last day? If so, then what will God do for John Huss, who was burned at the stake with his ashes thrown into the river, and John Wycliffe in England whose dead body was then exhumed after 60 years, and then also burned to ashes? Must God gather their ashes from the ocean floor? These two were the real "fathers" of the Recovery, if such a thing even exists in God's eyes.

Using the voluminous works of Lee and Nee and throwing in some disjointed O.T. scriptures, the wordsmiths on the LaPalma Campus can basically justify anything they want nowadays. Real estate investments, failed business opportunities, cemetery plots, mail-order brides -- you name it, LSM has the wherewithal to package it up, spiritualize it, sanctify it with a few choice quotes, and then sell it to the remaining faithful. As long as the ends justify the means, the blended consciences are fully assuaged.

Philip Lin's book is thus an easy sell. Put one on my standing order!

Mail order brides? Do they have standing orders for them now, too?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Mail order brides? Do they have standing orders for them now, too?

Perhaps lifetime upgrades are available, kind of like with my Garmin.

[UntoHim]

Mail order brides? Please tell me you guys are joking.

[Lisbon]

Originally Posted by Terry

Thus says the Lord of hosts,
“Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you.
They are leading you into futility;
They speak a vision of their own imagination,
Not from the mouth of the Lord.
“They keep saying to those who despise Me,
‘The Lord has said, “You will have peace”’;
And as for everyone who walks in the stubbornness of his own heart,
They say, ‘Calamity will not come upon you.’
“But who has stood in the council of the Lord,
That he should see and hear His word?
Who has given heed to His word and listened?
“Behold, the storm of the Lord has gone forth in wrath,
Even a whirling tempest;
It will swirl down on the head of the wicked.
“The anger of the Lord will not turn back
Until He has performed and carried out the purposes of His heart;
In the last days you will clearly understand it.
“I did not send these prophets,
But they ran.
I did not speak to them,
But they prophesied.
“But if they had stood in My council,
Then they would have announced My words to My people,
And would have turned them back from their evil way
And from the evil of their deeds.

Jeremiah 23:16-22

Point being after 25 years, LSM leadership has not repented from the evil way of bearing false witness against their brothers.

Witness Lee never had a co worker ever anywhere that I ever heard of. He was intimidated by WN but waited to be loosed from that bondage. John Ingals could have been close to one and James Barber was one of his favorites. But BP, RG, RK, MC, AY, MR, BM, No. They were just pawns and if they didn't tow the line, under the bus they went. He had a good facade with us little ones and the elders who found out differently were afraid to speak. A kettle of fish, a bucket of worms. Ugh!

Lisbon

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Mail order brides? Please tell me you guys are joking.

I read that ole Philip was arranging for Chinese brides before he landed his dream job as "The Office" for his daddy's business.

[Indiana]

"I think for the excommunications to work, they had to pass it off for something that it was not, that being the need to quarantine who they considered "rebellious lepers". I personally don't think any of those who have been quarantined by the LC were necessarily rebellious. They simply expressed divergent viewpoints, or exposed Lee's deviation from his earlier ministry. Nothing wrong with that. Since excommunication isn't unheard of in a general Christian setting, I think Lee could have taken that route. The problem with doing so would have been that he wouldn't have a valid reason to excommunicate them. When action was taken to excommunicate Philip Lee, there was a valid reason. But to excommunicate brothers who so many saints respected? That wouldn't fly so well. So Lee had to call it a "quarantine" instead and release his Fermentation book to support it.

I will also state that I believe Lee was the "rebellious" one in these situations, especially in the late 80's. How so? Lee defiantly ignored the fellowship of brothers who he considered to be his coworkers. Lee didn't deal with the situation of immorality with the seriousness that he should have. He also promoted himself as God's sole Oracle. How much more rebellious can someone get?" end Quote Couldn't reach Quote button
Yesterday 11:48 AM

I posted A Renegade History of LSM in DEC 2010 after brother Ron made his unthoughtful, unwise and reckless remarks about "lawless users" of the internet.

I ask him and others - Andrew Yu, Minoru Chen, Dan Sady (DCP) Dan Towle, and Philip Lin, to place my writing on the B]truth scale [/B] and then weigh Philip's. And, if you will, then come onto this forum and honestly discuss the weight of truth you find in each.

www.twoturmoils.com/ARenegadeHistoryofLSM.pdf includes link at the end

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

Chapter 6 Location 2334 of 4086

"All of this culminated in a meeting in Anaheim on August 28, 1988 in which Brother Ingalls gave eight points on the so-called truth; in his view, he said that the Lord's recovery had deviated and changed in nature. This was followed by Brother Godfred's speaking on the "standing of the church in Anaheim." After they finished speaking, Brother Al Knoch confirmed that he agreed with what they said. Their speaking was absolutely a direct attack on Brother Lee and his ministry, and also an attempt to cut off the church from Brother Lee's ministry. Brother Minoru Chen and I were in Anaheim as elders objecting to the things the other three elders did and to the unseemly things taking place in the meetings."

Why waited until after the points were delivered to object? A resume was provided to Minoru the previous Friday night what would be spoken on Sunday.
Furthermore, John, Al, and Godfred were speaking according to their feeling in the Body. It's rather a subjective statement to call the 16 points a direct attack on Brother Lee and his ministry. Given the points were spoken in 1988, several of the points has been my observation from the mid-nineties to present time:

Concerning other Christians. We should never mock or belittle other Christians with an elitist attitude; rather, we should love, honor, and receive them all.

In at least three localities I have met with or visited since 1993, this has been the status quo. In order to uplift the ministry, there is the practice of belittling assemblies that don't receive LSM publications as their one publication. This is also the decisive factor why I couldn't go any longer with the local church in my town. When I initially began meeting there, the brothers asked my not to make Steve Isitt an issue. If they really knew me, they would know that's generally not in my disposition. Give since I began meeting with the church in Bellevue 1993, I never made John Ingalls and fellow quarantined brothers an issue even though I know their quarantines to be unjustified and unfounded.

"The Life Studies and Christian literature in general. We should never allow spiritual materials to become a crutch or replacement for the reading of the Bible. To insist upon reading only LSM material or to oppose the reading of LSM material is going to far."

This has also been my observation. Whether it's Holy Word for Morning Revival or reading RcV footnotes, that has been the primary source in seeking edification instead of reading the Bible which has been rendered secondary.

I agree with these following three points:

"Our standing in relation to the Word of God. It is our sole authority, our constitution, and we should check everything by it.

Our standing concerning the church. In this age the church is central and supreme; no other corporate body is recognized by the New Testament.

Concerning the genuine oneness. It is organic; it can never be organized or forced. Spiritual leaders should not divide us."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Indiana

I posted A Renegade History of LSM in DEC 2010 after brother Ron made his unthoughtful, unwise and reckless remarks about "lawless users" of the internet.

I ask him and others - Andrew Yu, Minoru Chen, Dan Sady (DCP) Dan Towle, and Philip Lin, to place my writing on the truth scale and then weigh Philip's. And, if you will, then come onto this forum and honestly discuss the weight of truth you find in each.

Ever since I became aware of Lin’s book, I have been troubled by how LC history and WL are presented to the reader. Had Lin’s book come out before I was aware of the “hidden” history of the LC, I might have just viewed it as another Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age book.

It is interesting to consider, just exactly why Lin published this book. Was there a lack of respect for Lee among those in the LC? I highly doubt that. According to Lin, he wanted write about who Lee was for those who may have not known him. Frankly speaking, I haven’t seen too many in the LC who are much concerned with “who” Lee was. They are too busy reading his ministry to concern themselves with who he really was. So I propose that perhaps Lin had an additional audience in mind, that is, those who might not respect Lee, or those who have concerns about Lee. Why do I say that? At the very beginning of his book Lin states the following: “The Holy Spirit strictly controlled me not to mold Witness Lee into a so-called ‘perfect person.’” I have to ask, who said anything about Lee being perfect? Of course, that is the LC view of Lee. The bigger question is why Lin would have any concerns about portraying Lee as “perfect”? I doubt anyone in the LC would be bothered about such a portrayal. I’ve never heard complaints about Lee’s Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age book. I think it’s reasonable to make the conclusion that Lin may be trying to gain sympathy with a different audience (those who don’t view Lee as perfect) by stating that he don’t wish to portray Lee as “perfect”.

Assuming that Lin realized his audience could very well consist of those who the LC considers to be “negative” (as is also evidenced by his inclusion of the matters of Daystar and Philip Lee), I also have to ask the same question of why him or other brothers have not come forward to discuss these matters publicly. To me, the silence speaks for itself. If they had a strong case against the view of LC history that has been presented on the internet, then why not defend it? Ron says he doesn’t like the “lawless users of the internet”, but at the same time, there is silence in regard to so many aspects of LC history. What has been presented in Lin's book is inconsistent with we know regarding LC history. That may be a reason, or the main reason they are silent about these things.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Why wait until after the points were delivered to object? A resume was provided to Minoru the previous Friday night what would be spoken on Sunday.

That is a very good point, and one I had never considered before. To me, it is just more evidence that there is something inconsistent about what Lin says in his book.

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Freedom

… There is something inconsistent about what Lin says in his book.

Does Philip Lin say anything about:

Witness Lee being referred to as the fourth member of the Triune God?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Friedel

Does Philip Lin say anything about:

Witness Lee being referred to as the fourth member of the Triune God?

Lin is essentially silent on that. Since that statement was made by a FTTT trainer, here is something that Lin says related to the training: "Anaheim's Ingalls and Atlanta's Mallon, two leading coworkers, had been murmuring about the training in Taiwan and the work of the ministry station in Taipei." (Terry posted the entire quote in post #387)

Of course, John Ingalls was concerned about what was being said and done in the FTTT. Lin doesn't mention any of those concerns, he just accuses brothers of "murmuring" about the training. The way Lin puts it, the reader might be led to believe that John and Bill were being petty or they were jealous about something. He conveniently leaves out what there real concerns were.

3. Aberrational Speaking and Activity in the FTTT

In addition we began to hear reports, see video tapes, and read printed messages published by the Full-time Training in Taipei of some of the things that were being said and done. Now this really alarmed us. Foremost among these was the fact that Philip Lee was the administrator of the training, supposedly only on the business side, but actually exercising supervision in much more than business affairs. He was in daily fellowship with twenty-four of the trainers and leading ones who called and reported to him all activities (failure to do so resulted in an offense). The trainees were even told that Philip was administrating the training. His power and position were growing immeasurably.

Statements made by some of the trainers in Taipei amazed us, as I am sure they did many others. Some examples are as follows:

1) “There is no need to pray about what to do; just follow the ministry.”
2) We don’t even need to think; we just do what we are told.”
3) “Follow Witness Lee blindly. Even if he’s wrong, he’s right.”
4) “If you leave the training, you’ll miss the kingdom.”
5) Our burden is to pick up Brother Lee’s teaching and way to make us all Witness Lees, like a Witness Lee duplication center.”
6) “To be one with the ministry is to be one with Brother Lee, the office, and Philip Lee.”
7) Since Christianity is in ruins, the Lord raised up the recovery; since the recovery is in ruins, the Lord raised up the FTTT.
An account of Brother Lee’s position was given by one of the leading trainers of the FTTT to a group of brothers in Dallas, Texas, in the summer of 1986, in the context of how to be one with the ministry. There are witnesses to confirm it. It goes as follows.

“The Father is number one, the Son is number two, the Spirit is number three, and Witness Lee is number four; and then there are those who are with Witness Lee.” A brother asked, “And who is number five”? The trainer replied, “It is not yet quite clear who number five is”, but pointing out “You brothers do not have access to brother Lee. I and another trainer do. We can walk into brother Lee’s apartment any time and have breakfast with him. The way to know what brother Lee wants us to do is to be in contact with those who have access to him. They will tell you what he wants you to do.” The hosting brother asked, “Isn’t this a hierarchy?” The trainer replied, ”No!” The brother asked, “How then does this differ from what we’ve been condemning?” The trainer answered, “If the elders in a local church would practice in this way to carry out their burden, it would be a hierarchy; but if this is practiced to carry out the ministry’s burden, it is not a hierarchy.” When Brother Lee heard through us the above speech of his trainer, he took steps to rebuke and correct him. That such nonsense could be spoken by one chosen by Brother Lee to lead his training after all we have passed through and heard from Brother Lee’s ministry is difficult to understand.

John Ingalls, Speaking the Truth in Love

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Lin is essentially silent on that. Since that statement was made by a FTTT trainer …

That was Paul Hon boasting. But that was not the only incident.

I was actually referring to a particular LSM employees' prayer meeting in Anaheim at the start of the work day. Someone prayed, thanking the Lord for "number four". (I do not believe it was Paul Hon because he was not a staffer.)

A sister who been working at the LSM office for a very long time, was so upset that she upped and left not only LSM but also the Local Church of Witness Lee.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Friedel

That was Paul Hon boasting. But that was not the only incident.

I was actually referring to a particular LSM employees' prayer meeting in Anaheim at the start of the work day. Someone prayed, thanking the Lord for "number four". (I do not believe it was Paul Hon because he was not a staffer.)

A sister who been working at the LSM office for a very long time, was so upset that she upped and left not only LSM but also the Local Church of Witness Lee.

Wow, I had no idea that others were talking about Lee being "number four" as well. I had just thought it was an isolated incident in the FTTT. That really goes to show what kind of attitude there was. Honestly though, I think people like Paul Hon were just expressing what everyone was already thinking, that being that Lee was a "number four" type of figure. Lee didn't shy away from that either. I was shocked when I learned of that conference where Lee promoted himself as God's Oracle and said how he liked to be "exalted".

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I was shocked when I learned of that conference where Lee promoted himself as God's Oracle and said how he liked to be "exalted".

Witness Lee on maaaaany occasions said he/his speaking was "God's oracle on the earth today".

[Indiana]

Please delete

[Lisbon]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I didn't know that. I have only read maybe 1/3 of the book so far. There is a lot of nonsense to sift through. Kindle doesn't let me generate quotes from my phone, so I have to use the desktop version to do that.

My granddaughter lived in the same part of Grace Gardens at the time of Sis Lee's death. She said that Sis Lee was almost screaming "Jesus is God" over and over just before she died. Her death was certainly within the last couple of years. I was amazed that little was said of her death. I heard nothing except from my kid. I'm sure Sis Lee was not a nobody although we never heard much of her. Earlier she had been an officer of the LSM corp.
I hope I'm right about "Grace Gardens" name. Anyway the apartments where the FTTAs live in Anaheim.

Lisbon

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

My granddaughter lived in the same part of Grace Gardens at the time of Sis Lee's death.

I hope I'm right about "Grace Gardens" name. Anyway the apartments where the FTTAs live in Anaheim.

Lisbon

That's right, Grace Gardens. I worked there. It's on Grace Ct, off Empire St, south of Ball Road, next to Modjeska Park.

[OBW]

A brother asked, “And who is number five”? The trainer replied, “It is not yet quite clear who number five is”, but pointing out “You brothers do not have access to brother Lee. I and another trainer do. We can walk into brother Lee’s apartment any time and have breakfast with him. The way to know what brother Lee wants us to do is to be in contact with those who have access to him. They will tell you what he wants you to do.”

When they sent out emissaries to many churches to slowly dole out their spin on Max R's departure in 78, they revealed that the Anaheim elders had considered themselves just like the trainees in this quote and Max as the trainer making the statement. According to the tale, Max had access and the others did not.

And given the way Max had been operating, it was likely to be at least partly true. The only problem seems to be figuring out why. Was it because Max had become some kind of ambitious, controlling person, or because Lee was. We were told the former. It would now appear that it might have been the latter, playing on a bit of a flaw in Max's character that Lee had seen.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

When they sent out emissaries to many churches to slowly dole out their spin on Max R's departure in 78, they revealed that the Anaheim elders had considered themselves just like the trainees in this quote and Max as the trainer making the statement. According to the tale, Max had access and the others did not.

And given the way Max had been operating, it was likely to be at least partly true. The only problem seems to be figuring out why. Was it because Max had become some kind of ambitious, controlling person, or because Lee was. We were told the former. It would now appear that it might have been the latter, playing on a bit of a flaw in Max's character that Lee had seen.

Max R. Was long gone by the time that comment was made to Ingalls.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Max R. Was long gone by the time that comment was made to Ingalls.

John Ingalls clarified who made that statement in his book under the section Appendix A:

A statement made by Paul Hon to Don Rutledge in July 1986, in Don’s home in Dallas. (Witnesses present: Bill Lawson, Louis Chen, Tom McNaughton).
The following was spoken by Paul Hon in the context of how to be one with the ministry:
The Father is #1, the Son is #2, the Spirit is #3, and Witness Lee is #4;...

That statement was attributed to Paul Hon, the same Paul Hon who compiled all the "Summer School of Truth" lesson books. One of those books is titled The Triune God. Very ironic indeed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

John Ingalls clarified who made that statement in his book under the section Appendix A:

That statement was attributed to Paul Hon, the same Paul Hon who compiled all the "Summer School of Truth" lesson books.

Louis "Chen" should be Louis Cheng, former elder in Columbus, Oh.

Paul Hon should be Paul Hon #2, designated so to avoid confusion with the more elderly Paul Hon #1. Back in the 80's, #2 was a hot shot rising star with LSM.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Louis "Chen" should be Louis Cheng, former elder in Columbus, Oh.

Paul Hon should be Paul Hon #2, designated so to avoid confusion with the more elderly Paul Hon #1. Back in the 80's, #2 was a hot shot rising star with LSM.

I didn't realize there were 2 Paul Hon's. I'm not sure if it was the same Paul Hon #2 that compiled the Summer School of Truth books.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I didn't realize there were 2 Paul Hon's. I'm not sure if it was the same Paul Hon #2 that compiled the Summer School of Truth books.

The Paul Hon who is still alive is #2.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Max R. Was long gone by the time that comment was made to Ingalls.

The point was that in the mid to late 70s, Ingalls and the others in Anaheim had experienced the same kind of shutting-out that this brother talked of in the FTT. When the Max debacle broke, someone (maybe Don Hardy) came to visit the same city that I was vacationing in and began to reveal the exit of Max. Among the items mentioned was that the elders there had seldom had any private time with Lee for quite a period. They got everything they heard "from Lee" from Max.

There was no mention about Lee being #4 or anything like that. I did not mean to imply that and didn't think that I had.

[aron]

Quoted part from an internet history, below, in red...
Witness Lee's teachings in China

In 1967 Witness Lee started the "Calling Out" (or "Shouting") Movement (呼喊运动). He said that the Age of the Word had ended, and now it was the Age of the Spirit. Witness Lee taught that believers must "eat the Lord" (吃主) and the way to do this was by calling out or shouting his name (呼喊主名). Calling out his name was the way to release the Spirit in this Age of the Spirit.

After Deng Xiaoping's "opening up" of China in 1979, Witness Lee sent followers from overseas to Wenzhou (a city in Zhejiang Province) to contact believers from Watchman Nee's Local Church movement. They reportedly brought with them large amounts of Witness Lee's books, pamphlets and recordings. Within a few short years, their influence had spread throughout Zhejiang, Fujian, Henan, Guangdong and other places. During their meetings they would shout "Jesus is Lord!" in an attempt to practice Witness Lee's teaching about calling out the Lord's name. This is how they got the nickname "Shouters" (呼喊派).

The Shouters (呼喊派) and the Local Churches (地方教会)

The term "Shouters" is not a precise term. The term "Shouters" covers many true believers. But some have used the term in a narrow sense to refer only to certain groups who have distorted the teachings of Witness Lee and have broken with the Local Churches. Not all Shouters accept Witness Lee's teachings, and not all followers of Witness Lee are Shouters. In particular, many Local Churches that follow Watchman Nee and Witness Lee are law-abiding groups that reject the term "Shouters."

Some Shouters and the Trinity

Some (not all) Shouters took Witness Lee's questionable doctrine of the Trinity one step further and became complete modalists. These groups held that the Father became the Son and was no longer the Father; the Son became the Spirit and was no longer the Son. That is, the Father, the Son and the Spirit are modes by which God manifests himself in different eras. They are not distinct persons.

The "Lord Changshou" sect

One branch of the Shouters held Witness Lee in such high esteem that they began to regard his authority and status as greater than Christ's. They called Witness Lee "Lord Changshou" (常受主) ("Changshou" is Witness Lee's given name). This, of course, goes far beyond the actual teaching of Witness Lee, who never proposed to set himself above Christ. Witness Lee acknowledged the fact that some people had started to worship him and made some attempt to stop it.

It has been reported that in 1995, this branch of the Shouters distributed million tracts in 20 major cities in China declaring that Witness Lee was the living Christ and that he would become the new king of the universe.

This "Lord Changshou" sect believed that you must call upon the Lord Changshou to be saved; that Jesus is someone of the past and will not return to save the world; and that Lord Changshou will return to save the world.

One can easily see how this cult became a pattern for Eastern Lightning. Indeed, the founder of Eastern Lightning was first part of the "Lord Changshou" sect.

Did Philip Lin mention that WL sent people to mainland China in 1979 to re-connect with WN's Little Flock remnants? And that this metastasized into the shouters and eastern lightning?

Given that "Sacrifice and Sail On" is the new official history of WL's activities, I wonder how it treats the issue of mainland Chinese churches.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

The "Lord Changshou" sect

One branch of the Shouters held Witness Lee in such high esteem that they began to regard his authority and status as greater than Christ's. They called Witness Lee "Lord Changshou" (常受主) ("Changshou" is Witness Lee's given name). This, of course, goes far beyond the actual teaching of Witness Lee, who never proposed to set himself above Christ. Witness Lee acknowledged the fact that some people had started to worship him and made some attempt to stop it.

It has been reported that in 1995, this branch of the Shouters distributed million tracts in 20 major cities in China declaring that Witness Lee was the living Christ and that he would become the new king of the universe.

This "Lord Changshou" sect believed that you must call upon the Lord Changshou to be saved; that Jesus is someone of the past and will not return to save the world; and that Lord Changshou will return to save the world.

One can easily see how this cult became a pattern for Eastern Lightning. Indeed, the founder of Eastern Lightning was first part of the "Lord Changshou" sect.

Did Philip Lin mention that WL sent people to mainland China in 1979 to re-connect with WN's Little Flock remnants? And that this metastasized into the shouters and eastern lightning?

Given that "Sacrifice and Sail On" is the new official history of WL's activities, I wonder how it treats the issue of mainland Chinese churches.

The fact that this association exists has always been troubling to me. LC leadership has worked hard to downplay the association, however, the question that I think needs to be asked is why these offshoot groups formed in the first place?

With the Lord Changshou sect, wouldn't it have ever occurred to Lee that people wanting to call on his name demonstrated that there was something fundamentally wrong with how people viewed him? It wouldn't surprise me at all if he just gave them a "slap on the wrist" and went on his way. In other words I think he liked it. I also think there is sufficient evidence to support that position:

He said that when he heard that it would be in Pasadena he was happy. These people, he said, "exalt" me: I am happy to be exalted.

"That Lee! Lee has to be famous! Lee! Lee! Lee must have the credit! And if you listen to me, you do not listen to Lee, you listen to the very God in His oracle spoken by me." A little later in his message he said, "Going with God’s oracle, surely there is the deputy authority of God in this oracle. Whoever speaks for God, he surely has certain divine authority. I’m claiming this for Lee!"

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The fact that this association exists has always been troubling to me. LC leadership has worked hard to downplay the association, however, the question that I think needs to be asked is why these offshoot groups formed in the first place

When the economic reforms implemented by Deng Xiaoping created greater openness to the West, Christians of various affiliations began smuggling Bibles and Christian literature into China. The CCP viewed the recipients of those Bibles as engaging in illegal activity in violation of the principle of not accepting aid from Western sources. Nevertheless, the Christian faith spread rapidly throughout China, especially through the house churches and the local churches. The World Christian Encyclopedia published in 1982 reported:

"By 1981, evidence was increasing of very rapid church growth in many areas of China, including among tribal peoples; with large numbers of young people present everywhere. Reports have been received indicating that many hundreds of thousands of new believers are pouring into the churches."

One group of believers who were having a great impact was composed of those members of the local churches who practiced “calling on the name of the Lord.” This practice was introduced into China in the early 1980s through some who were familiar with the ministry of Witness Lee.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shouters

"The practice was introduced in the early 1980s by some who were familiar with the ministry of Witness Lee." How familiar, is the question? I'd bet that 1) WL initiated contact with the mainland, or at least knew of and approved the initiation, and 2)he'd never admit this. Because if something bad happened he could distance himself. Why be exposed to risk? At the same time he wanted reward (growth of influence and power) so he initiated a move to mainland China.

But I don't have any info here. But I remember, for example, in 2002 someone getting caught with 33,000 RecV Bibles from LSM, trying to smuggle them into China. It became an international political incident. So LSM, of course, had no involvement, no knowledge. "Someone just came up and bought 33 thousand RecV Bibles printed in Chinese! We didn't ask, they didn't tell - how were we supposed to know they were going to China with them?"

[Freedom]

It's probably not worth the time to speculate too much about these splinter groups in China, but I think there remain some important unanswered questions about how these groups relate to the local churches.

First of all, it's obvious that the LC wants to appear as there was no relation to these groups whatsoever. DCP has the following statement posted on their site:

Living Stream Ministry and the more than 4000 local churches it supports around the globe have no connection or linkage, formally or informally, to either “The Shouters” or the groups that are currently the focus of the government crackdown, namely “Lightning from the East” and the “All Mighty God Sect.”
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org..._China_en.html

I could accept that position if it were true, however, there is sufficient evidence to refute that statement. It is unclear what the relationship The Shouters have to the LC, but I think it's safe to say that since the Lord Changshou sect formed from members of The Shouters, then The Shouters had to consist of some who held Lee in high esteem. So that is a conection/linkage. As the Eastern Lightning was formed from a member of the Lord Changshou sect, the implications of the LC connection become all the more serious. Because the Lord Changshou sect believes that they must call on the name of Changshou (Witness Lee) to be saved, how could anyone possibly claim these groups have no relationship to the local churches or WL?

It's true that someone could try to dismiss this all as an association fallacy and classify these groups as simply groups that have twisted LC teachings (perhaps with the hidden motive of damaging LC reputation). In my mind it's not so much the association that's the issue, but the lack of a proper understanding of why there is such an association. I would love to hear a reasonable explanation to that affect.

One question that comes to mind is when members break off from a religious group to form their own sect (Lord Changshou sect), how often do they hold the leader of the old group with much higher esteem than the remaining members of that old group do? It's not necessarily Lee's fault that a group has chosen to worship him, but the issue is how do you remove all responsibility from Lee when he made statements such as: "I like to be exalted"? That to me is a good example of why the association is of concern. That concern is not unique to me. Apparently many saints in the LC have also expressed concern:

Since last week, we have received many emails from saints in North America concerning a murder in China that was perpetrated by members of the “Almighty God” cult (also known as “Eastern Lightning”). These emails expressed concern because of Chinese social media reports of a statement by the Chinese government Anti-Cult Association...
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org...%20English.pdf

In the same DCP statement (http://www.contendingforthefaith.org...%20English.pdf), they deny linkage to these splinter groups, but never make a case as to why these groups bear no connection to the LC. They instead proceed to talk about WN and WL's Congressional Records, Fuller Theological Seminary support and CRI support.

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by aron

Given that "Sacrifice and Sail On" is the new official history of WL's activities, I wonder how it treats the issue of mainland Chinese churches.

Two stories.

When the Mainland opened up, there was a concerted and organized attempt to smuggle Bibles in. One brother (who could have been from Hong Kong, I forgot) was apprehended with such a large number of Bibles in his possession (perhaps 100+ ?) that there was a threat he would be executed. Has anybody knowledge of this?

Then there was the man from the Mainland who appeared on the doorstep somewhere. His story? He had been in the same prison as Watchman Nee who had told him that upon his release he should go and look for a man called Lee Changshou (Witness Lee). He should then do everything he is told and follow Lee. Was this a true story or a sanitized, adjusted version of some tale?

Just curious.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Friedel

Two stories.

When the Mainland opened up, there was a concerted and organized attempt to smuggle Bibles in. One brother (who could have been from Hong Kong, I forgot) was apprehended with such a large number of Bibles in his possession (perhaps 100+ ?) that there was a threat he would be executed. Has anybody knowledge of this?

Then there was the man from the Mainland who appeared on the doorstep somewhere. His story? He had been in the same prison as Watchman Nee who had told him that upon his release he should go and look for a man called Lee Changshou (Witness Lee). He should then do everything he is told and follow Lee. Was this a true story or a sanitized, adjusted version of some tale?

Just curious.

The first story was discussed during the tract wars in the aftermath of the Titus Chu quarantine. Much of that is on this forum or concerned brothers dot com.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It is unclear what the relationship The Shouters have to the LC, but I think it's safe to say that since the Lord Changshou sect formed from members of The Shouters, then The Shouters had to consist of some who held Lee in high esteem. So that is a conection/linkage. As the Eastern Lightning was formed from a member of the Lord Changshou sect, the implications of the LC connection become all the more serious. Because the Lord Changshou sect believes that they must call on the name of Changshou (Witness Lee) to be saved, how could anyone possibly claim these groups have no relationship to the local churches or WL?

It's true that someone could try to dismiss this all as an association fallacy and classify these groups as simply groups that have twisted LC teachings (perhaps with the hidden motive of damaging LC reputation). In my mind it's not so much the association that's the issue, but the lack of a proper understanding of why there is such an association. I would love to hear a reasonable explanation to that affect.

We do know that WL had a strong proprietary interest in mainland China; we heard him speak from the podium. I remember one time when he was discussing church membership around the globe. I don't remember the exact numbers but it went something like this: "U.S. and Canada is 20,000. Mexico and South America is 6,000. Far East is 50,000. Europe and Russia is 8,000." Then he said, "In mainland China, the number of shouters is 15 to 20 million." I remember gasps and murmuring from the audience, and I remember that he deliberately used the word "shouters".

So if it was in his interest, and it clearly was, he'd claim strong association. But how and when to disassociate -- how did the Shouters become an "aberrant" sect? And what if anything is the difference, today, between Shouters and Local Churches in mainland China?

Here is a quote from a 2013 article in the South China Morning Post:

"Some of the Local Churches are Shouters but not all of them," says Wang Hongjie, a lawyer from Guangzhou. "You need to see their practice inside the church to make the decision."

http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-m...6/shouted-down

So what does Philip Lin think (publicly) about WL's ministry and mainland Chinese Christians? What happened between the years 1979 and when WL passed? Nothing? If he put something in WL's biography that would be interesting, and if he had nothing at all to say I'd find that even more interesting.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the same DCP statement (http://www.contendingforthefaith.org...%20English.pdf), they deny linkage to these splinter groups, but never make a case as to why these groups bear no connection to the LC. They instead proceed to talk about WN and WL's Congressional Records, Fuller Theological Seminary support and CRI support.

What is the history of connection, of association, between WL and LSM and the shouters, and whereby came the dis-connection? I don't think LSM wants to discuss it at all. "There is no connection whatsoever," they say. "Any perception of similarity is unfortunate coincidence." Rubbish.

Below is from chapter 15 of John Myer's book "A future and a hope"

For reasons already discussed at length in this volume, the Local Church Movement has a habit of generating suspicion. Wherever the Movement has gone, area Christians quickly use words like “cult” to describe it. Nor has this been confined to North America. China, which claims some 75% of the total LC Movement, has long since formulated opinions about the group both at the governmental and now at academic levels:

“One of the earliest cultic groups to spread rapidly was 'the Shouters,' a heretical offshoot from the ‘Little Flock’ founded by Watchman Nee. In the early eighties, large quantities of literature produced by Witness Lee, based in California, began to circulate in China. Some of the followers of the 'Shouters' elevated Nee [Lee?] to the position of Christ in their prayers. The aggressive evangelism of the sect combined with their vociferous, mantra-like shouting of Bible verses led to a head-on clash with the Statecontrolled 'T'hree Self church’ and the communist authorities. By 1983, the sect had been declared counter-revolutionary and was everywhere vigorously suppressed, and its key leaders imprisoned. However, it continues its activities underground, and the death of Witness Lee in California appears unlikely to curb the group.” (Missionary Atlas Project, ASIA, China, p. 58).

A number of books recently published by Chinese scholars in English document the growth of Christianity in China (including its rapid growth in recent decades). One is Redeemed by Fire by Lian Xi, Professor of History at Hanover College. Xi reports that “In Henan [province] where the influence of the Shouters remained strong throughout the 1980s, many were baptized in the name of Li Changshou [Witness Lee], who they claimed was the ‘victor from the east’ prophesied in Isaiah, the ‘successor to Jesus’ and the one foretold in the Book of Revelation who would open the scroll and its seven seals” (p. 217)...

In addition, indigenous academic writers have begun to record the recent history of Christianity in China and they are not giving any strain of the LC movement [such as “The Shouters” of Witness Lee] a free pass, or a clean bill of health. Much to contrary, they are seriously questioning whether it is indeed a cult.

No doubt, Living Stream spokesmen would disavow extremes of thought by any of its manifestations in any country. But one can clearly see how attitudes and beliefs already highly questionable only need be coaxed a little before morphing into more bizarre ideas. For years in this country, odd myths floated around the LC Movement, claiming that Witness Lee had a “golden finger.” His Bible translation was a “gold bar.” He was called the “Acting God” and to many, at least in sentiment, his writings were on a par with the canonical writings of scripture. The Chinese proselytes who received his literature and visits from LSM representatives were not stupid. They quickly read between the lines, seeing that Lee was something of an elevated issue, and took it all an extra step.

An article on House-Church Networks in China edited by Tony Lambert, an expert on Christian groups in China and author of China’s Christian Millions (2006), provides information on the Little Flock and the Local Church in China. He notes that in general, older Little Flock leaders on the Mainland have kept to the milder ways laid down by Watchman Nee and denounced Lee’s teachings as divisive, even heretical. He also pointed out that “the Shouters have proved a fertile seed-bed for more extreme cults such as the Established King, The Lord God Cult and Eastern Lightning.” Kupfer adds, “Within some branches of the “Shouters” Li [W. Lee] has been worshipped as the second person of the Trinity, replacing Christ.” (2009).

[aron]

From the "China for Jesus" web site:

http://www.chinaforjesus.com/heresiesandcults.htm

"The ‘Lingling’ cult sprang up in Jiangsu province in east China. Its founder, Hua Xuehe, was a primary school teacher who joined the True Jesus Church, an indigenous Chinese church with charismatic roots dating back to the nineteen-twenties and regarded with suspicion by orthodox evangelicals in China. In 1979, Hua broke away and began to preach his own extreme doctrines, announcing that he himself was the ‘Second Jesus’. Cult members celebrate Hua’s birthday on January 17 instead of Christmas. The sect is weak in other doctrine but emphasizes the end of the world, healing and exorcism, thus attracting many poor peasants. It also spreads its teachings with songs put to traditional Chinese folk-tunes... By 1997, it was believed that at least twenty ‘Lingling’ preachers were active in that region alone. Converts are taught that Christ could not save Himself on the cross so they should no longer pray in the name of Jesus but in the name of a ‘New Lord’. The identity of this ‘new Lord’ is only gradually revealed to be Hua himself."

Note the group's methodology: "It also spreads its teachings with songs put to traditional Chinese folk-tunes..." Borrowing a page from LC's book, or just coincidence? And the idea of being 'weak in doctrine' but making up for it by being fervently enthusiastic... sound familiar?

[Freedom]

No doubt, Living Stream spokesmen would disavow extremes of thought by any of its manifestations in any country. But one can clearly see how attitudes and beliefs already highly questionable only need be coaxed a little before morphing into more bizarre ideas. For years in this country, odd myths floated around the LC Movement, claiming that Witness Lee had a “golden finger.” His Bible translation was a “gold bar.” He was called the “Acting God” and to many, at least in sentiment, his writings were on a par with the canonical writings of scripture. The Chinese proselytes who received his literature and visits from LSM representatives were not stupid. They quickly read between the lines, seeing that Lee was something of an elevated issue, and took it all an extra step.

This is very well put. The matter of how exactly the LC is connected to these Chinese splinter groups will always be open for debate, but the one thing that cannot be denied is how some of Lee's own teachings have morphed into something bizarre. That was the point I tried to make with the Lord Changshou sect. Why in the world would a group choose to elevate and worship Lee to the position of a god unless some were already prone to that attitude? Same thing with The Shouters. What did Lee teach? He told his followers to call on the Lord, pray-read at a sometimes disturbingly loud volume. These groups just took existing teachings and put their own spin on it. Is it safe to say that without Lee's initial teachings, these groups would have never formed?

Even considering all the questionable statements and teachings that Lee put out, some of those things were just asking for someone to come along and twist them into something weird. Even CRI distanced themselves from some of Lee's statements saying that he could have said things differently or worded things better.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Why in the world would a group choose to elevate and worship Lee to the position of a god unless some were already prone to that attitude? Same thing with The Shouters. What did Lee teach? He told his followers to call on the Lord, pray-read at a sometimes disturbingly loud volume. These groups just took existing teachings and put their own spin on it. Is it safe to say that without Lee's initial teachings, these groups would have never formed?

For me personally, I just can't see how practices such as pray-reading, calling on the Lord, or shouting slogans can cause Christians to venerate a leader. That's not what happened in the USA anyways.

The necessary groundwork was already laid in the teachings of Nee. Think about this one statement: "God has always had a man in every age to speak for Him?" What a self-serving distortion of church history! Once the entire LCM bought into that one, we were ripe for picking. Along side that is the teaching that God deputizes this MOTA to become the "acting God" on earth, the so-called Deputy Authority, like unto Moses himself.

Practices may provide the charismatic vehicle to expedite the desired results, but Lee's and Nee's self-elevating teachings laid the foundation for these aberrations to occur in China. The outsiders may have tagged them "Shouters" because that's what they witnessed, but a whole lot more error is needed for the Lord Changshou sect to emerge.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

And the idea of being 'weak in doctrine' but fervently enthusiastic... sound familiar?

Here is the way Hank Hanegraaf put it:

It is my observation after having read histories on China and the advance of the gospel there, as well as having read many years ago the works of Watchman Nee, and now after having actually been there and interacted with dozens of Chinese Christians, that the Chinese display an exceptional earnestness and hunger for truth and spiritual reality. In other words, even as it was a “true testimony,” according to the apostle Paul, that ancient Crete produced “liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” and therefore the Cretan Christians needed to be reproved severely (Titus 1:12–13), so it seems legitimate to say that China produces more than its share of serious, devout, and fully dedicated disciples of Jesus Christ.

The LC movement is a prime example of this. As limited as the LC in China may be in advanced theological training, their hunger to discern what it is to be the New Testament church and then live that out is palpable and has sustained them through severe persecutions over a period of many decades

"Exceptional earnestness, with limited theological training," according to Hanegraaf. Certainly the Eastern Lightning members who beat that woman to death in a McDonald's restaurant in Zhaoyuan, Shandong in May 2014 could be said to possess exceptional earnestness, and were fully dedicated disciples. They tried to recruit her, but she wouldn't give them her phone number! And their theological training was surely limited, as well. So we can check off both of those boxes.

Philip Lin didn't have anything to write about the exceptional earnestness and full dedication to the teachings of WL on mainland China, and the (overly enthusiastic) veneration of his departed person? What a "true testimony" as Hank put it so nicely! Lin couldn't pass over that example, now could he?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

"Exceptional earnestness, with limited theological training," according to Hanegraaf. Certainly the Eastern Lightning members who beat that woman to death in a McDonald's restaurant in Zhaoyuan, Shandong in May 2014 could be said to possess exceptional earnestness, and were fully dedicated disciples. They tried to recruit her, but she wouldn't give them her phone number! And their theological training was surely limited, as well. So we can check off both of those boxes.

In the LC, I've been pressured to do things many times and even in some intense ways. I wouldn't say there have been any repercussions for refusing to give into the pressure, but the amount of pressure I've seen in certain situations has been disturbing. One benign example that comes to mind is in the past I was signed up for conferences and trainings on multiple occasions without my knowledge.

I have heard stories of baptisms among the Chinese saints where they will literally force someone to get baptized, meaning that they relentlessly argue/pressure them until they give in and choose to get baptized on the spot.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the LC, I've been pressured to do things many times and even in some intense ways... in the past I was signed up for conferences and trainings on multiple occasions without my knowledge.

I have heard stories of baptisms among the Chinese saints where they will literally force someone to get baptized, meaning that they relentlessly argue/pressure them until they give in and choose to get baptized on the spot.

Acts 2:40 "And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation." (KJV). Other translations have "pleading with them", and "strongly encouraged them". Occasionally we may exert what Freedom calls "relentless pressure" on people, in the hopes that God will snatch them out of the fire. And certain societies and cultures may exert pressures through various means, which may not seem benign to outside viewers. I get that.

What troubles me is when the pressure isn't to repent and believe into Jesus Christ; instead, the "Christ" whom we're pushing is some kind of social construct which may seem to be from scripture but is actually derived from the human society itself. We've in effect created a new God for ourselves, and the means we may use to coerce others to align with this new God become increasingly troubling. ("In the fruit the tree is known")

In certain societies where, as Hank Hanegraaf put it so carefully, there's a combination of exceptional earnestness and limited theological training, these groups, these "new Gods", can actually become violent (e.g. the Eastern Lightning). And it isn't that many steps away from the LC as they want us to think.

Here's a song from my LC days: (Hymn #1293) The church is Christ— / His expression on the earth today; / The church is Christ— / His expression on the earth today. / This corporate man / Fulfills God’s plan, / That this man may have dominion over all the earth.

"This man" expected to have dominion is not Jesus Christ. "This man" is a collective social construct, once overseen by WL, and now the Blendeds, or TC, or DYL, or in spin-off sects/cults by someone else. And the coercion they put on underlings to conform to "this corporate man" may become unethical, unbiblical, and unspiritual. I was most struck by the hymn's initial statement: with the idea that "The church is Christ", the focus of the society, the "corporate man" of the song, becomes the collective itself: i.e the church. When we say, ''The church is Christ'' we are saying, ''the church is our God''. Our focus, our goal, our attention, our allegiance, and our effort, is no longer toward the Father, or on His Son, but on the polity now gathered. This shift of focus has essentially created a new God, a replacement God. And then when allegiance this new God becomes virulent, or even violent, the natural response is just to shrug and say, "We have no connection -- either official or unofficial". Even if we've brought it forth and set it loose upon the world.

If they signed you up for trainings without your knowledge, it was because they felt it was for the "greater good." Funny, that's exactly what the Eastern Lightning member said to the authorities after they were caught beating that woman to death. They said that it was all for the good.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...abb_story.html

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No one bothered to ask what it was that so upset the saints. The thought never crossed my mind. How dare they? What's wrong with those saints? don't they know this is the Lord's Recovery? Have they lost their vision?

The recent quarantines with the "One Publication Edict" caused me to start studying our history from an objective viewpoint. Then I read Ingalls' account STTIL of the events. I also read So's and Mallon's and others. I compared them to Lee's account in Fermentation. Read them both, and let the reader decide who is being honest and truthful. After that, I slowly began to question every bit of history I ever heard from Lee and company. How can anything they have said be trusted.

Something we all should take into account regarding Minoru Chen and Philip Lin, they were not involved with the English speaking saints in Anaheim. John had said in Speaking the Truth in Love it was as if there were two churches in Anaheim; the English speaking side and the Chinese speaking side. With Minoru and Philip involved on the Chinese speaking side, they would not be built or blended with the English speaking brothers and sisters to know their concerns and their feeling within the Body.
Instead with the Chinese speaking side it may very well be culture trumps all.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Something we all should take into account regarding Minoru Chen and Philip Lin, they were not involved with the English speaking saints in Anaheim. John had said in Speaking the Truth in Love it was as if there were two churches in Anaheim; the English speaking side and the Chinese speaking side. With Minoru and Philip involved on the Chinese speaking side, they would not be built or blended with the English speaking brothers and sisters to know their concerns and their feeling within the Body.
Instead with the Chinese speaking side it may very well be culture trumps all.

This whole Chinese-speaking meeting stuff -- doesn't that violate Lee's one church, one city, one eldership teachings?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This whole Chinese-speaking meeting stuff -- doesn't that violate Lee's one church, one city, one eldership teachings?

He/they would argue that the elders were one, and the checkbook was one, so everything was OK even if the meetings were two. Just like two halls in one city.

[Indiana]

Brother Philip Lin's book is a pity. He skirted issues of right and wrong.

Ron Kangas encouraged skirting issues of right and wrong http://www.twoturmoils.com/SubtleIss...htandWrong.pdf

Passive LSM assemblies accept the lies of Ron and Philip.

Blending brothers accept their lies too, along with their leaven, in the churches.

There is no check by them. And, God's House suffers the evil as a consequence.

On this forum we don't accept their lies and cover-ups of unrighteous matters. That is why I ask them again to repent of their sins in the Body, else come to this forum and explain how they are innocent.


Truly brothers and sisters, lies have been prevalent in the Local Churches for many years. There is not a proper brother of character and conscience to right the wrongs. They all take their political position against the truth. (Why do I feel like I'm talking about D. C. leaders of our country?)

Lies may stream out of the White House daily; but in God's House no lie should be found.

http://www.twoturmoils.com/SubtleIss...htandWrong.pdf

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Truly brothers and sisters, lies have been prevalent in the Local Churches for many years. There is not a proper brother of character and conscience to right the wrongs. They all take their political position against the truth. (Why do I feel like I'm talking about D. C. leaders of our country?)

Cover-ups are very much a part of the culture of the Lord's Recovery. Even if the leaders were to make some kind of thorough public confession as you are calling for, Indiana, I would still wonder if the culture of deception and cover-ups would ever be truly "washed out." It is ingrained.

[Indiana]

I came across this on the internet today. It is the content of my first website on hidden history in the "local churches". I had taken this website down (to seek fellowship with "local church" leaders concerning the so-called rebels and their so-called rebellion), but someone had copied the website and brought it back up. Many people were viewing this site at first, which explained the severity of pressure righteous "rebels" faced in a time of righteous "rebellion".


Philip and Ron, you knew about these things, didn't you? And, you still pretend today this is not our history?


A Summary of Hiding History

This website on hiding history brings out the negative aspects of our history that have had a serious detrimental effect on the recovery and on the Body of Christ. It is out of a high regard for the Lord's interests in His recovery and a concern for the oneness among His people that I have prepared this website.

I am currently not in any of the churches in a practical way, and I would like to share the reason for this. On a smaller scale, I had tried to address church matters a couple of years ago. I wrote a booklet and presented it to a leading brother, Dan Towle, from Southern California. I said in a cover letter, "I have written a little book for the sake of fellowship, mainly with leading ones, concerning our past 16-year history in the new way." I said that I didn't plan to have the booklet "widespread" and that I thought it was "safe" to come to him and that perhaps he could "catch me" if I was "inaccurate" or "unfair" in any matter so that I might make an "adjustment" or "terminate" the proposed fellowship. I also indicated my hope that the writing might build a bridge of communication to those who had left the recovery In the Wake of the New Way. To my surprise, rather than grant me time for fellowship, Dan recommended to elders in my locality that I be placed into a discipline mode until I could "repent". I remain in a discipline mode today after 2+ years. I also remain without fellowship on the matters I asked Dan to address, and that other elders had read about also, but have not addressed.

The action of discipline taken against me when I was specifically asking Dan for his fellowship served only to inspire me to consider what kind of spirit this was in our brother and what kind of spirit it is that has come into the recovery.

I had first encountered this spirit with local elders in 1996 and at that time began to consider tracing it back to its source. Something else compelling me to seek an understanding of this spirit was the lack of love and shepherding in the church in my locality. I began to search for answers by contacting former leading ones who left the recovery during a time of turmoil in the late eighties. They too had encountered this spirit in a major way during a time of crisis in the recovery. It was this association with these formerly beloved brothers who were once among us that I was put aside, along with the assessment that I was attacking the recovery in my booklet. In my heart, my desire was simply to address serious concerns that many of us have and to build a bridge of communication with those who left.

This website is about these brothers' experiences and the manifestation of a spirit that brother Witness Lee partly describes in A Word of Love, and that the documents and testimonies on this site describe further. Brother Lee points out that it is a spirit that "has filled all the churches", and "is now spreading everywhere around the globe in the Lord's recovery". It is a spirit that "labels others" and does not care for the ones who are "inferior to us". It is a spirit that "condemns and regulates others, rather than shepherd and seek them." It is a spirit that does not "love the opposers", even the "top rebels". It is a spirit that "we have lost among the coworkers, elders, and vital groups." It is a spirit of exclusion.

"As I have said before, the spirit of not shepherding and seeking others and being without love and forgiveness is spreading in the recovery everywhere. I believe that not having the Father's loving and forgiving heart and not having the Savior's shepherding and seeking spirit is the reason for our barrenness ...We condemn and regulate others rather than shepherd and seek them. We are short of love and shepherding. These are the vital factors for us to bear fruit, that is, to gain people. I am very concerned for our full-time training. Do we train the young ones to gain people or to regulate people? We have to reconsider our ways, as Haggai said (1:5). Our way is not right; something is wrong". (pp. 40-41)

In the late eighties turmoil this spirit was at full strength wreaking havoc in the recovery, and there was plenty that was wrong that was never brought out in fellowship to the churches. I refer to matters that I have discovered through a diligent research, including an extensive fellowship with former elders and coworkers, and the reading of their testimonies. The matters they were concerned about were related to integrity, which they were careful to keep; to righteousness, which they conscientiously sought for; and to sin, which they abhorred and distanced themselves from. In the process, they became labeled as "dissenters" and "rebellious ones". Some have even been "quarantined" from the churches, excommunicated in effect, and forgotten about. The grave concerns of these brothers were never brought to light before the saints, but had to do with certain divisive and incendiary elements in place at the heart of the recovery that led to and fueled rebellion among the saints? Was this a righteous rebellion? I think so.

This website will deal with those matters of our hidden history and with the real causes of dissension that occurred in the late eighties That is, it will tell the other side of the story, the untold side, that reveals what the primary factors of the division actually were. These factors did not involve the brothers who were "quarantined", who spoke and acted according to their convictions of heart and their Christian conscience amidst confounding circumstances that had arisen in the recovery.

Let honest people be honest, and fair people fair in their reading of the following accounts. Let righteous people also rise up to take righteous steps to address a wrong spirit among us in the recovery and the damage to others and to the oneness in the Body that this has caused. May we do this before the Lord and before His throne, knowing that one Day He will appear and begin His judgment in the house of God.

Our Hidden History and the Secret Causes of Division
Old Testament Scripture reference

"Now Eli was very old; and he heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel...

"And he said to them, why do you do such things, the evil things that I hear from all these people. No, my sons: for the report is not good which I hear the Lord's people circulating."

"Then a man of God came to Eli and said to him, "Thus says the Lord..."Why do you kick at My sacrifice and at my offering which I have commanded in My dwelling, and honor your sons above Me..."

"And the Lord said to Samuel, "Behold, I am about to do a thing in Israel at which both ears of everyone who hears it will tingle. In that day I will carry out against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. For I have told him that I am about to judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knew, because his sons brought a curse on themselves and he did not rebuke them. And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever. So Samuel lay down until morning. Then he opened the doors of the house of the Lord. But Samuel was afraid to tell the vision to Eli." (1 Samuel 1:12 - 3:21)

Letter of Disassociation - 1989

“Dear brother Witness Lee,

It has come to our attention recently through several witnesses that gross immorality and some other sins mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:11 have been committed by your son Philip Lee (who is identified as your Ministry Office) on more than one occasion over a long period of time. This deeply disturbs us. It grieves us even more that you and some of your close co-workers were aware of the situation and yet not only tolerated it but covered it up. What is worse is that, while this was happening, you and your co-workers were promoting and exalting him to the extent that he was able to intervene in the churches’ affairs in recent years. The peak of this promotion was evident at your elders’ training in Taipei in June 1987. Some of your co-workers were not only themselves under the influence and control of Philip Lee, but were also openly bringing elders and young people of many local churches to come under the same influence and control in your name and for your sake. The five brothers whom you and your Office sent to Europe in your place in May 1986 were trying to do the same here. Our young people who went to your training in Taipei have also testified of the same.

Before God, before the brothers and sisters in the local churches, before the Christian public, and for the sake of the Lord’s testimony, we are compelled by our conscience to fully disassociate ourselves from such sins and behaviour in your work.”

(A copy of this letter can be obtained by request, along with the signatures of twenty-one brothers from nine churches in Europe who withdrew from the recovery on September 17, 1989.) Witness Lee's Sons

John So Testimony - 1990

"Well, this time when I came to the Philippines, I never dreamed that the things would happen this way. But in such a situation like this, I think we have to leave it to the Lord’s sovereignty. As our brother has shared, and I appreciate his word very much, I also hope that our sharing here is not for anyone to be able to take any sides, regardless of who is right and who is wrong. I think the ground of the church is not for any church to take any sides, right? Because a church or the churches should be standing on the ground of oneness. So I do appreciate our brother’s word. And I have prepared a little outline here knowing that tonight I have no choice but to share something concerning the matter. I will try my best to just follow the outline.

We all know the ministry of brother Witness Lee for many years. I’m quite surprised that this book came out. This is the first time I saw it—in Manila, I mean 2 days ago. I hope it is not the ministry, you know. I’m very sorry that due to my being here, you all had to spend 8 long hours to watch the videos. I believe it is a real suffering to all the saints. In the recent past two years I have been unfortunately branded as, even as, a “minister of Satan”, as a “wolf”, a “false brother”, even 1 John chapter 2, the “Antichrist” was referred to me; I’m a “rebellious one”, a “conspirator”, a kind of conspirator, a “dishonest man”, a “pretender”, and more. Therefore, I am being quarantined. Right, I am being quarantined. And I am thankful to the Lord that in spite of all this, you’re still hear willing to hear what I have to say. I mean without fear of being contaminated. I think the Lord will be able to disinfect you. Please bear with me, I really have a very hard time to prepare this. The Lord knows my heart. If I didn’t have to do it tonight, I wish I didn’t have to do it. I can testify this before the Lord." John So Testimony


Bill Mallon’s letter - 1987

An 8-page letter from Bill Mallon to brother Lee expresses Bill's grave concerns for the damaging and divisive behavior of the LSM office, and its representatives in the Southeast Brother Lee did not respond to Bill's letter and showed no interest in addressing his concerns. Bill went ahead with his conviction to resign from the work and from the eldership. Later, however, in the book Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, Brother Lee dismissed Bill’s concerns that he mentioned in his letter, stating that Bill’s concerns were groundless and his remarks accusatory and slanderous, although others had the same concerns and could confirm Bill’s statements and his understanding of the developments in the Southeast.

John Ingalls Book - 1990

"Brother Lee has told the brothers who were serving with him a number of times, including myself, that if he ever left the way of God’s recovery, we should not follow him; rather we should go forward according to the truth to follow the Lord. We believe that in some degree this very thing has occurred, and we are taking Brother Lee’s own word to go on in the truth. May the Lord grant us mercy and grace to be faithful.”

"... In Ephesians 4 there are seven factors of our oneness and only seven. But today other factors, at least in practice, have been added, such as, one ministry, one leadership, one deputy authority, and one divine oracle. These have been made factors of our oneness, so that if any individuals or churches do not adhere to the 'one ministry', or the 'one leadership', etc., they are cut off or labeled negatively. We have many examples to substantiate it... “I would like to know what truth we have ever changed or are in danger of changing. Rather we have sought to be faithful to the truth, much of which we have seen through the help of Brother Lee’s ministry. Our problem in the past has been related not mainly to the truth itself, but to its practice, which we are seeking diligently to remedy."

"...Moreover, many things have been spoken in recent elders’ meetings by Brother Witness Lee and his co-workers that totally misrepresent the facts and contain many untruths. Motives and intentions are imputed to us that we never imagined, not to say practiced. We are being called despicable names and are being displayed in the worst light. But we do not desire to stoop to the level of name calling, pejorative epithets, or blatant vindication. We would like to speak the facts sincerely before God in Christ. May the Lord judge us in every attitude and action, as indeed He has continually been doing with all of us. We commit ourselves to Him. We desire to give a true account of the facts and our intentions and let the readers judge."

"We certainly never imagined that we would pass through the experiences and conflict that we have in recent years. We loved the Lord’s recovery and gave everything for it for over a quarter of a century. It was this love and investment of our lives that compelled us to respond and speak out. We had seen something that was exceedingly precious, and it was in jeopardy. Moreover, we were concerned that the Lord’s testimony would be brought into shame and disgrace and suffer great damage. Sadly, our fears have eventualized. But we believe the Lord will still go on to recover and rebuild. I will now proceed with the account of my testimony." John Ingalls


Ken Unger’s wife’s 11-page letter - 1989

Ken Unger and his wife approached Brother Lee for fellowship over a letter she wrote to him expressing her very serious concerns about the damaging and divisive effects that she observed taking place in so many localities in the United States and around the world stemming from the LSM office. Although sister Unger was in a position to observe much about the Living Stream Ministry operation, brother Witness Lee was not open to her fellowship.

She and Ken went to brother Lee to read him the 11-page letter, and as she began to read she was soon cut off by him and could not finish. She was very discouraged but brother Lee granted her another visit to him with Ken at Ken’s request, and again she began to read and was stopped before getting through half a page.

Brother Lee could not listen to what Ken considered to be a very mild part of the letter compared to other matters the letter addressed. His wife, thoroughly despondent over her experience, never tried again and never recovered from her experience and disillusionment with the church and the recovery.

Rosemead Division - 1986-1989

A most graphic example of the new and militant mindset in the recovery causing division in a church happened in Rosemead: “Frankly speaking, the root of the problem in today’s so-called local churches is that the leading ones have seriously deviated from the truth. Since February 1986, the movement started in the U. S. A. for all the elders to sign their names to a letter submitting absolutely to Witness Lee. From then on, it was to be under one leadership, with one goal, one trumpet, one way, and one ministry. Waves and waves of movements followed. This is what caused John Kwan and Francis Ball, (in order to show their absolute loyalty to Witness Lee), to lord it over the saints. They did not shepherd the church of God, but on the contrary, they used highhanded methods and did a lot of things to damage the church…At the beginning, we were expecting that [Francis Ball] came here to help the local church, especially the English-speaking saints. If he would come to Rosemead with the burden to take care of the church and shepherd the saints, he should first of all visit the saints and spend time to observe the saints and to realize their situations and needs. He should meet with the serving ones and pray with them looking to the Lord for leading. Regrettably, he disappointed all the saints. The first Lord’s Day after his arrival, he gave a message on following a man, meaning to follow Witness Lee. Isn’t this the spirit of division and parties which we see in the church in Corinth which resulted in the Apostle Paul’s condemnation? Due to Francis Ball’s message, anger was stirred up in the meeting. Most of the saints were already unhappy. He should have had some feelings about the reactions of the saints. The way Francis Ball delivered his message was not accidental or a mistake. After that, his behavior and actions proved his intentions. These included: contact with the ministry station in dealing with the so-called dissenters, locking up the meeting hall, and forcing the saints to go to Anaheim’s ministry meetings, to express his absolute oneness with “the ministry”. This is concrete evidence that Francis Ball came to Rosemead with the mission to force the church to submit to “The Ministry of Witness Lee” using highhanded tactics. This was not only against our intention to invite him to Rosemead, but also contrary to the vision which we have seen.

After the incident of Don Hardy was exposed, much blame was put on Francis Ball because he was one of the five-man committee [responsible for forcibly removing Don from his eldership in Rosemead.] As a matter of fact, at that time the saints lost their confidence in Francis Ball. If he was really concerned about the church and had some feeling for the saints, he should openly apologize, and voluntarily resign the eldership to show his responsibility and let the church have a chance to recover from the wound. He not only wouldn’t depart but seemed careless about the suffering and agonies of the saints. He acted as if nothing had happened, and continued to carry out his mission as usual. Was he a good shepherd led by the Lord, or a hired one?” - by David Wang, from True Account Rosemead

Raleigh brothers visit - 1989

Church in Raleigh elders come to Anaheim to discuss with Brother Lee their seventy-one-page compendium entitled Concerns with our Practice Regarding Truth and Life, which they sent to Brother Lee months earlier. Brother Lee had told them that he would address each point in their time of fellowship. “But Brother Lee, they said, had no ear to hear them. It was as if they were talking to the wall. He didn’t want to clear up their points; he hadn’t even read the outline they had presented to him the previous summer. He would not answer their questions directly. They were impressed that he never asked how the saints in the church in Raleigh were doing, as if he was not concerned for them. The brothers were very disappointed…The brothers in Raleigh had labored for many hours over this work in the expectation that Brother Lee would read it, be apprised of their concerns, and realize the gravity of the situation, and hopefully make some major changes in the course we were taking in the recovery.” Raleigh elders

Atlanta elders’ conference - 1988

Brother Witness Lee himself strongly reinforces the concept of his absolute authority and leadership in the recovery, stating that those who didn’t take his way would be “dropouts”, and also declaring that none were qualified to fellowship with him, so they should not have an opinion about what he does! This type of leadership and speaking helped fortify the new mindset among the elders that there was only one voice in the recovery and that Brother Lee, as the "commander-in-chief" in the Lord’s new move, did not require anyone’s opinion or fellowship. Our brother surely became a huge factor of oneness in the recovery and negative speaking about him and his leading was not tolerated, regardless of the legitimacy of complaint, and need. Elders Meetings in Atlanta

Paper in the Wind - 1988

A current elder, who formerly was an elder in Tempe, told me that once he was helping a 24-year old brother who was troubled by matters related to Anaheim and the new way and that he, the elder, was doing everything he could to help this young brother and even called Brother Lee for fellowship. Brother Lee’s fellowship was for him to let this troubled one go as “a paper in the wind” and “let the wind take care of him”! His main concern and encouragement was for the elder to spend his time caring for the positive ones and new ones who were not contaminated or dissenting. Therefore, taking the advice of Brother Lee, the elder let the young person go,. He had changed his stance from caring for a young brother who had been stumbled, to lining up with the proper mentality of a soldier in the army for the Lord’s new move. Dissenting Ones

Oklahoma City couple - 1980 - 2000

The new mindset in the Lord’s recovery is a closed one. It doesn't deal with opposition well, even mild opposition.

A sister in Norman, Oklahoma was concerned for a few things in the church - 1) an immoral situation involving an elder violating a sister/friend of hers; 2) her growing perception that a another spirit had come into the recovery; 3) the elders overbalance in spiritual things and lack of attention given to human matters, marriage and family.

She became outspoken and was reported for calling the church a cult. She stopped going to meetings.

The elders never went to her to ask her about her concerns. They just began to turn away from her, as did others. There was no warning given to her.

Her name was taken off the phone list, which was a shock to her and a great offense. She began meeting with another fellowship group.

She and her husband had been growing apart. He was absolute for the church, while she had serious concerns about it. He was cold, and she was nagging. She asked him to move out, and he did. She didn't expect him to stay away, however, but to work on the relationship with a view to returning. He had other ideas and began to pursue a divorce.
Oneness in the Ministry but Division in a Family

Witness Lee and Son Enterprise? - 1988

- anonymous writer - “In Watchman Nee's Foreword to his book, RECONSIDERATION OF THE WORK, he states: "We have one purpose, that is, to do our work completely according to the Bible. We have one desire, that is, to do the work according to God's Word. We believe the Bible is God's Word, the highest standard, the perfect example and full of commandments of authority. We do not want our work to come short in any way from God's full and complete written Word recorded for us in the Bible. We want to repeat with Paul, 'I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God' (Acts 20:27). In seeking to follow the leading of God's Spirit, we never would disregard or deviate from His written Word.
"Now in retrospect we see that Watchman Nee has shown in his entire life and work that he never deviated from that heavenly vision of Christ and the Church. For this vision he had a good conscience, unfeigned faith, unchangeable love, vast knowledge and even risked and gave his life for its fulfillment. We can say of him that he fought a good fight, he ran the race and was martyred. Hence there is laid up for him a crown of righteousness.

"We thank the Lord that through him this vision was imparted to others by the Lord not only in the orient but throughout the world, and thus many churches were established.

"The writer is the least of the brothers to undertake this writing, but through the Lord's mercy and the enlightenment he has received since giving himself to the Lord's Recovery, he must discharge the burden of what he has seen coming into the Lord's Recovery which is not according to the original pattern of God's plan and direction. There has been a turn to the world, sin and organized Christianity. Do we want to become a big tree full of leaven? This abnormal development fills those who have discernment with grief, deep sorrow and an intolerance to let it continue. A so-called teaching has been set forth that for the unity of the believers, there can be no opinion and only one trumpet must be sounded. This was very advantageously used to cover up many lies, darkness and fleshly motives and gains. The Bible's way is not to hide evil doings, but for the sake of the truth to boldly expose that which is contrary to sound biblical principles. (Gal. 2:11-14; I Cor. 5:1-13; Eph. 5:11-13; Rev. 2:12).

"Not to have an opinion and to keep silent cannot be accepted by this writer. To do so would be unfaithful to the moving of the Spirit. The writer must record what he has seen, heard and experienced in the light of God's Word and Nee's original vision in his book. Those who read can come to their own conclusions.” Reconsideration of the Vision

Apologetic Letter to Philip from elders - 1993
Dear Brother Philip,

We, the elders of the church in Anaheim, want to ask you to forgive us for the letter which was sent to you on August 22, 1993 without signatures. All the elders are in full agreement that it was wrong and improper to send you such an unsigned letter. We deeply regret the suffering which this has caused you. Now we want to correct our wrong and improper action by signing this letter, which includes the body of the letter we wrote on August 22, 1993 as follows:

"We would like to let you know of a decision the elders made and announced today at both the Chinese and English speaking meetings of the church in Anaheim. The announcement which we read is as follows:

August 22, 1993

The elders would like to make a statement regarding brother Philip Lee.

As many of the saints know, three former elders of the church in Anaheim took public action toward Philip Lee on November 6 ,1988.

The present elders would like you to know that we do not believe that the public declaration of those three brothers concerning Philip Lee was justified or proper. We feel very sorry that their action has caused suffering to Philip Lee's family.

Further, it is the unanimous decision of the elders that all discipline of the church toward Philip Lee be lifted, and it is our desire that he be fully restored to the fellowship of the church.

The elders of the church in Anaheim

We would like to assure you that it is our sincere desire that your fellowship with the church would be fully restored so that we may go on together for the Lord's purpose in the church."

Sincerely yours,

The elders of the church in Anaheim

Signatures of Francis Ball, Ed Marks, Eugene Gruhler, Albert Lim Jr., Carl Althaus, Daniel Sun, Moses Kuo, Eric Lee lost in scanning of document.

Quarantine - 1990
Quarantine

Witness Lee's apology to the whole Body of Christ - 1997

In February 1997, in possibly brother Lee's last message given to the church, he sent an apology to the Body of Christ. His sharing was on reigning in life and specifically on imitating the apostle to bring the local churches into the fellowship of the Body of Christ.

He shared: "The coworkers in different places need to learn; all responsible brothers in all localities need to learn. The eyes of the brothers and sisters all need to be opened. Too many things we need to learn.

"I admit that in the past we have all made mistakes, including myself. For this I repented before the Lord in tears. I am sorry to the Body of Christ, and I am sorry not only to the brothers and sisters who are among us, but even to the people in the denominations. I am sorry toward them.

"Yes, denominations are wrong. God condemns division the most. But God still hopes that among all His children they would not have this kind of condemnation toward one another.

To understand and analyze these [points], we need to spend much time. You have to get together with a few people. I like the word in the outline...we have to receive people according to the Son of God, not deviating a bit from the path."


The Pledge

1986 - Elders and co-workers agreed to be in one accord to carry out a new move in the recovery under the absolute leadership of brother Witness Lee, declaring that he was indispensable to their oneness as the one trumpet in the Lord’s ministry and the one wise master builder of the churches. Indeed, this "pledge" clearly defined a new track and a new mindset for the elders and co-workers in the recovery:

Among the churches, the factors of oneness increased from the seven found in Ephesians 4 to a few more announced in this pledge: one ministry, one leadership, one deputy authority, and one divine oracle - even oneness with a ministry office and its manager was a factor of our oneness! Any dissenting opinion to brother Lee as the commander in chief was not to be tolerated; and matters of concern were not to be made an issue of, no matter how legitimate.

This new mindset became galvanized in conferences, trainings, and church meetings. The elders’ trainings conducted by brother Lee were especially useful to fortify the minds of the leading ones and to instill in them new standards of expectation in the churches. In those intense meetings and times of fellowship utilizing days at a time with one another, much instruction came forth concerning the details of carrying out the Lord’s new move in the churches. In these ways, the new mindset in the local churches was born.

Letters From Former Intimate Co-workers

In my contact with former leading ones in the recovery during, 2001-2002, they were all consistent in these three areas: 1) Their love for the brothers in the recovery and all members of the Body of Christ. 2) Their perplexity over a mindset exercised in the recovery leading to their departure. 3) Their love and regard for God's Word and their adherence to it.

They were also all open to reconciling fellowship with those heading up the recovery today.

---- Original Message -----
From: "Albert Zehr" To:
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 11:08 AM

> Dear Brother Steve, Greetings and thank-you for the copy of your
> letter. Once again I am moved by your desire to facilitate reconciliation.
> Although I am quite busy, I felt compelled to share with you some points I
> felt the Lord brought to me after reading the letter. Sorry that these are
> not highly developed or polished, but they do come from the heart.
>
> -In their hearts these dear ones have elevated the teachings of
> Witness Lee and the doctrines of the recovery to be commensurate with the
> WORD. They perceive these to be God's "present day speaking." Unconsciously, this makes them infallible and unquestionable. They become part of one's very faith and foundation.
> -This stance requires total subjective loyalty and acceptance and
> makes an objective review impossible if not blasphemous. The longer one is in this mode the more of the lifetime that has been built on it the more
> inconceivable it becomes that it might be a deception.
> -Everything else is measured by this "vision" and nothing can measure it.
> -Perhaps you have never personally sold yourself to this extent. If
> so, then the above sounds extreme to you, at the same time others may also have sensed that you were never really clear about the "vision."
> - When the Lord began to expose this "spell" in my life I was left
> in a place of confusion and dispair. In this state the Lord brought me to
> the song, "On Christ the solid rock I stand, ALL other ground is sinking
> sand."
> I cried out, "Oh Lord, You and You alone are the only true and
> unquestionable reality in my life. I am willing to subject everything else
> to objective and sober discernment. Only after this could I love and
> appreciate Witness Lee and his teachings while objectively discerning his
> strengths and weaknesses and allowing them to be balanced by the Word and
> the teachings of other Godly leaders.
> -Dear brother Steve, I admire your sincerity and desperate plea to,
> "come let us reason together." But. Sorry, my brother, this is impossible
> while one is subjectively committed in unquestioned loyalty to a
> cause. Their reactions will always be the same as yours would be if I would come to you and say, come let us question the authenticity of the Bible.
> -I commend you for your diligence and willingness to make yourself
> vulnerable to misunderstanding and alienation. I pray that the Lord will
> strengthen you with much grace and divine encouragement in your spirit.
> -Your booklet may bring some light and understanding to some
> hearts. But, I believe something else must happen first. Each individual
> heart must receive a fresh revelation of the total, exclusive all
> sufficiency of Jesus Christ alone. Everything else, can and must from time
> to time be re-examined. Our security and foundation must rest on Him alone.
> If we are threatened and made defensive by questions it suggests that we
> have been adding to that foundation.
> -Another consideration I submit to you. It is very easy to bring a
> battle into the realm of flesh and blood. In this realm it becomes a matter
> of being for or against persons. Actually, the dear ones do not want to be
> obstinate, unreasonable and defensive. This is the realm into which they
> have unwittingly succombed to and are now entrapped by. This battle can
> only be successfully fought in the realm of the spirit. Our most effective
> strategy at this time is to war in the spirit through prayer and fasting.
> Only as this power of darkness is broken can the light break through. Only
> as the captives are set free can they rise up afresh to regain their
> freedom in Christ. Here I believe is the most effective front to do battle
> for the most dramatic results.
> -If you could find two or three others who would agree to
> prevailing prayer in this realm, we might be amazed what might happen.
> -I recognize this is a bit of an abrupt end, but it seems to be all
> that I feel led to write at this moment. Much love and grace, in Christ,
> Albert Z

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Matteson
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:02 AM
To: Steve Isitt
Subject: Re: book

Thanks for sending the book. I look forward to reading it. I too think it's amazing that the brothers in the local churches who profess to be one with all the saints refuse to attempt reconciliation with those who left. For myself, I long to have fellowship with the ones still there. It seems their strong perverted concept of "the ground" causes them to be so exclusive that they even can't talk to those they consider not on "the ground". It boggles the mind! So much for doctrine that is not based in the reality of Christ's life. Dave
--
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Isitt
To: matteson
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 8:05 PM
Subject: book

Hi Dave,

I have sent my book to you that I have failed to do until now. It should get to you early in the week.

It is very interesting to me to see that ones who have left the "recovery" can so easily identify with what I have written about and perfectly understand my heart. Ones in the recovery, the few leading ones who have received it are quite alarmed about it and have asked me not to take the Table or function in the meeting. I was also removed from a home meeting I was beginning to attend where an elder attended. The discipline is in place until I get "this book matter cleared up". I was not actively distributing it. Five books total in Seattle/Bellevue. The matters I brought up for fellowship in that book were for the sake of building a bridge of communication to those who left. The brothers who left are open for this; the ones in the recovery are not at all open. It is an amazing development that has taken place among us over the last 12-13 years.

Yours in Christ,
Steve I.

(Two emails)
Dear Brother Steve,

Thank you for sending all the correspondence you have had with other brothers. Though I have not replied for some time, I want you to know that I am still very interested in your burden. There are many dear brothers in the LSM that I would love to have restored fellowship. Certainly two of them are Sherman and Dave Higgins. I met a brother the other day coming out of a store into which I was entering. I recognized him as one I had seen at times in the past, and then suddenly I knew his name, Rick Scatterday. We greeted one another and had most cordial and happy fellowship for a few minutes, with no mention whatever of any problems in the past or any special relationships to cloud us. It was most encouraging. Rick is travelling and ministering in various places.

May the Lord continue to bring His people together with Himself as the Head and center and the only focus. That is His house.

In His name, John.

From: JIngalls2@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 11:59 AM
To: SteveIsitt@msn.com
Subject: Re: Fw: letter to Dan Towle


----- Original Message -----
From: [email]JIngallsmail]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 12:00 PM
To: SteveIsitt@msn.com
Subject: Re: My book

Dear Brother Steve,

I appreciate your sending me your letter to other brothers regarding your
book and your letter to me. I am sorry you have to go through this turmoil and, as you say, a "disappointing and confounding experience." I can fully understand this. May the Lord take you through it with Himself.

…We should be discerning with all and in all. Only the Lord Jesus
is spotless and peerless. I totally agree with you that we should address
the real situation and listen to the Lord's voice concerning it. That is
what we attempted to do in 1987 to 1989.

You mentioned Doug Higgins... I knew him very well when he lived in Spokane and was close to him. I didn't know that he was in Seattle. I haven't had any contact with him in 15 years. Oh, that the Lord would do something to break down these barriers, these walls! Oh,
that we could all be together under His headship with His centrality!

Your brother, John.

RETURN

This letter was not from a former co-worker, but it is concerning one. Ken Unger had been trying to hold two sides together during the new way transition in his locality. His desire and endeavor was surely to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace, but eventually, he received a letter from his fellow elders, asking him to leave the eldership. Keeping the oneness of the Body had apparently been hindering the progress of the one accord in his locality for the Lord's new move in the churches A brother told me that brother Lee wanted Ken to "get off the fence". He had stayed longer than other brothers who had left the recovery, trying to find a way for the church in Huntington Beach.

I thought I should let brothers in Anaheim know that I had an encouraging contact with Ken, and that he was interested in having fellowship with them. So I wrote to Ed Marks, hoping he could visit Ken.

I didn't hear back from Ed. Neither did Ken hear from him.

My letter to Ed:

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Isitt
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 11:16 PM
To: EdMarks
Subject: Ken Unger hopes for fellowship with you

Hi Brother Ed,

In a visit to Southern California last month, Dec. 3-10, I felt to visit different ones who were once among us in the recovery. It was quite an exercise and profitable to be with them. The exercise was in having a right spirit and an accommodating heart. What was consistent with them all was their love for the Lord and their considerable interest in the church and in the recovery...

Brother Ed, they were also alike in their very painful and perplexing experience in the church life that eventually led to their leaving. None imagined they would ever leave, but now they have left and the deep wounds are there. I was impressed with their willingness to forgive and to believe in the Lord's sovereignty, but they, nevertheless, are still hurt.

Praise the Lord! It was good to go to them, to consider their experience, and to pray with them. In the prayer, in each visit, we were raised up to the throne and received some sweet dispensing and some comfort as members of God's universal household meeting in a home.

Again I say, Praise the Lord! ...past their wounds is their spirit that matches God.... Brother, just the love and understanding shown them by us will please God...Who knows what love and understanding could bring in to the recovery concerning those of our family who have become estranged....

There is one brother that stood apart from others ... Ken Unger. He said he never left. He has quite a story to tell in this regard. He said that if I were to talk to him seven years ago he would have broken down crying. In his last contact with Brother Lee, after twenty meetings with him, they embraced in a very emotional scene. He said he has never had such a sense of glory with a brother.

I asked him if he would like to meet with one of the brothers and I mentioned your name. He said, "sure, I would like to meet with Ed, I know him." His attitude toward the brothers in Anaheim and concerning the recovery was one of understanding and respect. I was surprised by this and refreshed.

He is not wholehearted where he meets, but it is where he can get some fellowship and relatedness at this time. He said, "I have to meet", indicating that he meets there because of lack of having much choice. He asked me to arrange a time with you, saying that he could not do it. Will you meet with him, Ed? His wife, too, desperately needs to know our love.

The hardest field is here, with "former members". It requires the most Christ to go to them. They are in great need of our love, and if they receive our love, this will revive them - and us. Over a year's time, perhaps a revival would be brought in! Some would return, and some would become useful, very useful and productive in the Lord's hand.

It is a joyous labor and according to the Lord's heart to go after the one that was lost and bring him back home. What a glory if our hearts could be so accommodating and enlarged for this! Praise the Lord!

Steve I.

Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 10:37 PM
To: SteveIsitt@msn.com
Subject: Re: Bill Mallon

Hi Steve
Regarding Bill's letter to W.Lee. A tragic story. What kept going through
my mind was W. Lee's word of fellowship (I was there), You brothers have
never learned how to fellowship (with me). To understand this whole mess, you have to try and understand the Chinese mentality, their cultural background,
ie, the way they think. And don't tell me that we are in Christ, the new man,
and culture has nothing to do with it. Well I'm afraid in reality, it has
everything to do with most of the frustration you are dealing with.

I remember many times listening to Bro. Lee say never touch the Chinese
mentality. I never quite understood what he meant. In secular language, the
word inscrutable is used to describe the Chinese. To me this means, you can
never pin them down or get them to admit error. You can never figure them
out, and they seem sooo humble.

If you have following the negotiations with the US and China over the downed
plane, you will get a clue about them; wanting the US to apologize for their
errors. Against all truth, facts, reasonableness, logic, whatever... they want
us to kowtow, bend our knee, save their face, their honor, etc. etc. It is
crazy!! And yet to get our men and women back we had to say some kind of
political ....We're very sorry.... to make a deal.

Now transfer all this and more to the way they dealt with Bill and others and
then you will know why you will go crazy trying to bring them to some kind of
accountability.

When we attended the memorial service for W. L., we were amazed at the pomp,
the exaltation. It was like attending a funeral for a head of state, or an
emporor, or a king, Not a humble servant of the Lord!! Did Jesus have such a
regal ending? Did any of the Apostles? No, all died just like their master
and Lord. When we brought this up [with others], they said it was cultural and
his family's wishes.

When I was reading Bill's accusations of the way the office and Phillip
handled things in the S.E., I was shocked at his frankness. I said to myself,
you never, never talk to Bro. Lee like that, in that tone. I surmised that
Bill was thinking that surely B. Lee was not aware of all these under handed
dealings and if he only knew he would take steps to clear everything up and
possibly restore his standing in the S.E. NOT SO. It doesn't work that way
in the Chinese culture. The one at the top is Lord. You do not question, or
criticize, never, ever!! or you are through, finished. All those elders
mentioned by W.L. became a threat to his controlling and they had to be
subdued or removed. I think you had a little taste of this recently with the
brothers in Bellevue.

The Texas brothers learned this early on and became the inner circle around
Bro. Lee to defend him and explain how things work to the rest of the elders.
You mentioned Ray Graver. Have you had any dealings with Ray? Do you know
him? I would consider him the hardest of all the Texas bros. to touch. He has
been loyal to the death from day one. He has been loyal without question to
Bro. Lee and LSM for thirty-five years. What makes you think he is going to
change now? Maybe you know something I don't.

Their concept of the kingdom is.....Me King,,,,you dumb!....And this attitude
is passed down the rank and file. The smallest elder acts the same way. Those
who had a mind of their own have left. Those who stayed have given up their
own integrity and surrendered their person to Bro. Lee and the system. This
system has permeated the LC leadership. Can you change it? Can the Lord
change it? Of course He will change it in HIS TIME. Judgment must first begin
at the House of the Lord.

I understand about blowing the trumpet and pushing buttons; but are their
ears open? Jesus said to each church in Rev.....he that has an ear let him
hear! Ephesus did not repent, did not hear and lost their lampstand. Did any
of the churches hear? The Catholic Ch. is still here today. Sardis is still
lukewarm, and the Lord is still on the outside of Laodicea knocking to
stopped up ears! Only Philadelphia heard the Lord's word and let the Lord in.

My friendly and brotherly suggestion to you. Seek out the wounded, the
oppressed, the downcast, the discouraged in your area. There must be
hundreds of castaways, lost sheep needing a shepherd. Jesus left the
ninety-nine and went out seeking the lost sheep. He did not convert too many
Pharisees! They had no heart nor ear to listen to him!

You have a soft shepherd's heart. Bro. Steve. I assure you these bleeding
sheep will have an ear to hear you and respond to your care. Perhaps you and your wife could be a team ....

The verse in John 10:9...and will go in and go out and find pasture...has
been our experience. The Lord led us in and the Lord led us out...into the
pasture,,, where the Chief Shepherd of the flock is taking care of so many
who have been rejected.

Please read Ezk. 34 and Jeremiah 23:1-4, Isa. 35:3-7, 40:11, 42:1-4,
58:6-12.....for reference.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Indiana

... as she began to read she was soon cut off by him and could not finish. She was very discouraged but brother Lee granted her another visit to him with Ken at Ken’s request, and again she began to read and was stopped before getting through half a page...

Being MOTA means everyone listens to you, but you listen only to God. It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it. Right?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Being MOTA means everyone listens to you, but you listen only to God. It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it. Right?

Out in the world they put it another way -- "__it only rolls down hill"

Sometimes coarse honesty is preferred over spiritualized balderdash.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Indiana

I had first encountered this spirit with local elders in 1996 and at that time began to consider tracing it back to its source. Something else compelling me to seek an understanding of this spirit was the lack of love and shepherding in the church in my locality. I began to search for answers by contacting former leading ones who left the recovery during a time of turmoil in the late eighties. They too had encountered this spirit in a major way during a time of crisis in the recovery...

Interesting that you use "this spirit" three times in sequence here. What is this spirit, whose effects are manifested here?

1. These spirits like to hide themselves. The last thing they want is to come to the light. They are very clever, and can get you to look away from the beam in your eye, and fixate upon the splinter. They'll give you half-truths, or quarter-truths, or eighth-truths, while withholding the rest. So you think you have something when you have nothing.

I base this largely upon the story in Mark 5, Luke 8, Matt 8. Jesus said, "Who are you", and the demon(s) replied, "Oh, there are a lot of us here" But they didn't want to be "destroyed before their time" (Matt 8:29). If they got paraded before men, then the disguise would be over, and they'd lose their power. So Jesus let them creep off into the herd of pigs. Interesting: why the release? I personally believe that He was showing his disciples something. Like a policeman who lets the thief sneak off to the gang hideout, to show where the operation was based. It wasn't a truce so much as a tactical maneuver. He was temporarily letting them go, but in releasing them he was revealing something. He was training his disciples.

2. By looking at the operations of these spirits, or "this spirit" if you will, eventually you'll see patterns emerge. That's why Ohio learned so much about the LC by studying the history of the Exclusive Brethren. That's why Matt saw similar patterns with the "no name" group he ran across. You can learn about the LC by reading about the Eastern Lightning (EL); behavioral patterns emerge. In the LC/EL case, recruitment methodologies were very similar. Approach your subject, but don't tell them where you're from. Just find common ground, and build a bond. Once you find a point of entry, and gain trust and opening, then you can begin to re-educate them. Eventually you'll get them to make a commitment, and then you begin to remove their exits. Later, when they want to leave, they don't know how. You've convinced them that their old world is gone, and there's no way back.

Obviously the EL is much, much more extreme. But that's why it is so good to "expose the spirit" that is operating. Otherwise it remains disguised. And that's why we can thank God for blunt people like RG and MP who "told it like it is." The masks were removed and you could see the spirit of control, the "yoke of slavery" fully revealed.

So it's good that Indiana collected these testimonies. These voices are part of the history of the LC, and are very instructive. Over time you can see the spirit emerge, for what it really is.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

I remember many times listening to Bro. Lee say never touch the Chinese
mentality. I never quite understood what he meant. In secular language, the
word inscrutable is used to describe the Chinese. To me this means, you can
never pin them down or get them to admit error. You can never figure them
out, and they seem sooo humble.

If you have following the negotiations with the US and China over the downed
plane, you will get a clue about them; wanting the US to apologize for their
errors. Against all truth, facts, reasonableness, logic, whatever... they want
us to kowtow, bend our knee, save their face, their honor, etc. etc. It is
crazy!! And yet to get our men and women back we had to say some kind of
political ....We're very sorry.... to make a deal.

Now transfer all this and more to the way they dealt with Bill and others and
then you will know why you will go crazy trying to bring them to some kind of
accountability.

When we attended the memorial service for W. L., we were amazed at the pomp,
the exaltation. It was like attending a funeral for a head of state, or an
emporor, or a king, Not a humble servant of the Lord!! Did Jesus have such a
regal ending? Did any of the Apostles? No, all died just like their master
and Lord. When we brought this up [with others], they said it was cultural and
his family's wishes.

When I was reading Bill's accusations of the way the office and Phillip
handled things in the S.E., I was shocked at his frankness. I said to myself,
you never, never talk to Bro. Lee like that, in that tone. I surmised that
Bill was thinking that surely B. Lee was not aware of all these under handed
dealings and if he only knew he would take steps to clear everything up and
possibly restore his standing in the S.E. NOT SO. It doesn't work that way
in the Chinese culture. The one at the top is Lord. You do not question, or
criticize, never, ever!! or you are through, finished. All those elders
mentioned by W.L. became a threat to his controlling and they had to be
subdued or removed. I think you had a little taste of this recently with the
brothers in Bellevue.

From dictionary.reference.com
Inscrutable-incapable of being investigated, analyzed, or scrutinized; impenetrable

It is a definition, but I rather compare the current email scandal of Hillary Clinton to how Witness Lee handled the late 80's turmoil, and currently how Philip Lin writes about it. The law applies to everyone else, but Witness Lee like Hillary won't succumb to requests for transparency. A blatant refusal to be investigated, analyzed, or scrutinized.

[Ohio]

When we attended the memorial service for W. L., we were amazed at the pomp, the exaltation. It was like attending a funeral for a head of state, or an emperor, or a king, Not a humble servant of the Lord!! Did Jesus have such a regal ending? Did any of the Apostles? No, all died just like their master and Lord. When we brought this up [with others], they said it was cultural and his family's wishes.

During the early years, many well-respected brothers (e.g. Don Rutledge) spoke highly of Lee's humble, serving demeanor, how he was kind and very approachable. As time progressed, that dramatically changed. Lee's pride eventually permeated all of the leadership. Soon LSM became more noted for their arrogance and unrighteousness than for anything positive of Christian ministry.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

These spirits like to hide themselves. The last thing they want is to come to the light...

Some may smirk and say, "Funny thing for an anonymous internet poster to write." True, but in my defense I'm not pretending to be something. I try to let those around me know that even if we're not be "good building material", God cares anyway. And I write not to create a movement nor oppose one; but because I like to think aloud. Writing helps re-program the brain; something that I needed after years immersed in the LC system. So I think aloud (i.e. write) and if anyone gets something that's fine. But I try to be straightforward about what my motives are.

And if I want people to respect my ideas, then I have to pay attention to theirs. You know, the old Christian basic, "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." If you want people to listen to you, then you have to listen to them. WL was so spiritually advanced, so elevated as "God's present oracle", that he didn't need to listen to anyone. In so doing, he revealed something of what spirit was at work there, and probably made himself irrelevant in any larger Christian conversation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

These spirits like to hide themselves. The last thing they want is to come to the light. They are very clever, and can get you to look away from the beam in your eye, and fixate upon the splinter. They'll give you half-truths, or quarter-truths, or eighth-truths, while withholding the rest. So you think you have something when you have nothing.

Excellent observation.

What signals me to agree are these actions of Lee and LSM ...

1. Subduing and lording it over the flock
2. Criminal activities covered up by the leadership
3. Excessive pride and arrogance, condemning everyone not under subjection, both within and without
4. Refusal to allow any accountability, within or without
5. Smear the reputations of those who speak their conscience
6. Vindicate their actions with "hidden" spiritual types from the OT

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Soon LSM became more noted for their arrogance and unrighteousness than for anything positive of Christian ministry.

Ohio, I'd include pride along with arrogance and unrighteousness. It was never more apparent when RK said at a NW blending conference which I paraphrase:

"I'm not going to step aside for anyone"

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

The Texas brothers learned this early on and became the inner circle around
Bro. Lee to defend him and explain how things work to the rest of the elders.
You mentioned Ray Graver. Have you had any dealings with Ray? Do you know
him? I would consider him the hardest of all the Texas bros. to touch. He has
been loyal to the death from day one. He has been loyal without question to
Bro. Lee and LSM for thirty-five years. What makes you think he is going to
change now? Maybe you know something I don't.

Their concept of the kingdom is.....Me King,,,,you dumb!....And this attitude
is passed down the rank and file. The smallest elder acts the same way. Those
who had a mind of their own have left. Those who stayed have given up their
own integrity and surrendered their person to Bro. Lee and the system. This
system has permeated the LC leadership.

As this brother who sent this email to Indiana says, I would categorize as "Their concept of the kingdom is" being in line with the deputy authority doctrine. There is no "checks and balances". There is no humility.

Something I have considered there may be something to what the brother said about Ray Graver and fellow "Texas brothers". Because of their over the top zeal they had for Witness Lee and have for his ministry, ones who had been directly exposed to that behavior may see the zealous loyalty Graver and others possessed as being idolatrous or cultic behavior. While those of us from other geographic regions had not been directly exposed to behavior of that degree.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

There is no "checks and balances". There is no humility. ...Because of their over the top zeal they had for Witness Lee and have for his ministry, ones who had been directly exposed to that behavior may see the zealous loyalty Graver and others possessed as being idolatrous or cultic behavior.

As Hank Hanegraaf put it, they possess "exceptional earnestness" combined with being "limited... in advanced theological training." (We Were Wrong, CRI 2009 p.30) Which makes them appear to be "unbalanced and ideosyncratic" at best, and "cultic" at worst. But, he says, this is all a misunderstanding. Well maybe it is all a misunderstanding. But they certainly walk like a duck, and quack like a duck...

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

As this brother who sent this email to Indiana says, I would categorize as "Their concept of the kingdom is" being in line with the deputy authority doctrine. There is no "checks and balances". There is no humility.

Something I have considered there may be something to what the brother said about Ray Graver and fellow "Texas brothers". Because of their over the top zeal they had for Witness Lee and have for his ministry, ones who had been directly exposed to that behavior may see the zealous loyalty Graver and others possessed as being idolatrous or cultic behavior. While those of us from other geographic regions had not been directly exposed to behavior of that degree.

I think it's fair to say that the LC had more than their share of leaders who shouldn't be in any sort of church leadership position. On the one hand it is so obvious where LC leadership has gone wrong, on the other hand the more I try to understand it all, the more baffling it is. It would be simple if LC leadership presented the LC for what it is and not something it's not. There are plenty of religious groups that are happy to follow an apostle-like "supreme" leader, and they have a central headquarters. For many groups that have those characteristics, there is no denial of those facts. In the LC, however, they vehemently deny such charges, yet the real situation is so obvious. The irony of it all is that supposedly "early Lee" would have condemned "later Lee".

From everything that I have read, I get an impression of the early days that is similar to what Ohio posted:

During the early years, many well-respected brothers (e.g. Don Rutledge) spoke highly of Lee's humble, serving demeanor, how he was kind and very approachable. As time progressed, that dramatically changed. Lee's pride eventually permeated all of the leadership. Soon LSM became more noted for their arrogance and unrighteousness than for anything positive of Christian ministry.

Maybe Lee really was humble when he first started his ministry here. I wasn't around, so I wouldn't know. Obviously things changed quite a bit. My impression has always been that when Lee first started ministering here, he was not a central figure because anyone wanted him to be, but because everyone appreciated his ministry so much. Regarding Lee's early ministry here, John Ingalls is reported to have said "We were amazed at the riches that were pouring out of this man..." Whatever the initial view of Lee was, eventually that changed from him being a figure everyone appreciated to being him rationalized as a true "supreme" figure. Elders signed the statement saying "We agree that this leading is indispensable to our oneness and acknowledge the one trumpet in the Lord’s ministry and the one wise master builder among us…." So Lee went from being appreciated for his ministry to being considered "indispensable".

[Indiana]

http://www.twoturmoils.com/LocalChur...ideofStory.pdf

...And in 2013-14 this book by brother Philip Lin appeared which is deficient in giving pertinent detail of Local Church History yet is thought well of by him and endorsed by blending brothers.
It is the epitome of disingenuous reporting, however, and sums up such efforts over the years in the leadership to keep the hidden things hidden that ought to be renounced.

[HERn]

I found the following quote by Dennis McCallum at http://www.xenos.org/essays/watchman...movement-china

"Idealism

Nee was not only idealistic, he was hyper- idealistic. The word "compromise" was not in his vocabulary. Cliff points out that he bitterly denounced the western missionary churches because,

". . . (he) found the Christians of the missionary societies' churches half-hearted and compromising, and charged that the denominations were weighted down with what was to him man-made traditions regarding baptism, worship and ordination, teaching what was quite foreign to what he read in the New Testament."

and again,

"Convinced of the rightness of his unstructured assembly, free from denominational traditions, he asserted, `Those who really want to live entirely in accordance with the Lord's truth will know real freedom in our midst.'"37

Nee considered the western form of church life (especially the existence of denominations) "an affront to God".38 He berated western missionaries for shamelessly asking for money for themselves.39 He deplored the clergy/laity distinction that was so strong in western Christianity.40 "While the responsibility of expanding the work of the Church lay chiefly, if not solely on the shoulder of the pastor in the other denominational churches, Nee concentrated on training all the believers to do the work of God."41

Thus Nee manifests himself as a purist in terms of primitive biblical Christianity. Interestingly, Cliff points out that a number of western missionaries agreed with Nee's criticisms, and forsook the agencies that had sent them in order to work with Nee.42 This did not earn Nee any popularity with western churches.

Another aspect of the same purism was his refusal to become a part of the popular nationalism that was dominating China at the time. During the war with Japan, he refused to pray that China or Japan would win. "It must be possible," he said in 1940, "for British and German, Chinese and Japanese Christians to kneel and pray together. . . in China, Christians and Missionaries have too much intimacy with the state. . . we ask for neither a Chinese nor a Japanese victory, but for whatever is of advantage. . . to Thee. . . "43 This remarkable excerpt from a war-time sermon was not what the average Chinese wanted to hear!

In another area, Nee argued that Christian workers should not only refrain from asking others for money for their own ministry, but that they should also not give any indication of need whether verbally or otherwise.44

Unfortunately, like so many purists, Nee's meticulous insistence on even the smallest detail sometimes resulted in a violation of a major ethical imperative. Nee's idealism was one of his greatest strengths, but without prioritization, it also became a weakness.45"

End quote.

I wanted to add that perhaps much of what was attributed to the Holy Spirit in Nee was from his own supercharged, highly intelligent, compulsive "old man". Seems to me that if a person appears more spiritual than the Apostle Paul and even our Lord Jesus Christ, then what we're seeing is not from the Holy Spirit.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

I found the following quote by Dennis McCallum at http://www.xenos.org/essays/watchman...movement-china

Let's start a new thread with McCallum's biography.

[Indiana]

...And in 2013-14 this book by brother Philip Lin appeared which is deficient in giving pertinent detail of Local Church History, yet is thought well of by him and endorsed by blending brothers.

It is the epitome of disingenuous reporting, however, and sums up the leaders efforts over the years to keep hidden things hidden that ought to have been renounced long ago. [/QUOTE]

Last summer, I was told by a long-time local church brother (retired elder) that I owe "these brothers" an apology, individually and publicly, for the extreme damage I caused them. He is Chinese and was listening to other Chinese in Southern CA who practice putting down truth and lifting up fiction - in the same manner Philip Lin does in his book. I later asked this Chinese brother, if he would like to help me write an apology to the brothers, and there was no reply for 3 weeks when he texted me that he was going to Hong Kong for a month. That is all he said. And, there has been no contact with me since. I knew he couldn't find a legitimate reason for me to apologize to anyone, but I would give him the chance to show me.

http://www.twoturmoils.com/LocalChur...ideofStory.pdf

"Witness Lee said in 1988 he pondered seriously the concerns of several brothers who had been in contact with him, and he checked with the Lord earnestly to see if he was making any mistakes in his ministry. He concluded that he was all right before the Lord and that he should just “sail on”, and issued the command to the churches to do likewise. Philip, your book shows that you have followed that command. To sail on you had to sacrifice. You sacrificed firstly your conscience, and therefore the truth; having done that, it became easy for you to sacrifice your brothers, as brother Lee did and became the example to follow.

"This is the keystone of your book to me that you have done this again and merely repeat the same mistakes made by leaders before you. You have truly sacrificed and are still sailing on. Instead of manifesting the truth this time by renouncing the hidden things of shame, you glorify someone,and speak falsehoods about others, brothers who you know were right according to your conscience and who stood against the hidden things brought to your attention then, and now.

"This has been the way of the blending brothers, to sail over the truth. And after years of sailing, Andrew Yu and Minoru Chen, apparently endorsing your book, are sailing on over the truth again."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Philip, your book shows that you have followed that command. To sail on you had to sacrifice. You sacrificed firstly your conscience, and therefore the truth; having done that, it became easy for you to sacrifice your brothers, as brother Lee did and became the example to follow.

"This is the keystone of your book to me that you have done this again and merely repeat the same mistakes made by leaders before you. You have truly sacrificed and are still sailing on. Instead of manifesting the truth this time by renouncing the hidden things of shame, you glorify someone,and speak falsehoods about others, brothers who you know were right according to your conscience and who stood against the hidden things brought to your attention then, and now.

"This has been the way of the blending brothers, to sail over the truth.

Well said. It's short and to the point.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Indiana

"Witness Lee said in 1988 he pondered seriously the concerns of several brothers who had been in contact with him, and he checked with the Lord earnestly to see if he was making any mistakes in his ministry. He concluded that he was all right before the Lord and that he should just “sail on”, and issued the command to the churches to do likewise. Philip, your book shows that you have followed that command. To sail on you had to sacrifice. You sacrificed firstly your conscience, and therefore the truth; having done that, it became easy for you to sacrifice your brothers, as brother Lee did and became the example to follow.

"This is the keystone of your book to me that you have done this again and merely repeat the same mistakes made by leaders before you. You have truly sacrificed and are still sailing on. Instead of manifesting the truth this time by renouncing the hidden things of shame, you glorify someone,and speak falsehoods about others, brothers who you know were right according to your conscience and who stood against the hidden things brought to your attention then, and now.

"This has been the way of the blending brothers, to sail over the truth. And after years of sailing, Andrew Yu and Minoru Chen, apparently endorsing your book, are sailing on over the truth again."

Just like the CRI criticized past "studies" of the LC movement as not probing deep enough, Christian scholars and apologists (especially the CRI) who have come out in full support of the LC, also have not probed deep enough. I've been in the LC my whole life and I can say that my concerns didn't develop overnight, or even after a few years. It took me much longer than that to really develop concerns about it.

When it comes to Lee's fundamental teachings, everyone is going to have their own view on his teachings. Those teachings which have been addressed by outsiders are really only a small part of the picture. When it comes to some of the more intricate aspects of Lee's ministry, where has there been any detailed analysis from the outside? I completely agree that this is something that should have been done before arriving at any conclusions about the LC.

[UntoHim]

Excellent observations Freedom.

The original studies of the LC movement could only have been as deep as Lee and his followers were open about what was REALLY taught behind the closed meeting hall doors. For the most part, Bob and Gretchen Passantino (original CRI researchers into the LC) went by all the publicly available literature they could get their hands on, and actually conducted a very fair and comprehensive treatment under the circumstances. I remember back in those days (circa 77-78) all of the Local Churches in Orange County were on alert for any strangers coming to the meetings. If anyone was suspected to be from CRI, or any kind of apologetic ministry, the meeting was converted to a "Local Church Lite" atmosphere, with a minimum of high volume "Oh, Lord Jeeeeeeesssssuuusss", as few "poor, poor Christianity" blasts as possible, etc. I heard the Passantinos did go to some LC meetings, but none at my Local Church.

Bob Passantino passed away in 2003 at only 52 years old. I highly suspect that he would have never endorsed the Local Church as Hank Hanegraaff et al did here recently. Gretchen Passantino Colburn past away just this past October, so it's too bad she didn't have the time to come to her senses regarding her part in that disgraceful "re-evaluation" of the Local Church of Witness Lee. Of course there is no doubt that Hanegraaff was the main proponent of that embarrassment of an "apologetic" work "We Were Wrong".

Here is a tidbit from Hank on his website:
This reality began to surface in 2003 when I asked Gretchen Passantino and Elliot Miller, editor-in-chief of the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL, to join me for a meeting with representatives of Living Stream Ministry. During the meeting I heard stirring affirmations of the very doctrines the local churches allegedly denied. One by one, and in their own words, representatives of the local churches testified to their belief in one God, revealed in three persons who are eternally distinct; to the reality that human beings can never ontologically attain Godhood; and to the fact that they were “only the church” as opposed to being “the only church.”

Notice when "this reality began to surface"? 2003 No doubt after Bob Passantino died. Coincidence? I think not. I'm afraid Mr. Hank heard "stirring affirmations" of what the LC brothers knew what he wanted to hear. What Hanegraaff should have done was pull out the latest HWMR or Training outline, ask some serious direct questions, and then watch em squirm in their seats. This is what a REAL Christian apologist does...I mean one that is not totally boozambled and snowed under by the very subject is supposed to be "studying". He should have also requested to go to regular LC meetings, unannounced, so as to see what really goes on in the meetings. I don't think he or any of his cohorts did this - what they did is go to "show meetings" that were especially orchestrated to place everything in the best possible light.

"and to the fact that they were 'only the church' as opposed to being 'the only church'.”
Wow, Hank got to hear something that I have never heard in my nearly 40 years of hearing and reading the teachings of Witness Lee! Hey, you young guys out there - maybe I've missed the newest and greatest coming out of Anaheim - do they actually teach this now...that they are "only the church" as opposed to being "the only church"? So if they are "only the church" in Anaheim then they should be accepting all those who are "only the church" in Anaheim, right? So if me and a few of you fellows out there all move to Anaheim and proclaim that we are "only the church" in Anaheim, will the LC brothers come and meet with us, submit to our elders and follow the teachings of our preferred guru?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"and to the fact that they were 'only the church' as opposed to being 'the only church'.”
Wow, Hank got to hear something that I have never heard in my nearly 40 years of hearing and reading the teachings of Witness Lee! Hey, you young guys out there - maybe I've missed the newest and greatest coming out of Anaheim - do they actually teach this now...that they are "only the church" as opposed to being "the only church"? So if they are "only the church" in Anaheim then they should be accepting all those who are "only the church" in Anaheim, right? So if me and a few of you fellows out there all move to Anaheim and proclaim that we are "only the church" in Anaheim, will the LC brothers come and meet with us, submit to our elders and follow the teachings of our preferred guru?

The following quote of Lee is found in the We Were Wrong issue of the CRI Journal:

In every denomination, including the Roman Catholic Church, there are real, saved Christians. They are God’s people belonging to the Lord. But the organization of the denominations in which they are is not of God. The denominational organizations have been utilized by Satan to set up his satanic system to destroy God’s economy of the proper church life.
Witness Lee, “Message Thirty-Four” in The Life-Study of Genesis (Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1987), Vol. 1, p. 464

This statement was included among other statements found in Lee's ministry to show examples of how Lee could supposedly be "misinterpreted". Obviously, the fact that he said denominations are a satanic system is concerning, but I think there is also another concern. When I read a statement like that, the very fact that Lee said "In every denomination... there are real, saved Christians", seems to imply that those "real, saved Christians" within denominations are a minority. Why else would he say that in the first place? Speaking for myself, I can say that at various times, I have been exposed to an attitude where those in the LC will imply that other Christians may not be "genuinely saved". I wouldn't say that attitude is extremely common, but I've certainly seen it.

On page 34 of the We Were Wrong CRI journal, there is a heading "The Surprising Inclusive of the LC". There they attempt to make an argument for why the LC is so "inclusive". I don't think the LC and inclusive even belong in the same sentence. The only time I can say that I've ever seen those in the LC involved themselves with other Christians was to allow the CRI to do their "research" and allow them to speak in some meetings. Where I'm from, I can't say I've seen any inclusion of other Christians or acceptance of other ministries. It is all a big lie coming out of the mouths of LC leadership and the CRI.

Had the CRI done their homework, they would know that not only do those in the LC have problems with inclusiveness of Christians outside the LC, they also have problems with inclusiveness of those on the inside who don't see eye to eye on certain issues. In the 80's, brothers who didn't want to answer to PL and the ministry office were excommunicated. More recently brothers were excommunicated for not adhering to a one publication policy (which was supposedly optional). These things are the antithesis of being inclusive. What happened to Steve after he started writing on LC history is another example of the lack of inclusiveness. The facts are all there in black and white, LC leadership and the CRI have chosen to present a false view of things.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

On page 34 of the We Were Wrong CRI journal, there is a heading "The Surprising Inclusive of the LC". There they attempt to make an argument for why the LC is so "inclusive". I don't think the LC and inclusive even belong in the same sentence. The only time I can say that I've ever seen those in the LC involved themselves with other Christians was to allow the CRI to do their "research" and allow them to speak in some meetings. Where I'm from, I can't say I've seen any inclusion of other Christians or acceptance of other ministries. It is all a big lie coming out of the mouths of LC leadership and the CRI.

Local Churches in general are conditionally inclusive. As long as fellowship is based on LSM publications, there is inclusiveness. Any other talk of being inclusive is hypocritical.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Local Churches in general are conditionally inclusive. As long as fellowship is based on LSM publications, there is inclusiveness. Any other talk of being inclusive is hypocritical.

Yes, the inclusiveness stops when it's obvious that someone won't accept the ministry. I've seen many Christians come through over the years, and it appears that they are initially accepted within the LC, but so many of them end up leaving when they realize that the group is only for those who appreciate and want to immerse themselves in Lee's ministry.

In the CRI journal, they made the argument that because there are other Christian groups that aren't so inclusive, that makes it okay for the LC to have exclusive and sectarian tendencies (such as putting down denominations). CRI seems to be more about defending the LC, then honestly considering why the LC has the legacy that it does.

Like UntoHim said, I think that LC leadership has to put on a different face to impress those observing from the outside. On the inside it's completely different. If you display a disinterest in Lee's ministry, you might be viewed suspiciously. If you fairly analyze LC history, it's cause for excommunication. There are so many documented cases of how the LC really treats members who don't conform.

I think what makes the issue hard for outsiders to understand is that in many cases the exclusivity and sectarianism is done in a way where it is not so blatantly obvious, at least nowadays. They are somewhat willing to accept other Christians, even tolerate them if they don't conform right away, granted they're not voicing any concerns. Usually, when it becomes obvious that someone isn't a good fit, the just ignore that person until he or she leaves by their own doing. It makes it harder to point a finger at the LC and say they are exclusive.

I have stated before that I have been to Bible studies that involved non-LC Christians attending. They obviously will bring their own Bibles and the brothers would be quick to tell them they're welcome to use their own Bible, however, they would also use it as an opportunity to tell them about the RcV Bible. Every LC Bible study I've been to has involved extensive use of RcV footnotes, so it would not be possible for someone to use their own version of the Bible. That's where the hypocrisy is, that the brothers put on an act of being inclusive, however, everyone very well knows that the only goal for new comers in a situation such as a Bible study is to get everyone using the RcV.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Like UntoHim said, I think that LC leadership has to put on a different face to impress those observing from the outside. On the inside it's completely different. If you display a disinterest in Lee's ministry, you might be viewed suspiciously. If you fairly analyze LC history, it's cause for excommunication. There are so many documented cases of how the LC really treats members who don't conform.

That's why LSM has an editing team. To edit out content, they don't want outside observers to consume. It's completely different when (A) an outside organization such as CRI base their research off LSM publications compared to (B) another writer who might base their research off recorded messages given in trainings, conferences, or Lord's Day meetings.
When CRI did their research, LSM publications had already been diluted and sanitized for public consumption.

[Lisbon]

Originally Posted by Terry

That's why LSM has an editing team. To edit out content, they don't want outside observers to consume. It's completely different when (A) an outside organization such as CRI base their research off LSM publications compared to (B) another writer who might base their research off recorded messages given in trainings, conferences, or Lord's Day meetings.
When CRI did their research, LSM publications had already been diluted and sanitized for public consumption.

I may be far too simplistic but. CRI has read LSM for years and they even won a good battle in court with them. It still cost a bunch of money and they are not in business just for fun. They could do a lot of cheap talking to get those monkeys**** off their backs. When my sister showed Charisma's back talk after winning their battle in court, I told her it was all just crap and I still believe it. LSM is not the only ones who can lie. Business is business.
Lisbon

[Freedom]

Over the years, I always had my reservations about the LC, but I didn't question things until more recently. The first lawsuits were before my time, but every now and then when I heard brothers refer to the lawsuits. It always made me feel defensive, thinking to myself "how dare people say certain things about the LC". By the time CRI came out in support of the LC, I think I was already becoming disillusioned, however, it made me feel better about the LC for a bit longer than I would have otherwise. I took the position that the LC couldn't really be all that bad if outsiders were willing to support it.

Before I really began to question things, I never had any doubts that I was involved with something positive, and I know at one point in time I viewed the LC as the only group working for God on this earth. If I had read Sacrifice and Sail On several years ago, I might have walked away with a really arrogant view of the LC. Lin calls W. Lee a "Bond Slave of Jesus Christ". Not only that, but the way Lin explains the history behind W. Lee, someone could easily walk away with some kind of distored view where various post-WWII events were all arranged by God so that WL would go first to Taiwan and then come to the U.S. for the main part of his ministry.

Obviously those in the LC hold Lee and his ministry in high esteem, and I'm sure many would feel that they really are "the Lord's Recovery", doing whatever it is that is going to bring the Lord back. They don't think any other Christian groups are doing that.

As a lifetime LC member, I felt I was part of something really special, however, I had still my reservations. As I grew more and more disillusioned, I began to ask myself why it was necessary for outsiders to come in (CRI and HH) and attempt to legitimatize the LC. The lawsuits were also attempts by LC leadership to do the same thing. Finally, I had to ask wonder to myself "we call ourselves the Lord's Recovery, and if we really are that, why can't we gain a positive impression with outsiders by our own virtue? If we are something so special, then why do we have nothing to show for it?"

Part of the problem is that those in the LC developed a persecution complex over time, and that has meant that "opposition" became the indicator that LC leadership were doing things right. Obviously those who follow God can expect opposition and persecution, but that alone is not an indicator that a group is following God. Jesus was strongly opposed by many, but those who needed healing knew whom to go despite what anyone said. Likewise, if those in the LC have something of benefit to offer people, then great, let people find come out for themselves. Jesus didn't go around suing those who spoke bad things about him.

It has been almost 20 years now since W. Lee passed away. That is plenty of time for people to learn about his ministry if they wanted to. Much to the disappointment of those in the LC, the masses have not flocked to Lee's ministry, rather they have been drawn to other, more positive ministries. Rather than accept this fact and responsibility for certain failures, LC leadership has attempted to improve their tarnished reputation through the use of lawsuits, outside support (CRI) and the mass distribution of LSM literature (BFA). More recently Lin's book appear on amazon telling a revised history of Lee and the local churches.

At the heart of the issue, I know my experience and no amount of propaganda set forth by LC leadership can change that. Lin's book is pure propaganda when someone takes into account the true accounts of LC history. At one time I thought that I was involved with something positive. When I consider, however, all of the antics that I've been exposed to in my own LC experience, I am not surprised that so many have made various accusations against the LC. It is no wonder that so many aren't receptive of Lee's ministry. Why can't LC leadership accept this?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When I consider, however, all of the antics that I've been exposed to in my own LC experience, I am not surprised that so many have made various accusations against the LC. It is no wonder that so many aren't receptive of Lee's ministry. Why can't LC leadership accept this?

I don't know what the LC leadership think. Maybe they hold the view Lee's ministry is not for everyone?
It's as if they're saying God has many children, but only the elite see the vision Lee's ministry has through LSM publications.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Part of the problem is that those in the LC developed a persecution complex over time, and that has meant that "opposition" became the indicator that LC leadership were doing things right.

Part of this persecution complex is the "Us versus Them" mentality. As was revealed in testimonies from the Great Lakes turmoil, if a brother or sisters was neutral towards LSM, they were by default deemed against LSM because of the "Us versus Them" mentality. "If God is for us, who can be against us?"

As a result it doesn't matter if the LC leadership is righteous or unrighteous, the persecution complex results in a Teflon effect where any unrighteous behavior is excused as "false accusations", "opposers", etc as we see in Phillip Lin's excusing of Phillip Lee's behavior. No doubt, there were turmoils, it's a matter of perspective who is reactive to the turmoil.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Freedom

At the heart of the issue, I know my experience and no amount of propaganda set forth by LC leadership can change that. Lin's book is pure propaganda when someone takes into account the true accounts of LC history. At one time I thought that I was involved with something positive. When I consider, however, all of the antics that I've been exposed to in my own LC experience, I am not surprised that so many have made various accusations against the LC. It is no wonder that so many aren't receptive of Lee's ministry. Why can't LC leadership accept this?

One simple answer. In order to do so they would have to admit Lee was fundamentally wrong about something. If they did that, it would be a seismic shift in the LCM worldview. All the stars they steer by would be rearranged. Finally, they would have to admit they are just another group. Which would blow their self-image to smithereens.

Like I said. Seismic.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

I don't know what the LC leadership think. Maybe they hold the view Lee's ministry is not for everyone?
It's as if they're saying God has many children, but only the elite see the vision Lee's ministry has through LSM publications.

Exactly.

Like the marines. The few. The proud.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

One simple answer. In order to do so they would have to admit Lee was fundamentally wrong about something. If they did that, it would be a seismic shift in the LCM worldview. All the stars they steer by would be rearranged. Finally, they would have to admit they are just another group. Which would blow their self-image to smithereens.

Like I said. Seismic.

I completely agree. It's not easy for anyone with an LC background to transition to the view that the LC is just "another group". This is exactly the view that LC leaders don't want members to arrive at. At the heart of the issue, I think LC leadership is fighting a losing battle on two fronts. They have to figure out ways to retain current members, and they also how to recruit new members. All groups have to do this, but because the LCM has defined itself as being "the Lord's Recovery" they have essentially given members a grandiose view as to what kind of group they are. Members are bound to eventually encounter a disconnect with that false reality. When I started to consider what the LC claimed to be, along with my own experiences, there was a considerable disconnect. Once I read the writings of former members, I realized that the current LC couldn't possibly all that it was made out to be.

Considering the commonly held beliefs are that Lee's ministry has "unlocked" the whole Bible, and that it's not possible for there to be any fundamental errors in LC teachings/practices, it follows that the LCM has set quite a standard for itself to live up to. Like I said in my last post, any group that calls itself "the Lord's Recovery" should be able to demonstrate that by their own merits. Because members see themselves as being part of something special, they have the expectation that their experiences will match that. When this doesn’t happen, as was the case with me, the disillusionment and disappointment come in.

Some LC members might not even view the LC as being something particularly special. They just like the environment, or the social connections they have. I’m sure LC leaders view this as dangerous, because when people are more or less “indifferent” to the fundamental aspects of the LC, there is no reason for them to stay once they grow weary of it all. This is where propaganda like Lin’s book comes in. In the beginning of Sacrifice and Sail On, Lin quickly admits that there is a whole generation that doesn’t know how the LCM formed here in the U.S., neither do they have an understanding of who Lee really was. Obviously Lin doesn’t present the real view of Lee, however, in the eyes of LC leadership, I’m sure they feel that the younger generation has to have at least some appreciation of Lee. If there are too many who are indifferent, then the LC would quickly collapse.

As to where the LCM is headed for the future, my guess is as good as anyone else. Maybe they have succeeded at creating a system that keeps people in, but as far as growth is concerned, I’m not all that convinced that they will have much success, if any. It's actually a perilous position to be in, because Lee's ministry ended almost 20 years ago. All they have to offer is what Lee spoke over the course of his life. His ministry is over, so the only thing that is "new" is the occasional spin the BB's will put on Lee's ministry, as well as what they call "the up-to-date speaking", which is really just a regurgitation of Lee's ministry. It’s not the best formula for gaining people, and that’s not even mentioning how relevant Lee’s ministry is to the average person in 2015.

I mentioned in my last post that they have sought to “legitimatize” Lee’s ministry through various methods. I assume that LC leadership would blame the lack of receptiveness to Lee’s ministry on “the opposition”. I would ask, however, how many people even care about Lee’s ministry? I bet most people have no idea who Lee even was, much less the controversy that surrounded his ministry. In my mind “the opposition” is just an excuse to rationalize the lack of receptiveness to Lee’s ministry.

To address just how “relevant” Lee’s ministry is, I did a quick little comparison. I went on Amazon and searched for the “ESV Study Bible”. That comes up ranked at #3013 in the “Books” category and has been available for sale since 2008. It is priced at $31. By comparison, the Recovery Version New Testament is ranked at #857,619 in the “Books” category, and if I am not mistaken, has been available for sale on Amazon before BFA even started. It is priced at $13, so if it was something people really wanted, it one could assume that it would sell reasonably well. Quite to the contrary, it doesn’t appear there is much interest in it at all. I would not attribute that to BFA giving them away for free, because when I did BFA distributions, people had never even heard of the Recovery Version before. Just consider the irony though, the value that Lee’s ministry holds in the view of the general public is that it has to be distributed, free of charge. Even then, who knows, most people probably just stick it on the bookshelf.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Freedom

As to where the LCM is headed for the future, my guess is as good as anyone else.

Reading your level-headed post I thought of how wise God is to limit our time. Imagine what life would be like if someone could come to power for centuries. I remember a story Lee himself told about how people came to Nee lamenting the evil world leaders during WWII. Nee told them not to worry, that they would have their time and then be gone. He was right. It is ironic that he was also making a prediction about himself, and his successor, Lee. Their time is gone. And their memory fades into the mist. Another generation takes over and makes their own mark, which itself fades. It's not tragic; it's the way it's supposed to be. Time catches up with everyone, and even the Age runs out on the Minister who thought he defined it.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I completely agree. It's not easy for anyone with an LC background to transition to the view that the LC is just "another group". This is exactly the view that LC leaders don't want members to arrive at. At the heart of the issue, I think LC leadership is fighting a losing battle on two fronts. They have to figure out ways to retain current members, and they also how to recruit new members.

Some LC members might not even view the LC as being something particularly special. They just like the environment, or the social connections they have. I’m sure LC leaders view this as dangerous, because when people are more or less “indifferent” to the fundamental aspects of the LC, there is no reason for them to stay once they grow weary of it all. This is where propaganda like Lin’s book comes in. In the beginning of Sacrifice and Sail On, Lin quickly admits that there is a whole generation that doesn’t know how the LCM formed here in the U.S., neither do they have an understanding of who Lee really was. Obviously Lin doesn’t present the real view of Lee, however, in the eyes of LC leadership, I’m sure they feel that the younger generation has to have at least some appreciation of Lee. If there are too many who are indifferent, then the LC would quickly collapse.

I tend to think older generations and from younger generations; those who have gone through FTTA see the Local churches as being distinct and unique. Someone like a RK might even say only those meeting with the local churches are the Body of Christ. Thus they abhor the thought the so-called Lord's recovery is just another group of Christians.

I tend to think the younger generations don't see the local churches as being something special. It's what they know. It's the environment many churchkids were raised in. Practices are familiar. To attend a non-LSM fellowship is out of their comfort zone.
For some, social structure is predicated on the churchlife as seen in the local churches; LD meetings, prayer meetings, brothers meetings, sisters meetings, home meetings, Saturday morning cleaning service, etc. There is so much activity through out the week, only those you bond with through these activities become your social environment. There simply isn't any time for relationships outside the local church social environment.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

I tend to think older generations and from younger generations; those who have gone through FTTA see the Local churches as being distinct and unique. Someone like a RK might even say only those meeting with the local churches are the Body of Christ. Thus they abhor the thought the so-called Lord's recovery is just another group of Christians.

I tend to think the younger generations don't see the local churches as being something special. It's what they know. It's the environment many churchkids were raised in. Practices are familiar. To attend a non-LSM fellowship is out of their comfort zone.
For some, social structure is predicated on the churchlife as seen in the local churches; LD meetings, prayer meetings, brothers meetings, sisters meetings, home meetings, Saturday morning cleaning service, etc. There is so much activity through out the week, only those you bond with through these activities become your social environment. There simply isn't any time for relationships outside the local church social environment.

This is probably true. In my experience, there are many in the LC, and ones that have come and gone who obviously aren't there for "the vision". Maybe they feel that the format of LC meetings gives them "a voice" that they wouldn't get at normal churches. Maybe they feel that the LC is the answer to their numerous problems. Whatever the case may be, these kinds of members do serve a purpose, if for nothing else than to fill seats.

The problem is, however, that those who aren't there for "the vision" are the ones who are also the most likely to leave. While activities and keeping a person busy can work for a while, I'm not sure how effective that is over the long term. Eventually LC members have to be implanted with some type of idea that they are special and won't see "the vision" at any other church. The FTTA accomplishes that to some extent, but there are still plenty who will never go or haven't gone.

Since WL is no longer here, that is an immediate problem when it comes to getting members to appreciate him. Incoming members are unlikely to know who Lee even is. They will eventually catch on that there is some kind of "paper pope", but this doesn't necessarily translation to an immediate appreciation of Lee. I've seen newcomers who seem obviously concerned about who exactly Lee is, but they choose not to make an issue out of it for whatever reason. With the younger generations, no matter how zealous someone is, they have never met Lee and can only base their appreciation of his ministry on what they read.

It's true that they have succeeded in creating some young Lee zealots. It could have happened to me too, however, I got to the point where I realized that Lee was a highly controversial figure and that since I had never met nor seen Lee, defending him was not my fight. That's a perfectly reasonable stance for a LC member to take, but obviously LC leadership cannot have any "neutral" or apathetic members when it comes to appreciating or promoting Lee. The minute that becomes common, the LC can no longer exists as it would implode.

[Freedom]

When I look back at some of the views of the LC that I used to have, I realize that I liked feeling "special". I liked feeling that we really had recovered something that no one else had. I think this is what kept me with the program so long. I never needed to be convinced of anything. I had already bought into it all.

Ironically, it seems where the whole illusion started to dissipate was in regards to WN and WL. I appreciated both of their ministries, but as to who they really were as people, that I could have really cared less. What really got me, is when I realized that they were figures who were worshiped, and not just their respective ministries. Many held them in high esteem, as if they were absolute authorities in all matters (even though neither is alive today).

I went to numerous trainings where the BB's would make statements like "Brother Lee would have wanted us to do X" or "It was Brother Lee's desire that we build a training center in Boston". This kind of stuff bothered me a bit because I though to myself, "who cares what Brother Lee wanted, he's not alive anymore". During the Great Lakes split, I heard a lot of talk from the BB's about how WL's ministry had never ended. It forced me to come to the harsh reality that it wasn't just his ministry that people appreciated. It was WL himself, and for lack of better words, he was being idolized.

This is not a realization that I had overnight or even over a period of a few months. It took me a few years to fully realize this.