Local Church Discussions  

Go Back   Local Church Discussions > Introductions and Testimonies

Introductions and Testimonies Please tell everybody something about yourself. Tell us a little. Tell us a lot. Its up to you!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-08-2016, 08:28 PM   #1
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Move to Los Angeles

Short testimony of how I came to the LC. In Texas, one sunday, in sunday school, I met a new member with whom I became friends, we began to fellowship and I learned of and read some of Watchman Nees books which he had. A close friendship developed. After some months he had learned of a conference in Los Angeles, ( Ezekiel conference in LA ) and was going out for that.

I had no particular interest in going however my girlfriend's family had just been transferred to Los Angeles and also I was due to go into active military duty ( Long Beach ) and being encouraged by my friend, I packed up and went to Los Angles to attend what was left of the Ezekiel conference. A kind family took me in for a few days during the conference after which I moved in with a family near Elden hall. Never caught up with the girl friend but I attended Elden hall meetings for a year or so then off to Nam. What glorious meetings at Elden! What previously unheard of opening of the scriptures! What revelations of Christ I had never known! Taste and see that the Lord is good! Remember that? The overflow of life was wonderful indeed.

After service in the far east I came back to join in with those at the hall in South Pasadena. A return to the same nourishing church life. After one of the conferences, I forget which - maybe the Hebrews conference - I moved with the migration to Dallas to join in with the church life there. And remained there for a few years until I began develop a distaste for the church life, and basically just wanted to pursue my own interests. Not sorry for the time I was with the church life but not sorry I left either!
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2016, 01:37 AM   #2
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 11,782
Default Re: move to Los Angeles

Welcome to the forum.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."

You apparently got to enjoy the best of times.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2016, 02:20 PM   #3
tentmaker
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: West of the Missouri
Posts: 16
Default Re: Move to Los Angeles

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Short testimony of how I came to the LC. In Texas, one sunday, in sunday school, I met a new member with whom I became friends, we began to fellowship and I learned of and read some of Watchman Nees books which he had. A close friendship developed. After some months he had learned of a conference in Los Angeles, ( Ezekiel conference in LA ) and was going out for that.

I had no particular interest in going however my girlfriend's family had just been transferred to Los Angeles and also I was due to go into active military duty ( Long Beach ) and being encouraged by my friend, I packed up and went to Los Angles to attend what was left of the Ezekiel conference. A kind family took me in for a few days during the conference after which I moved in with a family near Elden hall. Never caught up with the girl friend but I attended Elden hall meetings for a year or so then off to Nam. What glorious meetings at Elden! What previously unheard of opening of the scriptures! What revelations of Christ I had never known! Taste and see that the Lord is good! Remember that? The overflow of life was wonderful indeed.

After service in the far east I came back to join in with those at the hall in South Pasadena. A return to the same nourishing church life. After one of the conferences, I forget which - maybe the Hebrews conference - I moved with the migration to Dallas to join in with the church life there. And remained there for a few years until I began develop a distaste for the church life, and basically just wanted to pursue my own interests. Not sorry for the time I was with the church life but not sorry I left either!

I remember listening to those tapes from the Ezekiel conference (from early 70's - 1973?), some 25-30 years ago. One thing I remember, which was spoken on the tape but not sure if it was printed, was a question Bro Lee asked. He asked the attendees what was the difference between the Old Man and the Natural Man? No one responded. He then said the Old Man does not like to pray, to fellowship, to read the word, etc. but the Natural Man thinks he's quite capable of doing all of them very well. I have not heard that spoken in a meeting or in writing since then, but it made sense to me. That was quite a conference.
tentmaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2016, 03:55 PM   #4
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,032
Default Re: Move to Los Angeles

Quote:
One thing I remember, which was spoken on the tape but not sure if it was printed, was a question Bro Lee asked. He asked the attendees what was the difference between the Old Man and the Natural Man? No one responded. He then said the Old Man does not like to pray, to fellowship, to read the word, etc. but the Natural Man thinks he's quite capable of doing all of them very well.
Seems a lot like more of the creation of terms for the lexicon. Differentiating things in ways without any real substance.

Sounds good. But what does it really mean? Did he do much more than say that little bit? Did it tie into anything? Or just something almost like an aside?

So the Old Man doesn't, but the Natural Man thinks he is good at it. What does that mean? That he really isn't? Do the uses of "natural man" in the Bible support such a statement or is it more like a variation on the Old Man? On our being the way it is without Christ. Seems that the Old Man and the Natural Man are essentially identical. Neither is the regenerated man.

Sorry for getting skeptical. But there are just too many "wow" sounding things from Lee that in hindsight I have not been able to determine there was any substance for. Just a statement that something is so. That this is that (no support) and this is this (no support).
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2016, 05:09 PM   #5
Drake
Member
 
Drake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,063
Default Re: Move to Los Angeles

Quote:
Originally Posted by tentmaker_21 View Post
I remember listening to those tapes from the Ezekiel conference (from early 70's - 1973?), some 25-30 years ago. One thing I remember, which was spoken on the tape but not sure if it was printed, was a question Bro Lee asked. He asked the attendees what was the difference between the Old Man and the Natural Man? No one responded. He then said the Old Man does not like to pray, to fellowship, to read the word, etc. but the Natural Man thinks he's quite capable of doing all of them very well. I have not heard that spoken in a meeting or in writing since then, but it made sense to me. That was quite a conference.

Thanks for sharing that. It is insightful and based on my personal experience I know both men well.

Drake
Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2016, 06:50 PM   #6
HERn
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 816
Default Re: Move to Los Angeles

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
Seems a lot like more of the creation of terms for the lexicon. Differentiating things in ways without any real substance.

Sounds good. But what does it really mean? Did he do much more than say that little bit? Did it tie into anything? Or just something almost like an aside?

So the Old Man doesn't, but the Natural Man thinks he is good at it. What does that mean? That he really isn't? Do the uses of "natural man" in the Bible support such a statement or is it more like a variation on the Old Man? On our being the way it is without Christ. Seems that the Old Man and the Natural Man are essentially identical. Neither is the regenerated man.

Sorry for getting skeptical. But there are just too many "wow" sounding things from Lee that in hindsight I have not been able to determine there was any substance for. Just a statement that something is so. That this is that (no support) and this is this (no support).
Yep, Lee made a living out of inventing teachings, sayings, and observations from the Bible that none of the original authors saw.
__________________
Look to Jesus not The Ministry! Hebrews 12:2.
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;
HERn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2016, 12:37 AM   #7
Indiana
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 607
Default Re: Move to Los Angeles

Quote:
Originally Posted by HERn View Post
Yep, Lee made a living out of inventing teachings, sayings, and observations from the Bible that none of the original authors saw.
HERn - What do you mean he made a living...... He actually altered our concepts according to the word of God. "None of the original authors saw"? He saw something and expressed what he saw so that we can understand what the original authors said.
Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2016, 10:28 AM   #8
aron
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 4,876
Default Re: Move to Los Angeles

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana View Post
HERn - What do you mean he made a living...... He actually altered our concepts according to the word of God..
Yes, Lee also gave us stuff according to the word of God. But there was a mixture. Inspiration, and fallen human concepts. Logic, and illogic. There was a mixture. Surprise, surprise. Just like everyone else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana View Post
"None of the original authors saw"? He saw something and expressed what he saw so that we can understand what the original authors said.
But any of us can see something, and express it so that others can also see. Why did Lee the Seer of the Age copyright the process? Anyone who bases their ministry on such proprietary suppositions should be avoided. At all costs.

Lee told us that Psalm 45 was the highest Psalm. The (northern - see the Aramaic phrasing) Israelite king married a Phoenician princess (v 12). Sounds like Ahab and Jezebel to me. They had a great wedding but it went downhill from there. And the king's arrows are sharp in the heart of his enemies (v5)!?! Doesn't sound like the New Testament to me! Where's the love?

Of course there are other layers, besides the physical. We can all go deeper, and many have. Into the unseen realm; into Christ. Verses 6 and 7 of Psalm 45 are quoted in the NT. But why did Lee go there with the rest of Psalm 45, but not with Psalm 1, 3, 5, 7, 18, 34, &c?

Lee would use one hermeneutical principle in one place, and forget all about it shortly thereafter. And clearly we the audience were expected to, as well. Ultimately, it all rested on, "Because Lee said so." None of his work, and I mean none of it, would survive a peer-reviewed process unscathed. Everything rested on some amount of ignorant conjecture, promoted as a newer version of "Just So Stories." If you took it all at face value, and said, "Amen" every time he paused for breath, you could tell yourself it was the Cat's Meow, all for a few dollars. But as soon as you begin to poke at it, you realize that you've been had.

There is some fantastic scholarship being done out there, today. Fantastic work, not by one person but by many, in a larger conversation with the text and each other. But you'd never know this in the Lee Museum.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'
aron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2016, 11:28 AM   #9
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,032
Default Re: Move to Los Angeles

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana View Post
HERn - What do you mean he made a living...... He actually altered our concepts according to the word of God. "None of the original authors saw"? He saw something and expressed what he saw so that we can understand what the original authors said.
Indiana,

I hate to get crosswise with you. But so much of what Lee taught us was surrounded by verses that really didn't say much, if anything, about his point. It is a ruse of sorts. He would flood the bibliography with verses that said things we would shout "hallelujah" to and then provide his new teaching. Too often not really supported by any of the verses. Just stated as being true.

I do not deny that he also taught a lot of things that are taught in the same way out in the rest of Christianity. But to give that to him as support for altering our concepts according to the word of God is not very truthful. When he altered our concepts, it was almost always in a way that was not really so "according" to the Bible. It too often was according to an alternative meaning supplied because of something like "God's economy." You may recall that we went through this several years ago. You brought up several teachings that you really thought Lee was right about (and that other missed). But when we looked at the verses, it was almost always something that was not really there. Or was even contrary to what was there (like being dismissive of James). When asked how this could be so, the answer was always something like "because of God's economy."

While we can all certify that there is a thing in the Bible that is "God's economy," is it not a universal overlay for the use of the spiritually enlightened to sweep away what the Bible actually says and insert something else. Unfortunately, we cannot go back to the old Bereans archives and dig up those posts.

When what the original authors said is not consistent with what is claimed to be what they meant, then there is a problem.

There is a solid core of evangelical Christian teaching underpinning Nee and Lee. But the things that made them anything other than just another preacher in whatever denomination they started off in was too often the restatement of scripture so that it said and meant what the words actually there could not mean.

Yes, we were taught by Lee many things that others had not seen. And we swung from the rafters because of our sense of superior knowledge and revelation. But there was a reason that others had not seen it.

It wasn't there. Period. Amen. End of story.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2016, 02:34 PM   #10
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 11,782
Default Re: Move to Los Angeles

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana View Post
HERn - What do you mean he made a living...... He actually altered our concepts according to the word of God. "None of the original authors saw"? He saw something and expressed what he saw so that we can understand what the original authors said.
I'm with Indiana on this one. Lee opened up so many truths in the scripture to expound what the original authors said. Knowing the Lord and His word is one of our greatest treasures, and Lee and many others in the LC's helped me to know them in a real way.

I think it's only fair that we give credit where credit is due.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2016, 05:17 PM   #11
ZNPaaneah
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,125
Default Re: Move to Los Angeles

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW View Post
Seems a lot like more of the creation of terms for the lexicon. Differentiating things in ways without any real substance.

Sounds good. But what does it really mean? Did he do much more than say that little bit? Did it tie into anything? Or just something almost like an aside?

So the Old Man doesn't, but the Natural Man thinks he is good at it. What does that mean? That he really isn't? Do the uses of "natural man" in the Bible support such a statement or is it more like a variation on the Old Man? On our being the way it is without Christ. Seems that the Old Man and the Natural Man are essentially identical. Neither is the regenerated man.

Sorry for getting skeptical. But there are just too many "wow" sounding things from Lee that in hindsight I have not been able to determine there was any substance for. Just a statement that something is so. That this is that (no support) and this is this (no support).
Your taking it too seriously. I think that is the point. There are a number of manifestations of being without Christ. As a result we have a number of terms: old man, natural man, etc.
ZNPaaneah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2016, 06:53 PM   #12
HERn
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 816
Default Re: Move to Los Angeles

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indiana View Post
HERn - What do you mean he made a living...... He actually altered our concepts according to the word of God. "None of the original authors saw"? He saw something and expressed what he saw so that we can understand what the original authors said.
No, I am sorry, yours is the deceptive teaching. We as Protestants don't need anyone other than the Spirit working through the original writings. I do appreciate and receive some of the writings of the early church fathers, and many modern writers and even my pastors, but am completely comfortable throwing out certain things. Here's a test to determine if you are a follower of Nee/Lee: can you toss their leaven or false teachings while still appreciate their healthy teachings? If you must take all their teachings then I would call you a member of the Leeite sect, but still a brother. If you have the spiritual discernment and courage to throw out the trash associated with Leeite sect you can't be a member with them because they will reject you and call you an evil speaker. THE BODY DOES NOT NEED LEE AND NEE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS SAID. 90% of what they teach is old in that others saw and wrote about it before, the estimated 10% of the original teachings from them should be carefully evaluated for error, deception, and false teaching. Just speaking from my limited experience and intuition.
__________________
Look to Jesus not The Ministry! Hebrews 12:2.
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;
HERn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2016, 08:07 PM   #13
Evangelical
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,978
Default Re: Move to Los Angeles

Lee broke Christianity down into 3 categories:

the fundamentalist groups (focussed on knowledge/facts as in the Bible, doctrines)
the pentecostal groups (focussed on works of power, gifts, miracles, emotions)
the "inner life" groups (focussed on the subjective Christ, mysticism, intuition ).

Each of these groups use the same Bible but emphasize different aspects.

It just so happened that most of western Christianity was not familiar with the third inner life group teachings, so they seemed strange, different, even new. But actually they were not new teachings, just teachings that were less emphasized. So while a fundamentalist would draw out the facts and figures of a certain passage, and the pentecostal would draw out the outward miracles and works of power, the inner lifers would draw out the aspects of subjective experience.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2016, 01:16 AM   #14
Ohio
Member
 
Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 11,782
Default Re: Move to Los Angeles

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Lee broke Christianity down into 3 categories:

the fundamentalist groups (focussed on knowledge/facts as in the Bible, doctrines)
the pentecostal groups (focussed on works of power, gifts, miracles, emotions)
the "inner life" groups (focussed on the subjective Christ, mysticism, intuition ).

Each of these groups use the same Bible but emphasize different aspects.

It just so happened that most of western Christianity was not familiar with the third inner life group teachings, so they seemed strange, different, even new. But actually they were not new teachings, just teachings that were less emphasized. So while a fundamentalist would draw out the facts and figures of a certain passage, and the pentecostal would draw out the outward miracles and works of power, the inner lifers would draw out the aspects of subjective experience.
Yeah, I just love how Lee would relate his move to Los Angeles as an aspect of subjective experience, when it was simply a matter of getting thrown out of Taipei for financial corruption.

So much for inner life teachings.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!.
Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!
Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2016, 01:37 AM   #15
aron
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 4,876
Default Re: Move to Los Angeles

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Yeah, I just love how Lee would relate his move to Los Angeles as an aspect of subjective experience, when it was simply a matter of getting thrown out of Taipei for financial corruption.

So much for inner life teachings.
Mysticism and the inner life are good and arguably necessary experiences in the Christian journey. But unrestrained, they can become a cloak for the Old Man, who's then a vehicle for Satan's wiles.

Evangelical is right: most in the West were not familiar. They must be warned - beware the Watchman, and watch out for the Witness. The subjective experience, mingled with and reinforced by the pentecostal trappings, became a cover for the enemy's infiltration and control.

We believed and trusted that the Ascended Master from the East was so transformed as to be above this. "Just do what you are told; everything will be fine." It was not and is not.

One example I've repeatedly given is that the Bible could be either celebrated as revelatory of Christ, or panned as fallen men's imaginations, arbitrarily dependendent upon the subjective whim of the expositor.

Another example: when the Seer was critical of others it was called an adjustment, a perfecting or restricting word. But what happened if anyone tried to restrict, correct, or in any way critique Witness Lee? Then it was an attack, or slander, or accusation. Welcome to the world of subjectivity run amok. Subjectivity unhinged; the Bride of Christ, stupefied and absent any means to objective reality, lies passively under the enemy's ministrations.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'
aron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2016, 03:56 PM   #16
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,032
Default Re: Move to Los Angeles

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Your taking it too seriously. I think that is the point. There are a number of manifestations of being without Christ. As a result we have a number of terms: old man, natural man, etc.
And that is my point. There is not really some important point about the difference between the Old Man and the Natural Man.

What happens is that on one place, the writer is discussing certain issues and uses the term "Old Man" while he or another writer chose the term "Natural Man" as they were talking about something else. It doesn't establish a separation of meaning of the two terms, but does provide insight into whatever the two(??) writers were speaking of in their particular places.

The important thing was what was our natural or old way v God's way. The term put with it was not the point.

But Lee constantly emphasized the differences and made the term as important or even more so by talking about it in this way. It creates a false sense of special knowledge to have had this definitional differentiation given to you.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2016, 04:18 PM   #17
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,032
Default Re: Move to Los Angeles

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Knowing the Lord and His word is one of our greatest treasures . . . .
And this is something specifically from Nee or Lee? I hear this all the time without any reference to either. And it was around before them.

These kinds of responses just come across to me like desiring the leeks and garlic of Egypt. Not meaning you are bad or anything. Just not seeing that we were in an environment that when you did learn something true about the Lord, you were told that you couldn't get that anywhere else. And when it was different, are you really sure that it was actually true? Too many bad teachings to be found to be so general about thanking the LRC for it.

Thank God for it and move on.

Does every group do it with the gusto of the LRC? Probably not. But those are not peculiarly of the LRC, LSM, Lee, or Nee.

Give them credit for remaining enough within the core of true Christian teaching to maintain those things at least in word.

But when we read through verses and now and realize that what we are reading does not say anything like what Lee taught us, then how much did we really get to know the word? And if we really didn't know the word that well (truly know it) then how can we say that we really knew the Lord that much more than anyone else? Maybe even less in some ways.

I honesty think that we are over-impressed by the feeling we got from those early days and do not take time to realize that the feeling was not because we knew the Lord better, but because we were among a rather loving group of good Christians. And another part of it was the enthusiasm we could whip ourselves into over almost anything. Someone stands and declares boldly "I'm home in the church! I've ended my search!" and the whole place would go into a tizzy of shouting.

Is any of that really knowing the Lord? Is thinking that the church is everything really an accurate knowledge of the Lord?

What I think is that we often do not realize how much we did manage to take the desire for more along with us when we left and now we do know more about the Lord. But how much of it was what we learned from the LRC that was not available to know and learn in so many other places.

I do not demean them for what they did teach us that was true. But it was not about the church or Lee that we got those things. They were all around (even if you can't find them in every place). The special things we learned in the LRC should be suspect.
__________________
Mike
I once thought I was. . . . but I may have been mistaken Edge (with apologies)
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:44 AM.


3.8.9