Young Galileans conference in NY

[to_sam]

Hi there!

In this post:

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...lileans&page=2

I was reading about the Young Galileans. I believe that was a conference helt by WL in New York some time in 1976 or 1977. Can anyone provide some details on the content of that conference?

Thanks,
Sam

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by to_sam

Hi there!

In this post:

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...lileans&page=2

I was reading about the Young Galileans. I believe that was a conference helt by WL in New York some time in 1976 or 1977. Can anyone provide some details on the content of that conference?

Thanks,
Sam

Welcome to the forum Sam!

Not sure if any of the current posters were actually at that conference. I never knew exactly where or when the talk of "Young Galileans" got started, but this "flow" kind of swept thru the country. At that time Max Rapoport, the universal coordinator of the one new man, was traveling extensively and sharing this "fresh move of the Lord." As was typical for every new WL "flow," lots of young people were damaged while implementing it, but WL never took any responsibility for it.

If you have some specific questions in mind, you might be able to jog the memories of some of the old-timers here.

[alwayslearning]

I'm not sure of the exact content of that particular conference but the outcome of the "flow" was young people moving to Orange County to start churches in the cities surrounding Anaheim so they could support Witness Lee's "Ministry Station" in Anaheim - Irvine, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, etc.

Many churches outside of OC felt "robbed" of their young people as many abandoned their local churches and moved to OC to be "in the up to date flow". Of course the disgruntlement was muted lest they be accused of "not being for the ministry".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

I'm not sure of the exact content of that particular conference but the outcome of the "flow" was young people moving to Orange County to start churches in the cities surrounding Anaheim so they could support Witness Lee's "Ministry Station" in Anaheim - Irvine, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, etc.

Many churches outside of OC felt "robbed" of their young people as many abandoned their local churches and moved to OC to be "in the up to date flow". Of course the disgruntlement was muted lest they be accused of "not being for the ministry".

What happened on the east coast was the same. Hundreds of young people from up and down the "right coast" moved to Boston to be "trained" by Sal Benoit, the under-study of Max. All the other churches were "robbed" by Boston. Titus Chu, however, refused to allow all of the Great Lakes Area young people to "follow the flow" to Boston, which, of course, created a few dicey confrontations with the local Max supporters.

The very next year in Boston was the "brotherly love flow" which reportedly netted 50 marriages. What else were all these energetic young people supposed to do? Thus the saints actually did receive some practical "training" after all. So if the "young Galileans" did not end up in the bars, getting their "hands dirty," trying to capture the "raw heathen," they perhaps were preserved in the faith having families and getting a decent education in Boston.

When did WL ever apologize for how he and his minions manipulated the lives of young believers? Had he no shame? How many lives were destroyed following by all of these man-made "flows," convinced that the Lord was behind them somewhere. I distinctly remember being told that I was now in the Lord's army, and my only duty was to prepare myself to be deployed by the ministry at a place of their choosing. I ended up in Columbus.

[to_sam]

Thanks Ohio! I asked myself what could have caused such man-made flow among the young people all over the country. I concluded that such a seed must have been planted through that particular conference. Some kind of a strange "spirit" must have been released - where else would such a mess among the young people come from? Hence I am interested in the actual messages given at this conference. Has anyone in the forum attended it?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by to_sam

Thanks Ohio! I asked myself what could have caused such man-made flow among the young people all over the country. I concluded that such a seed must have been planted through that particular conference. Some kind of a strange "spirit" must have been released - where else would such a mess among the young people come from? Hence I am interested in the actual messages given at this conference. Has anyone in the forum attended it?

You are right about "strange spirits" being released into the recovery.

This is one reason why I am on guard every time I hear that the church is the "army of God." Yes, Ephesians mentions that, but when I hear others use that analogy, it becomes quite manipulative, and many young ones get hurt. After the "young Galilean" flow spread from place to place, there was much "army" talk. Young people were told that church leaders were to direct their movements and provide them with training. Witness Lee became known as the commander-in-chief.

The Bible indicates that we must learn to follow the Lamb wherever He leads, and to walk by the Spirit. No scripture ever advises us to abrogate our obedience to Christ in lieu of earthly generals and captains in the "army of God." Now when I think back to those days, I think of some Islamist Jihad. Healthy leaders, however, should be as shepherds, leading us to the good Pasture, who is Christ Himself, and help us to know His voice. Instead LC leaders "played God" with the young people, and subsequently damaged many a dear child of God.

They did this repeatedly over the years with every "flow" out of Anaheim. They made these flows mandatory upon all the churches, and criticized those leaders who balked at the latest program. A system of internal spies fed back to headquarters a list of those leaders who did not jump on every movement. Never once did these leaders repent for damaging young people, and those who have questioned the program were silenced. That really troubles me.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Healthy leaders, however, should be as shepherds, leading us to the good Pasture, who is Christ Himself, and help us to know His voice. Instead LC leaders "played God" with the young people, and subsequently damaged many a dear child of God.

They did this repeatedly over the years with every "flow" out of Anaheim. They made these flows mandatory upon all the churches, and criticized those leaders who balked at the latest program. A system of internal spies fed back to headquarters a list of those leaders who did not jump on every movement. Never once did these leaders repent for damaging young people, and those who have questioned the program were silenced.

1 Chronicles 13:5-10
So David assembled all Israel together, from the Shihor of Egypt even to the entrance of Hamath, to bring the ark of God from Kiriath-jearim. David and all Israel went up to Baalah, that is, to Kiriath-jearim, which belongs to Judah, to bring up from there the ark of God, the Lord who is enthroned above the cherubim, where His name is called. They [a]carried the ark of God on a new cart from the house of Abinadab, and Uzza and Ahio drove the cart. 8 David and all Israel were celebrating before God with all their might, even with songs and with lyres, harps, tambourines, cymbals and with trumpets. When they came to the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzza put out his hand to hold the ark, because the oxen nearly upset it. The anger of the Lord burned against Uzza, so He struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark; and he died there before God.

These flows and new moves are like a type of new cart. A fleshly attempt of trying to do God's work through new ideas, new techniques, etc. Every decade since the 1970's there has been some type of a flow or move. Ohio has touched upon his experience in the 70's. In the 80's it was the door knocking. In the 90's it was PSRP. In the last decade it was GTCA. Just last month when I was in California, I heard a brother speaking about the latest flow.
Each time you hear about a new move or a new flow it's really a type of the new cart as seen in 1 Chronicles 13:7.

[to_sam]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are right about "strange spirits" being released into the recovery.

This is one reason why I am on guard every time I hear that the church is the "army of God." Yes, Ephesians mentions that, but when I hear others use that analogy, it becomes quite manipulative, and many young ones get hurt. After the "young Galilean" flow spread from place to place, there was much "army" talk. Young people were told that church leaders were to direct their movements and provide them with training. Witness Lee became known as the commander-in-chief.

The Bible indicates that we must learn to follow the Lamb wherever He leads, and to walk by the Spirit. No scripture ever advises us to abrogate our obedience to Christ in lieu of earthly generals and captains in the "army of God." Now when I think back to those days, I think of some Islamist Jihad. Healthy leaders, however, should be as shepherds, leading us to the good Pasture, who is Christ Himself, and help us to know His voice. Instead LC leaders "played God" with the young people, and subsequently damaged many a dear child of God.

They did this repeatedly over the years with every "flow" out of Anaheim. They made these flows mandatory upon all the churches, and criticized those leaders who balked at the latest program. A system of internal spies fed back to headquarters a list of those leaders who did not jump on every movement. Never once did these leaders repent for damaging young people, and those who have questioned the program were silenced. That really troubles me.

The church is supposed to be God's army - no doubt about that. BUT Christ must be the commander-in-chief!

Anyways, if anyone has notes taken in these "young galileans" meetings or some other referenecs, it would be interesting.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by to_sam

Anyways, if anyone has notes taken in these "young galileans" meetings or some other references, it would be interesting.

I think your best hope is among the "lurkers" here. Perhaps someone will see this large note and take note.

Anyone know if those conference messages were edited into book form by LSM?

Messages were given in NYC in '76 or '77.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think your best hope is among the "lurkers" here. Perhaps someone will see this large note and take note.

Anyone know if those conference messages were edited into book form by LSM?

Messages were given in NYC in '76 or '77.

I heard second hand about these messages. The idea is that of the 12 disciples 11 were "young galileans" and only one was from Judah (Judas). The young galileans were simple, absolute, and not darkened by religious teachings from Jerusalem. Is it just a coincidence that Judas was not a galilean but from Judah? The church needs to purge out the old leaven, referring to all the old stodgy members who are corrupted by their teachings they brought from Christianity.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Lurker

I heard second hand about these messages. The idea is that of the 12 disciples 11 were "young galileans" and only one was from Judah (Judas). The young galileans were simple, absolute, and not darkened by religious teachings from Jerusalem. Is it just a coincidence that Judas was not a galilean but from Judah? The church needs to purge out the old leaven, referring to all the old stodgy members who are corrupted by their teachings they brought from Christianity.

Yes, that's right, now I remember all that talk about not being religious -- better to be a sinful heathen than a "religious" Christian. Max really took off with that anti-religion stuff, traveling from place to place. Imagine what obnoxious things they could cram into the young people when the only point of reference for being so-called religious was if the "expected" occurred. Anything different and unexpected must therefore be of God.

I remember one elder in Chicago, at the conference with Max at that old masonic temple they owned, who ripped out his belt and threatened to whip the young people who did not "Amen" WL's burden and relocate to the campuses for the "young Galilean" gospel flow. Obviously that was not religious, but it was not the Lord either. Thus many works of the flesh, in the guise of being "not religious," were thrust upon unsuspecting saints and young people like myself.

The elders were all suspect in those days since they must have been responsible for the "dead' condition in the churches. (I never knew that the churches were dead until that weekend. Until then I thought they were pretty living.) IIRC Max was sent out by WL to "shake up" the churches, and shake he did. Most of the elders either resigned or were fired by Max because of the insinuation that they were from Judah, where all the religious Pharisees were. Titus Chu, however, refused to resign, and none of his appointees would either.

This whole obnoxious "young Galilean" affair had its source directly with WL. Yet, when it all when up in flames, WL threw Max under the bus, and he came out smelling like a rose. WL was a master at this, and Titus was a master at protecting Witness Lee. Ten years later WL did it again, this time with Ingalls and Mallon, and once again Titus was one of his enablers.

[to_sam]

Originally Posted by Lurker

I heard second hand about these messages. The idea is that of the 12 disciples 11 were "young galileans" and only one was from Judah (Judas). The young galileans were simple, absolute, and not darkened by religious teachings from Jerusalem. Is it just a coincidence that Judas was not a galilean but from Judah? The church needs to purge out the old leaven, referring to all the old stodgy members who are corrupted by their teachings they brought from Christianity.

Wow, that's the first time I hear about Judas in that context. So are you saying the former elders were refered to as some sort of Judas? That's pretty scary.

[to_sam]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I remember one elder in Chicago, at the conference with Max at that old masonic temple they owned, who ripped out his belt and threatened to whip the young people who did not "Amen" WL's burden and relocate to the campuses for the "young Galilean" gospel flow. Obviously that was not religious, but it was not the Lord either. Thus many works of the flesh, in the guise of being "not religious," were thrust upon unsuspecting saints and young people like myself.

Thanks, Ohio, for highlighting my request. I like your statement above (red) to which I fully agree. So which weekend are you refering to when you're saying that you noticed about the dead condition of the churches?

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This whole obnoxious "young Galilean" affair had its source directly with WL. Yet, when it all when up in flames, WL threw Max under the bus, and he came out smelling like a rose. WL was a master at this, and Titus was a master at protecting Witness Lee. Ten years later WL did it again, this time with Ingalls and Mallon, and once again Titus was one of his enablers.

Max did the unpardonable sin in the LC system. He challenged Witness Lee's son for his immoral behavior and thus indirectly challenged Witness Lee. The whole "Young Galilean" flow was a convenient pretext to oust Max. Otherwise why kick him out? At Witness Lee's direction he tried to implement a program and in fact it did work (in terms of the programs desired outcomes) i.e. lots of young people moved to OC so Witness Lee would have support and an audience for his "Ministry Station".

Later the same thing happened to John Ingalls, Bill Mallon etc. As soon as they started questioning the elevated position of Philip Lee as Witness Lee's "top coworker" their troubles began. Once John Ingalls, Al Knoch and Godfred Otuteye dared to excommunicate him their eldership in Anaheim was effectively over. Of course it was never mentioned that this was the reason. Instead there was a blizzard of verbal and written materials put out by LSM to make them look like nothing but a bunch of ambitious power hungry disgruntled coworkers who started an international conspiracy to take over the Lord's Recovery. And people bought it lock, stock and barrel!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by to_sam

Wow, that's the first time I hear about Judas in that context. So are you saying the former elders were referred to as some sort of Judas? That's pretty scary.

No, not directly, not from the podium, but ...

Once you identify the eleven apostles as Galileans, and then the twelfth one as from Judah, and then go on to paint a picture of how those "dirty Galilean fishermen" changed the age as crazy lovers of Jesus, and how Jerusalem was home to those religious Pharisees who love their stale traditions, hinder the move of God, take away our fresh liberties in the Spirit, and persecute the Lord's seekers, then one only needs to "connect the dots" to arrive at that conclusion. Definitely there was a strong ridicule aimed in the direction of the local churches and their eldership, (derisively called the garlic room) which supposedly was the obstacle to the Lord's fresh move to the campuses to bring salvation to young people.

WL charged Max to travel extensively and shake up the status quo. Being "religious" had become the catch all "bogey man" of the day. Anything related to "normal" churchlife was characterized as religious. Young people would set up the chairs in unique arrangements thinking that would save us from the "bogey man," declaring victoriously, "we are not religious." Max set the young people at odds with the church leaders, as if local coup d'etat's were required in every city. The result was unbelievable chaos. After all the fleshly energy subsided (i.e. "we are rip-roaring drunk in the spirit"), the physical and psychological "cleanup" took years.

Many young people were lost. Numerous churches were damaged. Relationships were strained. And WL needed to distance himself from the mess, since it can't be his fault! Time to blame it all on Max and his lieutenants. To be fair, I have heard that Max had repented for all the damage he caused. He did emerge from the turmoil with a more sober mind. He really was nothing more than a gifted and charismatic leader elevated by Lee to do his bidding, and then thrown under the bus when things went south.

I should add that Lee elevated Max because of his natural talents and because Max had gone about asking the saints and the churches to forgive the debts that Lee owed following the Daystar debacle. (But that's another story.) I am not aware of Max's apologies for what happened in Cleveland or Chicago.

I should also add that similar strategies were used a decade later during the "New Way." Lee always needed an "enemy" to blame when it came to capturing the hearts of young people for his latest endeavors to save the planet, and "stop the rise of the oceans," as another of our great leaders has said.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by to_sam

Thanks, Ohio, for highlighting my request. I like your statement above (red) to which I fully agree. So which weekend are you refering to when you're saying that you noticed about the dead condition of the churches?

It was a weekend regional conference in Chicago during May of 1977. The same timing of that infamous conference in Berkeley.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

WL charged Max to travel extensively and shake up the status quo.

Many young people were lost. Numerous churches were damaged. Relationships were strained. And WL needed to distance himself from the mess, since it can't be his fault! Time to blame it all on Max and his lieutenants.

I should also add that similar strategies were used a decade later during the "New Way."

Witness Lee purposely used the "Young Galilean" flow to further his ministry at the expense of the local churches and the local eldership. He got what he wanted: lots of new churches in OC to prop up his "Ministry Station". But in so doing there was so much push back from some local elders and coworkers he needed a scapegoat and he conveniently found one in Max.

But IMHO Max would have survived all the fury and fuss if he had not called out Philip Lee on his immoral behavior. That was the end for him and BTW it was the end for the brother who saw the activity and reported it. He and his wife were kicked out of the church too. And so were many others who would not shut up about having an immoral General Manager at LSM.

Ten years later Witness Lee started yet another "flow" and declared Taipei as the center of God's work on the earth and wanted churches to sent people over there to learn the so called "New Way" - which was really nothing but a few techniques like home meetings and door knocking and other ways of doing things. Soon the very same problem emerged: Philip Lee at the center of things except now after a decade of cover-ups he was considered to be Witness Lee's "top coworker" and this idea had credibility with some because Benson Phillips and Ray Graver - among others - advanced this notion and supported it wholeheartedly.

Again IMHO John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, John So, etc. could have survived all the fuss and bother if they did not call Philip Lee out on his behavior. That was the end for them.

Those running the LSM today are those who knowingly embraced an immoral man and made him Witness Lee's "top coworker". If I were a cynical man I would say: they knew this was the way to take over LSM once Witness Lee passed away. Imagine if Benson Phillips, etc stood with John Ingalls, etc to counter Philip Lee's rise to power? They would have either been ousted too or Witness Lee - left with no choice because all his key coworkers were in agreement - would have finally come to his senses.

I'm a little amazed by the various descriptions I've heard about this time in Local Church history.

When all the pieces of the puzzle are put together, it sounds like Lee instigated Max to go around causing trouble in many churches. Lee deliberately sent Max out from Anaheim, while at the same time undermining him there behind his back. Then when all of the churches were in turmoil, Lee was able to successfully blame Max for everything.

I heard references to Max and his "rebellion" when I came into the church (it was before my time), and never once was there a suggestion that Lee was involved. Instead, the description I heard was that Lee was naive and overly trusting, and Max was manipulative. Supposedly Max took advantage of Lee's simplicity in order to promote himself above Lee's ministry. I remember a brother telling me, "Max ruined hundreds of young people, and destroyed many churches."

Putting this together with Jane Anderson's account, it's even worse. Lee took advantage of Max's absence in order to deal with the "sister's rebellion," which included Max's wife.

If all of this is true, it sounds almost diabolical. How can a Christian minister take advantage of a loyal co-worker this way? How could Lee in good conscience send Max out to cause trouble in the churches, without any regard for all the casualties, and then simultaneously undermine Max in his home locality? And how could Lee send a husband away so he could speak negatively about the man's wife in a public meeting?

Honestly, I just don't get this at all.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

But IMHO Max would have survived all the fury and fuss if he had not called out Philip Lee on his immoral behavior ...

Again IMHO John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, John So, etc. could have survived all the fuss and bother if they did not call Philip Lee out on his behavior ...

If I were a cynical man I would say: they knew this was the way to take over LSM once Witness Lee passed away ...

If these facts are true, then the implications are enormous.

How can Witness Lee not be considered as old Eli in the book of I Samuel.

The reputations of Max Rapoport, John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon, and so many more were sacrificed solely to maintain the pristine image of the Lee family.

Righteousness and integrity were traded for lies and scander.

Benson Philips traded the protests in his conscience for potential leadership of the Recovery.

Titus Chu, knowing the same information, also must be considered the same as Benson.

Both leaders, readily acknowledged as the top two brothers in the US under WL, inevitably set the stage for a future confrontation over who would become successor to WL.

All the talk concerning the "truth," with websites galore and tract wars by both camps, were nothing more than a ruse to distract the attention of all the saints from noticing the battle was a personal one for power.

Which all seems to confirm the saying that power corrupts and the lust for power corrupts absolutely.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by formermember

Honestly, I just don't get this at all.

Welcome to the club!

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by formermember

When all the pieces of the puzzle are put together, it sounds like Lee instigated Max to go around causing trouble in many churches. Lee deliberately sent Max out from Anaheim, while at the same time undermining him there behind his back. Then when all of the churches were in turmoil, Lee was able to successfully blame Max for everything.

I heard references to Max and his "rebellion" when I came into the church (it was before my time), and never once was there a suggestion that Lee was involved.

Witness Lee hand picked Max from San Diego to move to Anaheim and become his "right hand man" so to speak. He liked Max's skills at effective gospel preaching which was lacking in the LC system. So Max became an elder in Anaheim and his first prime time appearance was in 1974 during a training. Witness Lee could not conduct the training due to a recent cataract operation so he picked: John Ingalls, James Barber, Bill Mallon and Max Rapoport to do the training. Of course it was recorded and sent around the world. This is how Max became well known in the LC system.

Max started traveling because he was invited by LCs to conduct gospel weekends. He would preach the gospel 2-3 times and many unsaved guests were saved through this work.

While this was humming along Witness Lee got the "Young Galilean" flow in his head which essentially involved convincing young people to move to OC to start churches around Anaheim to support his ministry. He sent Max out to stir things up. But once all the fuss and bother dies down what you can really pinpoint are 2 conferences: Berkley and Chicago in which the young people temporarily went off the rails. There was an anti-elders and old generation kind of feel to it. IMHO it was basically just young people letting off steam which could easily be reigned in.

So Witness Lee reigned it in and that could have been the end of it. Why was Max kicked out over that temporary bump in the road? Why not just move on and let him continue to work preaching the gospel, etc? Why? Because he was not kicked out over the "Young Galilean" flow and all the "damage" it did. His crime was very simple: he dared to confront Philip Lee about his immorality. So the Rapoports, the couple who's husband witnessed and reported events and others who would not cover it up were ousted from the Church in Anaheim and Max from his work with Witness Lee.

Ten years later some of the elders involved in ousting Max and the others from Anaheim repented to them for joining Witness Lee in the cover up and in removing them from the fellowship. Because by then they had come to their senses as they were being ousted for the same reason they had ousted others. It was basically just a repeat of history. (Sometimes history repeating itself is a good teacher.)

To understand how this could be you have to understand the sheer arrogance and ill-temper of Philip Lee. He had no respect at all for any coworkers or elders. And he was arrogant in his immorality unlike let's say David in the OT. The atmosphere was basically: I'll do whatever I want whenever I want with whoever I want and if you don't like too bad. (And as many found out the hard way: if you push it I'm going to have my Dad kick you out.)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by formermember

How can a Christian minister take advantage of a loyal co-worker this way? How could Lee in good conscience send Max out to cause trouble in the churches, without any regard for all the casualties, and then simultaneously undermine Max in his home locality? And how could Lee send a husband away so he could speak negatively about the man's wife in a public meeting?

Honestly, I just don't get this at all.

alwayslearning has (rightly I think) noted that the root cause of both so-called rebellions in the late 70's and late 80's had one common denominator -- Philip Lee getting busted for molesting the LSM volunteers. Apparently many local folks knew about these dirty little secrets at LSM, but they were kept under wraps. Phillip was able to get away with murder since he "knew the right people."

Once LC leaders -- mainly Max in the late 70's and Ingalls in the late 80's -- decided to go public and attempt to remove Philip Lee in order to protect the staff, Witness Lee squashed the action, and "killed" the messengers.

This is the part of history that was never told us. I was active in the LC's in the Great Lakes Area since the mid 70's, and I never learned these facts until late 2005. Nor did I hear about Daystar or many other financial problems created by the Lee family in Taipei. I can guarantee you that every single so-called "rebellion" against Witness Lee was started by brothers speaking their conscience against Lee family abuses and then Witness Lee turning the whole situation upon the "attackers" and making them look evil.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

While this was humming along Witness Lee got the "Young Galilean" flow in his head which essentially involved convincing young people to move to OC to start churches around Anaheim to support his ministry. He sent Max out to stir things up. But once all the fuss and bother dies down what you can really pinpoint are 2 conferences: Berkley and Chicago in which the young people temporarily went off the rails. There was an anti-elders and old generation kind of feel to it. IMHO it was basically just young people letting off steam which could easily be reigned in.

Were you aware that this young people relocation program was sold to them under the guise of their needing "training?" East coast young people were moved to Boston to be trained, and west coast moved to Anaheim to be trained. Titus stopped any from moving to Boston, but we did have some move to Socal.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Berkley and Chicago in which the young people temporarily went off the rails. There was an anti-elders and old generation kind of feel to it. IMHO it was basically just young people letting off steam which could easily be reigned in.

Things were far worse than you are admitting to. Behind the scenes in leaders' meetings, Max wanted all the elders to resign, so that LSM could have complete control over the young people. He did enough damage in the GLA to get himself fired from anyone's ministry staff.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

So Witness Lee reigned it in and that could have been the end of it. Why was Max kicked out over that temporary bump in the road? Why not just move on and let him continue to work preaching the gospel, etc? Why? Because he was not kicked out over the "Young Galilean" flow and all the "damage" it did.

This may be true because Lee knew that he was behind Max's activities. Either way, Lee had to protect his image in the face of an onslaught of complaints coming in from around the country.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Were you aware that this young people relocation program was sold to them under the guise of their needing "training?" East coast young people were moved to Boston to be trained, and west coast moved to Anaheim to be trained. Titus stopped any from moving to Boston, but we did have some move to Socal.

Yes I was aware of this and if I recall correctly Cleveland was also suppose to be a training center and dug a hole to expand their meeting hall but it never materialized so they filled the hole back up. (Unless I am getting my "flows" mixed up.)

Originally Posted by Ohio

Things were far worse than you are admitting to. Behind the scenes in leaders' meetings, Max wanted all the elders to resign, so that LSM could have complete control over the young people. He did enough damage in the GLA to get himself fired from anyone's ministry staff.

I am just giving my opinion in retrospect with the benefit of hindsight. If we take the sweep of LC system history starting with let's say Watchman Nee's excommunication in Shanghai. Add in Witness Lee maligning TAS and causing a big division in the Far East. Plus the Daystar mess and what surrounded it. Sprinkle in the fall outs with DeVern Fromke and Stephen Kaung. And the excommunication of Christian Chen. Then throw in the migrations and consolidation flows. (And that's the very very abridged version.) This brings us pretty close on the time line to the "Young Galileans" flow. We know after that flow came the "New Way" flow and then the upheaval that resulted in John Ingalls, etc leaving. IMHO considering it in a wider context puts the "Young Galilean" flow in a different perspective than as a stand alone event.

Concerning Max wanting the elders to resign I think it has become clear that he was a front man for Witness Lee. And BTW I think Witness Lee was clever to do it this way from a selfish and worldly point of view. (Not Christian of course.) He took himself out of the risk in case there was any push back. Or to use another term he maintained plausible deniability. He knew the elders - for example in GLA - were not appointed by Max. They were appointed by him or Titus in counsel with him. So the elders could have 2 possible reactions: take Max (an upstart in their view) at face value as a deputy of Witness Lee or call Witness Lee to verify if he actually wanted those elders he appointed to resign. We know most did the latter. And Witness Lee took the temperature of the situation and used his plausible deniability card when he realized the level of push back.

Without what happened 10 years later (with Max completely out of the picture) we would lack clarity on this issue. But we know Witness Lee's coworkers at his direction systematically went about changing the "status quo". They even told the young people they should be like the "Red Guards" and start a "Cultural Revolution". Any elders or coworkers who would not fall in line with the New Way were considered out of the "flow". But further than that they insisted that all elders and coworkers become one with the "Ministry Office"/Philip Lee - it's General Manager. So essentially part of the New Way was "oneness" with Philip Lee. This idea and practice was incorporated into the New Way as part of the package. And this became a litmus test.

John Ingalls, John So, etc were not against the New Way. Who would be against home meetings and gospel preaching? (The only thing John So was concerned about was door knocking in Germany because it did not match the cultural way of doing things especially with the Nazis history and what a knock on the door by a stranger meant in the national consciousness.) What they were against was "oneness" with an immoral man who was considered Witness Lee's top coworker.

So I still maintain that Max could have survived the "Young Galilean" flow. Witness Lee might have made him repent to a few offended elders and coworkers here and there to smooth some ruffled feathers. But if Witness Lee would have kept Max in the work everybody would have accepted it. No problem. Mistakes were made let's move on. IMHO that would have been the general consensus. But with Philip Lee on the warpath forget it. Max was out along with everybody else who would not engage in a cover up.

alwayslearning, could you say more about the excommunication of Christian Chen? What was that about?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

But if Witness Lee would have kept Max in the work everybody would have accepted it. No problem. Mistakes were made let's move on. IMHO that would have been the general consensus. But with Philip Lee on the warpath forget it. Max was out along with everybody else who would not engage in a cover up.

Agreed.

What I have never been able to understand is why Lee would allow his sons to do so much damage to his ministry. Some said (like Samuel Chang) have said that WL bore much guilt related to his children, and I (and others) really would not have a serious problem with him funneling off monies to support his grown kids. But allowing Philip to run his ministry!?! That's just crazy. That violated every teaching WL ever taught. Why would he do that?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

I am just giving my opinion in retrospect with the benefit of hindsight. If we take the sweep of LC system history starting with let's say Watchman Nee's excommunication in Shanghai. Add in Witness Lee maligning TAS and causing a big division in the Far East. Plus the Daystar mess and what surrounded it. Sprinkle in the fall outs with DeVern Fromke and Stephen Kaung. And the excommunication of Christian Chen. Then throw in the migrations and consolidation flows. (And that's the very very abridged version.) This brings us pretty close on the time line to the "Young Galileans" flow. We know after that flow came the "New Way" flow and then the upheaval that resulted in John Ingalls, etc leaving. IMHO considering it in a wider context puts the "Young Galilean" flow in a different perspective than as a stand alone event.

Concerning Max wanting the elders to resign I think it has become clear that he was a front man for Witness Lee. And BTW I think Witness Lee was clever to do it this way from a selfish and worldly point of view. (Not Christian of course.) He took himself out of the risk in case there was any push back. Or to use another term he maintained plausible deniability. He knew the elders - for example in GLA - were not appointed by Max. They were appointed by him or Titus in counsel with him. So the elders could have 2 possible reactions: take Max (an upstart in their view) at face value as a deputy of Witness Lee or call Witness Lee to verify if he actually wanted those elders he appointed to resign. We know most did the latter. And Witness Lee took the temperature of the situation and used his plausible deniability card when he realized the level of push back.

Without what happened 10 years later (with Max completely out of the picture) we would lack clarity on this issue. But we know Witness Lee's coworkers at his direction systematically went about changing the "status quo". They even told the young people they should be like the "Red Guards" and start a "Cultural Revolution". Any elders or coworkers who would not fall in line with the New Way were considered out of the "flow". But further than that they insisted that all elders and coworkers become one with the "Ministry Office"/Philip Lee - it's General Manager. So essentially part of the New Way was "oneness" with Philip Lee. This idea and practice was incorporated into the New Way as part of the package. And this became a litmus test.

John Ingalls, John So, etc were not against the New Way. Who would be against home meetings and gospel preaching? (The only thing John So was concerned about was door knocking in Germany because it did not match the cultural way of doing things especially with the Nazis history and what a knock on the door by a stranger meant in the national consciousness.) What they were against was "oneness" with an immoral man who was considered Witness Lee's top coworker.

So I still maintain that Max could have survived the "Young Galilean" flow. Witness Lee might have made him repent to a few offended elders and coworkers here and there to smooth some ruffled feathers. But if Witness Lee would have kept Max in the work everybody would have accepted it. No problem. Mistakes were made let's move on. IMHO that would have been the general consensus. But with Philip Lee on the warpath forget it. Max was out along with everybody else who would not engage in a cover up.

First of all what's the background of Devern Fromke and Stephen Kaung parting ways with Witness Lee? Was Witness too difficult to work with and placed too much an emphasis on the ground of locality?

Second of all beginning with Max and continuing with other elders and co-workers who would not ignore their conscience (relating to Phillip Lee), their circumstances was generally designated as "God is sovereign". Rather than labor on relationships to maintain oneness of the brothers, these brothers were generally washed their hands of by the ministry since their concerns with people, matters, and issues would not benefit the ministry. To say "God is sovereign" meant I have nothing more to do with this brother or this sister.
More to say later.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What I have never been able to understand is why Lee would allow his sons to do so much damage to his ministry. Some said (like Samuel Chang) have said that WL bore much guilt related to his children, and I (and others) really would not have a serious problem with him funneling off monies to support his grown kids. But allowing Philip to run his ministry!?! That's just crazy. That violated every teaching WL ever taught. Why would he do that?

I agree that most people would not care if Witness Lee gave money to his grown kids from his salary from LSM. People help their kids out everyday. And further I don't think most people would have a problem if some of his children were employees of LSM based on their actual qualifications as long as nepotism was kept in check and didn't poison the work environment. But allowing Philip Lee to run his ministry is indeed just crazy because of his temperament and behavior. He had temper tantrums for no good reason and screamed at people in front of everybody for insignificant issues. He would have free skilled labor build a beautiful bookcase on a wall and then 2 days later walk in and say he wanted it taken down and rebuilt in another room because he changed his mind. He made all these kind of whimsical decisions with no explanation. If you were an elder and slighted him he would stop sending your church it's standing order. (Actually I think this happened to Cleveland and they had to get their order through Chicago for a while.) Add to this his immoral behavior with women and you begin to get the picture.

But what is even crazier is to allow him into the foreground which is what happened with the New Way. Now he was being uplifted as Witness Lee's top coworker that all elders and coworkers internationally had to be "one" with or their support of The Ministry/Witness Lee would be called into question. Again if I was a cynical man I would conclude that Benson Phillips (who as a young man dreamed of running an international ministry) and Ray Graver knowing what Philip Lee was like purposely uplifted him in order to secure their own position in the future of LSM. Instead of challenging Witness Lee's choice of a GM they gladly accepted it and went one step further to make this immoral man someone elders and coworkers had to submit to to prove their "oneness" with The Ministry.

IMHO Witness Lee liked what Benson and Ray were doing not because he necessarily wanted his son to be in the foreground but because they were affirming that Witness Lee as the MOTA can do whatever he wants. By the time coworkers like John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, etc were challenging him on this he was emboldened enough to basically tell them it's none of their business. Without people like Benson and Ray respecting and worse promoting Philip Lee i.e. Witness Lee's decision could have effectively been called into question by John Ingalls, Bill, John So etc. They had the stature in the LC system to deal with it but not without the agreement of Benson, Ray and others who were more active in the LSM. Essentially, speaking in worldly terms, by that time power/influence in the LC system had shifted away from many of the original and who by then were senior coworkers to Philip Lee and those active in LSM along with him. They had the ear of Witness Lee and I think they had it because they were purposely telling him what he wanted to hear including: all his decisions were fine with them!

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Terry

First of all what's the background of Devern Fromke and Stephen Kaung parting ways with Witness Lee? Was Witness too difficult to work with and placed too much an emphasis on the ground of locality?

Without getting into too many particulars the essence of the situation is that Witness Lee does not like to "share the platform" with those of equal or greater stature. And certainly over the years he used the ground of locality as a pretext for not working well with others e.g. what he did to TAS.

Witness Lee's way of working is I'm the boss and you are my subordinates and will follow my directives. Titus Chu even referred to Witness Lee as the general in the Lord's army - when he tells you to do something you just do it. And Titus practiced the same kind of behavior with his subordinates in the GLA.

These other brothers work differently. They have their own ministries but they still often conduct conferences together. So you'll see Stephen Kaung, Lance Lambert and DeVern Fromke as speakers at a conference. TAS used to be one of the speakers too. They mutually respect each other as equals. And they visit some of the same churches as guest speakers. Their ministries have different flavors but similar underlying principles. But there is no idea that they are The Ministry or there is one publisher or anything like that.

Another issue is who was the legitimate successor of Watchman Nee and what exclusive privileges does that include? Witness Lee thought that he was the only legitimate successor and that it gave him exclusive rights to publish Watchman Nee's works as a continuation of the publishing work started by Watchman Nee in the Mainland and extended to the Hong Kong Church Bookroom and Taipei Gospel Book Room with the Stream Publishers added in the US which became LSM. Of course Stephen Kaung doesn't think this at all because he doesn't think in these terms i.e. who is the successor? So he publishes Watchman Nee - sometimes even on the same content as LSM - but sourced from different notes. DeVern Fromke published The Release of the Spirit through his publishing house Sure Foundation. This upset Witness Lee because he claimed exclusive copyright to it which of course he did not have.

So really they just have very different ways of working and beliefs in how the work should be done. Witness Lee ran a top down tightly controlled organization under him (now BB) with one publisher. All coworkers and elders were under his authority. Stephen Kaung, etc. have a much more easy going decentralized way of working. He has a publishing company, Fromke has one, Christian Chen has one, TAS had one. There's no push to be one with The Ministry or any such thing. Witness Lee would never be one among many in this kind of way.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Without getting into too many particulars the essence of the situation is that Witness Lee does not like to "share the platform" with those of equal or greater stature. And certainly over the years he used the ground of locality as a pretext for not working well with others e.g. what he did to TAS.

Witness Lee's way of working is I'm the boss and you are my subordinates and will follow my directives. Titus Chu even referred to Witness Lee as the general in the Lord's army - when he tells you to do something you just do it. And Titus practiced the same kind of behavior with his subordinates in the GLA.

These other brothers work differently. They have their own ministries but they still often conduct conferences together. So you'll see Stephen Kaung, Lance Lambert and DeVern Fromke as speakers at a conference. TAS used to be one of the speakers too. They mutually respect each other as equals. And they visit some of the same churches as guest speakers. Their ministries have different flavors but similar underlying principles. But there is no idea that they are The Ministry or there is one publisher or anything like that.

Thanks for your post. I have been to one conference Lance was the speaking brother. Stephen Kaung and Christian Chen spoke in other meetings. I was introduced to Stephen at a community church in Bellevue, WA. He expressed an openness to the local churches.
Years ago I used to subscribe to a publication called Rivers where Stephen Kaung, DeVern Fromke, Max Rapoport, John Ingalls, Paul Kerr, and Bill Mallon were all contributing brothers.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

Second of all beginning with Max and continuing with other elders and co-workers who would not ignore their conscience (relating to Phillip Lee), their circumstances was generally designated as "God is sovereign". Rather than labor on relationships to maintain oneness of the brothers, these brothers were generally washed their hands of by the ministry since their concerns with people, matters, and issues would not benefit the ministry. To say "God is sovereign" meant I have nothing more to do with this brother or this sister.
More to say later.

Continuing from earlier, the phrase "God is sovereign" has often been applied as an "opt-out clause" when terminating fellowship with brothers. Often a result of a conflict of interest or of differing visions.
What does the Word say?

Luke 18:1
Now He was telling them a parable to show that at all times they ought to pray and not to lose heart,

1 Thessalonians 5:14-22
We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone. See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people. Rejoice always; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Again if I was a cynical man I would conclude that Benson Phillips (who as a young man dreamed of running an international ministry) and Ray Graver knowing what Philip Lee was like purposely uplifted him in order to secure their own position in the future of LSM. Instead of challenging Witness Lee's choice of a GM they gladly accepted it and went one step further to make this immoral man someone elders and coworkers had to submit to to prove their "oneness" with The Ministry.

IMHO Witness Lee liked what Benson and Ray were doing not because he necessarily wanted his son to be in the foreground but because they were affirming that Witness Lee as the MOTA can do whatever he wants. By the time coworkers like John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, etc were challenging him on this he was emboldened enough to basically tell them it's none of their business. Without people like Benson and Ray respecting and worse promoting Philip Lee i.e. Witness Lee's decision could have effectively been called into question by John Ingalls, Bill, John So etc. They had the stature in the LC system to deal with it but not without the agreement of Benson, Ray and others who were more active in the LSM.

There is a price to pay for integrity. Do you sacrifice your integrity? If you don't, expect to have your reputation soiled and slandered. That is the result of what happened to some former co-workers and elders. Not that they wanted to have their names slandered. It was just the end result of heeding the spirit. Toe in good faith, how could they ignore their conscience?
Oh well! Most of these brothers are in their 80's now and nothing has changed outwardly in the attitude towards them.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Terry

There is a price to pay for integrity. Do you sacrifice your integrity?

In my view those currently running LSM who knew about Philip Lee's behavior and those elders in Anaheim who replaced John Ingalls, Godfred Otuteye and Al Knoch (and wrote a letter of apology to Philip Lee) and the 2 elders in Anaheim who rejected the excommunication of Philip Lee compromised their conscience's for the sake of loyalty to a man named Witness Lee.

At some point in time Benson Phillips and Ray Graver figured out that the way to run the LC system on a global basis was through LSM and the door in was the accommodation of Philip Lee regardless of anything he said or did. They were right. Of course I would only think this if I was a cynical man.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

At some point in time Benson Phillips and Ray Graver figured out that the way to run the LC system on a global basis was through LSM and the door in was the accommodation of Philip Lee regardless of anything he said or did.

In short, "the end justifies the means". Taking a shortcut was necessary to achieve the objective.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

In my view those currently running LSM who knew about Philip Lee's behavior and those elders in Anaheim who replaced John Ingalls, Godfred Otuteye and Al Knoch (and wrote a letter of apology to Philip Lee) and the 2 elders in Anaheim who rejected the excommunication of Philip Lee compromised their conscience's for the sake of loyalty to a man named Witness Lee.

What gets me riled up is not so much these brothers have compromised their conscience in order to be one with man, but to the unsuspecting and uninformed brothers and sisters, these lambs, these saints "not in the know" are given some untruths and maybe some half-truths meant to pass as factual. As a result you have a real-life situation of Isaiah 5:20.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Terry

What gets me riled up is not so much these brothers have compromised their conscience in order to be one with man, but to the unsuspecting and uninformed brothers and sisters, these lambs, these saints "not in the know" are given some untruths and maybe some half-truths meant to pass as factual. As a result you have a real-life situation of Isaiah 5:20.

Indeed it's a very applicable verse!

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

And even in the book by Watchman Nee The Normal Christian Worker there is an entire chapter on loyalty to the truth vs. loyalty to man. These men knew the truth of the situation and the Biblical truth on how to handle it but they knowingly and purposely refused to do so. Instead they opted to do what is described in Isaiah 5:20 and deceive many brothers and sisters in the LC system.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

These men knew the truth of the situation and the Biblical truth on how to handle it but they knowingly and purposely refused to do so. Instead they opted to do what is described in Isaiah 5:20 and deceive many brothers and sisters in the LC system.

Instead what has been said is, "the brothers just do not have the heart to reopen old wounds and delve into matters that we believe were resolved many years ago,"

They may not want to reopen old wounds, but until these "old wounds" are reopened, brothers and sisters will continue to be deceived regarding these matters.

Referring back to the original post, I do not remember any conference done by WL in NY at all, or in the mid 70s either, and I was there from '74-'80. Neither I do not remember any reference to the 'Young Galileans." Off topic, I do remember that when I started college, I was excited about having other Christians from the LC at my school, that I would have fellowship. Then they all got up and left to move to Boston with the Sal Benoit thing, leaving me and one other brother the only ones at my school. Later a bunch of LCers invaded my campus Christian meeting, to take it over and run it "In the New and Living Way." Those 2 experiences were probably the start of my deciding to leave, because of the haughtiness I perceived towards other believers, and that God could only be experienced in one spot on the planet (Boston).

All of this information is incredible and, frankly, awful. In all my years in the LC, I have never felt kindness coming from WL. While I never met him one on one, I always thought he was rough in his dealings with saints who answered in a way he didn't like at trainings and conferences and the "signs" I received in my heart as I listened to and watched this man were not good, but, rather harsh and authoritative. Can any of you tell me this: did he do acts of kindness and ministry for those in his flock? Did he give money to those facing hard times? Did he visit and comfort the sick and dying? Did he mourn for and pray for the lost or broken-hearted? I have never, ever heard any stories about these kinds of things, only a wise thing that he supposedly said about this or that (and it seems to me that he just "happened" to have uttered some wise saying about just about anything and everything if you believe what is said). I would really like to know : what kind of PERSON was he really? If a Christian minister fails in these areas, do we really care what he has to say?

Some may wish to know why it would be of any importance to know if WL did any of the above. I would say that it is of the utmost importance. If one claims to be a minister or shepherd of the Lord's sheep, should he not manifest the virtues of the Lord he from which he receives special revelation? Could busy-ness be an excuse when none could have been busier than Christ Himself who certainly did take the time e to comfort and show kindness to even the "low sinners" among his people? In Ephesians we are told " be ye KIND to one another". This is pretty basic. So, if and when any leader fails to be kind (and he should be very kind since he is supposed to be an example to follow), should we even listen to his "unique and special ministry"? Paul himself stated that without love, we are as sounding brass. So, based on this and much more, I have waited to hear about acts of charity toward the poor in his following. I have waited to hear that he turned much of his salary back to the church (as some famous ministers have done). I have expected to hear how he visited the sick and prayed over and for them. I have waited to hear that he visited the dying and prayed with them. And I have never heard such things. I find this rather astonishing since we DO hear these stories about others. But no, we hear that he was treated like a great sage and king, chauffeured around, provided with nice meals, and that he spoke " great things". In other words, he taught and that must be all we expect of such a busy and great man. Oh--and that he exiled so many good men over minor things--we hear about this. We hear about Daystar and his sons. It is interesting, again, to note that all of these many years I have never heard about acts of kindness (and speaking is not a true act of personal, on the ground kindness) even from his greatest supporters. Surely someone somewhere had him come to his house when he was suffering and gently minister to him? If not, again, does anything he says really matter? For this reason, I would appreciate knowing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

So, based on this and much more, I have waited to hear about acts of charity toward the poor in his following. I have waited to hear that he turned much of his salary back to the church (as some famous ministers have done). I have expected to hear how he visited the sick and prayed over and for them. I have waited to hear that he visited the dying and prayed with them. And I have never heard such things.

Back in the early 2000's when I was still serving in the LC, brothers like John Myer, who were working with the HS and college saints, promoted such activities as visiting nursing homes and prisons.

The "blended" response from LSM was that these wasted their time, being nothing more than "dead works."

Witness Lee's bad teachings on "dead works" were all together twisted and self-serving to promote himself, his own ministry, and his program. (Acts 20.30) Dead works in the Bible refer only to religious practices which were promoted by the Judaizers as a means of salvation. (Hebrews 9.11-14)

Ministering to the sick, the infirm, the elderly, etc. waste a waste of our talents.

The divine order, found in the gospels is easy...

1) Sell that ye have and,

2) Give to the poor and,

3) Come and follow me (that is, Jesus).

Not to mention of course that true religion and undefiled before God is to visit the widows and orphans in their affliction and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

And that "ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you; That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing".

Ezekiel spoke an enormously important word, one that I cannot help but believe would as readily apply to us today,

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she 'strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.'

Julabee Jones

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Ezekiel spoke an enormously important word... "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she 'strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.'

Julabee Jones

WL was not interested in 'strengthening the hand of the poor and needy'. The FTTA trainers told us as much: "don't waste your time" with those who have no means to repay you in this age (contra Jesus in Luke 14:14; see also Paul in Gal 2:10).

Instead, our goal was, recruit "good building material" to "build up the Body". RK even said that anything done outside of promoting WL's ministry did "absolutely nothing" to build the Body, and was therefore useless.

This theme was clearly and repeatedly presented in the LC. I suspect that apart from simple money-grubbing, always a factor, there was fear that any truly sick people showing up, those needing some real care, would reveal the absolute poverty of WL's programme to help anyone. The unending obsession with "good building materials" and "God's economy" was a way to avoid anyone who actually was sick, in prison, etc, and whose condition might expose the LC for what it really was: empty and void.

Those who did show any sign of weakness or need were told, "Just get out of your mind, pray-read more. Become God in life and nature" and all your problems will be solved. Right? Just focus on God's economy. Build up the Body. Be positive. Go to more meetings. Read the ministry. Be positive.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

: did he do acts of kindness and ministry for those in his flock? Did he give money to those facing hard times? Did he visit and comfort the sick and dying? Did he mourn for and pray for the lost or broken-hearted?

To answer the unreg.guest: I do not remember hearing or seeing of BL doing any of these. To me and I believe others who were in the LC, brother Lee was the 'exalted speaker.' His purpose in life was to instruct from the "pulpit" (ooooh-a denomination word!!) and that is all we knew of him, while the LC flock's greatest goal in life was to sit in meetings/trainings and listen and absorb. The more trainings the better, and it was never ending. In the secular world, training leads to a goal so further training isn't needed. LCers will go around the planet just to sit in long, never ending meetings to hear more about how the LC is exalted above Christianity. Unless it was one on one, or local, I never saw charity/care between members. In all five localities I was in, the goal in life was meetings and absorbing the ministry's direction. Yes we had love feasts (Friday pot-lucks), but the goal was always to listen to the ministry, whether WL or the elders in that locality.