James Barber - History of Witness Lee

[Freedom]

The following link found in the Wikipedia article for Witness Lee has a history of the LC spoken by James Barber:
http://www.blendedbody.com/JamesBarb...timony_016.mp3

It is a bit of a long listen, but there are a lot of interesting things worth discussing. Since James Barber was one of WL's close coworkers, it is interesting to hear the thought process behind his decision to follow Lee. Although much of it seems silly now, I can understand why someone like James Barber was so willing to follow Lee.

[Freedom]

The following is spoken starting ~22:44 in the recording:

Originally Posted by James Barber

Then he came back in 1961, to the United States, for the purpose of some business matters and some other matters. It was while he was here in ’61 up to around, I believe September/October of 1962, he was here for some time; he was just fixing to go back to Taiwan because they had a lot of conferences scheduled. A big conference with 10,000 was scheduled.

But I have to mention, before this in May of 1962, the church in Los Angeles took the ground and began to meet. They had some fellowship with brother Lee, and brother Lee didn’t tell them anything, he just said “You pray. You pray, you just pray. Whatever you feel.” Actually, in ’58 they tried to do something, and he said “No, don’t do anything.” In ’60 they wanted to do something, and he discouraged it. But by ’62, he didn’t discourage, he didn’t encourage. He just said “pray”.

So by May of 1962, the church in Los Angeles took the ground in brother Samuel Chang’s home. He lived there in Los Angeles. Well, they had around 30 people, 28 of whom were Chinese. And two, they generally call it 2 ½ Caucasians, because the ½ was a sister who eventually, although she stayed a long time, even into Elden hall, she left. The two were John Ingalls and Jim Reetzke. That was the two Caucasians that began to meet in 1962 of May, that’s when they took the ground.

Brother Lee was going back to Taiwan. If they took that ground, that was up to them, but he was going back to Taiwan. He had no burden at all to come to this country. He had no consideration, he had no burden. He figured “let them take the books, and let them do whatever”. His burden back then was Taiwan. Especially in China they had no burden for this country. Anyway, it was while he was in this country, at that time, there began to be some things that happened, to cause some great pressure upon him. Some great pressure. Some real situations that were happening, and through this pressure, he went to the Lord and he went to the Lord and he went to the Lord. And the pressure did not let up, it increased and increased and increased. He went to the Lord “why Lord is this happening.”

Something like this, I don’t have the exact words, I’ve heard things here and there, I’m just trying to put it all together. Anyways, the decision was though, eventually he realized the Lord wanted him to stay in this country. And the pressure didn’t stop. It’s not that he said “Yes” and the pressure stopped, that’s our concept. No, the pressure continued, but he got clearer what the Lord wanted. That was to stay in this country. So he called brother Samuel Chang - I’ve heard this story many times, and this was in the fall of 1962. He called him in Los Angeles, and he said “brother Chang, I’m coming to Los Angeles.” Well, they had heard he was leaving, because a big conference was already being scheduled in Taiwan. And he said “You are? Oh you’re coming before you’re going back to Taiwan?” And he said, “No, I’m coming to Los Angeles to stay”. And he said, “Oh, you’re coming to stay two or three weeks?” And he said, “No, I’m coming to stay indefinitely.” Well, they were all just shocked…

The part that I have bolded is something that I find to be interesting. Not interesting because the story of WL’s decision to stay in the U.S. is not already known, but because James speaks about it so vaguely. It is almost certain from the way he is speaking that he knew things that he wasn’t saying. Take for example what he says here: “there began to be some things that happened.. Some real situations that were happening…” Nothing specific is said here, and I find it almost humorous at how vague this is. It is painfully obvious that a lot wasn’t being said.

Why is this such a big deal? Because the whole notion of ‘recovery’ was partly rooted in the idea that WL’s coming here was the “Lord’s doing”. This, however, is exactly what was shrouded in mystery for so long until the truth came out. It seems that some of WL’s close coworkers knew some of the truth all along, but instead chose to sensationalize the story of his coming here and make it seem more important than it really was.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The following link found in the Wikipedia article for Witness Lee has a history of the LC spoken by James Barber:
http://www.blendedbody.com/JamesBarb...timony_016.mp3

It is a bit of a long listen, but there are a lot of interesting things worth discussing. Since James Barber was one of WL's close coworkers, it is interesting to hear the thought process behind his decision to follow Lee. Although much of it seems silly now, I can understand why someone like James Barber was so willing to follow Lee.

Yes, that was a long, painful listen. It is full of many "local churchisms", broad-brushing large groups of people, over-exalting two of God's servants and those who chose to follow them, rather than Jesus Christ who is our life.

"I didn't need to pray" is telling.

Why did Witness Lee bother to come to a Navigators Bible study if it was part of the old wine skin?

I found the statement "The ministry is for the church, not the church is for the ministry" at the beginning very interesting. James, do you hear yourself?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by JJ

Yes, that was a long, painful listen. It is full of many "local churchisms", broad-brushing large groups of people, over-exalting two of God's servants and those who chose to follow them, rather than Jesus Christ who is our life.

"I didn't need to pray" is telling.

Why did Witness Lee bother to come to a Navigators Bible study if it was part of the old wine skin?

I found the statement "The ministry is for the church, not the church is for the ministry" at the beginning very interesting. James, do you hear yourself?

You mentioned a few things that I wanted to discuss. I don’t know too much about James Barber, but I think he passed away sometime in the mid-80’s, before the so-called turmoil took place. I have also heard that after the Max R. incident, he was moved to OKC by WL. In other words, it seems that his visibility in the LC gradually diminished over time. I think one of his sons indicated that he had expressed resentment towards the LC near the end of his life

I don’t know when James spoke this ‘history’, but whenever he did must have been a point in time when he was still blinded by the standard LC train of thought. It is interesting how him and so many others worked to give the impression of the whole world situation (WW2, communist takeover in China, etc.) being due to the Lord “preparing the way” for WL to come to America. It’s a ridiculous correlation fallacy at heart, but in the LC, I think that there has been the persistent effort to relate the world situation to what WN/WL were doing at the time. James’ message is indicative of this.

Regarding James’ decision to follow WL, which is summarized by his statement “I didn’t need to pray”, it seems that the underlying motive was his disillusionment with the seminary that he was attending. That is very telling indeed. Towards the beginning of the message he says that he only had two paths for his life: become a lawyer, or go into ministry (a false dilemma), and since he didn’t want to be a lawyer, he chose seminary. It seems that perhaps there was some inner turmoil that he never dealt with and his ‘escape’ was to follow Lee.

On the subject of TAS, it seems WL was seeking to find a way to discredit him. On way was obviously the matter of “the ground”, the other was criticizing his Honor Oak ministry center. I am dumbfounded by this criticism just because of the sheer amount of irony. I am almost 100% certain that LSM officially calls their current building for conferences and trainings a “ministry center”. To WL and his LSM scam, the issue was never about the ministry being for the churches. This was just a way that others could be discredited, all the while WL could have his minions like Benson go around and make people submit to his ministry office.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

Yes, that was a long, painful listen. It is full of many "local churchisms", broad-brushing large groups of people, over-exalting two of God's servants and those who chose to follow them, rather than Jesus Christ who is our life.

"I didn't need to pray" is telling.

Why did Witness Lee bother to come to a Navigators Bible study if it was part of the old wine skin?

I found the statement "The ministry is for the church, not the church is for the ministry" at the beginning very interesting. James, do you hear yourself?

Don Rutledge, in his history of the LC's, wrote this about James Barber ...

In 1964, Herman, his fianceé Kathleen Corley, and his twin brother Thurman were in the Washington D.C. area for a summer of Navigator training. In the spring of 1964, James Barber had returned from the Witness Lee conference in Tyler, Texas. He and about 20 students at Wayland Baptist College had left the Southern Baptist denomination and began to seek the Lord and to meet in the Lord’s name as simply the church in Plainview. Witness Lee accepted an invitation to meet with James Barber and the seeking saints in
Plainview.

In other places, Rutledge indicated that Barber was Lee's most ardent supporter, evaluating all others based upon his own zeal.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

I found the statement "The ministry is for the church, not the church is for the ministry" at the beginning very interesting. James, do you hear yourself?

This is what has come to be known as a "factoid" -- something spoken long enough, and with much conviction, that the hearers believe it is true. Actually it has no basis in fact. Politicians do this all the time.

Lee spoke much in those early days, and no one knew any different. Because initially the meetings were fresh and exciting, and the ministry was truly anointed, we believed all we were told without verification. None of the brothers (Rapoport, Ingalls, Mallon, So, etc.) black-balled by Lee ever was a "rebel," rather they all felt that Lee was clueless to his son's character. Imagine that!?!

It was not until the "new way," with Phillip Lee running LSM in Anaheim, that the leaders around the country even questioned anything Lee had said. If it were not for Philip's profligate, prodigal, reprehensible, and disgusting behavior, none of Lee's past flaws and failures would probably ever be discussed. Though I have no evidence to support it, the only reasonable explanation I can provide for WL placing his son in such a position as he did, ruling over all the LC leaders, was that his son was blackmailing him.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by JJ

Why did Witness Lee bother to come to a Navigators Bible study if it was part of the old wine skin?

I found the statement "The ministry is for the church, not the church is for the ministry" at the beginning very interesting. James, do you hear yourself?

If accurate, Witness Lee met Don Hardy through the Navigators.

In respect to what James spoke, try to keep it in historical perspective. James passed away the year the New Way began in Taiwan. Several years before the pledge of allegiance Benson and Ray allegedly drafted.
It's been documented a former co-elder of James believed the same thing:

"The ministry is for the church, not the church is for the ministry"

The following is from page 11 of Speaking the Truth in Love by John Ingalls,

"I believe that the first was that the ministry was being given a place above the churches. It was being too highly exalted and emphasized, so that it became imperative for every church now to manifest that they were “for the ministry” and to “serve the ministry”. It was no longer, as we were often told, that the ministry was for the churches and that only the churches should be built up; rather the churches now should be for the ministry, and the ministry was being built up. We felt that we should voice such a concern to brother Lee."

On one hand James had to promote the ministry Witness Lee spoke. On the other being supported full-time he had to keep concerns to himself.

Something that was very telling from Brad Barber's posts for those of us that participated and/or read on thebereans.net was this statement:

"If pressed, someday I may tell the reason why James had to leave beautiful sunny Southern California and move us to the lc's version of Australia during the colonial period."

[NewManLiving]

This may give some insight as to how James felt before he died. Extracted from

http://www.laymansfellowship.com/pub...opleChange.pdf
Brent Barber
...A bigger unrighteousness which no one else has discussed is the fact that Philip Lee and the grandsons of Lee had fat Swiss bank accounts which were slush funds from the Living Stream. I know this because my dad told me directly. By the early 80's just before he died, my dad had grown so weary of Philip's shenanigans that he openly discussed it. I was living in Anaheim just before he died and he would stop off at my place when he came into town for the big "elder’s" conventions they had in those days.
He would rip into all the phony pretension and strutting around going on [per Philip]. He could not have been more bored and disinterested. He yucked it up with me a lot during that time and it was the only period when he was honest about everything. He died later that year. I know that he was severely disappointed and disillusoned at the way his dream had turned out. He saw it was a sham, but had nowhere else to go.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

Brent Barber
...A bigger unrighteousness which no one else has discussed is the fact that Philip Lee and the grandsons of Lee had fat Swiss bank accounts which were slush funds from the Living Stream. I know this because my dad told me directly. By the early 80's just before he died, my dad had grown so weary of Philip's shenanigans that he openly discussed it. I was living in Anaheim just before he died and he would stop off at my place when he came into town for the big "elder’s" conventions they had in those days.
He would rip into all the phony pretension and strutting around going on [per Philip]. He could not have been more bored and disinterested. He yucked it up with me a lot during that time and it was the only period when he was honest about everything. He died later that year. I know that he was severely disappointed and disillusoned at the way his dream had turned out. He saw it was a sham, but had nowhere else to go.

I find it to be very significant that James Barber would become disillusioned with the LC towards the end of his life. By all indications, he was one who played a significant role in defining the LCM even as we know it to this day. Earlier today, aron posted an interesting excerpt from Don's book on a different thread: "As I [Don] came to know brother Lee more, I did notice a difference between his public persona and the way he treated different individuals. Publicly, sometimes he got into hyperbole. He would say something extreme and some of the more extreme personality types would take off with it." Notice what Don says about extreme personalities taking off with things that WL said. It is my impression that James Barber was this type of person.

Ohio referred to James as someone full of zeal. After I listened to the recording, that is the view of James that I walked away with. Ultimately, extreme personalities are what it takes to create a movement like the LC. I'm not here to try to determine who to blame for the more bizarre aspects of the LC, but it took more than Lee to make it all happen. A lot has been said about the strong 'Texas' influence in the beginning of the LC. I think that was definitely a factor.

What makes James' eventual disillusionment so significant is that he attempted to distance himself from the monster that he helped create. According to his son, James eventually realized that it was all a farce. Considering just how many who helped start the movement eventually left or were ousted, it really speaks louder than any words about the problems of the LC. Let me put it this way - the current blendeds have given their lives to a movement that eventually turned on some founding members, a movement which other founding members became significantly disillusioned with.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Ohio referred to James as someone full of zeal. After I listened to the recording, that is the view of James that I walked away with. Ultimately, extreme personalities are what it takes to create a movement like the LC. I'm not here to try to determine who to blame for the more bizarre aspects of the LC, but it took more than Lee to make it all happen. A lot has been said about the strong 'Texas' influence in the beginning of the LC. I think that was definitely a factor.

One brother, whom I knew in Cleveland and Columbus in the mid-70's, who took it on himself to "perfect" me, often would tell me about "those Texas brothers, who were 'absolutely one' with WL." From my earliest days, there was definitely an undercurrent of these more zealous brothers in the GLA, who had come to view TC and the GLA leadership with suspicion, as if they were "diluting Brother Lee's burden." Looking back, I do believe that Lee himself solicited this kind of fleshly behavior, with brothers around the country vying with one another for Lee's approval.

Most of the leaders in the region, however, saw this radical zeal exhibited in conferences and trainings, replete with endless winds and waves of fleshly movements accompanied by suspicions towards the "more reserved," and felt TC was like an "umbrella" to protect the region from all the storms and nonsense emanating from Anaheim. The real dilemma here was their inner "disconnect." TC had always conditioned them to believe that Lee's burden was pure and from the Lord, and it was always those around Lee who "messed things up." How could that be? Yet, that's how we all were. For years the GLA leaders operated under the paradigm, "WL good, BB bad."

James would say this was impossible,

"With the tongue we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made according to the likeness of God. Out of the same mouth comes forth blessing and cursing. These things, my brothers, ought not to be so!

Does the spring of water, out of the same opening, gush forth both sweet and bitter? Can the fig tree, my brothers, produce olives, or a grapevine bear figs? So, neither can saltwater produce sweet water.

Is there anyone wise and understanding among you?" -- (James 3.9-13)

[Ohio]

This may give some insight as to how James felt before he died. Extracted from

http://www.laymansfellowship.com/pub...opleChange.pdf
Brent Barber
...A bigger unrighteousness which no one else has discussed is the fact that Philip Lee and the grandsons of Lee had fat Swiss bank accounts which were slush funds from the Living Stream. I know this because my dad told me directly. By the early 80's just before he died, my dad had grown so weary of Philip's shenanigans that he openly discussed it. I was living in Anaheim just before he died and he would stop off at my place when he came into town for the big "elder’s" conventions they had in those days.

He would rip into all the phony pretension and strutting around going on [per Philip]. He could not have been more bored and disinterested. He yucked it up with me a lot during that time and it was the only period when he was honest about everything. He died later that year. I know that he was severely disappointed and disillusoned at the way his dream had turned out. He saw it was a sham, but had nowhere else to go.

Did Brent write that article "People Change?"

[NewManLiving]

Brent's statements are just part of that article. The People change statements were made by Lee. There is also the entire Reconsideration of The Vision in that article which really should be reposted here in its entirety again. It is quite revealing about the whole foundation of the LSM enterprise. Not sure who submitted the article. Possibly Steve???

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did Brent write that article "People Change?"

I am told that Indiana wrote this article.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

One brother, whom I knew in Cleveland and Columbus in the mid-70's, who took it on himself to "perfect" me, often would tell me about "those Texas brothers, who were 'absolutely one' with WL."

As I have become aware of the Texas dynamics in the early days of the LC, it has helped me to better understand why the LC turned out the way that it did. Something that James mentioned is how so many of the Texas brothers knew each other at Wayland Baptist College. Apparently a large group of students came into the LC from this college. I think that this is an important detail in the formation of LC in the U.S.

It’s not every day that you convince a large group of students to drop their Southern Baptists affiliation and pick up something completely different. For whatever reasons James and Benson had the ability to make this happen, they could get the students reading Nee, and they could have their hand in Major Ian Thomas visiting the campus.

I think that James might have downplayed the amount of influence that he actually had at that campus, but it is not hard to put the pieces together. He was the one who introduced Benson to Nee/Lee. Obviously James easily fit into a leadership role, and had the type of personality that could influence people. I think that Benson was the zealous busybody who quickly became the example for everyone to follow. As I see it, the elephant in the room is the factor of personality at the roots of the LC. What Don R. has to say about Benson is very insightful (emphasis mine):

Originally Posted by Don Rutledge

Another practice he [Benson] had was to never be discouraged or downhearted…

Benson was very generous with his money and his possessions and his time. He never shirked from pulling his share of the load and then some. This was in spite of his physical limitations. At one point in the first few months in Houston, a brother learned of some box cars that needed to be loaded... Only Ray Graver could keep up with him as he labored furiously night after night loading the box cars. We were paid by the box car not by the hour. He became the acknowledged leader among us because of his character and ability to inspire others by his example.
…
Benson had an intensity that far exceeded any of the other brothers. He was always considering what was needed to establish and to build up the local churches.

I know that James moved to LA early on, but it seems that in the meantime, an intense atmosphere developed in Texas, those who were leaders raised a high bar than everyone needed to meet. It appears that zeal was projected onto others right from the very get-go. I don't condemn anyone for being zealous, but I do take issue when they expect others to match their self-made standard.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I am told that Indiana wrote this article.

Thanks, I guess I should have guessed him.

[Ohio]

It’s not every day that you convince a large group of students to drop their Southern Baptists affiliation and pick up something completely different. For whatever reasons James and Benson had the ability to make this happen, they could get the students reading Nee, and they could have their hand in Major Ian Thomas visiting the campus.

There was at that time a genuine move of the Spirit of God among millions of young people. I personally was saved at the tail end of this period.

When I hear or read about people's dismay at the LC stories from those days, I can only say that "things were different." American society as a whole was much more trusting towards other people. For example, I used to hitch hike home from high school every day, and always got good fast rides. I was never worried about a bad ride, especially in the middle of the day. Christians would get radically saved and then hitch out to a commune someone would tell them about. As soon as I met another Christian, I felt closer to them than my own family.

Jonestown had a tremendously negative impact upon all of America. Personally I feel it signaled the end of the move of the Spirit. Suspicion mounted towards Christians as potential cults. The war in Nam ended and racial tensions over MLK had subsided. Watergate made us all the more suspicious of politicians. Cheap drugs and free sex moved in to replace the joy of the holy Spirit.

[JJ]

Did anyone listening to James Barber's "history" notice how he talked about "the one flow", referring to Witness Lee's ministry in the 1960's and it being a continuation of Watchman Nee's ministry?

I recall such a concept being in the recovery literature from the very beginning.... "The Divine Stream".

It seems to me that thought just grew and grew until it caused us to totally loose sight of Jesus, the real source of any flow, choking out whatever flow we initially had. And, keeping "the flow" contained to just ourselves dammed off any outflow, and drowned us in the dead sea.

Has anyone done a critique of this thought?

I did a Bible Word search on the words stream and river, and didn't find support for the stream or river of God belonging to only one or two ministers of God. But, I'd like to hear from others on this.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by JJ

Did anyone listening to James Barber's "history" notice how he talked about "the one flow", referring to Witness Lee's ministry in the 1960's and it being a continuation of Watchman Nee's ministry?

I recall such a concept being in the recovery literature from the very beginning.... "The Divine Stream".

It seems to me that thought just grew and grew until it caused us to totally loose sight of Jesus, the real source of any flow, choking out whatever flow we initially had. And, keeping "the flow" contained to just ourselves dammed off any outflow, and drowned us in the dead sea.

Has anyone done a critique of this thought?

I did a Bible Word search on the words stream and river, and didn't find support for the stream or river of God belonging to only one or two ministers of God. But, I'd like to hear from others on this.

Eph 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

I'm going to split this up into two posts. Regarding the matter of the one flow/stream, I don't see where they would have found that in the Word. What seems to be the case throughout LC history, is the tendency to try to simplify everything saying that it needs to be "one". "One flow", "one divine stream", etc. The verses above are frequently mentioned in the LC, and they like to refer to them as the seven "ones". The reason I make mention of this is because from what I've seen, LCers don't care much about what these "ones" actually are. For all they care, the verses can read something like "one, one, one..."

WL's logic was along the lines of since the word "one" occurs so many times, it shows how important "oneness" is. And they will talk about "oneness" all day long, but at the end of the day, they don't really care for what these verses actually talk about. If they really saw that there is "one Body", then they wouldn't dare to call only themselves the "one Body" and purposely separate themselves from everyone else. If they really saw that there is only one faith, then they wouldn't dare belittle and mock other Christians saying that they only believe in a "low gospel". None of this matters to those in the LC. These verses primarily serve to give them an excuse to emphasize their own set of "ones": one flow, one ministry, one publication, one trumpeting, etc. I'm still looking to see where these "ones" are to be found in the Bible. I haven't found them yet.

[Freedom]

Back on the subject of James' history, I also noticed the part where he went into the matter of the "one flow". It struck me as a bit odd, but I guess I didn't really think about it until now. What I find to be the most interesting is how James (and others) have tied LC history to these ideas like "one flow" or "one ministry". The more common perception of LC history might just involve the understanding of what everyone left behind and dropped to be a part of the LC. Some left the Southern Baptists, others left other affiliations. Seemingly that understanding should be sufficient for a LC history, right? Wrong!

Even from the beginning of the LC in the U.S., it was never completely about simply dropping denominational ties and coming together to meet as the church. There was the simultaneous issue of who they were following and what external affiliations were present. Since they were so busy criticizing hierarchy, central control, denominational ties, etc. they certainly couldn't have the appearance possessing such characteristics. Herein lies an interesting predicament. There was really only one thing distinguishing the early LC from other groups like those associated with TAS, and that was Nee's teaching on the ground of the church. Unless someone had fully bought into that teaching, the similarity between some of these groups meant that someone could have been a part of other groups and still got along with those under Nee/Lee. I have read that Lee got his "God's economy" teaching from Sparks. At one point in time Lee had been willing to share the stage with Sparks.

Over time, I think Lee started wanting to find ways to distinguish himself from other groups that he had much in common with. That's where the whole idea of him being Nee's "continuation" is rooted. He wanted to find a way to discredit others. Part of that came by developing these notions of their only being "one flow" or "one ministry" and it came to be that only what Lee was doing was the "one ministry" and "one flow".

He got everyone's guard down by claiming that he was only continuing Nee's ministry (a ministry that many already trusted). It couldn't have been a more convenient tool for WL, because everyone bought into it. And it wasn't even until the late 80's and mid-2000's that everyone got to see how ugly this teaching really was. As it turns out, "one flow" wasn't enough. They went so far as to insist on one publication. Things just got narrower and narrower over time. It used to be that they could work with those who didn't even share the sentiment on the ground of the church. Now they can't work with someone who doesn't choose to exclusively utilize LSM publications.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

Did anyone listening to James Barber's "history" notice how he talked about "the one flow", referring to Witness Lee's ministry in the 1960's and it being a continuation of Watchman Nee's ministry?

I recall such a concept being in the recovery literature from the very beginning.... "The Divine Stream".

It seems to me that thought just grew and grew until it caused us to totally loose sight of Jesus, the real source of any flow, choking out whatever flow we initially had. And, keeping "the flow" contained to just ourselves dammed off any outflow, and drowned us in the dead sea.

Has anyone done a critique of this thought?

I did a Bible Word search on the words stream and river, and didn't find support for the stream or river of God belonging to only one or two ministers of God. But, I'd like to hear from others on this.

Remember Lee boasting how "one" he was with WN, and how it's fine to "follow a man" as long as he "leads us to God?" Somehow the Blendeds got stuck on the first part, and forgot about God.

Lee often talked about the "one flow" from the throne. At one point during the "new way" takeover of the LC's, brothers came to Dallas speaking this nonsense, "First the Father, then the Son, then the Spirit, then WL ..." A brother then asked facetiously, "who then is no. 5?" But no one dared to say Philip Lee, since it was doubtful he was even saved.

[Freedom]

I did a text search in the Life-Studies for “one flow” and there is little to be found that was said by WL in effort to support his teaching of “one flow”. He, however, spared no expense in detailing what he thinks the “one flow” means and what it should mean to members. This first excerpt demonstrates the extent to which WL used scripture to support his teaching. Suffice to say, he really didn’t put much effort into it at all:

The basic numbers in New Jerusalem are the numbers twelve and one... There is one God, one city, one throne, one street, one river, and one tree of life... This is not my concept; it is Paul's concept in Ephesians 4:3-6, where he speaks of one Body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father. We have just one God, one throne, one administration, one authority, one flow, one way, and one tree.

Witness Lee, Life-Study of Revelation, Message 66, p. 758

In the LS of Genesis, WL uses himself as an example to demonstrate how LC members should follow his teaching:

ONE FLOW

One day Brother Nee told me that he and the other co-workers were burdened that I move to Shanghai… the Lord showed me from the book of Acts that in His move on earth there is only one flow... The Lord told me that for His move in China there should not be two flows or two origins. I had been burdened for north China… But although I was definitely burdened for north China, Brother Nee and the co-workers felt that I should move to Shanghai, stay there, and work with them. At this time the Lord showed me that I had to get into the one flow that had started from Shanghai…

THE MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FLOW

Because I knew I was in the Lord’s flow and that this flow had already started, I also realized that there was a ministry responsible for that flow. As the result of seeing this, I strongly decided to forget all my past learning and experience. The fact that I had been able to conduct a detailed study on Song of Songs indicates that I had some knowledge and that I could do something... Moreover, a church had been established through me. Nevertheless, I realized that the Lord’s flow on the earth must be one, that the flow had already begun, and that there was a ministry carrying on this flow...
…
The Lord is flowing in His move on earth. This flow was not started by you, but by others. Furthermore, there is a ministry responsible for the flow. It is difficult for me to speak about this because now the matter is very much related to me...

Witness Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Message 88, pp. 1137-1138

So what can we collect from this excerpt? It seems like Lee intended to use himself as an example saying that instead of doing what he wanted, he instead chose to put himself under Nee and to not do anything on his own. I don’t know how much this was really true about WL’s work in China, but it interesting how he called Nee’s work the “one flow”. Obviously this came up later in the U.S. when Lee so presumed to call his work the same thing. In the last paragraph of this excerpt, Lee does just that. He proceeds to liken his own ministry to the “one flow”. He goes as far as to say the following: “this flow was not started by you, but by others”, “there is a ministry responsible for the flow”, “the matter is very much related to me”. I just have to shake my head when I read this. It’s just so obvious what WL’s real intentions were behind a teaching like this. If I might put it frankly, it was just another way that WL sought to spiritualize his control of the churches.

Finally, I want to end with a quote that really makes one wonder if WL even meant what he said in the first place:

In chapter seven the Lord goes somewhat further, saying that anyone who drinks of Him will have the flow of the rivers of water of life. The Lord did not speak of just one flow but of rivers. The unique river of living water is the Holy Spirit.

Witness Lee, Life-Study of John, Message 18 , p. 218

[NewManLiving]

Quote:
The basic numbers in New Jerusalem are the numbers twelve and one... There is one God, one city, one throne, one street, one river, and one tree of life... This is not my concept; it is Paul's concept in Ephesians 4:3-6, where he speaks of one Body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father. We have just one God, one throne, one administration, one authority, one flow, one way, and one tree.

No it is not Paul's concept. It is a twist on what Paul said which had absolutely nothing to do with what Witness Lee is saying in order to get people to think that Paul is approving and lending his own signature to what WL is saying. See the cleverness here. It begins with asserting that this is Paul's concept then eases the believer into WL concepts by using agreeable terms such as one God, one throne. Once he gets you to this point he introduces his own ministry as the one flow, one way and one tree. And himself as the one authority. Gottcha!

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

Quote:
The basic numbers in New Jerusalem are the numbers twelve and one... There is one God, one city, one throne, one street, one river, and one tree of life... This is not my concept; it is Paul's concept in Ephesians 4:3-6, where he speaks of one Body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father. We have just one God, one throne, one administration, one authority, one flow, one way, and one tree.

No it is not Paul's concept. It is a twist on what Paul said which had absolutely nothing to do with what Witness Lee is saying in order to get people to think that Paul is approving and lending his own signature to what WL is saying. See the cleverness here. It begins with asserting that this is Paul's concept then eases the believer into WL concepts by using agreeable terms such as one God, one throne. Once he gets you to this point he introduces his own ministry as the one flow, one way and one tree. And himself as the one authority. Gottcha!

^^^^^ Couldn't have put it better myself.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

No it is not Paul's concept. It is a twist on what Paul said which had absolutely nothing to do with what Witness Lee is saying in order to get people to think that Paul is approving and lending his own signature to what WL is saying. See the cleverness here. It begins with asserting that this is Paul's concept then eases the believer into WL concepts by using agreeable terms such as one God, one throne. Once he gets you to this point he introduces his own ministry as the one flow, one way and one tree. And himself as the one authority. Gottcha!

Yes. Lee was a master of manipulation of the mind of a listener. He knew how to trick people (once upon a time including us) to buy his pabulum.

And that "simple Chinese preacher" shtick put everyone off guard. No one expected to be manipulated. Yet there he was creating the façade from the very beginning. We may have had enjoyable times, but he was setting us up for what was to come. And the heat in that pot of water was turned on from the beginning. Just very low at first.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes. Lee was a master of manipulation of the mind of a listener. He knew how to trick people (once upon a time including us) to buy his pabulum.

And that "simple Chinese preacher" shtick put everyone off guard. No one expected to be manipulated. Yet there he was creating the façade from the very beginning. We may have had enjoyable times, but he was setting us up for what was to come. And the heat in that pot of water was turned on from the beginning. Just very low at first.

So true. I don't think a mere man could do what he did, that's why I think there is a spirit of deception behind it all.

[NewManLiving]

Any unbiased study of WL's long history and strong-arm tactics reveal a man who had an unbridled lust for control and power. It's too bad. I was as equally helped by him as I was twisted

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

I was as equally helped by him as I was twisted

Amazing! NML has summed up our entire Local Church experience in just 11 words. This is why I love this forum. I have spent over 10 years on these forums trying to "summarize" our experience in less than 1,000 words, and this bro comes along and does it in 11. THIS is why we need the Body, and this is what this forum is all about. Thank you NewManLiving.

-

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The following link found in the Wikipedia article for Witness Lee has a history of the LC spoken by James Barber:
http://www.blendedbody.com/JamesBarb...timony_016.mp3

It is a bit of a long listen, but there are a lot of interesting things worth discussing. Since James Barber was one of WL's close coworkers, it is interesting to hear the thought process behind his decision to follow Lee. Although much of it seems silly now, I can understand why someone like James Barber was so willing to follow Lee.

James Barber says in this "history" that Witness Lee was the only one talking about eating Jesus in those days, as if he invented the thought.

I noticed the Blue Letter Bible recently has been promoting a book by Richard Sibbes (who lived from 1577 - 1635 ) that has a number of sermons on the feast promised by Isaiah that will take place in Zion upon Christ's return. To illustrate my point (eating Jesus was not "invented by Witness Lee", I copied a small part of the first sermon

"Christ the chief dish in the Feast


This Feast is a Feast of fat things full of marrow and of wine on the lees well refined, the best that can be imagined, the best of the best. A Feast is promised, a spiritual Feast. The special graces and favours of God are compared to a Feast made up of the best things, full of all varieties and excellencies. And the chief dish (that is all in all) is Christ and all the gracious benefits we, by promise, can in any wise expect from him. All other favours and blessings whatsoever they are, are but Christ dished out (as I may so speak) in several offices and attributes. He is the original of comfort, the principle of grace and holiness; all is included in Christ. Ask of him and ye shall obtain, even the forgiveness of your sins, peace of conscience, and communion of Saints. Ask of Christ as of one invested with all privileges for the good of others, but yet this is by his death. He is the Feast itself, he is dished out into promises. Have you a promise of the pardon of sins, it is from Christ. Would you have peace of conscience, it is from Christ; justification and redemption, it is from Christ. The love of God is derived to us by Christ, yea, and all that we have that is good is but Christ parceled out.

Why Christ with his benefits is compared to a Feast; Because the favours we have by Christ are choice ones


Now I will show why Christ with his benefits, prerogatives, graces, and comforts, is compared to a Feast...."

I give credit to Witness Lee for preaching the truth related to eating Christ. But, he surely didn't invent it (comes right out of scripture, and others have preached the same).

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by JJ

I give credit to Witness Lee for preaching the truth related to eating Christ. But, he surely didn't invent it (comes right out of scripture, and others have preached the same).

I don't know how much Christian groups besides the LC have emphasized this, but something tells me that even some of the positive things that Lee emphasized may have been overemphasized or perhaps discussed in an abnormal way. Just because a certain truth is found in the Bible doesn't mean that it automatically deserves an undue emphasis. Especially in regards to what WL taught about eating Christ, I find that a lot of it might have been intended for shock value, rather than because it represented truth found in the Bible.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I don't know how much Christian groups besides the LC have emphasized this, but something tells me that even some of the positive things that Lee emphasized may have been overemphasized or perhaps discussed in an abnormal way. Just because a certain truth is found in the Bible doesn't mean that it automatically deserves an undue emphasis. Especially in regards to what WL taught about eating Christ, I find that a lot of it might have been intended for shock value, rather than because it represented truth found in the Bible.

Yes, "we're divine by eating Jesus" comes to mind.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by JJ

Yes, "we're divine by eating Jesus" comes to mind.

There is a song in the LSM hymnal (#1146) with a line that says "We'll masticate Jesus..." Most newcomers don't understand that the word masticate means "chew". I have seen strange looks on people's faces when that song was sung. No one could convince me that the word choice wasn't there for shock value.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

There is a song in the LSM hymnal (#1146) with a line that says "We'll masticate Jesus..." Most newcomers don't understand that the word masticate means "chew". I have seen strange looks on people's faces when that song was sung. No one could convince me that the word choice wasn't there for shock value.

Of course it was there for "shock value." That's how these people think.

During my final days in the LC during the summer of 2005, trying to work as a long-time church deacon with this new lackey from Chicago sent by TC in Cleveland to be our new "boss," I dared to protest a number of his absurd changes in my church.

His response, "sometimes we need to shock the saints."

Taken straight from the Recovery playbook.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Of course it was there for "shock value." That's how these people think.

During my final days in the LC during the summer of 2005, trying to work as a long-time church deacon with this new lackey from Chicago sent by TC in Cleveland to be our new "boss," I dared to protest a number of his absurd changes in my church.

His response, "sometimes we need to shock the saints."

Taken straight from the Recovery playbook.

I really think that LC leaders intentionally use the element of shock as a litmus test to see how far people are willing to express loyalty. If a newcomer can sit through a bizarre song without so much as batting an eye, then they are probably good LC material. The same kind of 'test' is likely viewed as worthwhile for longtime members to gauge their continued loyalty.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I really think that LC leaders intentionally use the element of shock as a litmus test to see how far people are willing to express loyalty. If a newcomer can sit through a bizarre song without so much as batting an eye, then they are probably good LC material. The same kind of 'test' is likely viewed as worthwhile for longtime members to gauge their continued loyalty.

Then perhaps Lee used his own profligate son as a litmus test for loyalty, and Benson passed.

Interesting!

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then perhaps Lee used his own profligate son as a litmus test for loyalty, and Benson passed.

Interesting!

Shock versus following the Lord Spirit's leading (which isn't as showey).

Once during a training "testing time" I shared what I had been enjoying, but not very loudly or with panache. Brother Lee said "brother exercise your spirit" after I shared. I was surprised because I thought I was speaking in the Spirit, just not loudly. I didn't think a lot about it. But, I've since seen the term exercise your spirit isn't in the Bible. Exercise yourself unto godliness is. It's made me think that he was looking for loudness vs genuine spirituality. That's sad.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Once during a training "testing time" I shared what I had been enjoying, but not very loudly or with panache. Brother Lee said "brother exercise your spirit" after I shared. I was surprised because I thought I was speaking in the Spirit, just not loudly. I didn't think a lot about it. But, I've since seen the term exercise your spirit isn't in the Bible. Exercise yourself unto godliness is. It's made me think that he was looking for loudness vs genuine spirituality. That's sad.

If you look at Wesley and Edwards, they didn't speak loudly. But their effect was profound. Whitefield, on the other hand, was a master showman and orator. He could speak to 20,000 in the open air, with no microphone or speakers.

But Wesley and Edwards were quiet, and very reserved. But their words had force. But in Lee's definition neither one exercised their human spirit while speaking. Go figure.

By the way, I never did figure out which one of them had the ministry of the age, and which was supposed to get in line and know their place. Funny how that never was an issue with them. I guess they never saw the high peak revelation of God'd Deputy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Shock versus following the Lord Spirit's leading (which isn't as showey).

Once during a training "testing time" I shared what I had been enjoying, but not very loudly or with panache. Brother Lee said "brother exercise your spirit" after I shared. I was surprised because I thought I was speaking in the Spirit, just not loudly. I didn't think a lot about it. But, I've since seen the term exercise your spirit isn't in the Bible. Exercise yourself unto godliness is. It's made me think that he was looking for loudness vs genuine spirituality. That's sad.

Many times when praying with the brothers, especially in my later years, i purposely attempted to pray from my heart, rather than the usual 6.7.6.7 rhyme with accompanying litany of "Amens."

Now which do you think was considered by them to be a "better" prayer?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

If you look at Wesley and Edwards, they didn't speak loudly. But their effect was profound. Whitefield, on the other hand, was a master showman and orator. He could speak to 20,000 in the open air, with no microphone or speakers.

But Wesley and Edwards were quiet, and very reserved. But their words had force. But in Lee's definition neither one exercised their human spirit while speaking. Go figure.

By the way, I never did figure out which one of them had the ministry of the age, and which was supposed to get in line and know their place. Funny how that never was an issue with them. I guess they never saw the high peak revelation of God'd Deputy.

I don't seem to remember either Whitefield or Wesley in the official LSM sanctioned MOTA lineage, and I used to consider that to be quite odd.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by aron

If you look at Wesley and Edwards, they didn't speak loudly. But their effect was profound. Whitefield, on the other hand, was a master showman and orator. He could speak to 20,000 in the open air, with no microphone or speakers.

But Wesley and Edwards were quiet, and very reserved. But their words had force. But in Lee's definition neither one exercised their human spirit while speaking. Go figure.

By the way, I never did figure out which one of them had the ministry of the age, and which was supposed to get in line and know their place. Funny how that never was an issue with them. I guess they never saw the high peak revelation of God's Deputy.

Good points aron. Paul downplayed the importance of outward impressiveness in 2 Corinthians 10. Concerning himself he quotes others as saying "For they say, “His letters are weighty and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive and his speech contemptible.” The whole book of 2 Corinthians is a great read and shows what true ministers of the age look like. And, I mean ministers in plural.

If I recall correctly, Apollos was said to be eloquent in Acts. Like Wesley and Edwards they were both ministers of the age.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many times when praying with the brothers, especially in my later years, i purposely attempted to pray from my heart, rather than the usual 6.7.6.7 rhyme with accompanying litany of "Amens."

Now which do you think was considered by them to be a "better" prayer?

From experience, I can guess which prayers got the bigger amens.

That reminds me of these verses from 1 Corinthians 14:14-16:

For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen " at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Freedom

As I have become aware of the Texas dynamics in the early days of the LC, it has helped me to better understand why the LC turned out the way that it did. Something that James mentioned is how so many of the Texas brothers knew each other at Wayland Baptist College. Apparently a large group of students came into the LC from this college. I think that this is an important detail in the formation of LC in the U.S.

It’s not every day that you convince a large group of students to drop their Southern Baptists affiliation and pick up something completely different. For whatever reasons James and Benson had the ability to make this happen, they could get the students reading Nee, and they could have their hand in Major Ian Thomas visiting the campus.

I think that James might have downplayed the amount of influence that he actually had at that campus, but it is not hard to put the pieces together. ...

James was the Director of the Baptist Student Union at Wayland BC...an employee of some division of the Southern Baptist Convention. Wayland was a small college (still is). A "large number of students" should be viewed in this perspective. I don't have a head count but 10-12 seems to be a fairly accurate ballpark figure.

I would be hesitant to give James and Benson the credit/blame for "making this happen" or any such "plot" as you seem to suggest...at least at this time in their lives. These were seeking students who desired to follow the Lord. They were all friends and very near the same age 18-21, James being a little older. James and Benson were not manipulating anyone at Wayland...all of this was new to them as well. In these early days I believe they were about the same as you and I might have been. We all took a wrong turn at some point.

I had family ties with some of them. When I was in high school, six or so of them piled in a car and showed up at my home, 60 miles from Plainview, to meet up for some kind of thing college students do. They were just normal college students who attended a Baptist College because of a desire to follow the Lord. Benson was a Baylor student. I don't know that he ever attended Wayland...I don't think he did.

Eventually we all got deceived.

Nell

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Nell

James was the Director of the Baptist Student Union at Wayland BC...an employee of some division of the Southern Baptist Convention. Wayland was a small college (still is). A "large number of students" should be viewed in this perspective. I don't have a head count but 10-12 seems to be a fairly accurate ballpark figure.

I would be hesitant to give James and Benson the credit/blame for "making this happen" or any such "plot" as you seem to suggest...at least at this time in their lives. These were seeking students who desired to follow the Lord. They were all friends and very near the same age 18-21, James being a little older. James and Benson were not manipulating anyone at Wayland...all of this was new to them as well. In these early days I believe they were about the same as you and I might have been. We all took a wrong turn at some point.

I had family ties with some of them. When I was in high school, six or so of them piled in a car and showed up at my home, 60 miles from Plainview, to meet up for some kind of thing college students do. They were just normal college students who attended a Baptist College because of a desire to follow the Lord. Benson was a Baylor student. I don't know that he ever attended Wayland...I don't think he did.

Eventually we all got deceived.

Nell

I didn't mean to imply that James or Benson were manipulating anyone. I just found it interesting that the beginnings of the LC in Texas can be traced back in part to a particular group of students at a particular college.

The whole recording presents a narrative that I find to be quite troublesome. I can understand if the students at that college were disillusioned, but I don't understand how such a disillusionment automatically translated into the need to go drive to LA and hear WL speak.

[askseek]

I'm just now seeing this thread. I actually listened to Barber's message over the weekend (linked from another thread) while I was reading some threads here.

One item that really got my attention was his personal testimony of his early life, starting at the 27 minute mark. His parents divorced when he was just 5, and he indiciated it was tough and painful. No doubt. This seems to me an important part of what caused him to latch onto WL as a father figure. He certainly wasn't the only one, but did so to a greater extreme than most according to Rutledge. It's important for us to remember the ages of the principles involved -- WL was born in 1905 whereas Barber sometime in the 1940s. Similar for WL's other future deputies and lackeys. (And Ingalls and Reetzke born in 1930s or so; I surmise that WL was older than most in LA in those early days. And he clearly "outranked" Samuel Chang, another important factor.)

Also interesting James' son mentions the Swiss bank accounts for Lee family. An important detail I'm just now learning. No surprise, of course, but good to know.

And here's a repost of an excerpt from the thread I made yesterday (which also has other info about JB beyond this one post).

Originally Posted by askseek

Don Rutledge on James Barber

As we all desire to sort through our journey with Christ and our common experience in the LC, it is important to consider James Barber. Few brothers had such a defining influence on the LC. I spent much more time with him than I ever did with WL. In fact during the critical time period of 1973–78, I spent much more time with Max Rapoport than I did with WL.

James was a very peculiar person, and his staunch advocacy of exalting leaders, aka deputy authority, caused a lot of abnormal development. The same can be said of other leaders, such as Ray Graver, Patsy Freeman, etc. Most of the extreme LC problems are associated with a few personalities. Particular personalities gaining dominance combined with the deputy authority thing caused too much hurt.

Almost from the beginning, James was in a struggle for the hearts and minds of brothers and sisters outside of L.A. Later Max also was in a struggle to be the most influential person in the LC network. They battled each other. I know because I was an object of their fight and heard from both of them about the other brother and what he was doing. James was a very significant player in the downfall of Doug Krieger in Berkeley. Then he was working to bring down Max and vice versa. Max won and James went to OK City where he would have little influence over WL or the work in Anaheim and a diminished role nationally.

James was the number one advocate for putting meetings and church functions above family. He despised saints who only came on Sundays. He had invented a smear "SMOs" (Sunday Morning Only). I heard him use this countless times to slander some of the brethren in L.A. He constantly admonished elders in private fellowship to limit the SMOs. Sometimes I heard him concede to a brother about caring for the SMOs with the statement, "well at least they are good for numbers."

No one was ever more critical of others both in the LC and in Christianity than James. This was a point Max successfully used against him as nearly everyone was consciously or unconsciously bothered by James' unending put downs. (I hear the same kind of mocking derision in the Barber sons. I must believe they learned it from their father.) Since James represented WL and always made sure all realized that he had come from WL, his behavior and speaking was the equivalent of WL's speaking and behavior. At the time, I was too naive. Until Max made it clear that James was not necessarily a spokesperson for WL, it was hard to see how much was actually James. Of course, I do strongly believe that James was to a great extent a product of the shaping of WL.

Now, James truly loved Christ and desired to serve the Lord. He was a very gifted teacher of the Bible and somewhat an evangelist. We all received spiritual help from James. Otherwise his negatives could not have taken hold.

His family is a big testimony of his negatives, which included church activities over caring for the family, the meetings and ministry take care of everything, don't have opinions, don't think, don't criticize the ministry, and the big one: WL is God's anointed, today's David, and thus God will bless whatever WL does.

James died of cancer in the late 1980s. He was in Irving living with Benson seeking to get help from alternative treatments. During this time no one had much contact with him. Before this I had pretty much dropped contact with him. He was becoming more and more odd. I attributed it to nothing in particular. Perhaps it was due to internal conflicts about the LC. He suffered greatly over the whole thought of the video messages. He complained to me that "we ministering brothers" may as well get a popcorn machine and sell it during the videos. It was obvious to me that he saw his role in the recovery was pretty much over and WL was going a different direction with different people. James could have certainly been disappointed. I never heard him criticize WL, but he was not happy at the end.

Jane Anderson on the Barber family

I was told about Lee's bad treatment of James directly from his wife Virginia, about 10 years after James died. I can't remember the details about how James ended up in OKC, but I remember that it was not a result of his burden, but Lee's directive. She said Lee was very abusive and that his treatment of James tore him up because he considered Lee a father figure. She and the boys hated to see him go to a training in Anaheim because of the state he would be in when he returned, after having been mishandled (she said "abused") by Lee while there. She said the family usually took the brunt of his upset.