Deputy Authority and the Ground of Oneness

[Indiana]

http://www.twoturmoils.com/DeputyAut...dofOneness.pdf

This is a two-page condensed version of Deputy Authority and the Ground of Oneness.

The Defense and Confirmation Project (DCP) provided a statement meant to apply to others, but it actually applies to leadership in the local churches, present and past.

DCP. blending brothers, Living Stream Ministry (LSM) are all invited to this table of fellowship, as well as present and former members, and others too who might be interested.

Steve Isitt

[Indiana]

Currently Active Users of the forum: 26 (1 member and 25 guests) 11-15-2015

“Some transmute the basis of the oneness of the believers by the assertion of their own authority [I] - to the point where the actual ground of oneness becomes acceptance of and obedience to their authority”.

Brother Lee Not Open to Opinion or Fellowship from the Brothers

One Accord for the Lord’s New Move
Elders Training, Book 7

In the beginning of the era of the new way, Brother Lee made it clear who was the leader among the churches in the recovery. There was to be "no uncertain sounding of the trumpet" for an army of followers to follow him as its unique leader.

He gave the following analogy: "The citizens of the United States may say many things to criticize the government and the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. But when you get into the army and become a soldier, you lose the right to say anything."

He continued, "you may be a member of a local church and yet have nothing to do with the ministry to fight the battle for the Lord's interest on the earth. All of you are the elders, the co-workers, and the apprentice elders, the leading ones, in the recovery. I am speaking to you all as the soldiers in the recovery, not to the citizens. I am speaking to the soldiers of the army. Are you going to remain in the army? You have to realize what the army is and what the army would do. The army has no capacity to take your opinion…” (pp. 80-81, ET 7)


1. Atlanta Elders Conference

John Ingalls relates an elders’ meeting in which Brother Lee told the brothers how he felt about them and their ability to fellowship with him. He essentially informed them that they were not qualified to raise questions with him or to criticize anything he did.


John Ingalls
"In September Brother Lee had a conference in Atlanta with two elders’ meetings, one on Friday, September 16th, (1988) and the other on the Lord’s Day, September 18th. The second meeting was exceptional with brothers from all over the country attending. I would like to briefly describe it, noting a few significant things that were said, (I myself was not present but I received reports from a number of brothers concerning it.)

"Brother Lee strongly vindicated the way he had taken against all criticisms. He drew a line; any who would not take this way, he said, are “dropouts”, and the Lord will have no mercy. Addressing the brothers, he said that none of them understood what he was doing. None knew what he was doing in Taipei; hence there was no one that he could fellowship with. When I went to Taipei, he said, “I did not fellowship with one person concerning what I was going to do.” He continued: “None of you is perfected. Who can say that he is perfected? So you are not qualified to criticize what I am doing. I didn’t include you in my fellowship – how can I? So let there be no more talk about anything I do. You criticize my young trainers in Taipei, telling me their mistakes, but I was doing everything; what they did was to carry out my burden.

" Don Rutledge, an elder in Dallas before moving to North Carolina, told me, 'That meeting was the most devastating and discouraging experience of all my time in the church.” What particularly bothered him was Brother Lee’s attitude toward the brothers. The atmosphere, he said, was heavy, oppressive, and abusive. (Reports came to my ears from a number of brothers who attended that meeting; all indicated something similar.) Brother Lee had wanted to have a time of fellowship `with Don immediately following the session, but Don was so troubled and depressed that he told Brother Lee he had to go home. As he walked out the door, Titus Chu came up and said to Don, "I’m afraid this will make our situation worse. I hope not”. (From Deviating from the Path in the Lord's Recovery, p. 94, S.I.)

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Indiana

In the beginning of the era of the new way, Brother Lee made it clear who was the leader among the churches in the recovery. There was to be "no uncertain sounding of the trumpet" for an army of followers to follow him as its unique leader.

He gave the following analogy: "The citizens of the United States may say many things to criticize the government and the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. But when you get into the army and become a soldier, you lose the right to say anything."

This was the way of Witness Lee. If there was an analogy that supported a teaching he needed help on, it was treated as if equivalent to scripture.

Once or twice analogies of military were used, primarily by Paul. That did not make everything military applicable to the Christian life or to the church. It just happens that the specific analogies used fit with the spiritual truth that was being underscored. It did not make broad facts concerning the military into proof of scriptural mandates not actually found in scripture.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Once or twice analogies of military were used, primarily by Paul. That did not make everything military applicable to the Christian life or to the church. It just happens that the specific analogies used fit with the spiritual truth that was being underscored. It did not make broad facts concerning the military into proof of scriptural mandates not actually found in scripture.

As I've mentioned before and am happy to repeat: which military? In the U.S military, the leaders are also subject to rule of law; uniform codes of conduct are universally applied; plans of action may be subject to group deliberation. The inputs of subordinate leaders are deemed crucial to the success of the battle plan.

In an Asian military, by contrast, it is said of the leader that "even when he's wrong, he's right." What the Jefe Maximus declares as the plan must be obeyed reflexively, without thought or question. Give-and-take is tantamount to insubordination.

Which 'military' culture were we under in the LC? You may decide for yourself - I'm pretty clear what it was.

BTW, one of the LC stalwarts on this forum admitted that "God blew on" WL's plans for Daystar, among other money-making schemes. Yet no one else was allowed to question, or to "be negative". The collateral damage, as God corrected His humble bondslave, was simply factored into the equation - if you got crushed or bankrupted or cast aside as God judged one of WL's "moves" or "flows", too bad for you. You're in the army, now.

[TLFisher]

In principle the Blended brothers are carrying on the tradition of Witness Lee. If they're wrong, there will be no admission only a change of minds and a change of plans. Just shows pride is a characteristic of deputy authority and not humility.

[Freedom]

I previously posted the following quote on a different thread. I am re-posting it here, because I think it offers a view the mindset of WL. It is hard to not notice the cultural connotations in relation to WL's view of authority that aron has already referred to.

It is easy for anyone to be humble, admit the failure, and confess it. But if Noah had been like that, what would have become of God’s government on this earth? What about his descendants? What about God’s economy, God’s administration? It would have been all right for Noah to make such a confession, but it would have meant the ruin of God’s government on earth.

Witness Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Message 33, pg. 443

It goes without saying that the notion that WL puts forth here is extremely dangerous and can have severe implications for members of the LC. Notice how WL claims that humility is easy, and he even infers that humility and repentance can "ruin God's government". There are a few big problems I have with what WL says. First of all, humility isn't easy, not by a long-shot. Secondly, the idea that repentance by a leader can ruin their image is more reminiscent of totalitarian regimes than anything found in the Bible. I am reminded of 2 Samuel 12 when the Lord sent Nathan to David, and it ultimately resulted in David saying “I have sinned against the Lord.” Here is a perfect example of a leader fessing up to wrongdoing

When I consider the authority abuses that I have seen and witnessed in the LC, it quite often has been related to the matter of leaders not being able to admit to being wrong. Interestingly, that boils down to an issue of humility, the one thing that WL said was easy. In my experience, LC leaders may not have the appearance of being dictators, but much of the problem seems to be simply not being able to admit to being wrong. Once a leader can't to admit to being wrong, the abuses can happen simply because there is an attempt at a cover-up. If a leader is blind to their failures (as was David initially), they could very well set out on a witch-hunt to attack the very thing that they are.

[Indiana]

Brother Lee Not Open to Opinion or Fellowship from the Brothers

One Accord for the Lord’s New Move
Elders Training, Book 7

“Some transmute the basis of the oneness of the believers by the assertion of their own authority - to the point where the actual ground of oneness becomes acceptance of and obedience to their authority”. (DCP)


2. Elders From Raleigh Visit Brother Lee
Brother Lee was not interested in the fellowship offered to him from brothers in the church in Raleigh, who came to him seeking his fellowship over the desperate concerns in their locality.


John Ingalls
"In the summer of 1988 Tom Cesar of the church in Raleigh came to Anaheim to discuss with Brother Lee the points of a seventy-one-page compendium entitled Concerns with our Practice Regarding Truth and Life, which had been mailed to him earlier. The brothers in Raleigh had labored for many hours over this work in the expectation that Brother Lee would read it, be apprised of their concerns, realize the gravity of the situation, and hopefully make some major changes in the course we were taking. Under each point they had put together zeroxed copies of pages with quotes from Watchman Nee and Brother Lee’s earlier printed ministry together with quotes from his recent ministry to prove that there had been significant changes contradicting Brother Lee’s own teaching. While Tom was in Anaheim that summer I saw him, and learning that he had presented Brother Lee with this writing I commented, "I doubt that Brother Lee will read it. He doesn’t like to read things of that nature that raise questions concerning his work or ministry.”

The Raleigh brothers…agreed to come to Anaheim the week after the training to meet with Brother Lee. He said he would answer their questions. They arrived on Saturday, January 7, and met with Brother Lee that night. They met also on the Lord’s Day morning, afternoon, and evening, and again on Monday morning – a total of approximately ten hours. The first evening Brother Lee did most of the speaking, giving them a history of the "conspiracy and rebellion." However, the brothers were able to say a few things. Tom pointed out how the church life was going down, and they were looking for answers. He said they had no problem with the matters of the new way, but how it was carried out was a problem. They were not concerned for right and wrong, but for God’s righteousness. They read some verses to him and quoted from the Normal Christian Church Life by W. Nee, but Brother Lee did not want to hear it. He said that he knew what Watchman Nee meant in that book, and what Watchman Nee meant then does not apply to today’s situation. He said, moreover, that there is no basic problem among us, but only a storm in Germany and Anaheim. John So, he said, exercises a strong control over Stuttgart, and just like Bill Freeman (a former elder of the church in Seattle) he is trying to set up another ministry. One of the Raleigh brothers then asked how you can identify another ministry. Brother Lee replied that it is very difficult. The brothers said that Brother Lee was very defensive at times and was like a ball bouncing from one matter to another. Tom Cesar asked, "Why can’t brothers come together to discuss their concerns without being considered to be conspiring?” But Brother Lee, they said, had no ear to hear them. It was as if they were talking to the wall. He didn’t want to clear up their points; he hadn’t even read the outline they had presented to him the previous summer. He would not answer their questions directly. They were impressed that he never asked how the saints in the church in Raleigh were doing, as if he was not concerned for them. The brothers were very disappointed" (Deviating from the Path, p. 140).

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

“Some transmute the basis of the oneness of the believers by the assertion of their own authority - to the point where the actual ground of oneness becomes acceptance of and obedience to their authority”. (DCP)

This quote from DCP whenever it was given, is a direct analysis of local church practices.
As long as one is submitting to the brothers or at least perception, there is oneness. If one speaks up that is in contradiction to the brothers authority (local or extra-local), there's the feeling oneness has been broken and the ONLY way there can be oneness is just submit to the brothers or as one might say, "just get right with the brothers".
So you see in the LC/LSM fellowship, the only way for there to be oneness is by obedience to their authority whether locally or extra-locally.

[Ohio]

It goes without saying that the notion that WL puts forth here is extremely dangerous and can have severe implications for members of the LC. Notice how WL claims that humility is easy, and he even infers that humility and repentance can "ruin God's government". There are a few big problems I have with what WL says. First of all, humility isn't easy, not by a long-shot. Secondly, the idea that repentance by a leader can ruin their image is more reminiscent of totalitarian regimes than anything found in the Bible. I am reminded of 2 Samuel 12 when the Lord sent Nathan to David, and it ultimately resulted in David saying “I have sinned against the Lord.” Here is a perfect example of a leader fessing up to wrongdoing.

It is easy for anyone to be humble, admit the failure, and confess it. But if Noah had been like that, what would have become of God’s government on this earth? What about his descendants? What about God’s economy, God’s administration? It would have been all right for Noah to make such a confession, but it would have meant the ruin of God’s government on earth. -- Witness Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Message 33, pg. 443

Freedom, thanks much for this observation about Witness Lee. It helps to explain so much. Lee maintained such a facade of pristine perfection, that after a few years under his teachings, I had basically concluded that he alone was flawless in all of church history. I would say unequivocally that it was almost impossible for him to "be humble, admit the failure, and confess it." Look at the result of all those, inside the Recovery, who protested his failures -- thrown under the bus amidst a massive smear campaign to destroy their credibility. That alone was the reason for the many "storms" which plagued the LCM from its inception.

If Noah, displaying a little honest, down to earth, humility towards the few remaining souls on earth, was so destructive to "God’s economy, God’s administration," think about the total chaos wrought by King David after a short visit by the Prophet Nathan. Then David penning Psalm 51 could only be likened to a nuclear assault upon God's heavenly throne of righteousness.

We can only conclude, looking at decades of LCM leadership, that they have been diseased with the same haughty pride as the Pharisees of old. As David said, "Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness; according to the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions."

[aron]

One way to discern which attributes are of the soul, and which of the Spirit, is to step back and view the behavior over long term... if it's of the soul it will be displayed when conditions are favorable, but adversity will cause it to be discarded. Yet the attributes manifesting the Spirit will remain, implacable, to the end. This is the "sea of glass" - irrespective of howling winds, the sea remains flat, immovable. In season and out, the behavior remains, because it is of God and there can be no other.

So WL seemed humble when it was convenient. "God's humble bondslave", they called him. But when it lost utility, suddenly humility was pronounced as something "natural", to be discarded. Or love: who can forget love being called being natural, soulish, and even likened to corrupting "honey"?

WL, TC, and DYL would all seem to be "the least of all saints" when this picture was useful for selling the product. But all 3 of them could be, and were, imperious and inflexible when dealing with underlings, especially in private. Then the appearance of humility wasn't necessary, and the real person came out. Indiana's post showing the experience of the Raleigh elders' visit to WL is a good example. We saw this repeatedly: publicly it was, "I'm nobody; just a little gospel preacher and Bible expositor", and "Who have I controlled - who?", while privately it was, "My way, or the highway", and "Take it or leave it". No discussion, no willingness to listen, learn, consider and adjust. Certainly no repentance!! Absolutely unthinkable.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by aron

WL, TC, and DYL would all seem to be "the least of all saints" when this picture was useful for selling the product. But all 3 of them could be, and were, imperious and inflexible when dealing with underlings, especially in private. Then the appearance of humility wasn't necessary, and the real person came out. Indiana's post showing the experience of the Raleigh elders' visit to WL is a good example. We saw this repeatedly: publicly it was, "I'm nobody; just a little gospel preacher and Bible expositor", and "Who have I controlled - who?", while privately it was, "My way, or the highway", and "Take it or leave it". No discussion, no willingness to listen, learn, consider and adjust. Certainly no repentance!! Absolutely unthinkable.

No Hint of Control?

On page 33 of Fermentation, Brother Lee asks, Where is the hint, even a little hint, that Witness Lee or Philip Lee or anyone of my office in the past did something to exercise their power over any church?”

At the time Brother Lee asked this question in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion numerous reports had come to him from all over the world that were more than mere hints of control. He knew the stories of LSM control beginning with complaints from Hong Kong in 1985. Then, Stuttgart in 1986; Rosemead 1986; the Southeast 1987; England 1987; Anaheim 1988, to name notable examples. He also knew that a sister who worked at LSM wanted to give him a comprehensive report on “hints of control”, but he wouldn’t listen to her 11-page report (Appendices 1, 3).

He also didn’t listen to John So, Bill Mallon, John Ingalls, or Joseph Fung about LSM domination, usurpation, and control in their localities and region. His support, overtly or covertly, was with his son and LSM’s aggressions and manipulations for accomplishing his goals. The four brothers mentioned, coincidently, were the same four brothers who were later quarantined, essentially for reacting to the control of LSM in their localities and beyond.

The dismissal of complaints of interferences and control by LSM are common in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, Brother Lee consistently choosing to look past reports and act as if they didn’t exist. It seems Brother Lee could never call the interferences for what they were, acts of control to set up LSM “in business” around the recovery, saying on page 31 in FPR, “We only knew to help and to do everything to expedite the Lord’s recovery in so many countries and to help the churches. That is all we knew.”

What prominent elders and the LSM sister referred to as interferences and violations of the oneness in the Body and the bypassing of fellowship with elders, Brother Lee described as expediting the Lord’s recovery. The control was to such an extent that Brother Lee was forced to speak to the problem in an international elders’ training (ET, Book 9, pp 61-63), saying, “Our going on should be according to what we have seen from the Word. There should not be any control, and the leadership is not in one controlling person.” He added, “I do not control; and the Living Stream office would not control”. Using the words “would not control” means that they certainly did control, but he did not expound on that, saying only, “mistakes may have been made in the past”, which he also didn’t explain, or atone for.

But testimonies do explain and answer the inane question, “Where is the hint, even a little hint, that Witness Lee or Philip Lee or anyone of my office in the past did something to exercise their power over any church?”

Of course, Bill Mallon enumerated the incidences of manipulation and control by Living Stream in his letter to Witness Lee. John So did the same in his Manila report. David Wang gave his full report of LSM control in Rosemead. And, John Ingalls relates the events and concerns in Southern California during the tandem leadership era of Witness Lee and Philip Lee. There were many other people and places who could give reports on “hints of control”.

One matter that the LSM sister must have tried to relate to Brother Lee was that the LSM office, i. e., Philip Lee, cut off the supply of literature to churches that offended him in some way, and their elders were forced to come to him and apologize. Representative examples of this follow.

Eugene, OR “There was a time when the church in Eugene Oregon was cut off from receiving life studies at all because we returned some that went unpurchased by saints. LSM would send up enough life studies for all in attendance and expected all to purchase, which not all did… It was resolved by the elder recruiting skilled brothers to write letters of praise and even a new hymn to Witness Lee, and it worked.” - Kirk

Flagstaff, AZ Elders were stunned when literature stopped being sent to the church in Flagstaff due to the Chinese-speaking side having a surplus of unsold life-studies that the bookroom returned. The whole church was punished as a result, and many saints were demoralized by the act. (former elder, asked not to be identified)

If a brother was thought to be in rivalry with LSM, even in some small way, he was dealt with and must apologize. In the following example, a prominent elder in the recovery was forced to kow tow to Philip Lee.

Bill Mallon

"In 1985, after the training, I felt to type out the notes I took. I sent them to several brothers to share with them the fellowship of the Spirit, one of which was located in London. (Barbara and I during the winter of early '85 were graciously hosted by one couple in the London area, so I sent them my notes as a gesture of my appreciation.) Philip Lee claimed he consulted with WL and that I should never have done it. He reprimanded me, implying it was in rivalry with their printing department, and said these notes should never be sent before the book was published. He demanded that I retrieve all notes sent, and that I come to Anaheim and apologize to him. I went to Anaheim and apologized, stating that it was totally unintentional. He fell asleep in front of me, and I had to wait for him to wake up." (email, Dec 2006)

These matters of control and many other stories like them were reported to Brother Lee, but he had no ear to hear and no heart to know. Brother Lee said, “We only knew to help and to do everything to expedite the Lord’s recovery in so many countries and to help the churches. That is all we knew.” - Yet, that was not all he knew. Such dupery as this prevails in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion from seemingly godly men in their case to quarantine fellow co-workers in the Lord’s recovery. (From Deviating from the Path, S. I.)

“Some transmute the basis of the oneness of the believers by the assertion of their own authority - to the point where the actual ground of oneness becomes acceptance of and obedience to their authority”. (DCP)

Would anyone dispute that the church, the body of Christ, is the Temple of and for today? That God does not dwell in buildings made with hands? That the meeting of the church is not concerned with place, but with whom and for whom?

How is it then, that such incredible commerce takes place within the Temple? How is it that Jesus can cast out those who 'bought and sold' in the Temple of His day, and yet today, Christianity buys the services of those who go to school to become full time 'preachers', while the full time preachers sell those services (actually, as Peter says, making merchandise of us)?

Books, tapes, messages, subscription services and much more, bought and sold in the temple of the living God.

Would to God a few genuine Old Testament style prophets would rise up today, and tell the church, just exactly how the church must appear in the very eyes of God Himself...

Julabee Jones

[UntoHim]

Hey Julabee,
You are a registered member of LocalChurchDiscussions. Please take a second of your time and log in under your UserName: Julabee and post from that account.
Thanks for your attention to this matter.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Freedom, thanks much for this observation about Witness Lee. It helps to explain so much. Lee maintained such a facade of pristine perfection, that after a few years under his teachings, I had basically concluded that he alone was flawless in all of church history. I would say unequivocally that it was almost impossible for him to "be humble, admit the failure, and confess it." Look at the result of all those, inside the Recovery, who protested his failures -- thrown under the bus amidst a massive smear campaign to destroy their credibility. That alone was the reason for the many "storms" which plagued the LCM from its inception.

If Noah, displaying a little honest, down to earth, humility towards the few remaining souls on earth, was so destructive to "God’s economy, God’s administration," think about the total chaos wrought by King David after a short visit by the Prophet Nathan. Then David penning Psalm 51 could only be likened to a nuclear assault upon God's heavenly throne of righteousness.

We can only conclude, looking at decades of LCM leadership, that they have been diseased with the same haughty pride as the Pharisees of old. As David said, "Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness; according to the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions."

What I have come to notice in some of WL's ministry are these instances of him subtly setting the rules of the game in his favor. In the LS of Genesis, presumably he was talking about the significance of authority in relation to Noah's failing. Actually, he was setting up an excuse mechanism for himself, which would later be used. To the average LCer, it might not appear that he ever did that, but with each failure he had and the subsequent cover up, it seems clear that the view was always that, yes our leader failed, but we will cover our eyes because he's God's sole "mouthpiece" on earth. So for WL, the decision was always between repentance or maintaining the illusion of being a pristine, flawless and authoritative figure.

There really is a striking contrast between who WL was as a person and the image that his followers promoted. Much of what Indiana has posted is indicative of these disparities. WL was seen and promoted as a humble bondslave. The reality is that the no-so-subtle promotion and view is that he is esteemed so highly that he is viewed as the MOTA. WL would never explicitly claim that, but his ministry all but leads to that notion. Some blendeds have been so bold as to proclaim that, but when there is any backlash, they will just say that he is just a humble bondslave.

It's a game of smoke and mirrors. When people rebuked WL for exerting too much authority, he held up his hands and asked who had he ever controlled. It's really too bad that those in the LC aren't willing to see things for the way that they really are. The facts are there more or less in black and white.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

What I have come to notice in some of WL's ministry are these instances of him subtly setting the rules of the game in his favor. In the LS of Genesis, presumably he was talking about the significance of authority in relation to Noah's failing. Actually, he was setting up an excuse mechanism for himself, which would later be used.

Exactly.

And after having spent my best 30 years actually experiencing his subtle tactics, I can say that Lee and others were quite persuasive. For example, after one storm, Lee proclaimed from the pulpit, "Who did I control, I can't even control a mosquito!?!" Then, of course, we all laughed since we can't control mosquitoes either. I heard the same spin from Titus Chu, yet I watched him publicly shame others without justification, tell them where to live, how to serve, what to do, and what not to do.

One time, while in a Cleveland training, my local elder heard that I had made a decision which he disagreed with. (Yet the pending decision had been brought up numerous times back home in our elders/deacons meetings for prayer.) Here I was in a crowded lobby at the Cleveland meeting hall being berated by the elder in front of another sister. When I mentioned it was a decision I made with my wife, he confronted me to my face, "can't you control your wife?!?" To which I answered, "it is against the law to "control" people."

It was indeed a frightening scene which could have become quite ugly in that crowded lobby. He was so close, and so mad, that had I just put my hand up to protect myself, it would have resulted in a barrage of punches. Fortunately, the Lord delivered me that time, and I quickly walked away from him. Twenty minutes later, after break time ended, he turned around in the meeting and said, "sorry I was a little too much." At the time, my first thought was, "nickel apology for a dollar offense."

So much for LC hypocrisy. Out of one side of their mouth they proclaim, "we control no one, we are humble slaves." Out of the other side, they have numerous methods to intimidate, manipulate, and control.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So much for LC hypocrisy. Out of one side of their mouth they proclaim, "we control no one, we are humble slaves." Out of the other side, they have numerous methods to intimidate, manipulate, and control.

My bolded emphasis is called "fellowship". Which as we can describe as flowing in one direction.

[Indiana]

Brother Lee Not Open to Opinion or Fellowship from the Brothers

One Accord for the Lord’s New Move
Elders Training, Book 7

The discrepancies in Local Church testimony is glaring.

They contend that some...
“Some transmute the basis of the oneness of the believers by the assertion of their own authority - to the point where the actual ground of oneness becomes acceptance of and obedience to their authority”. (DCP) Yet, LC leaders fit this description, transmuting the basis of oneness of the believers by the assertion of their own authority, as Brother Lee also did.


3. LSM Sister’s Report

Interview with Ken Unger "As a sister working in the office of the Living Stream Ministry, a former elder’s wife had day-to-day exposure to the interferences that were being encountered by elders, co-workers, and churches in places around the recovery both far and near. She had been troubled to the extent of writing an 11-page letter to Brother Lee expressing her concerns of the ill-treatment saints were receiving at the hands of the LSM. She and her husband, Ken Unger, who was an elder in Southern California, went to Brother Lee to read the letter directly to him, and as she began to read Brother Lee cut her off soon after she started, and dominated the time, sharing his own burden about “the Lord’s move.” She was very discouraged, but Brother Lee granted her another visit to him with her husband at her husband’s request, and again as she began to read, Brother Lee stopped her before she could get through half a page, dominating the remainder of the time, as before, talking about “the Lord’s move” on the earth, and showing no interest in her report.

"Brother Lee could not listen to what Ken considered a mild part of the letter compared to the more serious matters the letter addressed. His wife, thoroughly despondent over her experience, never tried again and never recovered from her experience and disillusionment with the church and the recovery. She has never met again with any group of believers.

"She and her husband had experienced the same attitude in Brother Lee that was encountered by John So, Bill Mallon, John Ingalls, the Raleigh brothers, and many more. Brother Lee was not interested in the interferences - they were to him just “misunderstandings” of the “help” LSM was trying to render." (Deviating from the Path ) Help that would surely render him more control of the churches, the elders, the co-workers and the saints.

...the actual ground of oneness becomes acceptance of and obedience to the leader's authority” (DCP)

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Exactly.

And after having spent my best 30 years actually experiencing his subtle tactics, I can say that Lee and others were quite persuasive. For example, after one storm, Lee proclaimed from the pulpit, "Who did I control, I can't even control a mosquito!?!" Then, of course, we all laughed since we can't control mosquitoes either. I heard the same spin from Titus Chu, yet I watched him publicly shame others without justification, tell them where to live, how to serve, what to do, and what not to do.

Most of the control that I have witnessed has been the subtle type, enough that it would be hard to bring forth any accusation of control or abuse of authority. Members also know to keep in line, most knowing very well the unspoken rules that exist: just say amen to everything, get out of your mind, be "one" with the brothers, etc. I have to say that the system that WL developed was perfect for controlling people without giving them any idea that they were actually being controlled. That's not to say he intended for it to be that way, but I think the opportunity presented itself at some point in time and it was too tempting for WL to resist.

I know we just discussed this recently, but one form of the control is simple group pressure, such as publicly putting people on the spot to ask if they can do something. Leaders are just so good at giving control a guise of spirituality. It took me a long time to see what really goes on and how manipulative things really are.

As I have said, the control/authority issues that I have run into have been subtle, but nevertheless, they have been there. It's been hard to put my finger on it at times, but eventually I came to realize that there was a problem. For example, a few years back, I realized that I needed to stop answering phone calls from certain LCers. There wasn't any explicit control happening, but I knew that I needed to do that in order to remove myself from situations where I was inadvertently submitting myself to other people who were taking advantage of me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Most of the control that I have witnessed has been the subtle type, enough that it would be hard to bring forth any accusation of control or abuse of authority. Members also know to keep in line, most knowing very well the unspoken rules that exist: just say amen to everything, get out of your mind, be "one" with the brothers, etc. I have to say that the system that WL developed was perfect for controlling people without giving them any idea that they were actually being controlled. That's not to say he intended for it to be that way, but I think the opportunity presented itself at some point in time and it was too tempting for WL to resist.

Lee had perfected what Nee had developed years earlier.

I think aron has done quite well to attribute this solely to Chinese culture and nothing closely similar to what we see in scripture. 5 millennia of Chinese dynasties provided them with everything they needed.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee had perfected what Nee had developed years earlier.

I think aron has done quite well to attribute this solely to Chinese culture and nothing closely similar to what we see in scripture. 5 millennia of Chinese dynasties provided them with everything they needed.

Many of aron's posts on the subject have helped me to consider how much culture was really a factor. You wouldn't necessarily think culture was a factor at all, because in the LC we were all told that we had come out of our culture. Of course, that's not to say that us Americans aren't influenced by our culture as well, but it's important to understand where the LC authority structure originates from.

So many in the LC have grown to believe that these culturally motivated teachings have some deep spiritual significance. Leaders can take something like authority and tell members too look at the world around them, how so many people are acting lawlessly, and it convinces members that WL had the correct "prescription" for the problem at hand.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Indiana

On page 33 of Fermentation, Brother Lee asks, "Where is the hint, even a little hint, that Witness Lee or Philip Lee or anyone of my office in the past did something to exercise their power over any church?”

Brother Lee Not Open for Opinion or Fellowship

from (Deviating from the Path)

4. Churches in Southern CA
"In the late eighties, during “the Lord’s new move”, the elders pondered many things in their hearts and were not short of desire and need to share with one another what was on their heart for their localities and for the recovery. In a surprising elders’ meeting in 1988 when they did open up to one another and share in an honest way about what they felt, Brother Lee was unable to truly hear them or understand the problems they faced in their localities, as morale in locality after locality declined. A description of that 1988 elders’ meeting follows: S. I.

John Ingalls –

"Dick Taylor, an elder in Long Beach, started [the sharing] with a lively, full-of enjoyment kind of testimony, such as Dick is well-known for, thanking the Lord for the door-knocking and the Gospel preaching in Long Beach, but ending with an honest word about the depression and the discouragement among some of the saints. This was unusual for Dick but he was telling it like it was. Other brothers followed who also spoke very honestly about dissensions concerning the new way and discouragement among the saints in their localities, for which they were very concerned. In some places divisions had arisen over the new way. John Smith, an elder in San Diego, ended the time of sharing with an honest account of his concerns for the saints in his church, mentioning how he feared that with the overemphasis on methods, numbers, and increase, the saints would become activity-centered instead of Christ-centered. J. I.

"What was extraordinary was the elders speaking up in such an honest and forthright way, knowing that such reports were not what Brother Lee liked or wanted to hear. We were not accustomed to doing this due partly to a sense of intimidation. To my knowledge this was the first time that had been done. This was encouraging. But Brother Lee was visibly bothered, and later reacted strongly to the brothers’ speaking, saying of one brother’s sharing (John Smith’s) that it was like pouring iced water on him." J.I.

As the Raleigh brothers said, 'they had no problem with the matters of the new way, but how it was carried out was a problem. They were not concerned for right and wrong, but for God’s righteousness. This word could have been echoed by many brothers at that time, who found that “fellowship” with Brother Lee was a one-sided matter of complying with him and his wishes, regardless of their circumstances and conscientious objections. J.I.


“Some transmute the basis of the oneness of the believers by the assertion of their own authority to the point where the actual ground of oneness becomes acceptance of and obedience to their authority”. (DCP)

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Indiana

"What was extraordinary was the elders speaking up in such an honest and forthright way, knowing that such reports were not what Brother Lee liked or wanted to hear. We were not accustomed to doing this due partly to a sense of intimidation. To my knowledge this was the first time that had been done. This was encouraging. But Brother Lee was visibly bothered, and later reacted strongly to the brothers’ speaking, saying of one brother’s sharing (John Smith’s) that it was like pouring iced water on him." J.I.

WL claimed to never have controlled anyone, however, it seems that those who knew him well were intimidated by him to some extent. That by itself is indicative of some amount of control, maybe more in the form of passive aggressive behavior. The environment of the LC is such that no one would ever think that they are being taken advantage of by those who set themselves up as authority figures. I'm afraid that by the time most have realized that abuses going on, it's too late, the problem can't be corrected.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Indiana

"What was extraordinary was the elders speaking up in such an honest and forthright way, knowing that such reports were not what Brother Lee liked or wanted to hear. We were not accustomed to doing this due partly to a sense of intimidation. To my knowledge this was the first time that had been done. This was encouraging. But Brother Lee was visibly bothered, and later reacted strongly to the brothers’ speaking, saying of one brother’s sharing (John Smith’s) that it was like pouring iced water on him." J.I.

John Ingalls may have said, "this was encouraging," but history tells us that Witness Lee never felt that way. On the contrary, Lee initially attempted to elicit sympathy saying that he had received "ice water poured on him." Interestingly diverse points of view considering the sports analogy: for a head coach to get the ice bucket dumped on him at the end of the game signals a great victory!

In the meetings following this gathering, Lee turned noticeably nasty and vindictive towards his other co-workers. So much for the "humble bond slave" willing to learn from other men of God. He would hear no more of this "nonsense." He drew a line in the sand demanding each and every leader to choose sides -- either get on his side with unwavering loyalty, or have no part of the Recovery and become a leprous rebel. The proverbial "my way or the highway," demanded from him an instant, on the spot, answer.

So much for prayer, fellowship, the leading and the liberty of the Spirit.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Ohio

John Ingalls may have said, "this was encouraging," but history tells us that Witness Lee never felt that way. On the contrary, Lee initially attempted to elicit sympathy saying that he had received "ice water poured on him..."
In the meetings following this gathering, Lee turned noticeably nasty and vindictive towards his other co-workers. So much for the "humble bond slave" willing to learn from other men of God. He would hear no more of this "nonsense...."

Former leader's email - 2001

Hi Steve. I felt I needed to sit on (pray on) what you shared. Admittedly I have a lot of mixed feelings. I want my Lord’s feeling. I was in leadership for fifteen years in a wide variety of churches. I saw and heard a lot of things. Now it’s been fifteen years since I’ve been out of the garlic room. I am no longer as idealistic as I once was. I am probably now too realistic for simple faith to work. I am working on that. Everything I learned about LC authority, rank and file, how dissenters were dealt with, taught me this: no one admits to wrongdoing. The Church way is right, everyone else is wrong. The slightest hint of criticism was ground for being marked out and destroyed. Bro. Lee once said in an elders’ meeting that any elder that criticized the lead was finished. His career was over. “If you can’t agree”, he said, “be a gentleman and leave”. Oneness was always with W. Lee and the “Lord’s move”. Opposers and dissenters were always the enemy to be overcome. Their “truth system” in the LC does not allow any ground or room for making mistakes or being wrong. How can they admit to mistakes? This is the “Lord’s recovery”. They were just following Brother Lee who is God’s man on the earth today. Their denial factor is HUGE!!

I say all that to say this: It may take years of persistent praying and interceding for those walls to crack or come down as Bill Mallon shared. It may take some significant suffering, affliction, trials, and or pain to bring them to any table of fellowship. Your burden is right; your attitude is right….but how can the godmen be wrong?? I hate to say this and I don’t want to daunt your mission in any way; but, I don’t think 1,000 testimonies would put a dent in that iron wall of self-righteousness. They have a well-defended castle. Their attorney/generals are battle tested.

God can touch their heart and make them soft. Maybe He is, and they are, and I don’t see it. Maybe you have heard of a crack in their armor. Maybe they are praying to the Lord right now how they can win us all back. To tell you the truth, most I know don’t want to go back EVER!

I, too, love the brothers, and miss the fellowship of the dear saints, our friends, who we fought the battle with for many years. Dave Higgins has asked me to come back. He said they desperately need shepherds. Mel Porter has asked me to come back for the same reason.

I asked how I can assist you. At this point, all I can commit to is to pray. The other matters I will address in another letter next week.

Eventually, we will all be reconciled. What a glory to the Lord for the breach to be healed now in Satan’s territory, to his shame. Read Is. 58:1-12…“now unto Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all we ask or think.”


---“Some transmute the basis of the oneness of the believers by the assertion of their own authority to the point where the actual ground of oneness becomes acceptance of and obedience to their authority”. (DCP)

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

I say all that to say this: It may take years of persistent praying and interceding for those walls to crack or come down as Bill Mallon shared. It may take some significant suffering, affliction, trials, and or pain to bring them to any table of fellowship. Your burden is right; your attitude is right….but how can the godmen be wrong?? I hate to say this and I don’t want to daunt your mission in any way; but, I don’t think 1,000 testimonies would put a dent in that iron wall of self-righteousness. They have a well-defended castle. Their attorney/generals are battle tested.

As much as I could quote and post and the entire email excerpt Steve received, I'll leave to the portion I have emphasized in bold.
The wall of self-righteousness is pride. There is a prideful spirit in the local churches. No sense of humility where a brother can ask the question, "what if we were wrong?"
The phrase a well-defended castle reminds me of this verse from the Book of Luke 11:21-22 which can also be found in Mark 3:27:

When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed. But when someone stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away from him all his armor on which he had relied and distributes his plunder.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

The slightest hint of criticism was ground for being marked out and destroyed. Bro. Lee once said in an elders’ meeting that any elder that criticized the lead was finished. His career was over. “If you can’t agree”, he said, “be a gentleman and leave”.

Be a gentleman and leave? Seriously!
What happens to a brother when he does exhibit the phrase, "be a gentleman and leave", he won't be given the same in good measure. There were a pair of elders from the Church in Moses Lake who did leave as gentleman. Some years later after moving to Washington state, I asked a Bellevue elder (or at least presume he was) what happened to the Church in Moses Lake? His response, "they're a rebel church".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Be a gentleman and leave? Seriously!
What happens to a brother when he does exhibit the phrase, "be a gentleman and leave", he won't be given the same in good measure. There were a pair of elders from the Church in Moses Lake who did leave as gentleman. Some years later after moving to Washington state, I asked a Bellevue elder (or at least presume he was) what happened to the Church in Moses Lake? His response, "they're a rebel church".

The complete expression goes something like this, "be a gentleman and leave, and don't take anyone with you, not even your wife and children."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The complete expression goes something like this, "be a gentleman and leave, and don't take anyone with you, not even your wife and children."

Nor is it implied or said you will not be besmirched.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Indiana

The slightest hint of criticism was ground for being marked out and destroyed. Bro. Lee once said in an elders’ meeting that any elder that criticized the lead was finished. His career was over. “If you can’t agree”, he said, “be a gentleman and leave”.

It's too bad that members can't come to realize that WL formulated an environment in which he was immune to criticism. There have been countless casualties created by this destructive mindset, all the while, members feel that "dropping their opinions" is all for the greater good.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Nor is it implied or said you will not be besmirched.

And make sure something bad happens to you once you leave, so that the elders can wag their heads to the remaining, "See ... just like Brudder Lee said ..."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's too bad that members can't come to realize that WL formulated an environment in which he was immune to criticism. There have been countless casualties created by this destructive mindset, all the while, members feel that "dropping their opinions" is all for the greater good.

During the heyday of the "new way," we were brainwashed that opinions were the great chasm dividing Philadelphia and Laodicea.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Ohio

During the heyday of the "new way," we were brainwashed that opinions were the great chasm dividing Philadelphia and Laodicea.

Brother Lee became very strong with the elders and co-workers about their opinion if they wanted to be serious about following him; but what word he delivered to them, and for them, about "opinion" became disseminated among the churches also. _S. I. 2015


Part 2 (from Deviating from the Path)

The Blurring of the Work and the Church

In the new way, beginning in October 1984, many changes took place in the Lord’s recovery among the local churches. Although many of those changes were outward and according to Scripture, one was related to a change in nature to the recovery itself.

An elder in the Northwest, Roth Williamson, expressed the essence of that change, declaring in a meeting, “If you are not here for Brother Lee and his ministry, you might as well not be here.” The ministry was promoted to such an extent that it became the primary factor of oneness in the churches.

"Some transmute the basis of the oneness of the believers by the assertion of their own authority to the point where the actual ground of oneness becomes acceptance of and obedience to their authority”] (DCP)
Indiana is online now Report Post

One Ministry, One Minister, and One Way
[

In February 1986, co-workers and elders from around the world in the Lord’s recovery became super-charged following an urgent training in Anaheim that helped set in motion a “new move” by Witness Lee and Living Stream Ministry. This training was one of a series of trainings to galvanize a new mindset in local church elders for their “one accord” in the churches and their practice of a new way in the church life to build up the Body of Christ. Of utmost importance in the new way was the leadership. It was made clear that there was only one qualified leader in the recovery and that oneness with him and his ministry was essential for the churches to be led in the way of God’s New Testament economy. To assure this, elders were to take a much lower profile in their localities, especially if they had the propensity to minister the word in large gatherings and give conferences. There was to be one ministry, one minister, and one way. The following letter of agreement, therefore, was proposed by Benson Phillips and Ray Graver and signed by co-workers and elders alike and presented to brother Witness Lee.


Dear Brother Lee,

After hearing your fellowship in this elders’ training, we all agree to have a new start in the Lord’s recovery. For this, we all agree to be in one accord and to carry out this new move of the Lord solely through prayer, the Spirit, and the Word. We further agree to practice the recovery one in: teaching, practice, thinking, speaking, essence, appearance, and expression. We repudiate all differences among the churches, and all indifference toward the ministry office, and the other churches. We agree that the church in our place be identical with all the local churches throughout the earth.

We also agree to follow your leading as the one who has brought us God’s New Testament economy and has led us into its practice. We agree that this leading is indispensable to our oneness and acknowledge the one trumpet in the Lord’s ministry and the one wise master builder among us.

We further agree to practice the church life in our locality absolutely in a new way: to build the church in, through, and based upon home meetings; to lead every member to get used to functioning without any idea to depend on any giant speakers; to teach all the saints to know the basic truths in an educational way that they may teach others for the spreading of the truth; to build up the saints in the growth in life that they may minister life to others, shepherd each other, and take care of the backsliding ones; to lead all the saints to preach the gospel in every possible way; to avoid leadership as much as possible; and to have home gatherings for nurturing the saints in life; and big meetings for educating the saints in truths.

We agree that all the preceding points are the clear and definite teaching of the Bible according to God’s New Testament economy…. (417 signatories)

Gideon and his Three Hundred Men

The example of this special oneness with Witness Lee is best demonstrated by the oneness Gideon had with his 300 men.

"When Gideon was called to take the army to fight the battle for Jehovah, the Lord told him that he had too many. Eventually, the Lord chose three hundred men and told Gideon to send the others home. This does not mean that whoever went back home was no longer an Israelite. He was still an Israelite, but he had nothing to do with the fighting army. (Elders’ Training, Book 7: One Accord for the Lord’s Move, Witness Lee)


Gideon only needed three hundred men and the rest could go home. This was the spirit of “the Lord's new move”. There was to be "no uncertain sounding of the trumpet" for the army to follow with Brother Lee as its unique leader. He had the burden to train this army to get into the truths of God's New Testament and propagate them throughout the earth. While addressing the elders during an elders training, he said,

"You may say that you follow Brother Lee, that you are one with this ministry. That sounds very good, but I am a little concerned that you may not know what it means to be one with this ministry. You may want to take me as your commander-in-chief and follow me, but I do not want to have many followers who know nothing about God's New Testament economy. We are not doing anything but carrying out God's New Testament economy." (Elders’ Training, Book 7: One Accord for the Lord’s Move)

Special Oneness

Three hundred men had a special oneness with Gideon. This special oneness was essentially different from the common oneness of the nation of Israel. In the same way, Witness Lee called for an army of followers, pointing out that “those who followed Gideon to fight against the Philistines defeated them and rescued the entire nation of Israel”. He spoke the following clear and important word about this special oneness.
Whether or not a certain church takes the ministry does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church. The title of this message does not say “no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lord’s recovery” but “in the Lord’s ministry.” I am not talking about something in the Lord’s recovery, but I am talking about the ministry…. The ministry is altogether filled up with a fighting spirit. I do not control any church. All the saints who have left the denominations, the divisive sects, and stand on the proper ground are a local church in their locality. They can express their opinions, but they may have nothing to do with this ministry. (Elders’ Training, Book 7: One Accord for the Lord’s Move, pp. 81-82)

The Work and the Church Mixed

In the new way, however, the work and the church became mixed, or blurred. The one trumpet in the Lord’s ministry became the one trumpet in the Lord’s recovery. The special oneness became THE ONENESS in the recovery. This surely changed the nature of the recovery and became the underpinning for a new center of focus in all the churches – THE MINISTRY. That focus led to division and the loss of hundreds of saints in the 1980s.

A Word of Generality Not Heeded

When the work and the church were being mixed during the late eighties turmoil, much damage occurred in the recovery. This prompted Brother Lee to give the following word of generality to all the elders and co-workers at a pivotal time in local church history. His word has not been heeded. He shared,

"As long as you do not do anything against our New Testament constitution, no one will bother you. Among us in the Lord’s recovery, there is nothing worth worrying about because basically we do not have any heresy or any kind of organizational control. Everyone in every church has the full freedom to go on. I hope that we would be so faithful and loyal to the Lord’s recovery. We should mean business with the Lord that the Lord’s recovery will be prevailing and even flourishing on this earth for the Lord’s purpose.

"Concerning practices among us, such as head covering, baptism, or preaching the gospel, we should let these things be as they are among the saints. If some of the sisters want to wear a head covering, let them do it. If others do not, give them the liberty. We should have this attitude with all the practices in the church life that are outside our common faith. If some feel that they are burdened to visit people for the gospel, let them do it. Those saints who are burdened to visit people for the gospel should not insist on this practice. We should try to avoid different kinds of terms, slogans, and sayings, and try to do our best to keep the oneness in the Lord’s recovery. We must avoid anything that damages the freedom of the saints or the oneness of the Body of Christ.

"It is altogether wise and profitable that we do not expect all the churches to be the same. This is impossible. Even twelve brothers within a local church cannot be the same in everything. If a local church has a burden to visit people in their homes, they should carry out this commission. They do not need to say that others do not preach the gospel in this way. If others feel they do not need to preach the gospel by visiting people in their homes, that is not your business. Do not talk about who is for this and who is for that. We should not talk in this way. We should not label ourselves or label others. If we want to practice a certain thing, we can do it. If others do not want to practice it, they have the liberty not to practice it. We should not question who is for a certain thing and who is not for a certain thing. This does not help you or anyone else. We all must endeavor to keep the oneness of the Spirit so that the Body of Christ can build up itself in love” (Eph. 4:3, 16). (Elders’ Training, Book 9: One Accord for the Lord’s Move, pp. 61-63)


Part 3

Throughout the years it was clear that Brother Lee was not to be blamed for any negative circumstances, incidences, and uprisings. Instead, blame was placed onto others. In such cases false, incomplete, and inaccurate reporting of men and events took place. I refer to the filtered version of our history designed to protect a man and his ministry.

Indeed
"Some transmute the basis of the oneness of the believers by the assertion of their own authority to the point where the actual ground of oneness becomes acceptance of and obedience to their authority”. (DCP)

Indiana is online now Report Post

[Freedom]

In February 1986, co-workers and elders from around the world in the Lord’s recovery became super-charged following an urgent training in Anaheim that helped set in motion a “new move” by Witness Lee and Living Stream Ministry. This training was one of a series of trainings to galvanize a new mindset in local church elders for their “one accord” in the churches and their practice of a new way in the church life to build up the Body of Christ. Of utmost importance in the new way was the leadership. It was made clear that there was only one qualified leader in the recovery and that oneness with him and his ministry was essential for the churches to be led in the way of God’s New Testament economy. To assure this, elders were to take a much lower profile in their localities, especially if they had the propensity to minister the word in large gatherings and give conferences. There was to be one ministry, one minister, and one way. The following letter of agreement, therefore, was proposed by Benson Phillips and Ray Graver and signed by co-workers and elders alike and presented to brother Witness Lee.

A common theme that I have noticed in WL's ministry is that he would position his ministry as being supreme, but also claim that the local churches weren't controlled by anyone, and that churches had no obligation to follow his ministry. Of course, the reality was always that there was a my way or the highway attitude. It seems the rationalization for this was always in the form of asking members why they would want anything besides his ministry. In other words, because WL's ministry was equated with being the only thing worthwhile, even a passive rejection of his ministry was a problem.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

A common theme that I have noticed in WL's ministry is that he would position his ministry as being supreme, but also claim that the local churches are were controlled by anyone, and that churches had no obligation to follow his ministry. Of course, the reality was always that there was a my way or the highway attitude. It seems the rationalization for this was always in the form of asking members why they would want anything besides his ministry. In other words, because WL's ministry was equated with being the only thing worthwhile, even a passive rejection of his ministry was a problem.

Here's another driving factor behind the commitment of many an old-timer full-timer: In the late 70's, the Max Rapoport "thing" blew up in the LC's. Yes, Max caused lots of chaos, destroying many LC's and young people, but behind the scenes Lee pushed him into it, and that story was never told.

Anyways, Max was a charmer and a charismatic leader who gathered quite a following. After the dust settled, and Max was shamed into departure, some of these brothers soberly and publicly repented of their involvement. Two in particular with brothers Dick Taylor and Howard Higashi of Long Beach(?). These two were precious shepherds who loved the Lord and the saints.

I believe their repentance went too far. They devoted themselves anew to Lee's work and ministry absolutely and unreservedly, to the point where they abrogated personal discernment. Others also took cue from them, since the two were so outspoken in their new found admirations. This gave Lee an unrestricted license, which served him a decade later to coverup all manner of unrighteousness, and shame a new crop of brothers into LC "extinction."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here's another driving factor behind the commitment of many an old-timer full-timer: In the late 70's, the Max Rapoport "thing" blew up in the LC's. Yes, Max caused lots of chaos, destroying many LC's and young people, but behind the scenes Lee pushed him into it, and that story was never told.

Anyways, Max was a charmer and a charismatic leader who gathered quite a following. After the dust settled, and Max was shamed into departure, some of these brothers soberly and publicly repented of their involvement. Two in particular with brothers Dick Taylor and Howard Higashi of Long Beach(?). These two were precious shepherds who loved the Lord and the saints.

I believe their repentance went too far. They devoted themselves anew to Lee's work and ministry absolutely and unreservedly, to the point where they abrogated personal discernment. Others also took cue from them, since the two were so outspoken in their new found admirations. This gave Lee an unrestricted license, which served him a decade later to coverup all manner of unrighteousness, and shame a new crop of brothers into LC "extinction."

It seems that LC history has been punctuated by calls to "return back to the ministry" after chaotic events. Unfortunately, it must have never occurred to anyone just where the chaos originated from. Max is the perfect example of that. Surely, some amount of blame can be placed on him for what happened, but when did the other party involved (WL) ever step up to the plate and accept some of the blame as well? It was completely disingenuous for WL to sit back and watch other brothers "repent" and even let them set an example for saints to "line up" with his ministry as a solution to the problem that occurred.

Most LCers would consider the ministry to be some sort of elixir. As such, they aren't about to question it or reject it for simple fear of not knowing if they could survive without it. This is ideal for leaders, because it means that the ministry is the last place that anyone will place any blame.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It seems that LC history has been punctuated by calls to "return back to the ministry" after chaotic events. Unfortunately, it must have never occurred to anyone just where the chaos originated from. Max is the perfect example of that. Surely, some amount of blame can be placed on him for what happened, but when did the other party involved (WL) ever step up to the plate and accept some of the blame as well? It was completely disingenuous for WL to sit back and watch other brothers "repent" and even let them set an example for saints to "line up" with his ministry as a solution to the problem that occurred.

Titus Chu painted a picture for decades in the GLA that placed a pristine image of Lee, his own spiritual father, in the center surrounded by incompetent buffoons who were always messing up God's pure burden given to Lee in order to lead His move on earth.

Why didn't anyone sit back and ask why all the problems emanated from Anaheim where Lee lived? Why was it that those surrounding Lee constantly created problems which blew up into category 5 "hurricanes?" Why was it that the base explanation given in the aftermath of destruction was that these brothers were "ambitious?" Why was it that we believed lies?

Were it not for the "heavenly flow" of information on the internet (thank you Al Gore!) most of us would still believe the lies out of Anaheim.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why didn't anyone sit back and ask why all the problems emanated from Anaheim where Lee lived? Why was it that those surrounding Lee constantly created problems which blew up into category 5 "hurricanes?" Why was it that the base explanation given in the aftermath of destruction was that these brothers were "ambitious?" Why was it that we believed lies?

Why did brothers look the other way when molehills were allowed to become a Mt Everest?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Titus Chu painted a picture for decades in the GLA that placed a pristine image of Lee, his own spiritual father, in the center surrounded by incompetent buffoons who were always messing up God's pure burden given to Lee in order to lead His move on earth.

Why didn't anyone sit back and ask why all the problems emanated from Anaheim where Lee lived? Why was it that those surrounding Lee constantly created problems which blew up into category 5 "hurricanes?" Why was it that the base explanation given in the aftermath of destruction was that these brothers were "ambitious?" Why was it that we believed lies?

Were it not for the "heavenly flow" of information on the internet (thank you Al Gore!) most of us would still believe the lies out of Anaheim.

The DCP statement that Indiana has posted is indicative of what type of problem exists in the LC. They will openly claim that there are those who abuse authority, yet they are ignorant as to who the worst offenders are.

It seems to me that WL spoke strongly against many of the things that he himself was. This led everyone to never suspect that he was guilty of the same. For example, WL spoke strongly against ambition and labeled certain brothers as such. No one ever wondered if WL was also ambitious. Given the statement that WL once made: "Lee must be famous", I think there is sufficient evidence to say that WL was an ambitious person as well.

I have speculated before that perhaps some of WL's ministry was his own psychological projection, that is, projecting his personality traits upon others. I think the blendeds tend to do this as well. They seem to have the tendency to speak strongly against what they are. I remember reading something about the blendeds saying how the podium shouldn't be used for innuendos (presumably something Titus was doing), but that is exactly what they do as well. It's no wonder after ever single "turmoil", they never learn from what happened. It seems no one can identify the real problem at hand.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The DCP statement that Indiana has posted is indicative of what type of problem exists in the LC. They will openly claim that there are those who abuse authority, yet they are ignorant as to who the worst offenders are.

It seems to me that WL spoke strongly against many of the things that he himself was. This led everyone to never suspect that he was guilty of the same. For example, WL spoke strongly against ambition and labeled certain brothers as such. No one ever wondered if WL was also ambitious. Given the statement that WL once made: "Lee must be famous", I think there is sufficient evidence to say that WL was an ambitious person as well.

I have speculated before that perhaps some of WL's ministry was his own psychological projection, that is, projecting his personality traits upon others. I think the blendeds tend to do this as well. They seem to have the tendency to speak strongly against what they are. I remember reading something about the blendeds saying how the podium shouldn't be used for innuendos (presumably something Titus was doing), but that is exactly what they do as well. It's no wonder after ever single "turmoil", they never learn from what happened. It seems no one can identify the real problem at hand.

LSM's leaders live in a delusion that they alone represent God on earth. Hence, they feel they can do no wrong, and anyone who speaks against them is an enemy of God. The Blendeds were convinced by Lee that Nee enjoyed such a godman status, then Lee himself followed, and now they do too. Their mentality is no different than the Pope's supposed status, and his infallibility doctrine.

[TLFisher]

Deputy authority works for a reason and that's to shirk accountability. Maybe I am speaking just for myself, but it would be a relief to many on this forum if Local church leaders were held accountable by fellow members of the Body and not just their peers. As has been the past and present Local church leaders feel they're only accountable to God. This is why the spiritual principle of reconciliation is ineffective.

[UntoHim]

Good points Terry. Actually, the sad truth is that many of these brothers apparently do not feel accountable to God at all, but only to the person and work of Witness Lee. They make no attempt to deny that their authority comes not from God and his Word, but only from the authority bequeathed by Lee (his person) and the supposed "ministry of the age" (his work). May God have mercy.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Good points Terry. Actually, the sad truth is that many of these brothers apparently do not feel accountable to God at all, but only to the person and work of Witness Lee. They make no attempt to deny that their authority comes not from God and his Word, but only from the authority bequeathed by Lee (his person) and the supposed "ministry of the age" (his work). May God have mercy.

When will the hero-worship end? It's time the blendeds took heed to Jesus' words: But Jesus said to him, “Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead.” (Matt 8:22).

WL had been dead for how long? It's almost if they can't accept that he's gone.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Former leader's email - 2001

Everything I learned about LC authority, rank and file, how dissenters were dealt with, taught me this: no one admits to wrongdoing. Their “truth system” in the LC does not allow any ground or room for making mistakes or being wrong. How can they admit to mistakes?

Originally Posted by CFP

Now, however, mother Nee was saved.... she was deeply convicted by the Spirit of God that she must make an open confession to her son before she could worship publicly. To the utter surprise of the entire family she suddenly stood up, walked over to her son, wrapped her arms around Watchman, and cried out, “For the sake of the Lord Jesus, please forgive me for beating you unjustly and in anger.” This touched Watchman deeply. Never had he heard of a Chinese parent accepting such loss of face. (The Finest of the Wheat, CFP, p. 15)

In 35 years of public ministry in the U.S., did anyone see Witness Lee accept such loss of face? If not, then what assurance is there that he was even a Christian? Or at least that he was a mature and transformed Christian, versus a "shallow" or "natural" or "soulish" one? In other words, how much (if at all) had he freed himself from his native Chinese culture?

[TLFisher]

"There has been to some extent an atmosphere of fear brought in among the saints and among the churches, bringing the conscience of the saints into bondage. I believe this has been done by an over-stressing and distortion of the teaching concerning deputy authority. This has brought the saints into a condition where they are fearful to follow their conscience, to be one with their spirit, and sometimes to speak their genuine concerns."
Speaking the Truth in Love

Concerning the teaching of Deputy Authority, there is a distortion. Maybe even a twisted practice on deputy authority. The emphasis is on absolute submission. All the while the practice of deputy authority is treated irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the practice of deputy authority results in abuse. All that is considered important is the brother and sister submits.
When a brother won't allow deacons, elders, co-workers to run roughshod over him, the brother is characterized as troublesome, rebellious, etc.

In the teaching of Deputy Authority, Moses is often viewed as a Biblical model. What about the Kings and prophets?
Following is an excerpt from Nehemiah 5:6-13

"Then I was very angry when I had heard their outcry and these words. I consulted with myself and contended with the nobles and the rulers and said to them, “You are exacting usury, each from his brother!” Therefore, I held a great assembly against them. I said to them, “We according to our ability have redeemed our Jewish brothers who were sold to the nations; now would you even sell your brothers that they may be sold to us?” Then they were silent and could not find a word to say. Again I said, “The thing which you are doing is not good; should you not walk in the fear of our God because of the reproach of the nations, our enemies? And likewise I, my brothers and my servants are lending them money and grain. Please, let us leave off this usury. Please, give back to them this very day their fields, their vineyards, their olive groves and their houses, also the hundredth part of the money and of the grain, the new wine and the oil that you are exacting from them.” Then they said, “We will give it back and will require nothing from them; we will do exactly as you say.” So I called the priests and took an oath from them that they would do according to this promise. I also shook out the front of my garment and said, “Thus may God shake out every man from his house and from his possessions who does not fulfill this promise; even thus may he be shaken out and emptied.” And all the assembly said, “Amen!” And they praised the Lord. Then the people did according to this promise."

My point, those who support the teaching of deputy authority as infallible without checks and balances don't want contention from a type of Nehemiah. Such a one becomes subject to quarantine.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by aron

In 35 years of public ministry in the U.S., did anyone see Witness Lee accept such loss of face? If not, then what assurance is there that he was.... a mature and transformed Christian?... In other words, how much (if at all) had he freed himself from his native Chinese culture? reference to post #43

I believe that conscientious brethren should study the principle of Aron's word and the effects of what "saving face" and the Chinese culture has had on the church, even with Watchman Nee in China. In Lily Hsu's book on her Unforgettable Memories of Watchman Nee and the Shanghai Local Church, its weighty content is immediately felt 1) in the endorsements, 2) Joshua Yu's Preface and 3) in the introduction.

One of the Ten Endorsements
"Thank the Lord for granting the author the wisdom and courage. My heart is extremely painful with feelings beyond words. This book has filled the blanks in history and solved some unsettled questions." _Rev. Thomas Wang, Emeritus

www.TwoTurmoils.com/LilyHsuBook.pdf

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Indiana

The Hijacking of the Local Churches

In the days when the “local churches” were essentially hijacked by unrestrained men in a world-wide movement, things happened fast and furiously in the name of being in one accord for “the Lord’s new move”. When the dust settled, a federation of churches had been established under the direction and control of an administrator and a headquarters in Anaheim.

Along with the hijacking was the attacking of conscientious leaders in a cyclone of events that issued in their quarantines and their public annihilation, with disdain of a magnitude unimaginable; except when considering the source and the inroads given the Accuser of the brethren to have full sway in brutal and false portrayal of men and events; and their motives and intentions in a movement designed to turn leaders and churches upside down.

A Book of Distortion

In a concluding word by Witness Lee in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion(FPR), he says, “Since the dissenting ones have made their rebellion so obvious, so public, even by their publications, I feel obliged to present to you all the fermenting events of the present rebellion in the Lord’s recovery that you may be clear about the intrinsic reasons and causes of all the fermentations. In the church as a corporate Body composed of many different persons with their different realizations and views, problems are sometimes unavoidable in the long run. According to the New Testament, such problems should be properly taken care of in the divine love by genuine and thorough fellowship in the Spirit, with constant forgiveness, all-caring forbearance, self-depreciating humility, merciful sympathy, and gracious help in mutuality”.

“Instead of these excellent Christian virtues, what we see in the present rebellion are exaggerated criticisms, cruel backbitings, unreasonable opposings, subtle underminings, wicked defamations, vicious slanders, unethical anonymous letters, bitter attacks, ill-intentioned conspiracies, crafty innuendos, double-tongued pretenses, fabricated falsehood, flagrant lies, reckless devastations, and unbridled destructions, with unimaginable hatred, fleshly jealousies, and unchristian avengings. These are not the fruit of enjoying Christ, nor are they good for the building up of the saints and the building of the churches. Even to make such a presentation of the facts is not pleasant to me. For quite a long time I have been hesitating before the Lord as to whether I should do this or not, and I have consulted with the brothers about this.

“They all encouraged me to do it for the preservation of the uninformed ones, for the recovery of the deceived ones, for the establishing of the wavering and bothered ones, and for history. Thus, I feel obligated to do so, after considering what Paul eventually did in 2 Timothy 2:17-18 and 4:14-15 concerning this kind of thing, and even the more that Moses kept a full record of the rebellions in the book of Numbers. I do look to the Lord that He would have mercy on all of us and grant us His sufficient grace that we would endeavor to keep the oneness of His Body at any cost. And I also expect that the brothers who caused the present turmoil and those who are involved in such an illogical and unjustifiable action would reconsider this matter before the Lord to answer this question, which is the question of so many saints who are concerned for the oneness of the Body of Christ: “Is not what you are engaging in divisive, or already a division?” (W. Lee, 1990, p. 74, FPR)

The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion is a distortion of truth instigated by by our common enemy, Satan, throughout its pages. Deviating from the Path in the Lords Recovery supplies information not given in FPR, bringing truth to light in providing important details of the other side of the story.
http://www.TwoTurmoils.com/deviating...dsrecovery.pdf

Even if those denunciations had been true, the rhetoric could be said to be inappropriate and void of love. But our brothers could not even tell the truth in an atmosphere pervaded by the Deceiver, the Accuser of many brothers in church meetings and official [I]publications], especially in FPR.

Steve Isitt

Following the letter below to brother Lee, was a response by him that he felt was necessary to quell the concerns of those who might think the letter exalted him. Whoever had such concerns, however, found them amplified much more, as time passed.

Appendix

A Letter of Assurance from 419 Leading Brothers Attending the February 1986 Elders’ Training -- February 21, 1986

“Dear Brother Lee,

After hearing your fellowship in this elders’ training, we all agree to have a new start in the Lord’s recovery. For this, we all agree to be in one accord and to carry out this new move of the Lord solely through prayer, the Spirit, and the Word. We further agree to practice the recovery one in: teaching, practice, thinking, speaking, essence, appearance, and expression. We repudiate all differences among the churches, and all indifference toward the ministry office, and the other churches. We agree that the church in our place be identical with all the local churches throughout the earth.

We also agree to follow your leading as the one who has brought us God’s New Testament economy and has led us into its practice. We agree that this leading is indispensable to our oneness and acknowledge the one trumpet in the Lord’s ministry and the one wise master builder among us.

We further agree to practice the church life in our locality absolutely in a new way: to build the church in, through, and based upon home meetings; to lead every member to get used to functioning without any idea to depend on any giant speakers; to teach all the saints to know the basic truths in an educational way that they may teach others for the spreading of the truth; to build up the saints in the growth in life that they may minister life to others, shepherd each other, and take care of the backsliding ones; to lead all the saints to preach the gospel in every possible way; to avoid leadership as much as possible; and to have home gatherings for nurturing the saints in life; and big meetings for educating the saints in truths.

We agree that all the preceding points are the clear and definite teaching of the Bible according to God’s New Testament economy. Finally, we agree that the success of this new move is our responsibility and will rise up to labor and endeavor with our whole being, looking to the Lord for His mercy and grace that we would be faithful to the end”

Your brothers for the Lord’s recovery,
******************


Brother Lee’s Remarks in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

"Out of 419 signers, as far as I know thus far, only approximately six would revoke their signatures. One of these six, John Ingalls, said that I “treated this letter like an oath” and I took it “as a pledge,” John Ingalls or Bill Mallon said that I was “holding it up to the brothers, reminding them of what they signed.” In one elders’ meeting in December 1987 in Irving I did say, in the way of warning to the rebellious ones who were present, especially John Ingalls and Bill Mallon, that that letter, which had been signed by them one year and ten months prior to that time, could be considered as a pledge according to the way it was written. In that warning I spoke loudly at least twice to them, saying that they should “treasure [their] golden history in the Lord’s recovery,” with the expectation that they would receive the mercy and grace of the Lord to turn from their rebellious situation.

But I never considered that letter as an oath. Both John Ingalls and Bill Mallon were men over fifty years of age, highly educated, with a sober mind and a strong will. As such persons they participated with agreement in the drafting of this letter, and then signed such a crucial paper solemnly before God. I did not consider that as the playing of little, naughty boys; rather, I did count on it and trust in it for the Lord’s recovery in a very reverent way. How sad it is that after 22 months, fewer than one thousand days, they are like a bow turning its arrow at the shooter. This is far beyond my anticipation. They swallowed their own words; ignored the truth they had received and acknowledged; did not care for the Lord’s recovery, which they had treasured, uplifted, and propagated, not merely for two and a half days, but for a quarter of a century; behaved themselves not as gentlemen but as dishonest ones who conspired in secrecy to destroy my ministry; did not regard their faithfulness before the faithful Lord; and fluctuated to carry out their plot by inducing others to join their rebellion in darkness.

When the letter was presented to me and gained my attention, I was somewhat concerned that the signing brothers probably did not fully realize the significance of some of the expressions of their letter, so I acknowledged it with a reply that expressed to them my sincere, honest, and faithful in this matter, as printed below:

April 11, 1986

The Brothers attending the February 1986
Elders’ Training

Dear Brothers:

Thank you for your letter dated February 21, 1986 with the list of signatures. I feel very sorry that I could not have time to acknowledge, with appreciation, what you have expressed in your letter and through your signatures until now.

Being one with the ministry is a crucial matter, and its effects are exceedingly serious. Its proper definition is not to follow any man, any doctrine or any movement, but is to be one with the Lord’s move today according to the Lord’s vision, without any intrinsic element of exalting any person or promoting any work. May the Lord be merciful and gracious to us, that this action would not be misunderstood or misapplied by anyone in a way that would give the enemy Satan ground for utilization, thus frustrating the Lord’s move today, but rather that this action could be properly used by the Lord to swallow up all the germs of discord which have been existing, even among us, for quite a time in the past. May the Lord remember your kind wishes for me and bless your labors in Him.

Your brother in Christ,
Witness Lee”


"This reply was written in the way of fellowship with a strong intention to impress the signing brothers with the proper definition of being one with the ministry. According to its expression, my reply indicated to the brothers that to be one with the ministry in the way that was expressed in their letter might be misunderstood and misapplied by some and might cause trouble. I said that the misunderstanding and misapplication could quite possibly be centered around the thinking of exalting a person. In anticipation of this, in my reply I reminded the signing brothers that the proper definition of being one with the ministry is to be one with the Lord’s move “without any intrinsic element of exalting any person.” Thus, what was expressed in my reply might be considered a warning. This was given probably because of the intuition I had within me at that time. At any rate, the present rebellious situation has become a real fulfillment of my warning. Our sovereign Lord knows everything and is sovereign over all things. Praise Him!

"The total significance of the letter signed by the 419 brothers is to assure me of their willingness and loyalty in keeping the one accord for the Lord’s recovery. Now the six mentioned above have fluctuated in their unstable understanding. Regardless of what their understanding might be, no one can deny that, according to the holy word, to be in one accord is not only right but also indispensable to work together for the Lord’s interest on this earth. No one among us should justify or promote discord or differences in the Lord’s move." (The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, W. L., 1990)

[Freedom]

There is nothing wrong with a group of Christians having a purposeful attitude towards a particular ministry. That is not uncommon at all. I think that WL's intention was to lead everyone to believe that the same kind of 'safe' association existed between the local churches and his ministry. All the while, he subtly stressed the need for everyone to align themselves to his ministry and follow him completely.

In his letter, WL states the following:
"Being one with the ministry is a crucial matter, and its effects are exceedingly serious. Its proper definition is not to follow any man, any doctrine or any movement, but is to be one with the Lord’s move today according to the Lord’s vision, without any intrinsic element of exalting any person or promoting any work"

In Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age, WL says this about his following Nee:
"I feel no shame whatsoever in saying that I followed a man..."

In the first quote, WL can be quoted as saying that no one should be following a man. In the second, he is basically bragging about his following of Nee. Which statement are we to believe? He said one thing, and insisted that everyone practice something different. It is no wonder JI and others retracted their signatures.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Freedom

There is nothing wrong with a group of Christians having a purposeful attitude towards a particular ministry. That is not uncommon at all. I think that WL's intention was to lead everyone to believe that the same kind of 'safe' association existed between the local churches and his ministry. All the while, he subtly stressed the need for everyone to align themselves to his ministry and follow him completely.

In his letter, WL states the following:
"Being one with the ministry is a crucial matter, and its effects are exceedingly serious. Its proper definition is not to follow any man, any doctrine or any movement, but is to be one with the Lord’s move today according to the Lord’s vision, without any intrinsic element of exalting any person or promoting any work"

In Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age, WL says this about his following Nee:

"I feel no shame whatsoever in saying that I followed a man..."

In the first quote, WL can be quoted as saying that no one should be following a man. In the second, he is basically bragging about his following of Nee. Which statement are we to believe? He said one thing, and insisted that everyone practice something different. It is no wonder JI and others retracted their signatures.

The apostle Paul was a man and did encourage others to take him as a pattern - in his conduct and pursuit of Christ, but not in the way of following him in a world-wide movement that would uplift him, promote his work, and produce a system of cookie-cutter churches.

But there has been such a movement in the Local Churches, which began in 1984 in Taiwan and became accelerated in the U. S. in 1986, with the help of the future blending brothers - who maintain the system today.

Senior Co-Workers Express their Concerns

Co-workers from Taiwan were among those with grave concerns about the movement.

John Ingalls shares,

"Brother Chu Shun Min then told me how that on April 1, 1988, he had a conversation with Brother Lee in the Bay Area. He presented a number of serious concerns to Brother Lee and asked him to bring all these things to the Lord. Brother Chu told me that Brother Lee listened quietly and passively to all his points (with one exception), making no comment, neither admitting nor denying. The exception was a point he made concerning Brother Lee’s son, Philip Lee. In conclusion, Brother Chu told Brother Lee, “All the sweet feeling we had in the past is lost. All the rest in our spirit is over.

“I will mention just a few more comments made by Brother Chu Shun Min. He said that he feels very sorry for the present state of things -- he gave his whole life to this. He has received letters from elderly ones in Taipei that are full of blood and tears. There are very few elderly ones there who are not discouraged or withdrawn. The warfare now is fiercer than in Watchman Nee’s day when the issue was that of leaving the denominations. We are at a critical juncture. We cannot be silent regarding the change of nature in the Lord’s recovery. We should have no part in it. This is a day for further recovery. We need a new beginning to recover us back from the change of nature to the Lord’s original intention. We must discard all the changes of nature. The main direction is to come out of the system; it cannot change." _Speaking the Truth in Love, John Ingalls

Phil. 3:17 Be imitators together of me, brothers, and observe those who thus walk even as you have us as a pattern.

vv leading to that verse
12 Not that I have already obtained or am already perfected, but I pursue, if even I may lay hold of that for which I also have been laid hold of by Christ Jesus.

13 Brothers, I do not account of myself to have laid hold; but one thing I do: Forgetting the things which are behind and stretching forward to the things which are before,

14 I pursue toward the goal for the prize to which God in Christ Jesus has called me upward.

15 Let us therefore, as many as are full-grown, have this mind; and if in anything you are otherwise minded, this also God will reveal to you.

16 Nevertheless whereunto we have attained, by the same rule let us walk.

17 Be imitators together of me, brothers, and observe those who thus walk even as you have us as a pattern.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Paul was a man who did encourage taking him as a pattern in his conduct and pursuit of Christ - but not that others would take him in a way of following him in a world-wide movement that would lift him up, promote his work, and produce a system of cookie-cutter churches, featuring him and his ministry.

It seems that WL might have viewed his own following of Nee as being anecdotal for how the churches should follow him and his ministry.

I would go so far as to say that there were a few junctures where WL's following of WN was particularly unwise, such as after the pharmaceutical company failure.

It seems that the little flock churches in China were able to function in Nee's absence, so to me, that implies that WL was a bit confused in the matter of following Nee. It seems WL's whole goal in China after Nee was excommunicated was to help "recover" the churches to Nee's ministry.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It seems WL's whole goal in China after Nee was excommunicated was to help "recover" the churches to Nee's ministry.

Nee the untouchable MOTA became the template for Lee the untouchable MOTA.

And look at his method: Lee asked the Shanghai elders, "How did you feel, after you ex-communicated Nee?" It wasn't about righteousness, or truth, but about feelings. Nee's subjectivist "experience trumps all" was used against the church; they felt bad when they rejected Nee, therefore Lee had power over them.

"How did you feel when your God died?" Instead of realizing they worshipped a false God (the Little Flock with Nee as unquestioned champion), they were brought back, through their feelings of remorse, into bondage again. This is what happens when truth no longer directs the path.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Indiana

The apostle Paul was a man and did encourage others to take him as a pattern - in his conduct and pursuit of Christ, but not in the way of following him in a world-wide movement that would uplift him, promote his work, and produce a system of cookie-cutter churches.
But there has been such a movement in the Local Churches, which began in 1984 in Taiwan and became accelerated in the U. S. in 1986, with the help of the future blending brothers - who maintain the system today.

Steve, your right about the first part (about uplifting a man, promoting his work and producing a system of cookie-cutter churches, and you're certainly correct about the blending brothers maintaining this system today. However, you're off about 30 years on your assessment of when this all began. By the Mid 1950s, with Watchman Nee secured away in a Communist prison, Witness Lee had FULL CONTROL within the Local Church Movement, and ruled with an iron fist.

Lee was already hiring and firing elders and coworkers at his personal whim. He was already using quarantining and shunning as a method of taking and maintaining full control of the Movement. He was also already engaged in financial malfeasance, selling church property to pay off personal business debts. More than one major division in the Far East took place over Lee's behavior, and all this took place LONG BEFORE Lee decided to grace our fair shores with his so-called Lord's Recovery movement. And as a matter of fact, we now know the real reason(s) Witness Lee came to North America - it was to escape responsibility for all the financial and spiritual malfeasance committed by his sons and him in the Far East.

Of course, with only a handful of followers in America, Lee was forced to play his hand a little slow at first. He had to build up trust among the Americans before he could pull out the iron fist. But make no mistake, the iron fist was there all along in his pocket, just waiting for the right time. Some of the brothers got a small taste of the fist in the 60s (mostly Taiwan followers again), then in the 70s with the Max Rapoport debacle, and then Lee brought out the iron fist in full force in the mid to late 1980s. By then he could shamelessly declare "Lee, Lee, Lee! Lee has to get the credit! Lee has to be famous!" (paraph) "I invented this term 'enjoying Christ'!" By the time most longtime followers like John Ingalls, Bill Malon and John So were snapped out of their stupor, it was far, far too late. They even consulted some older brothers in Taiwan and found out that this was NOT Lee's first time at using his iron fist. (Shame on these brothers for not doing their due diligence, for with just the most basic of inquires to those who knew Lee's sordid past, much heartache and spiritual damage could have been avoided)

But here we are, decades later, and the Blended Brothers are trying to pretend like they can simply erase history, or better yet just twist and edit it to make Witness Lee out to be "the one minister with the one ministry for the age". Just an innocent little Chinese man that was misunderstood by Christian apologists and attacked and betrayed by some evil, ambitious, jealous followers.

"For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light. Take care then how you hear, for to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away.” Luke 8:17,18

[Freedom]

The relationship is this - the churches should always help the work and cooperate with the work to promote God's work, and the work should try the best to always strengthen the churches, edify the churches, establish the churches, and build up the churches for the building up of the Body of Christ. Thus, the churches and the work should be very much in cooperation and coordination with each other. This is why we say that the churches should be one with the ministry...

I brought the recovery to the United States, and you received it. You are the result of my work. Should I not expect that you all would be one with me, cooperating with me to promote the Lord's recovery? What is wrong with this?

Witness Lee, The Eldership and the God-Ordained Way, Volume 1, pg. 86

The above quote is a vindictive word that WL gave about the relationship of the churches with his ministry. I notice that he begins by saying that "the work" should be there to help the churches. He also says that the churches and work should be in cooperation with each other. As WL describes it initially, there is nothing immediately concerning about this kind of relationship, that is the idea of churches and work cooperating for a common interest.

The degree of "cooperation" is where things get sticky. WL makes no hesitation in implying that there should be a significant amount of cooperation between the churches and the ministry ("one with the ministry"). The reality of the situation is that the churches should have no obligation to be "one with the ministry", especially if they weren't finding his ministry to be helpful. Even if there were churches who found his ministry to be particular helpful, the cooperation didn't need to be the degree of "one with the ministry". Supporting the ministry or working together is completely sufficient.

At the end of this quote, WL instills a sense of guilt, saying that his ministry is what started "the recovery" so everyone needs to remain "one" with him. He even asks the question: "what is wrong with this?"

There are a few things wrong with this. Firstly, in the accounts of LC history that I have read, the brothers in Los Angeles planned to start meeting irrespective of what WL was doing. As I understand it, WL decided to stay in the U.S. after the decision had been made. So WL cannot take complete credit for bringing "the recovery to the United States". While it's true that much of what happened afterwards can be attributed to his work, WL seemed to operate on the assumption that because people appreciated his ministry, they needed to remain "one" with him.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

But here we are, decades later, and the Blended Brothers are trying to pretend like they can simply erase history, or better yet just twist and edit it to make Witness Lee out to be "the one minister with the one ministry for the age". Just an innocent little Chinese man that was misunderstood by Christian apologists and attacked and betrayed by some evil, ambitious, jealous followers. [/COLOR]

"For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light. Take care then how you hear, for to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away.” Luke 8:17,18

For the blended brothers, it's a self-serving type of historical revisionism. In the late 80's when the current blended brothers could have been part of the solution, instead they were part of the problem. Call the blendeds a type of Balaam or a type of wolves in sheep's clothing, make up your own mind.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by aron

Nee the untouchable MOTA [Minister of the Age] became the template for Lee the untouchable MOTA.

And look at his method: Lee asked the Shanghai elders, "How did you feel, after you ex-communicated Nee?" It wasn't about righteousness, or truth, but about feelings. Nee's subjectivist "experience trumps all" was used against the church; they felt bad when they rejected Nee, therefore Lee had power over them...."This is what happens when truth no longer directs the path.

In the Elders’ Training brother Lee mentioned that men of God have had defects in church history and he gave examples, but did not include Watchman Nee or himself.

Watchman Nee
I knew nothing negative about Watchman Nee until last year, 2014. I think that book by Lily Hsu was available on the forum in 2012, but I passed right over it not wanting to waste time with someone’s superficial findings and public story of a supposed dark side of brother Nee. I completely held the concept that many others held that he was a model God-man whose example in conduct and pursuit of Christ we could follow.

But the book was not superficial, as 10 endorsees record in its first pages.

ENDORSEMENT “King David is a special person loved by God. Besides our Lord Jesus Christ, the New Testament started with the name of David and finishes with the name of David. However, even such a special person like David, the Bible did not cover up his committed sins whatsoever. In addition, the price he paid for his sins was huge. He committed his sins in darkness. God humiliated him in broad daylight.” - Tiejun Xia Lay preacher, Ashburton Uniting Church, Melbourne, Australia

Learning the lessons from the history and holding the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) for the unity of the church are what we Christians ought to do. Our entire ministry is pursuing for God’s kingdom and His righteousness. (Matt 6:33.) _ Minister of a Local Church, Mainland China

I read the book and consider it pointing to “half” the story of Local Church history, which I knew nothing about. I think that exposure of the defects bring matters into the proper light, where mercy and grace can be properly ministered, according to truth alone.

The other "half" of Local Church history involves Witness Lee.

Witness Lee
One manifestation of the defective side of brother Lee is addressed transparently by Don Hardy (2001) “…Anyway SC [Samuel Chang] was VERY burdened, and started groaning deep within, praying (Steve, I did NOT know my spirit at that time, except hit n' miss). Then he said: "Don, I want to share something with you for prayer, and you must keep it to yourself. Bro.Lee LOVES the Lord, and is ALL-out for God and His recovery. BUT Don, he has a weakness, a big hole in his side, which we have to keep covered much in prayer: you see, his CHILDREN (7 of them) suffered very much in CHINA, and they are "always after him"; and he has a burden to HELP them as much as he can. But WL is very POOR right now. So he has tried to help Timothy in business, BUT....."
Then SC did a "strange" thing: he slapped his mouth with his hand and told me: "Oh, I SHOULD KEEP QUIET!! Forgive me bro. Don!" Just pray. Let's go back to the hymnal." Well Steve, I NEVER forgot that conversation...”


Before coming to U. S.

“Around 1959 Mr. Lee had some investment failures and he lost a great deal of money. This brought the first financial crisis to the church. All the donations and contributions from the church members were used, and still the church owed people a large amount of money. Because of this situation, Brother Lee forced the elders to sell a piece of land belonging to the church in order to pay the debt. That piece of land was located on 19 East Road, section 4, and had been bought by the church to build a training center and a new assembly building. Because of that, many coworkers and church members were especially unhappy about this fiasco. Mr. Lee knew this was something that he did wrong and because of that he went to the United States and stayed on the West Coast. “(Larry Chi, translated into English by a paid translator)

These two "windows" were early-on portends of the future, when many saints and churches were seriously impacted:

Brent Barber gives more insight into the problem of Witness Lee and his money-making schemes that caused much suffering to the churches and the saints. (Deviating from the Path, Balaam p 87).

LSM does not give true accounts of this sort, but "This is what happens when truth no longer directs the path", as Aron announced in post #50, regarding Lee's handling of the elders during Nee's suspension.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Following the letter below to brother Lee, was a response by him that he felt was necessary to quell the concerns of those who might think the letter exalted him. Whoever had such concerns, however, found them amplified much more, as time passed.

Appendix

A Letter of Assurance from 419 Leading Brothers Attending the February 1986 Elders’ Training -- February 21, 1986

“Dear Brother Lee,

After hearing your fellowship in this elders’ training, we all agree to have a new start in the Lord’s recovery. For this, we all agree to be in one accord and to carry out this new move of the Lord solely through prayer, the Spirit, and the Word. We further agree to practice the recovery one in: teaching, practice, thinking, speaking, essence, appearance, and expression. We repudiate all differences among the churches, and all indifference toward the ministry office, and the other churches. We agree that the church in our place be identical with all the local churches throughout the earth.

We also agree to follow your leading as the one who has brought us God’s New Testament economy and has led us into its practice. We agree that this leading is indispensable to our oneness and acknowledge the one trumpet in the Lord’s ministry and the one wise master builder among us.

We further agree to practice the church life in our locality absolutely in a new way: to build the church in, through, and based upon home meetings; to lead every member to get used to functioning without any idea to depend on any giant speakers; to teach all the saints to know the basic truths in an educational way that they may teach others for the spreading of the truth; to build up the saints in the growth in life that they may minister life to others, shepherd each other, and take care of the backsliding ones; to lead all the saints to preach the gospel in every possible way; to avoid leadership as much as possible; and to have home gatherings for nurturing the saints in life; and big meetings for educating the saints in truths.

We agree that all the preceding points are the clear and definite teaching of the Bible according to God’s New Testament economy. Finally, we agree that the success of this new move is our responsibility and will rise up to labor and endeavor with our whole being, looking to the Lord for His mercy and grace that we would be faithful to the end”

Your brothers for the Lord’s recovery,
******************


Brother Lee’s Remarks in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion

"Out of 419 signers, as far as I know thus far, only approximately six would revoke their signatures. One of these six, John Ingalls, said that I “treated this letter like an oath” and I took it “as a pledge,” John Ingalls or Bill Mallon said that I was “holding it up to the brothers, reminding them of what they signed.” In one elders’ meeting in December 1987 in Irving I did say, in the way of warning to the rebellious ones who were present, especially John Ingalls and Bill Mallon, that that letter, which had been signed by them one year and ten months prior to that time, could be considered as a pledge according to the way it was written. In that warning I spoke loudly at least twice to them, saying that they should “treasure [their] golden history in the Lord’s recovery,” with the expectation that they would receive the mercy and grace of the Lord to turn from their rebellious situation.

But I never considered that letter as an oath. Both John Ingalls and Bill Mallon were men over fifty years of age, highly educated, with a sober mind and a strong will. As such persons they participated with agreement in the drafting of this letter, and then signed such a crucial paper solemnly before God. I did not consider that as the playing of little, naughty boys; rather, I did count on it and trust in it for the Lord’s recovery in a very reverent way. How sad it is that after 22 months, fewer than one thousand days, they are like a bow turning its arrow at the shooter. This is far beyond my anticipation. They swallowed their own words; ignored the truth they had received and acknowledged; did not care for the Lord’s recovery, which they had treasured, uplifted, and propagated, not merely for two and a half days, but for a quarter of a century; behaved themselves not as gentlemen but as dishonest ones who conspired in secrecy to destroy my ministry; did not regard their faithfulness before the faithful Lord; and fluctuated to carry out their plot by inducing others to join their rebellion in darkness.

When the letter was presented to me and gained my attention, I was somewhat concerned that the signing brothers probably did not fully realize the significance of some of the expressions of their letter, so I acknowledged it with a reply that expressed to them my sincere, honest, and faithful in this matter, as printed below:

April 11, 1986

The Brothers attending the February 1986
Elders’ Training

Dear Brothers:

Thank you for your letter dated February 21, 1986 with the list of signatures. I feel very sorry that I could not have time to acknowledge, with appreciation, what you have expressed in your letter and through your signatures until now.

Being one with the ministry is a crucial matter, and its effects are exceedingly serious. Its proper definition is not to follow any man, any doctrine or any movement, but is to be one with the Lord’s move today according to the Lord’s vision, without any intrinsic element of exalting any person or promoting any work. May the Lord be merciful and gracious to us, that this action would not be misunderstood or misapplied by anyone in a way that would give the enemy Satan ground for utilization, thus frustrating the Lord’s move today, but rather that this action could be properly used by the Lord to swallow up all the germs of discord which have been existing, even among us, for quite a time in the past. May the Lord remember your kind wishes for me and bless your labors in Him.

Your brother in Christ,
Witness Lee”


"This reply was written in the way of fellowship with a strong intention to impress the signing brothers with the proper definition of being one with the ministry. According to its expression, my reply indicated to the brothers that to be one with the ministry in the way that was expressed in their letter might be misunderstood and misapplied by some and might cause trouble. I said that the misunderstanding and misapplication could quite possibly be centered around the thinking of exalting a person. In anticipation of this, in my reply I reminded the signing brothers that the proper definition of being one with the ministry is to be one with the Lord’s move “without any intrinsic element of exalting any person.” Thus, what was expressed in my reply might be considered a warning. This was given probably because of the intuition I had within me at that time. At any rate, the present rebellious situation has become a real fulfillment of my warning. Our sovereign Lord knows everything and is sovereign over all things. Praise Him!

"The total significance of the letter signed by the 419 brothers is to assure me of their willingness and loyalty in keeping the one accord for the Lord’s recovery. Now the six mentioned above have fluctuated in their unstable understanding. Regardless of what their understanding might be, no one can deny that, according to the holy word, to be in one accord is not only right but also indispensable to work together for the Lord’s interest on this earth. No one among us should justify or promote discord or differences in the Lord’s move." (The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, W. L., 1990)

This post gives the details.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This post gives the details.

This letter very much reveals Lee's strange and warped thinking in several ways.

First, and this is a characteristic I noticed several times about him, which I don't think we ever discussed. He would consider that a brother who changed his mind was either weak and wishy-washy, or that the brother disobeyed the Lord at some time--either when he first made the decision or later when he changed his mind. Lee considers that Ingalls must have had the Lord's leading to sign the loyalty pact when he did, and so should not go back on it, otherwise he never should have signed it.

That is completely unreasonable thinking! We all make decisions with imperfect knowledge, and who knows what new knowledge in the future might alter our perception of things. Lee seemed to think if you "had the Lord's leading" to do something a year ago, and if you don't have it now, then you shouldn't have had it then. That is just plain silly!

But it would help explain Lee's hard-headedness.

Also, again, Lee acts as if it's a given that "the Lord's Recovery" is some real and specially commissioned thing of God. But it is far from a given. Presuming this and expecting other to believe "the Recovery" is something Christians should be sold out for is non-scriptural and just off the reservation. "The Recovery" as something God will build or organize with man's cooperation is a non-biblical idea from start to finish. The Bible says God will build only one thing: the Church. Period.

Then there is Lee's equating "the ministry" (meaning his) as God's unique speaking to his people. God's unique speaking to his people is Christ, the Word of God, through the power of the Holy Spirit. That's it. It has never been, nor will it ever be, nor even can it be, summed up in the one ministry of one person or group of persons claiming special status.

The confusion running rampant in Lee's mind in this letter is astounding. But it does demonstrate why the movement went so far off the rails.

[aron]

Also read Samuel Chang's comments in Post #54, as well as what happened in the 1950s in the Orient, before Lee came to USA. The "Allegiance Document" of 1986 has to paper over the cracks caused by such patterns of behaviour, and it then allows it to get bigger. The cracks became a chasm, threatening to swallow everything in sight.