SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee

Hope · 04-01-2009, 11:33 AM

I have been reading posts on the other forum. Below I quote a post from Ohio.

Quote:

The fruit of this teaching that I have seen is all bad -- for the most part, an arrogant, exclusive pride which causes its proponents to think more highly of themselves than they ought to think. I now believe that the reason for the teaching is simple -- arm the saints with teachings which cause them to be separated from other Christians, and provide them with ammunition to judge all outside Christians, in other words, put all the LC sheep into a pen and erect a high wall around it.

I know this post sounds harsh, but does anything else explain what has happened?

I first met WL in the early Spring of 1966. He came to Waco, Texas where 12 or so young people were meeting as the church in Waco. He came again in 1968. During that stay, he came to my wife's and my little one room efficiency apartment. We invited one of the college students, Bob Soroosh, to join us for a simple supper. He treated the three of us with great respect and answered all our questions with kindness and took our questions seriously. I can never forget Bob asked about dating. Brother Lee gave an excellent answer. I still remember it well. Bob called him by “Witness” and treated him like one would treat a kind old uncle. Brother Lee was not the least bit intimidating. Brother Lee showed great love and toleration toward Bob, my wife and myself. This is the image of Witness Lee that always comes first to my mind.

During this same time, Benson and I had a lunch with Brother Lee and an older bachelor man from Waco. He had been visiting some of our meetings and came to hear Brother Lee. Brother Lee showed him much respect and engaged him in fellowship. Afterwards he told Benson and I that the brother was surely a man of spiritual depth and was very complementary of him.

As I 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. Publicly he enjoyed stirring the pot and poking his thumb in the eye of official Christianity. When challenged on any level, public or private, he way over reacted, and a fight was surely on.

I have a hard time believing he was so complicated to have come up with a method of teaching and behavior in order to create a system for enriching himself or enshrining himself as an uncontested, anointed, God-man, who was God’s man of faith and power for this hour. But it did happen! How he, the local churches, the so called “recovery” got from that simple meal in a one room efficiency with three young people to La Palma headquarters is quite a story. Perhaps, the Lord willing, I will be able to tell it.

Hope

djohnson · 04-01-2009, 12:32 PM

Did anyone really know Lee? What really did anyone know about him in America except he was a coworker of Watchman Nee? He was taken at face value and his history was taken as the history of the Little Flock movement (of course with him and Nee at the center.)

How many brothers and sisters did he have? What were his parents and family life like when he was growing up? What school did he go to? What college if any did he go to? Did he grow up in poverty? What was he like as a father, husband, friend etc? What were his financial dealings in the name of the "Lord's work" prior to coming to America? etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc

Did anyone even bother to somehow attempt at verifying his claim that Nee essentially passed the mantle on to him to the exclusion of Simon Meek, Faithful Luke, Stephen Kaung etc.

When he started bad mouthing TAS in America did any American leader in his movement go directly to TAS and ask him about his version of events? If so who did it and what was the outcome?

OBW · 04-01-2009, 12:36 PM

Don,

I can accept your observation for what it is, a truthful observation at a point it time. But it must be noted that at some level, Lee was an outsider in 1966. He had not yet become of prominence to be what he eventually was. Even if not his intent, he would surely know that a bunch of Americans were not going to put up with an unknown Chinaman coming among them and being discourteous or condescending to what were essentially complete strangers.

But that was not the demeanor of the man who refused to even listen to John Ingalls in private, or listen to complaints about the LSM office dictating local church activities, which I note you stood up to do and were effectively rebuffed by an unceremonious termination of the elders meeting. It was not the man who spoke of having spies who saw a rebellion and allowed those words to be published. It was not the man who sort of like being exalted.

So we can ignore the evidence from the 50s. We can ignore Daystar, and the robbery of the savings of young people (probably not his direct doing anyway). Ignore the lawsuits. Ignore the words he spoke in which he indirectly called himself THE APOSTLE of the age. (Neither of us were around for that.)

Did he just change over time, or was he merely wise? I am beginning to think the latter more than the former. I didn’t think so originally. He may not have set out to declare himself the apostle of the age, but I believe he had a personal vision much grander than Benson’s and he did what it took to get there. It is unfortunate that he centered on Christian work in his vision instead of just business. If he had not shrouded his businesses in non-profit cloaks, any shenanigans might have been caught early on. But everything got wrapped up in “the Lord’s work” and we all forgave his failings. But he did not lose anything on those ventures. His portion of the Daystar enterprise made some motor homes and sold them all to the venture that his followers invested in. And their venture funded and guaranteed Lee’s. He made out alright. Then he found a way to make the entire operation into a not-for-profit.

My Dad was over for a few hours on Saturday. I kept from talking about the LC. But I was on the verge of asking him whether there was any real draw other than the 35+ years of friendships that would be lost. Seeing his mental emotional condition at this time, I think the answer would have to be “no” even if he didn’t want to say it. I mention this because even after the things you’ve been through with the LSM and the now-BBs, I understand that it is hard to admit that you could have been that wrong for so long. I now believe that I was and that the LC was. It wasn’t your fault, or that of so many other normal local brothers and sisters. But there was already termites eating at its frame before any of us realized that the walls were crumbling.

The condition of the LC, both now and even during Lee’s reign, are testimonies that there is and was something wrong. I believe it began with the man who put it in motion. That would be Lee.

countmeworthy · 04-01-2009, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Did he just change over time, or was he merely wise? I am beginning to think the latter more than the former. I didn’t think so originally.

The answer to your question is going to depend on his personality as he was growing up. DJohnson asked good questions. What WAS he like growing up?
Did he have a strong, domineering personality?

What was he like as a young man studying the bible ?

IF indeed he 'changed', then the change could be attributed as his popularity increased and his 'power/authority' as well.

How many autobiographies have we read about famous people who came from humble beginnings...and are 'untouchable' now...both in civil and spiritual leadership positions.

If he was all the more 'wise', then whoever knew him when he wasn't 'Brother Lee', would know that he was preparing the ground of his future.

OBW · 04-01-2009, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

The answer to your question is going to depend on his personality as he was growing up. DJohnson asked good questions. What WAS he like growing up?

You are altogether correct. And while I am not presuming that my take is "the one," I have included reference to troubles in Taiwan in the 50s for the purpose of suggesting that something was going on before 1960, although it still might not have been what it became. I would not expect that the real answer (which we will never know) is that he was always the control-hungry, domineering person that he seemed to become. But there is indication that there was a path toward something inconsistent with the kind of servitude that the the Christian serviant and minister he claimed to be would tend to operate under.

aron · 04-01-2009, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

He may not have set out to declare himself the apostle of the age, but I believe he had a personal vision much grander than Benson’s and he did what it took to get there. It is unfortunate that he centered on Christian work in his vision instead of just business. If he had not shrouded his businesses in non-profit cloaks, any shenanigans might have been caught early on. But everything got wrapped up in “the Lord’s work” and we all forgave his failings. The condition of the LC, both now and even during Lee’s reign, are testimonies that there is and was something wrong. I believe it began with the man who put it in motion. That would be Lee.

Yes, but I go back even further. Look who taught him, who had such an impact on him. Who taught him about the "vision of the age" angle? Nee, I bet. So that "personal vision much grander than Benson's" got shaped under the tutelage of Nee, is my thought. Yes, it got expressed through the personality of Lee, but he at one point was a vessel, a receptacle, before he became a promulgator of a personal "vision".

Hope · 04-01-2009, 07:29 PM

Dear Forum,

Can we really know the heart of a man? The most common psychological dysfunction or defense mechanism is projection. A person projects an opinion or view onto another.

The final outcome of a person’s life is seldom determined by their beginning. The Past is not necessarily Prologue. Of course the past can certainly influence the present.

From my early days in the local churches there were many myths and endless genealogies. I have heard many adventure tales regarding Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. I have heard oft repeated details of who knew who when and who spent time with whom and what was this one’s spiritual pedigree etc. Among believers there is always a lot of hagiography. In the same vein there is often a lot of diatribe.

I prefer to take the approach of the early Apostles. They reported “what they had seen and heard.” What I would expect from you all and intend to do myself also is to critically examine a report and seek to determine if it is reasonable. Are there any confirming witnesses? Is it consistent? Etc.

With any and every Christian leader their life must match their teaching. When it does, we should recognize it. When it does not then they should be held accountable. We are admonished to examine everything carefully. 1 Thess 5:20-22, do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil. NASB

I have always expected whatever I write here to be examined carefully and I examine what I read here carefully.

Thank you all for being patient with this brother in Christ Jesus.

Hope

OBW · 04-02-2009, 06:35 AM

I interviewed for a job about a month ago. I met with 5 different people at this company over a 3-1/2 hour period. When it was over, I had an impression about them. The following week, there was a one month project that my current employer was doing at that very company and I was assigned to it. So for one month got to observe some of the workings of these very people.

What I now understand is very different from what I originally saw. The top boss seemed very driven, but also seemed to be a very likeable person. Since then I have learned that he often simply “goes off” on people over small things. It seems that one of the others is looking for a way to get another of the people I interviewed with fired.

Now I’m sure that a lot about our personalities and even how we grow is nurture and not just nature. But just because one observes one thing at one point in time does not mean that something observed later did not exist even before the first observation.

In the case of Lee, I point back to Taiwan and even China because there are signs that what was presented in the 60s may not have been a complete representation of what was already there. I know I never like to admit that I could have been wrong. But when I learn something that I could not have known at the time but that was already true, I simply have to accept my error. While I do not say that Lee’s demeanor in 1966 was completely false, it now appears that it was not a complete and open display of what was already in existence. Was this an attempt to fool you? We can’t say. But even if it was an honest attempt to change back to what he realized he should be, we now know that there was already a history. Alcoholics sometimes get “on the wagon” for a while and can put on the face of succeeding at being rid of their addiction. If you never knew of their addiction, you might think they were the epitome of upright society. But if they fall back into drunkenness, you can think it is a new thing, but if it really is not, then you are deceived. It is not your fault. But the deception, whether or not intentional is very real.

Ohio · 04-02-2009, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hope

I have a hard time believing WL was so complicated to have come up with a method of teaching and behavior in order to create a system for enriching himself or enshrining himself as an uncontested, anointed, God-man, who was God’s man of faith and power for this hour. But it did happen! How he, the local churches, the so called “recovery” got from that simple meal in a one room efficiency with three young people to La Palma headquarters is quite a story. Perhaps, the Lord willing, I will be able to tell it.

It's difficult for most of us "common folk" to understand the complexities of gifted, talented men, since they seem to possess enormous powers which, for the most part, are foreign to us. We tend to think and understand people in more simplistic terms -- i.e. "he was a good man" or "he is a bad man." But when we look at great men, and I mean those who possess greater talents and natural powers, such reasoning cheats us from properly understanding them in context.

During my LC tenure, I heard many complementary stories and adulations concerning WL, such as the story provided here by Hope. One given by the late Francis Ball, years ago in the face of rigorous opposition, stands out in my memory, "He is just an old preacher whom we all love." I believe all of these stories and complements, e.g. "Brother Lee is like the sweetest Grampa you'll ever meet," are all true. I don't discredit any of them. I'm sure he could be far more charming than I could even dream of being. But ... if you get the impression, like I once did, that you know the whole story about this person, then you are are potentially vulnerable.

I basically held this simplistic view of people until several years ago, when I began studying Brethren history and LC history. John Darby became an enigma to me. How could a brother be so well loved, gentle as a lamb, charming in the gospel, tender to all the weak, etc. ... also be a ferocious tiger, an indefatigable assailant, undaunted attacker, mercilessly and publicly berating ... upon any and all those who appeared to him as a rival. Newton and Muller were just examples of those who never even suspected they had become rivals to Darby, nor could they possibly have ever prepared themselves for the onslaught which subsequently came their way.

Who is the real Darby? Who is the real Lee? If you only know one side of the equation, then you don't know "the half of it," as they say. Both men were extremely ambitious to serve God, build the church, edify the saints, and all positive things, but ... both men were also extremely ambitious for leadership, for expansion, for church impact, for lasting legacy, etc. with all the associated benefits, and herein lies the danger. Great men are capable of doing the greater good, and also the greater bad, especially when they go years unchecked, unbalanced, and untempered.

One historian said, "I have never seen in one man, the two natures so powerful, as in Darby." Another historian said, "In Darby, we see so much good, and yet so much more wrong." I suppose these two sayings could apply to WL also. The unbiased historical record of these two men must be fair to present all sides. The story should be told.

Hope · 04-02-2009, 08:23 AM

Hello Mike,

I always get a lot out of your posts. Do you just fire them off? How could that be since you are full of good points and thoughts? Do you really have a job or is that just part of your cover?

Actually, I have had a couple of appointment cancel this AM, and have decided to log in to the forum. I have a few thoughts in response to your post. I may be a little philosophical but it is important to establish our base from which we will discuss various observations and positions.

Regarding seeking to understand WL based on his history in China, Taiwan etc. Very valid. But on the other hand the greatest prophet, Elijah, has no background history except that he was from the tiny village of Tishbah on the wrong side of the Jordan. Yet we have a very complete early history of Moses.

Paul was not joking when he declared, 1 Tim 1:3-6, As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus, in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, NASB

I have learned to take a big grain of salt regarding the tall tales of dragons that come out of China. Same if they are pro WL or anti WL. I have heard the same stories told from very different angles. One side portrays WL as the key co-worker of WN who was commissioned and sent out to carry out and preserve their work. The other side portrays WL as a fearful man who wanted to escape the persecution of the communists. In addition, WN allegedly warned them of WL and his strong natural disposition and dominating tendencies.

One side portrays the imprisonment of WL by the Japanese as a cruel ordeal through which the Lord miraculously preserved dear brother Lee for the great work he was destined to carry out. The other side tells another tale. The Japanese held him until bribes etc were paid by members of the church.

Brother Lee had a dream while in prison which was regarding his future ministry. In 1975, he told some of us that the work in Anaheim would be the fulfillment of the dream. (On another occasion, I will share the dream.) Yet, Anaheim did not work out at all the way WL portrayed it to us according to his dream.

I have heard the “chariots of fire,” stories. I have heard the elders coming to town in a fleet of flying saucers stories. If you are pro LSM, the “chariots of fire,” tales are accurate and God’s vindication. If you are anti-LSM and can claim you have been hurt, then the flying saucer stories are okay.

Once upon a time, I was a three sport athlete. I attended college on an athletic scholarship. On some rare occasions some of the old players get together. How interesting as to which set of memories are rehashed. Once I made two miraculous touchdown catches, (the real truth not an exaggeration.) On another occasion I dropped a pass in the end zone. I was wide open and it hit me in the hands right in stride. As a result we lost the championship game. I talk up the former not the latter. One of my Baylor baseball buddies, Don Looper, liked to talk about the time he was Five for five against Texas A&M. He never brought up the time that his throwing error on a simple routine play cost us a game against the Uni. Of Texas and consequently allowed them to tie us for the conference championship and we were denied the chance to go to the College World Series. We humans are that way. We do remember and report history with a personal bias. By the way, I never reminded him of that dark day.

But I do agree that we need background research in order to grasp some aspects of our history. Just remember, Solomon had his good points and his bad points. Both are recorded in the Bible. Oh that we could be as fair as the Bible.

Hope

djohnson · 04-02-2009, 11:06 AM

Actually I think people at least on this forum seem be a lot smarter than to think in extremes i.e. Lee was all good or all bad. Obviously he was both.

But since the LSM propaganda machine runs 24/7 praising and glorifying Lee and how great he was and since they have littered the web with endless sites about their idol I don't think it's really that necessary for anyone else to do so. Instead we need a forum like this is discuss the other side of the situation i.e. to explode the mythmaking.

OBW · 04-02-2009, 12:12 PM

Don,

You may notice that I have only been posting sporadically for some time. I also have a job. And until yesterday, I was so busy that I sometimes only had time to look a the posts quickly and decide that others had said enough. (And even when I post, they probably already have said enough.)

It is in my nature to sit by unobtrusively until I see/hear something that seems incomplete, inaccurate, needs clarification, etc., then I spring to action. I'm sure that it seems like I think pretty highly of my own thoughts. While I'm sure we all do, I'm willing to accept that I am quite fallible. And when my ideas are shot-down, it is what it is.

Unfortunately, I think through things in a linear fashion, seldom jumping from issue to conclusion. What I write is often so long because I take everyone through my thought process. Then I edit the heck out of it. So if I'm busy at work, it doesn't happen.

I'm hoping that you caught early on that my comments in this particular series were not meant to disparage you or your observations, but to note that we too often cannot know everything. You have further added that even where we think we know more, unless we have absolute knowledge, we cannot claim absolute certainty concerning what we think as a result of our knowledge.

That means that what we can determine for certain is essentially nothing. Neither the stories from Taiwan and China, nor the descriptions by you, Francis Ball, and those who had direct run-ins with Lee describes the whole man. What was driving each encounter cannot be known.

Yet when I back away, I begin to see a pattern that would tend to make me wary of accepting Lee as a significant voice from God instead of something else. What that something else is/was may not be clear, but I begin to see too many "oh no's" to just let it slide. That is my point of reference.

In any case, I'm glad to see you back on the forum. Your perspective, even if not always what we want to hear, is not otherwise easily found in first person.

Ohio · 04-02-2009, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

Actually I think people at least on this forum seem be a lot smarter than to think in extremes i.e. Lee was all good or all bad. Obviously he was both.

djohnson, my impression is that most folks view WL/LSM to one extreme or the other. For 30+ years, that's about all I knew. Inside the LC, no one dared to think negative. Outside the LC, one rarely ever heard a positive about WL. How rare indeed to find someone with a "balanced" view, acknowledging the bad and appreciating the good.

Perhaps those folks out in San Diego are more balanced?!?

countmeworthy · 04-02-2009, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

djohnson, my impression is that most folks view WL/LSM to one extreme or the other. For 30+ years, that's about all I knew. Inside the LC, no one dared to think negative. Outside the LC, one rarely ever heard a positive about WL. How rare indeed to find someone with a "balanced" view, acknowledging the bad and appreciating the good.

Perhaps those folks out in San Diego are more balanced?!?

LOL! <Shrugging shoulders> Who knows?
The last time I visited in 2005, it was an LSM ministry BUT, most people had TVs in their homes and watched secular TV.
I'm not commending nor condemning.....I think some are willing to let down their guard.

Around LSMrs that I know, I won't allow myself to be as vocal as I am here for they are not trying to push the LSM on me. They respect I fellowship with believers outside the LSM and still receive me...receive my fellowship.

One day there will be no more Jew or Greek...no LSM/LC vs Christianity.

I pray we will ALL be accounted worthy to hear the AWESOME Words 'Well done my good and faithful servant(s)...you were faithful in a few things..enter into the Joy of the Lord", as we stand before the Son of Man.

May we all be accounted worthy to receive the
Crown of Life given to those who endured temptation and Tribulation (James 1:12 & Revelation 2:10)
Crown of Righteousness (to all those who are eagerly looking forward to His Appearing) (2 Timothy 4:8)
Crown of Rejoicing (the Victor's crown we receive at His coming) (1 Thessalonians 2:19)
The Incorruptable Crown for running the race with the goal to win (1 Corinthians 9:24-26) and
The Crown of GLORY that doesn't fade away. (1 Peter 5:4)

Come Lord Jesus. Come.

IDon'tKnow · 04-02-2009, 05:14 PM

Quote:

I can accept your observation for what it is, a truthful observation at a point it time. But it must be noted that at some level, Lee was an outsider in 1966. He had not yet become of prominence to be what he eventually was. Even if not his intent, he would surely know that a bunch of Americans were not going to put up with an unknown Chinaman coming among them and being discourteous or condescending to what were essentially complete strangers.

But that was not the demeanor of the man who refused to even listen to John Ingalls in private, or listen to complaints about the LSM office dictating local church activities, which I note you stood up to do and were effectively rebuffed by an unceremonious termination of the elders meeting. It was not the man who spoke of having spies who saw a rebellion and allowed those words to be published. It was not the man who sort of like being exalted.

I would like to throw my two cents in here. I personally don't see the contradiction between the man in the paragraph one and the man in paragraph two. Why because you have to understand that at least from the 1950s Witness Lee was labouring under the assumption that he was the unique minister of the age. Given that he was the minister of the age, God's man for the age and so forth anything which undermined him, undermined what God was doing on the earth today. Thus you have the situation that he can quite genuinely be kind, courteous, and humble with a group of fellow christians because of the simple fact that they have not done anything against him. With John and others however they were at least perceived as being a threat to what God was doing on the Earth today and as such had to be eliminated, and any methods used to do it were justified.

I'm not claiming to know Witness Lee's heart. This interpretation could be completely off. That said I'm fairly certain that the ability to be a genuinely kind and pleasant with friend's, yet at the same time to be completely vicous with those who we percieve as enemies isn't a rare trait. I remember seeing a documentary on mobsters which showed this quite well. That and I think we would be fools if we didn't admit that this is actually the case with most of us to a lesser extent. I believe this is why the Lord said "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?"

OBW · 04-03-2009, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IDon'tKnow

That said I'm fairly certain that the ability to be a genuinely kind and pleasant with friend's, yet at the same time to be completely vicous with those who we percieve as enemies isn't a rare trait. I remember seeing a documentary on mobsters which showed this quite well. That and I think we would be fools if we didn't admit that this is actually the case with most of us to a lesser extent. I believe this is why the Lord said "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?"

But in that quote from scripture, it is presumed that we love those who love us. And one of the ways that we show love is by helping others see their flaws — not as a way to shame them, but to help them improve. But when they refuse any counsel, then they seem to display even a lack of love for those who love them.

Ohio · 04-03-2009, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

That means that what we can determine for certain is essentially nothing. Neither the stories from Taiwan and China, nor the descriptions by you, Francis Ball, and those who had direct run-ins with Lee describes the whole man. What was driving each encounter cannot be known.

OBW, it seems to me that Don's point was that each of us tends to embellish stories in our favor, hence the need to report only what we have "seen and heard." My point was to reconcile what I felt were enigmatic contradictions seen in notably gifted Christian leaders. Your conclusion "what we can determine for certain is essentially nothing," imho, is too extreme to be helpful.

This is the conflict I had in mind when I posted. Many saints, past and present, felt WL (and JND for that matter) could not possibly be abusive or controlling, because he is so sweet and lovable. It was incomprehensible to them. Either John Ingalls (or George Muller for the Brethren) was an ambitious, deceitful, rebellious, and destructive brother gone bad, or WL/LSM were scandalous liars in quarantining them. Both desciptions of WL could not be true. And this, I feel, was a major reason most stayed with LSM back in the late 80's.

I personally try to believe a part of each and every report, recognizing the flaws of personal bias, and attempt to reconcile apparent contradictions in different reports, in order to discover the truth.

Here's an example of contradictions, which tend to fool the saints. Yesterday I watched a couple of posted You-Tubes on the "Origins of Shaming" thread. Minoru Chen, rebutting criticisms in Toronto, quoted WL in his defense, saying, "I control no body, I can't even control a mosquito." I have heard comments like this for years, and they always tended to neutralize my concerns, and redirect the finger away from WL, to his "accusers."

Think about it -- who has power over a mosquito?, WL must be harmless, why all the false accusations?, etc. The fact is, though he could not control a tiny mosquito, he did hold immense sway over many brothers, which most would classify as "control." Yet ... WL had a way of calming the concerns of the masses in public settings by charming us and alleviating our fears. The trail of forgotten "victims" over the years were all dismissed as rebellious -- it's just too bad they "lost their vision" and changed -- but as for us, we're here faithfully remaining "on the ground."

OBW · 04-03-2009, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

OBW, it seems to me that Don's point was that each of us tends to embellish stories in our favor, hence the need to report only what we have "seen and heard." My point was to reconcile what I felt were enigmatic contradictions seen in notably gifted Christian leaders. Your conclusion "what we can determine for certain is essentially nothing," imho, is too extreme to be helpful.

I would agree. My comment, while completely valid, was intended to point out that we cannot absolutely know. But I do believe that based on the number of observations, we can put bounds around the general nature of what is true.

But was Lee simply "normal" within his own behavior at Don's apartment in 1966? It is quite likely to be so. But that does not make looking into his past irrelevant. Many people think that I am this teddy bear kind of nice person. And even without trying, it often looks that way. But you get me riled up in certain ways and I can look and act more like Hitler on steroids. It almost seems impossible, especially for someone who has never seen that side but known me for years.

In any case, those "couldn't control a mosquito" statements are totaly irrelevant. Inability to control one thing makes no statement about ability and desire to control other things.

Ohio · 04-03-2009, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Many people think that I am this teddy bear kind of nice person. And even without trying, it often looks that way. But you get me riled up in certain ways and I can look and act more like Hitler on steroids. It almost seems impossible, especially for someone who has never seen that side but known me for years.

Personally, I do differentiate actions which are ugly outbursts of temper, and those events which are carefully planned and executed. Bad temper, while potentially dangerous and volatile, can be repented for with a remorse to match the "crime," and hopefully understood and forgiven by all parties involved.

We all are vulnerable to this. I'm a very low-key guy too, but recently this carload of guys next to me on the road got me so riled up, I thought about smashing my car into theirs. Road rage is real! Fortunately, I don't follow thru on all my impulses. Scary! Ohhhh Lord!

Anyways, the things that trouble me about WL and LSM are not "temper outbursts" or "everybody makes mistakes" or other happenstance gone awry, which, as a rule, often characterize aggressive, ambitious people.

IDon'tKnow · 04-07-2009, 06:42 PM

I think something to consider when considering early Lee and later Lee is the matter of the minister of the age. More specifically Witness Lee believed he was the Minister of the Age and that this was his position within the Body. An interesting thing to note is that when we are functioning in the Body in the measure that we are supposed to our yoke should be easy and our burden should be light. This should be because when we are our correct position we are yoked to the Lord, He is also yoked to us thus we find that we do not need to work by our flesh to function. If we attempt to assume a position within the Body which is not our own then it is reasonable to assume that we will find ourselves with heavy burdens. We are not properly yoked and we will inevitably find that if we want to maintain our position we will inevitably have to exercise self effort.

What I'm saying is that when we are accepting our proper God appointed position we can comfortably live by faith knowing that the Lord will take care of everything. When we seek to go above our position we can no longer have faith that Lord will take care of everything (Actually I think we can have faith in this so long as we accept that his taking care of things means returning ourselves to our rightful position), we have to work to maintain our position. Ergo when we are in our rightful position in the Body when something like Daystar goes belly up we can repent of wrong doing and trust that however it turns out (whether we are able to gather the money to rectify things or not) it will be according to His plan and we need not be anxious over it, If we are not in our proper position we must deal with the problem any way we can whether or not that involves performing more shady actions. When we are in our proper place we know that when others speak evilly of us we are blessed, When we are not we must sue them to shut their mouth. When we are in our place we can trust that when we minister whether or not what we minister will be received either wholly or in part is in the Lord's hands, When we are not we must force the brother's to take our ministry in spite of any leading from the Lord.

I believe that this would be the major reason for most of the problems. I also believe that this trait became more manifest as time went on because at the end I believe he saw that in many respects his ministry had failed. He supposedly was releasing the high peak of the divine revelation but the recovery itself was having little increase and was stagnating. At this point he needed to work hard to prove that He truly had been the minister of the age.

Hope · 04-08-2009, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IDon'tKnow

I think something to consider when considering early Lee and later Lee is....

Dear Brother,

Your analysis seem very accurate to me in many ways.

Hope

Cal · 04-08-2009, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hope

Dear Brother,

Your analysis seem very accurate to me in many ways.

Hope

I agree, IDK. When we are in our proper place before the Lord, he can easily correct us, and no one has to get hurt, because it's all good.

Let's face it. Everyone is "wrong" in some way. We all need correction and change in some way. LSM/LC has their problems, and I have mine. It's not black and white. But if we are all humble and open, the Lord can correct and bless us all--often using a word from each other--without anyone having to relinquish that which we have which is genuinely true.

LSM's problem is that they have decided that they need not be corrected by anyone from the outside, in fact, they've even decided that such intrusions are most likely attacks from the devil.

That's just pride, plain and simple. And it's the kind of problem which has no means of self-correction. Like an alcoholic, they have an inevitable date with rock bottom.

TLFisher · 04-08-2009, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IDon'tKnow

What I'm saying is that when we are accepting our proper God appointed position we can comfortably live by faith knowing that the Lord will take care of everything. When we seek to go above our position we can no longer have faith that Lord will take care of everything (Actually I think we can have faith in this so long as we accept that his taking care of things means returning ourselves to our rightful position), we have to work to maintain our position. Ergo when we are in our rightful position in the Body when something like Daystar goes belly up we can repent of wrong doing and trust that however it turns out (whether we are able to gather the money to rectify things or not) it will be according to His plan and we need not be anxious over it, If we are not in our proper position we must deal with the problem any way we can whether or not that involves performing more shady actions.

There has been focus on Daystar and it's nebulous history. What about the saints that were stumbled? Was there any concern for those that lost heart over how the Daystar situation was handled?
I realize it's been 35 years since and many meeting in the local churches came in after Daystar. Still there is a number meeting who can recall. Instead of searching for the one lost coin, it's swept out the door so the wind can blow the coin where it may.
This episode in history should be a learning experience and which direction not to take.

Terry

IDon'tKnow · 04-12-2009, 07:24 PM

Can I simply state what I believe is the importance of understanding Witness Lee. To me it is important to understand him because I refuse to believe that he was some kind of conman simply out to lord it over and lie off the saints.

Why? because I believe that would be too easy. If I say this I don't have to recognize that he was one who was zealous to study the word, pray, and in general pursue the Lord. And as such I don't have to face the fact that I can very well fall into the same error if I am not careful.

For my part I believe that the main cause of error on Witness Lee's part was that he (this is speculation on my part) probably wanted to do great things for the Lord and His move more than he wanted great things for the Lord and His move. I believe that one of the things which is required of us to be greatly used by the the Lord is a willingness to only moderately used by the Lord. If we are not willing to be the one talenter I do not believe we are qualified to be a five or two talented one.

UntoHim · 04-13-2009, 09:26 AM

What IDon'tKnow has written here reminded me of what the apostle Paul wrote to the Romans (chapter 10)

"For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God"

Witness Lee no doubt had a "zeal for God", but it is rather apparent now that most of this zeal was "not in accordance with knowledge". It was not in accordance with what we know in the Word of God, nor was in accordance with the lessons that have been learned throughout church history. Most importantly, much of what Lee and his followers have done is not in accordance with God's righteousness. There is a kind of righteousness there, but it is a righteousness that is "their own" - is is not of God. Of course we know this now upon hindsight, nevertheless, we would be remiss and even foolish not to point these things out, not just for the sake of truth but for the sake of those still trapped within the Local Church system.

In regards to this heartfelt statement:

Quote:

To me it is important to understand him because I refuse to believe that he was some kind of conman simply out to lord it over and lie off the saints.

This kind of reminds me of a true story about this guy who was practicing medicine without a license (he was posing as a bonafied MD doctor - he was only a nurse or something) Anyway, he apparently helped a whole lot people over an extended period of time. Eventually somebody was seriously injured (or died, can't remember) because of his malpractice. Many of his "patients" came to his defense, even after it became known that he was a fraud.

Brothers and Sisters, only God can look into our hearts. I have no idea what was in Witness Lee's heart - only God could have known that. We can only "judge" (I use this term advisedly) men by what they say and do - this is especially applicable to our Christian leaders. Again, in hindsight, it is apparent that Witness Lee was neither qualified nor fit in character or education to be the sole leader, chief theologian, historian and "wise master builder" of an entire Christian movement.

-

OBW · 04-30-2009, 06:40 AM

First, I think that IDon’tKnow has reasonably questioned the reason for the apparent differences in “Early Lee” and “Later Lee.” This is in response to the posts currently flooding ABrotherINChrist’s blog. I know that I would rather any lengthy discussion be moved outside of my blog, keeping the blog for my posts and somewhat brief one-off responses.

There are two views of Early Lee (EL) v Later Lee (LL). And they depend on whether you look exclusively from the perspective of the US or you look back to Taiwan, and even China, and reject Lee’s excessively sanitized version of history in favor of the ones that suggest that he had effectively been kicked out of Taiwan when he came to America.

But even looking at it from the perspective that there was nothing before the US, I see problems.

First, there is a telling phrase in Hope’s post #19 (in ABC’s blog). “trying to be God's best in God's move on earth today” It says a lot. Maybe Lee did not actually orchestrate the burnings and other crazy things like the green and white pom-poms in that conference in Dallas in 73, or the rest of the craziness of what was called the “pots and pans” era. Maybe the first orchestrations were indirect when Max was sent out with a vague mission.

But where did the ideas of being “God’s best” and “God’s move on earth today” come from? Did a bunch of crazy people come up with these? Or did these help create a bunch of crazy people? After creating these crazy people, did standing by as they did crazier and crazier things help them become more grounded, or did it reinforce the craziness?

Hope,

I fully accept that you are giving what is probably one of the more accurate accounts, at least from what could be seen from Texas. But by ignoring what is reported as having happened before the US, are we incorrectly assuming that Lee’s diminutive stature and appearance as a bystander are not just part of that “inscrutable” nature of the Chinese, as even Lee called it, and that rather than holding strings of puppets, he was holding a few strings attached to a large net?

I like the picture of a net. If you have a net and pull just a little at one place, there is not much movement, but it fans out in many directions. It may be more subtle, but it is every bit as effective as that single string attached to the hand of the marionette.

What I am suggesting is that Lee did not hold puppet strings of control in the 60s and early 70s. But he did hold a small string on “God’s best” and “God’s move.” He pulled gently on a string concerning idols that, while not entirely incorrect, made our non-Christ distractions into huge issues. That string started a chain reaction of net strings moving around. Somewhere out in the net was a message about the burning of the occult books and objects. The fires were kindled. Did Lee orchestrate burnings, especially of such personal things, to control people? No. But did every action taken to be unique relative to the rest of Christianity, and to have a higher and purer stance (real or imagined) just fuel a craziness that put us more and more in the mindset to believe anything that Lee said, and to do anything he wanted, and to buy every word he spoke and printed?

Whether it was intentional or just happened, control does not occur overnight. There is no spell that is cast in one meeting. The kind of control that happened takes time.

One of the strongest battle cries of the LC is the claim that every denomination is saying they are of someone, or have some kind of name. But 400+ of the leaders signed a statement of allegiance to Lee. You may have been one of them. At least from what I recall of this discussion before, even in your reluctance and troubled mind, you may have been persuaded to go along. I am not pointing a finger at you. You are just a picture of what happened to us all. If you were unable to simply stand and say “this is wrong” then even your reluctance, and even if you did not sign, your own account suggests that there was still a significant fog.

And his grip just got tighter and tighter as the years went by.

Hope · 04-30-2009, 09:54 AM

Greetings dear Brother OBW,

As per usual you have raised many thoughtful considerations. But in your analysis as well as nearly all of the attempts to find the common thread in Nee and Lees actions the key element is missed.

Nee introduced his concept of "The Work." The Work was a parallel entity to the local church. Lee could kick out workers from the workers home because he was the head worker. As the head worker he could un appoint elders and solicit oaths of loyalty. Nee did the same type of things in China. At the same time they could proclaim that there was no "Church" hierarchy but that every church was "local" and each answered to the Lord. I believe hymn #824 in "Hymns" declares this. The hymn was written by WL himself.

Originally in the USA, there was really no "Work" but rather a spontaneous happening in many places and in many ways. Among many Christians there was the conviction that the Lord was doing something new and fresh. The local churches were not unique in wanting to be at the forefront of whatever the Lord was in the process of doing. In my opinion, the development in the USA of "the Work" killed the genuine and spontaneous move of the Spirit among the local churches. If I am led to continue my history, I will develop this.

I know that WL had some conviction to get away from his practice of "the Work." In addition the churches in Taiwan were very regulated. He wanted to get away from that. I heard him express many times that he wanted to have a new start in the USA. He told us in 1967 as he was organizing the trip to visit the churches in Taiwan that he hoped we could bring in freshness and breakdown their old dead practices.

As the LSM and "the Work" developed in the USA things were always murky. WL believed he should have very strict control over "the Work." This was a key element of the "Deputy Authority" notions and practices. Yet we had a lot of teaching and truth about the "local" church and the direct headship of Christ to the local church and to each individual member. These really cannot co-exit. One has to go. In the case of the LSM, WL and the BBs, the independence of the "local" church went by the wayside.

It was when I finally realized that I must cling to the truth of the church, the Body of Christ, that I begin to see the error of "the Work." The loyalty pledge was actually a pledge to follow WL as the lead Co-Worker. My big problem was the push to get the brothers at the meeting to sign off as elders. In addition, I had a check in my spirit from ever commiting to the LSM work. I knew in my spirit that something was very wrong but was foggy at the time due to the confusion of "the Work" vs the church. Of course I was confused since there is no such thing as a parallel entity "the Work" in addition to the church.

I disagree that every random and crazy action can be fitted into an overall scheme masterminded by WL. Some things just happened, such as the pom poms at the conference in 1973. The key events involved the ascendancy of the "work" over the church and over the members of the Body of Christ.

Your Brother in Christ Jesus,

Hope

OBW · 04-30-2009, 12:40 PM

Hope,

I will start at the end because it is easy.

If I seemed to be saying that the craziness was part of a masterminded, that was not my intent. But allowing whatever happened to run its course can have an effect that might be useful, or turn out to the benefit of whoever is trying to gain control.

If I am constantly being chided by getting it wrong ─ first getting rid of my nice car, then being told that I spend too much time keeping an old one running; or running along for a few months doing crazy things just be “versus religion” or more accurately to be different ─ one of two things will happen. I will either get tired of the runaround and leave, or I will decide that I am a foolish sheep that needs someone to straighten me out. (This is clearly an over simplified analysis.) So what comes next? Migrate out. Move all over the country thinning ourselves out. Write songs about it. Then a year later consolidate to be strengthened with numbers. Even if the last paring ends in the way it does for the logical reason, the constant shifting has its effect. We talked about “new turns” almost biannually. You either become immersed or you leave. Those who stay will do anything.

Did Lee orchestrate it? Probably not. Did he watch it set things in motion? Could be.

You refer to Lee’s view of parallel items of the work and the church. Yet your own account of his desire to control the work while being hands off with respect to the church suggests a problem with the latter. That problem is where the line was between the two parallel items.

I note that among the earliest talks that you or George gave in Dallas that I heard concerned the “hireling.” This was juxtaposed against the typical Christian system of needing a pastor, music director, or whatever, and going out to hire one who would stay until either they got a better offer or the board of elders/deacons (whichever the particular church had) voted him out. But an elder was supposed to be part of the flock, even from the flock in human terms. And when I read Paul’s accounts to Timothy and Titus concerning the character and duties of the elder, I see someone who is concerned with the well-being of the flock. He is not concerned with something external, like a ministry, although he may help to identify ministries that are helpful and those that are not.

But if the elder is answerable to a person whose existence is an external ministry, even if somehow the only legitimate ministry, then his position with respect to the flock, the assembly, becomes that of a hireling.

And even if Lee said out loud that he had no intent to control any church, when his ministry office, an organization, and even person (his son), of which he should have knowledge of its workings, requires that assemblies ─ the parallel item that is not the ministry and is not under his control ─ buy a predetermined amount of LSM materials, who does he think is actually being asked to make those purchases? Unless a church is stockpiling excess materials in a back room, or burning the excess for heat and power, they must push it on their membership.

And if someone is sent from the LSM, the FTTA, or whatever, from afar to be, among other things, and elder, or even just a “coworker” who is required to be subsidized by the local assembly, has the line not been crossed?

Last, there is something telling in your account first of Lee wanting to get away from the practice of “the Work” yet believing he should have strict control over it, and second, the almost Jekyll and Hyde coexistence of the ministry and the church. Speaking strictly to the latter, while I must say that there were many positive things about being in the Local Church versus the AOG where I was before, those positive things had to do mostly with the opening of the word. But at the same time, there were already the beginnings of things in that opening that were off the mark. It was the desire of local brothers and sisters, like yourself, that these positives flourished as long as they did. Despite the way things had become, even in Irving, we were not having the kinds of contentious meetings that happened in Anaheim. What I am seeing now is that Lee’s focus was not the church, but the ministry. But without the Local Church, he couldn’t survive on the ministry. It had to remain loyal to him. But rather than give good sound teaching, he constantly had “push the envelope” teaching. He intentionally stirred up the saints against Christianity.

Somewhere behind a wall is a kitchen. It continually turns out food for the people who live nearby. They have grown used to its flavors and actually despise the normal entrees available at the local Italian place and the Tex-Mex place, the burger joint, etc. They keep being told that the other food will poison them. But what they do not see is that the kitchen is not even up to health standards of a small village in a third world country, and the ingredients include whatever has been scraped off the nearby highway. (While I never saw it, there was a movie in 1973 called “Soylent Green” that concerned the discovery of the ingredients in this all-important foodstuff in a futuristic, overpopulated earth.)

Now I cannot say that what we were taught was entirely drivel and the equivalent of road kill. But when you add in the “push the envelope” teachings, like becoming God, and the control issues, it might be that a significant ingredient was a spiritual equivalent. And when the “taste” of the members of the assemblies turns to the output from the darkest part of the whole combined organization, you have to wonder if we were all infected with an illness that altered our taste buds to miss the sour taste.

No, you are correct that there is no overwhelmingly clear evidence that Lee had a plan before coming to America. But even if that is true, the very history of the churches in the US and Lee’s history of double purposes, like making money, first through secular business ventures then through a non-profit, and becoming the revered and followed leader that Paul told the Corinthians to quit following exclusively and in a sectarian manner, suggests that Lee’s heart was not pure from a fairly early point, if not the beginning. He had mixed motives. He may have believed every teaching he espoused, even the rotten ones. But I’m not sure it was ever just about the ministry or the churches. It was about him. In his early meekness he rose in our estimation. If that was intended, his method was wise, because a foreigner coming in to assert himself as superior to the whole of the US, or at least Western teachers would have gone over like a lead balloon. But having gained that estimation, he could rise further through his demonstration of superior knowledge, which lead to him begin to suggest superiority in his demeanor, then in his sideways talking about the ministry and the one who brings it (and other similar sayings). Now the BBs have simply made the bold declarations “oracle of God,” “acting God” and the like.

I can almost hear Benson’s voice saying “our Brother Lee.” Lee is their “Brother Lee.” While I do not deny him salvation, he is not “my Brother Lee” in the way Benson would say it.

You are providing what is probably one of the most objective analyses of events possible. While there is no way to state that the roughly 30 year history of Lee in the US could be distilled to A caused B which caused C which cased D, etc., patterns are immerging. Surely the potential for ambition in others, such as Benson, Ron, Ray, Max, and many others had an influence on how it all played out. But it is clear that the oracle of God, the acting God, the apostle of the age, etc, was not just duped by these others. All the trouble cannot be exlcusively the result of his trusted inner circle and he be essentially free of responsibility. Things like the speaking/writing of Fermentation are not products of the oracle of God, therefore the very claim must be false. And if he was reaching for such a title ( even sort of, like sort of liking to be exalted) then he was false.

And since there is some evidence of a similar pattern in Taiwan, even accepting some desire to turn over a new leaf in the US only lasts so long when things like Daystar were already underway in 1971. (I actually did not realize that Daystar was already 2 years underway when we came along. So they were looking for more money in 73 and my Dad lost a little as a result. I have no idea how much, but while we were comfortable, we were far from wealthy. Any loss was felt, at least by my Dad.)

Hope · 04-30-2009, 01:16 PM

Just one or two more things about the crazy, wacky early days. Frankly, during the late 60s and early 70s I never laughed so much and never had so much fun. In Dallas for several years, my wife and I had single brothers live with us. We had a blast. My two boys still talk about the great times they had wrestling and rough housing with the brothers as well as the healthy mentoring they provided.

In our home, every now and then I would need to give a show of strength and maintain my alpha male role in the pack. The young single men liked to try and take me on. (Now keep in mind that I am at this time an elder and occasional conference speaker.) We did not scuffle but I would be challenged to feats of strength and or endurance. Unfortunately, they would talk to other young brothers and occasionally a young brother would come over and challenge ole Don. Poor guy.

Sorry, Mike, OBW you never had the chance to take me on.

At any rate, I was only 5’11” but weighed 210 lbs with a 28 inch waist. (But no longer. Sigh.) I had grown up a little like a mountain man but in the bottoms of the Mississippi river. At that time in Dallas, I did a 15 minute exercise routine each morning which became a little famous. No one else could complete it. Young brothers would challenge the ole lion. The only person to ever complete the set was Gary C. As he finished, he fell to the floor and began to throw up all over the floor. All the other brothers broke into gales of laughter. He told us he could hardly walk for three days. I immediately followed him, finished the set and walked up to the kitchen had a glass of milk and large piece of pie.

How come no one ever tells about the crazy fun things we did in those days. In the Eldon days on Mondays during a conference/training we would have a fun day. We went to the beach and body surfed. We went to Disney land. Once some of us brothers went to muscle beach. What a hoot!!

In L.A. during a couple of free times, I happened to be invited to a park to play a little soft ball and enjoy a picnic. I let the others cajole me into playing a little ball. Ho, ho, ho. I was not above showing off. Again we had a great time.

Once at the beach, some Southern California brothers challenged me to a little swimming contest. (They thought I was from the plains of Texas. Now what they did not know was that as I had grown up in the river bottoms of East Arkansas and you needed to be a strong swimmer. I never was foolish enough to take on the mighty Mississippi during spring floods but on one occasion I swam a smaller river from one set of breaks to the next, a little over 1`.5 miles, then ate a sandwich, and raced a dozen or so boys over the same distance. Whew, that was tough.) Well anyway after beating them badly they decided to gain up on me and hold me under the water and gain a little revenge. (Young men are known to do such things.) But alas they had to learn the hard way that I was raised in a cane break by on old mama lion. We had a ball. Got home late and missed the meeting. But no big deal. We had a great morning watch the next day and loved the Lord just as much as before. My host just shook his head with a wry smile on his face and mumbled “single brothers!” We all had another good laugh.

In Houston, I helped several people move. It was always one big session of laughing, joking and good fun.

Some to the brothers who lived with me were very good with the guitar. I had a great time setting around and singing and singing and singing.

When I think about the early days, these are the kind of things that dominate my memory, not a woman burning her baby's photos. Am I the only one who had a little fun and has some fond memories?

Your Brother in Christ Jesus,

Hope

OBW · 04-30-2009, 02:06 PM

Too bad those "fun days" had already vanished by the time of the Anaheim trainings. I think I missed the last meeting one time to get a start on the road home and had to consider that I might not get to go the next time because of it. Of course, I was headstrong enough not to worry about it.

I'm convinced that it was the people that made the good side what it was at any time. And it was much easier in the early days. Today, I have had to bite my tongue on occasion to not ask my Dad what, besides 36 years of familiarity, keeps him in the LC. I'm not sure he really wants to think about an answer to that question.

But it is the people, I'm sure of it. I must admit that even the "horror" of the events at my mother's funeral could not diminish the delight in seeing some of those people for the first time in over 20 years (in some cases even longer). I just wish that there was not the baggage that came with it.

IDon'tKnow · 04-30-2009, 03:34 PM

One thing I liked to point out is that if we look at the kicking out of the coworkers in Taiwan. This happened in 1965 and I believe he had been recalled from the US by the brother's loyal to him in Taiwan to deal with the situation of some not speaking exactly the same thing. Ergo if he did come to the US wanting to get away from the control of the work, he still was not will to relinquish it in Taiwan even while he was getting away from it in America. So perhaps he was less inclined to get away from being controlled and regulated than he suggested, or perhaps even though he wanted the work to be less controlled he wanted to be the one controlling it even more. Perhaps the thought here was that seeing as how he was the minister of the age or whatever he needed to keep himself in command in order for the Lord to be able to move effectively.

On the other subject, yes even now I agree the people are and were wonderful. That was the only reason why I wanted to stay. Unfortunately that had nothing to do with the ministry. I distinctly remember sitting around a table reading a ministry book and wondering "does anyone actually want to be here?", same thing having corporate morning revival every morning, I mean it okay for people to have a bad day, but everyday for 6 months. I remember Ed Marks said something about seeing the look on the faces of the worldly people after the weekend and they realised it didn't satisfy. It set of warning bells in me that my first thought was that I don't need to go out into the world to see that, I see it right here everyday.

OBW · 04-30-2009, 04:01 PM

Funny that you bring up Ed Marks. I did not know him well, but I did know him. He was clearly a rising star in the 80s. But when I hear his name (along with a few others I sort of knew in Dallas or Irving) as someone who is a significant trainer, or writer of the LSM's apologetics, I really shake my head. I was not that impressed back then. I doubt I would be that impressed now.

OBW · 04-30-2009, 04:43 PM

I would like to point back to one of the early posts in this thread by Ohio in which he makes reference to the difficulty of knowing truly great people (in terms of talents and abilities) when we tend to think in more simplistic terms.

What I wonder is whether Lee had some natural talent in oratory. I'm not suggesting that he was an excellent speaker in either Chinese or English, but that he had a way with words. He clearly was an excellent story-teller. He used stories, examples, analogies, metaphors to his advantage. He painted a picture with words of what he wanted to portray.

The question becomes whether the picture was an accurate representation of the underlying facts. A study in logic shows that there are facts. We think about the facts. Then we convey the facts with words. (There are surely complex facts, but let’s keep it simple for now.) If we do not understand the facts correctly, we may describe them incorrectly in words. But even if we understand the facts correctly, we may not transfer it to words accurately unless we take care to use unambiguous words.

In theological discussions, we start with scripture as a fact. But also understand it as a representation of underlying fact, or truth. The problem here is not with the words because, unlike our own representations of fact, we have started with an acceptance that the words of scripture accurately convey the actual facts, truths, etc., that God wishes to convey. So what is the problem? It is still the faulty mind of the human that must understand the words correctly.

When I listened to Lee many years ago, and when I have read some of his printed works, there are many stories that he uses. He often reads a verse, then sets out on a story that paints a picture. During that time, you are not reading the verse. Then he slowly brings it to his point where he says that some verse “simply” means or is “just” something. But he essentially dismisses the actual words in the verse ─ not that he says to ignore them. He just does ignore them, providing his analysis as the “obvious” one. And he tricked us into accepting his version. He may not have meant it in an underhanded way, but rather than provide evidence of something he was saying, he would say something like “throughout all of scripture we see that ...” (not an actual quote) and never show any place where we can see it. I first saw this when I started rereading The Economy of God. I also saw some of this in Nee’s Further Talks. They may honestly believe what they are teaching. But they are dishonestly skipping by the evidence and asking us to follow anyway. Unfortunately, we often did. They are also dishonestly claiming to have actually considered the verse rather than the metaphor they create in its place. It is probably a dishonesty to even themselves. It served them well for years and they did not even realize their error.

So unless someone challenges him on the spot, he has casually taken us where scripture did not. We are already beholden to him for teaching us something that other Christian teachers are not teaching. (I wonder why they are not.)

No. A person with those kinds of skills in speech may seem harmless because of demeanor, but with their words they spin a web that we never see. They paint an awesome picture. But what we are told is green is actually blue, and the light is darkness. Was it intentionally error? Probably not. But their own devices were probably the cause of their own blindness to their error.

Just an opinion.

IDon'tKnow · 04-30-2009, 07:53 PM

All I know is that the overwhelming sense I got from listening to and reading Lee was that I don't trust this person.

Ohio · 05-01-2009, 04:34 AM

I suppose that I was far more naive than most ... because I trusted and revered WL unreservedly and unquestioningly, ready to defend him and his ministry to the death, that is until I learned how he treated his former co-workers John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon, etc. when they attempted to correct certain wickednesses at the LSM ministry "Office."

IDon'tKnow · 05-01-2009, 05:08 AM

For me it was more a case of everyone else saying that he knew what he was talking about and me kind of assuming well it seems he the expert and how could everybody be so wrong. Then I started realising that I was looking at people trying to see some one who seemed to be really truly enjoying in order to provide me with some sort of hope. Who's more naive the person who came in while reportedly the freshness was still there, and had the pot slowly boil around him, or the person allows himself to ignore all the warning signs. Personally I think I'm the prince of fools.

OBW · 05-01-2009, 05:14 AM

Ohio,

Don't feel so bad. I was out of the LC for almost 20 years before I stopped defending Lee. I may not have been unreserved in my defense, nor did I "revere" him, but I thought he had taught well.

I knew something was wrong, but I thought it was just the practice and that this was a problem with individuals and local leadership. Boy did I have that wrong. It was a systemic problem whose root was "the ministry" and Lee is the center of that — even if the source of the more outward problems was the LSM office and the circle of workers around it, including Benson and Ray.

OBW · 05-01-2009, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IDon'tKnow

For me it was more a case of everyone else saying that he knew what he was talking about and me kind of assuming well it seems he the expert and how could everybody be so wrong. Then I started realising that I was looking at people trying to see some one who seemed to be really truly enjoying in order to provide me with some sort of hope. Who's more naive the person who came in while reportedly the freshness was still there, and had the pot slowly boil around him, or the person allows himself to ignore all the warning signs. Personally I think I'm the prince of fools.

Don't beat yourself up. Group dynamics are very compelling. Remember that when a group is whipped into a frenzy they will often do things that they would never consider otherwise.

OBW · 05-01-2009, 09:26 AM

Hope,

I would like to note that, in the brief interaction with you, no matter how I have sounded, I have not disagreed with you. We are dealing with observations from the past in which no one knew the whole story. Even if the actual events are clear, the motivations are not. I am more than clear that you are mostly providing a somewhat cold relating of observable facts. (I say "mostly" because given our past association with Lee and the LC, it would be impossible to be without bias. And that bias could be either way because of the relative sway of past observations and feelings in opposition to more recent observations and feelings.)

On the other hand, I have been providing a clearly subjective "is it possible" kind of analysis. I may be springing from observed facts, but I am also allowing the totality of history to affect how single points in time are understood. If we were dealing with robots, my analysis might be more certain because of the predictability of machines. But since we are talking about people, I fully realize that my theoretical chain of thoughts and intents is just that — theoretical.

But my real goal is not to somehow determine that Lee has always been some wolf in sheep's clothing. Instead, I think we should simply reconsider what it was about the early LC days that was so enjoyable. And we should even reconsider how sound some of those early teachings were. Without casting any aspersions at Lee concerning his motives, I note that The Economy of God is from messages spoken in 1964. I honestly believe that its very opening chapter is an exercise in shoehorning a doctrine into existing scripture by ignoring the actual words of scripture and using logical fallacies to bring the listener/reader along. In this case it is significant in that this doctrine was an underpinning on how so much of the rest of scripture was read. It provided a significant portion of the color in what I call "Lee colored glasses."

Without calling Lee a charlatan, I note that this would indicate that the progression of "the ministry" is already taking a turn toward error as the young believers, like yourself, are enjoying freedom in Christ and learning much more about Christ than you might otherwise have within your previous Christian affiliations. While Lee continues to open things all over the scripture, surely a lot of it is simply sound Christian teaching that was being ignored. But did the dramatic change from routine Christianity to where you were help to blind almost everyone to the things that were already off the mark?

I really am not looking for a generic analysis of the early days. I'm looking to find whether error was already on the rise. It is too easy to want to consider the positives since we already have learned that things really got bad and there was ample reason to leave. My goal is not to burst the bubble that the early days were good, but to point out that even if Lee was changing over time, that there appear to have been problems from the very start.

Continue to look back at those days with fondness. You and the others did grow in Christ. It was an enjoyable time. But we were already in a pot and the fire was on at some level. The boil came later.

AndPeter · 05-01-2009, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hope

In Houston, I helped several people move. It was always one big session of laughing, joking and good fun.

Some to the brothers who lived with me were very good with the guitar. I had a great time setting around and singing and singing and singing.

When I think about the early days, these are the kind of things that dominate my memory, not a woman burning her baby's photos. Am I the only one who had a little fun and has some fond memories?

Thanks Hope for reminding us of the good times in the past. Without them we might have bailed along time ago. And by remembering them today we avoid the trap of being bitter over the potential of wasted years.

It sounds like your early church life was a chortle. I too had a 'honeymoon' time shortly after I got married 1 year into the church life. Three couples and an older single sister stayed in adjoining apartments in a highrise along with a handful of single brothers and sisters. Besides pursuing spiritual things together I do remember we had a barrel of laughs together, often having spontaneous suppers in each others apartments.

However, there was a tendency in Toronto at least to cut out the frivolity. One time I remember a few younger brothers and sisters had played baseball in the Lord's day afternoon. That night elder DB blamed the lack of spirit in the meeting on those that had played baseball in the afternoon. Needless to say that pleasant, harmless activity was quashed forevermore.

About 10 years ago Dave Higgins stayed at our home and he testified how the Lord had dealt with his tendency to joke through brother Lee, who frowned upon it. I think this was based on the verse in Ephesians 5:4 about avoiding jesting. Some versions, including the RecVer say to avoid filthy jesting which makes sense. In my mind, the jury is still out regarding the role of clean jesting. I consider joking one of my wife's ministries who is able to put people at ease through her wholesome sense of humour. Once people are at ease the atmosphere is much more conducive for healthy bi-directional fellowship.

Perhaps Hope you could say more about how you were able to 'get away' with this much fun and did you have any interaction with brother Lee on the matter of joking. I know I attended the last informal training in LA in 1973 and, because it was 3 weeks, Mondays were a free day and so there was opportunity for recreation. In 1974 the formal semi-annual trainings started. We stayed at a motel and brother Lee twice rebuked those who dared go swimming during the afternoons (I was one of them). I remember twice because the brother staying with me commented that if there had only been one warning he would have ignored it. So Hope, perhaps you are referring to the pre-1974 era.

I will close with a fond memory. A labourer was working with some brothers who had a renovation business. Through their preaching he got saved, really saved. He started coming to our meetings and after a few short weeks he testified how that day he had said to his live in girl friend that the Lord had said to him "it was either Him or her". He told his girl friend it was going to be Jesus.

This brother was from Jamaica and, as many there do, spoke with a London cockney accent. One characteristic of a cockney accent is that they drop H's when they should not and insert them in front of vowels when they do not exist. Thus his name Albert is pronounced H'Albert. Imagine the howls of laughter in the meeting when he read a verse that had touched him that morning. It was 1 John 3:15. "He that 'ate his brother is a murderer ...".

Steve

OBW · 05-01-2009, 02:26 PM

Steve, you have mentioned "DB" at least twice now (or someone else did just a day or so ago). I had this sudden "aha" and wondered if this was a "bright" guy?

AndPeter · 05-01-2009, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Steve, you have mentioned "DB" at least twice now (or someone else did just a day or so ago). I had this sudden "aha" and wondered if this was a "bright" guy?

You are too.

OBW · 05-02-2009, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndPeter

You are too.

So I guess that I actually knew him here in the DFW area for a period.

AndPeter · 05-02-2009, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

So I guess that I actually knew him here in the DFW area for a period.

Mike:

I know he and KB moved locals alot. The first time I saw them after a dozen or so years she immediately chastised my wife and I for still being in Toronto.

I am pretty sure that the DFW area was included as well as Oklahoma and Anaheim in their nomadic journey.

Steve

IDon'tKnow · 05-02-2009, 10:16 PM

I would just like to ask? How much of the crazy fun joyous times back in the 60s and 70s were related to the ministry of the age. That is to say how much would you say would have been related to getting brother Lee's ministry. Because for my part I remember having a lot of fun with the brothers, I also remembered being with the brothers reading a life-study message with everybody, looking around to see the look on every bodies faces, well I can't say definitely what everyone was thinking, but I can't say that it was the looks of people who were being filled up with life and joy and whatever (I had the same reaction when looking at the faces of all the brother's and sisters in the video messages which brother Lee gave (Late ministry) funnily enough, especially when looking at the coworkers). Then of course after coming home from said meeting hearing the brother I went with beat himself up because he had been natural before the death-study (laughing, joking what have you). Which given the testimonies about baseball games and the like I have to ask, Was the joy at least in part killed by a certain legalism which while not necessarily explicitly spoken in the ministry was nonetheless mixed in with it. You could then ask whether or not the God Ordained Way was an attempt to return to the "structure" or what have you of the earlier days without actually realizing what killed them.

IDon'tKnow · 05-02-2009, 10:48 PM

To further comment on MikeH's question as to how much WL might have been manipulating things throughout the 70s. Doug Krieger gave a testimony through KSA on the bereans here. In which he seems to suggest that Witness Lee manipulated things to destroy Berkeley back in the 70s. I'm not certain whether this is sour grapes or not, I was wondering whether those who were around, around that time could comment about what they know of the situation.

I'd also like to say that Witness Lee somehow managed to create for himself, within the local church the image of a humble, kind, gentle, little brother in the Lord. This is in spite of events such as daystar. In spite of his likening himself to the being the husband of the coworkers. In spite of saying seeking the Lord's will whether to take his leading or not was a subtle form of dissent which could not be tolerated. Witness seemed to come through everything smelling of roses, I have to ask the question whether or not this was simply luck on his part, or cunning.

Ohio · 05-03-2009, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndPeter

I know he and KB moved locals alot. The first time I saw them after a dozen or so years she immediately chastised my wife and I for still being in Toronto.

There is just so much about this comment to you that is disturbing.

But there was a time that I too boasted in my "travels."

aron · 05-03-2009, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IDon'tKnow

Witness seemed to come through everything smelling of roses, I have to ask the question whether or not this was simply luck on his part, or cunning.

When I read Hope's testimonies, who seems to be the only one here who ever shared a word with the man, Lee comes off not as diabolical at all. Instead, my impression is that Lee was a bright, motivated, "gifted" christian brother who ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Look at the story of Saul in 1 Chronicles. He was a doofus in the hinterlands, looking for his donkey, and the children of Israel said, "We want a king". So they got Saul.

When Jesus was ministering, the people wanted to seize Him and make Him king, but He withdrew to a private place to pray.

So you get RG & BP & many others who are looking for a "king" (i.e. an (or The) (A)postle), and here they find a likely candidate, and they go into "let's make a deal" mode and now you have the Living Stream Church, or whatever they call it.

WL was not simply this cunning man who manipulated everyone else. He played a role, obviously, but look at the history of people wanting "kings" to rule over them and it's not just all on WL.

My point here is that we are all, or most of us anyway, too cunning for our own good. We're too complicated; we're not simple enough. We try to follow God but we end up in religion. Ohio's descriptions of the Brethren movement, and JN Darby, of whom I always heard "one" side when I was in the LCs, are indeed apt here.

"Power" (not the divine kind) was seeking WL and he got snared by it, and corrupted. Maybe that is the demarcation between early Lee & later Lee. But we have testimonies of problems in Taiwan before he came to the U.S., early '60s, so maybe "early" Lee is earlier than we realize. Or maybe, he got chastened by the failures there, and was really that humble and unassuming man when Hope ran into him, and later, when things got built up, the temptation to seize the reins of 'control' was too much for him and he began to try to run things again. Certainly the testimony of DKrieger in Berkely is a glaring example. "We" don't want jug bands means "I" don't want jug bands.

So labeling someone as 'cunning' as the answer to the whole problem is probably an oversimplification. I think there were a lot of problematic variables at work, and that includes many of us who gathered there in the Living Stream Local Church Movement.

Billy Graham got a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Oral Roberts got a university. Witness Lee got a massive mausoleum on Forest Lawn. We should all beware of success in this world. This world doesn't (yet) belong to God. So watch therefore, and beware.

aron · 05-03-2009, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I pray we will ALL be accounted worthy to hear the AWESOME Words 'Well done my good and faithful servant(s)...you were faithful in a few things..enter into the Joy of the Lord", as we stand before the Son of Man.

May we all be accounted worthy to receive the
Crown of Life given to those who endured temptation and Tribulation (James 1:12 & Revelation 2:10)
Crown of Righteousness (to all those who are eagerly looking forward to His Appearing) (2 Timothy 4:8)
Crown of Rejoicing (the Victor's crown we receive at His coming) (1 Thessalonians 2:19)
The Incorruptable Crown for running the race with the goal to win (1 Corinthians 9:24-26) and
The Crown of GLORY that doesn't fade away. (1 Peter 5:4)

Come Lord Jesus. Come.

Very nice, sister. Did anyone ever tell you that you have a ministry?

IDon'tKnow · 05-03-2009, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

My point here is that we are all, or most of us anyway, too cunning for our own good. We're too complicated; we're not simple enough. We try to follow God but we end up in religion. Ohio's descriptions of the Brethren movement, and JN Darby, of whom I always heard "one" side when I was in the LCs, are indeed apt here.

"Power" (not the divine kind) was seeking WL and he got snared by it, and corrupted. Maybe that is the demarcation between early Lee & later Lee. But we have testimonies of problems in Taiwan before he came to the U.S., early '60s, so maybe "early" Lee is earlier than we realize. Or maybe, he got chastened by the failures there, and was really that humble and unassuming man when Hope ran into him, and later, when things got built up, the temptation to seize the reins of 'control' was too much for him and he began to try to run things again. Certainly the testimony of DKrieger in Berkely is a glaring example. "We" don't want jug bands means "I" don't want jug bands.

I believe that their is fundamental problem with the theory that he came to the US chastened by his failures in Taiwan and wanting to have a new start (I know I'm just assuming this was what you were arguing here). That is that after he came to the US for this new start in the early 1960s he then proceeded to go back to Taiwan in 1965 to carry out what Larry Chi refers to as the 1965 massacre in order to maintain the status-quo there (him on top).

Furthermore I have heard many testimonies from people who met Witness Lee personally during the 80s and 90s. They were of course glowing. Do I think that they were lies? no. At the same time I have to say that person who based upon there observation was such a bright, kind, humble brother is the same person who made himself the minister of the age, published fermentation of the present rebellion and covered up the misdeeds of his son Philip. Likewise I have to say that the Witness Lee which Hope met in 1966 and 1968 in the first post in this thread is the same Witness Lee who in 1965 booted 4 of his long time Coworkers and their families out of their homes and stopped their salaries which were their only means of support (see http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?t=41723) for not being in lock step with him.

Lastly based upon reading ministry, and I believe testimony of current coworkers also Witness Lee was somebody who would apparently get down on his knees and make a thorough confession of his sins with tears before every message he gave, due to the fact that even a little leaf can blot out the sun (even a little sin can prevent the Lord from shining on us). This bothers me greatly because if this is true he would have done this before all the Life Study messages. Therefore he would have done this right before going out to give a message which he was charging money for. Money which would be laundered through the churches (that which the Lord wishes to be presented before him without blemish) to pay of debts which if they went unpaid could land him in jail. That he could set up this scheme, let Terry Reisenhoover be excommunicated to keep things from coming to light (maybe he didn't know about the excommunication but if he did would he have stopped it), and give the life study messages. Well, either he was capable of being extremely duplicitous or he was blind as a bat.

P.S.
That said I do agree that their that it is very likely that part of the situation came from the people saying "We want a king!!" And that we have to admit that and repent for that.

countmeworthy · 05-03-2009, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Very nice, sister. Did anyone ever tell you that you have a ministry?

Probably... I don't really pay attention when they have told me this. BUT I have been called a 'Pauline'...and a 'miss FABULOUSA'. LOL !

Pauline for Paul......gosh...how humbling. AND I should have you know I did not like Paul the apostle very much after leaving the LC because next to Brother Lee, mannnn, did we ever get an earful in my locality of all he did and said. It took me years to go through Ephesians after leaving the LC.

As for ms Fabulousa...it's kind of a funny story. About 2 years ago, on a December day, I went to the grocery store. I was very ill at that time, and as I was pushing the cart, I was looking to the produce to the side of me. So I was not looking forward but I was pushing my cart nontheless.

I heard someone (a man) say to me 'Watch it.' I looked up as he was moving out of the way from being 'hit'. I quickly apologized as he kept walking away from me. A couple of seconds later, I hear a LOUD, BOOMING VOICE say,

Quote:

DON'T BE SORRY! YOU'RE FABULOUS!!!

I turned around and the scruffiest looking man who was the guy I almost 'hit' with my shopping cart had turned around and was looking right at me with a big smile on his face. I smiled back sheepishly as I KNOW the entire store HAD to have heard him and it's a BIG store...I then said to myself ...why Yes. IN Christ Jesus, I AM Fabulous. Thank YOU Lord. You see me as being FABULOUS. (You have to understand, I had been extremely ill for many, many years and pressed in with all my heart. I am a BIG 'positive confession' believer and promotor. So even when I was violently ill, I still Praised, Worshipped, Glorified and Blessed the LORD....still do of course.)

So I told a friend of mine what happened. She without skipping a beat said

Quote:

CAROL!!! That was an ANGEL who spoke to you!

The reason he was scruffy looking was so you would not fall in love with him! LOL !!! But God wanted you to know you are His FABULOUS BARLEY Girl!

LOL !!!

I should also tell you, I cautiously looked around the store for him after that, 'cause I was afraid I was going to run into him again and GOD only knows WHAT he might say next! I did not think at that time he was an angel.

Anyway, she's been calling me Ms FABULOUSA ever since. Isn't that too funny?

Matt Anderson · 05-04-2009, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hope

Just one or two more things about the crazy, wacky early days. Frankly, during the late 60s and early 70s I never laughed so much and never had so much fun. In Dallas for several years, my wife and I had single brothers live with us. We had a blast. My two boys still talk about the great times they had wrestling and rough housing with the brothers as well as the healthy mentoring they provided.

...

When I think about the early days, these are the kind of things that dominate my memory, not a woman burning her baby's photos. Am I the only one who had a little fun and has some fond memories?

Your Brother in Christ Jesus,

Hope

Offered without comment:

1Co 5:6-7 Your glorying (boasting) is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.

Matt

OBW · 05-04-2009, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

Offered without comment:

1Co 5:6-7 Your glorying (boasting) is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.

Matt

First, welcome back.

You offer the verse "without comment." It needs comment, and context. Please elaborate.

ABrotherInChrist · 05-04-2009, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

First, welcome back.

You offer the verse "without comment." It needs comment, and context. Please elaborate.

Yes, welcome back, Matt.

This did seem a bit like a "drive-by versing" to me. I guess I'm not awake enough today to follow the dotted line to get your desired connection.

Ohio · 05-04-2009, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

Offered without comment:

1Co 5:6-7 Your glorying (boasting) is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.

For us to glory or boast in the events in our LC-past may seem acceptable to some, but may be very inconsiderate to others. Some in Corinth may have had a "great time" in the church life there, but Paul reproves them for their glorying. Shouldn't that word apply to us too. So many in the LC's have been hurt, with victims strewn along the way. I may not have witnessed the level of abuse inflicted on sisters, but I have seen much damage to brothers -- if for no other reason that the GLA leadership has a military background which "dresses down" males and not females.

Sure ... I had many joyful times in the LC, but maybe at the same time I was having "fun," someone else in the LC was being taken advantage of. Last night I happened to find my very first LC notebook, from my first year there. Included were Revelations trainings and those traumatic Chicago (think Berkeley) conferences during May 1977, which I believe is the same time frame of the events which opened the book TOG. Many of my notes were alarming indeed. Brothers hurting brothers trying to "cooperate" with the whirlwind coming out of Anaheim. So many notes I recorded in the meetings which I now find totally objectionable.

In those early days, I was just a sponge soaking in the good and the bad, just a piece of clay being shaped by the things I witnessed. If I only knew then what I know now ... but the past is not mine to change. When I first visited the web forums, I was surprised to learn how many dear saints had been hurt in the LC's. Until then I thought that my experiences were somewhat isolated, seeing only a few pieces of the puzzle, yet not realizing that nearly every piece was scarred and bruised. Some of the "scarred" were leaders who felt part of their ministry was to inflict the same on all others.

Like I have said before, hurting people hurt others. I wish it were not so, but it is, nevertheless. I am not without blame either. We all are emerging from a place where love had become almost extinct. Hopefully ... we can once again find the love of God which first won our hearts.

countmeworthy · 05-04-2009, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

Offered without comment:

1Co 5:6-7 Your glorying (boasting) is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us. Matt

Here's waving at ya Matt! Hope you and family, wife and bab(ies) are doing well. (I seem to think you have a 2nd one...not really sure.) Hope your mom & dad are also doing well.

Just want to say...and I know you know this....my experience in the LC was NOT as bad as many posters/lurkers. I was BLESSED in that way....but I had my own personal trials/tribulations/testings/refining through 'fire' which I went through. The LC treated me well where I met. In '75/76 there was a lot of joy and laughter where I lived. We had picnics as a church...we went to ball games..(the brothers mostly) and we went to Disneyland. We did have fun. But like other localities, there were problems that did not come out in the open....and aside from that, I personally did get rooted and grounded in the WORD of GOD. On the other forum, I posted how grateful I am to GOD for the foundation I received in my tenure in the LC.

I learned to call on the NAME of the LORD - JESUS...from a pure heart...from my spirit. I may have learned to call on His Precious Name using that familiar 'tone' we all know so well...but I have left that 'tone of voice' behind. I call on His Name because I love HIM & in HIM is the FULLNESS of GOD.

I am grateful for learning how to 'pray read'...I do NOT pray read the way I was taught but I pray the Word of God prayerfully, slowly, focusing on what I am reading.

I am grateful for the fellowship and the care that was given to me for I was a pretty, lousy mess when I got saved.

I am THANKFUL, we were using the KJ and NASB when I came to the LC...for the singing..and you know the rest of the story. I was really blessed during those first couple of years to grow in the Word of God. But when the Holy Spirit left, I left too.

I could be wrong, but it seems Hope was merely trying to bring out the good times he remembered while he was there. I don't think he was trying to erase the past entirely. We all know the LSM/LC had/has huge problems cloaked behind the Word of God.

I look forward to the day when God wipes away all our tears from our eyes...when all our wounds will be completely healed...when there will be no more sorrow, or pain, or death...when in deed, we will ALL experience God making ALL things NEW...and no memory of the painful past.

Say HI to your mom & Nell for me. I could use some sisters around here.

...and give lots of hugs to your little ones for me.

Carol

Hope · 05-05-2009, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

For us to glory or boast in the events in our LC-past may seem acceptable to some, but may be very inconsiderate to others. Some in Corinth may have had a "great time" in the church life there, but Paul reproves them for their glorying. Shouldn't that word apply to us too. So many in the LC's have been hurt, with victims strewn along the way. I may not have witnessed the level of abuse inflicted on sisters, but I have seen much damage to brothers -- if for no other reason that the GLA leadership has a military background which "dresses down" males and not females.

Sure ... I had many joyful times in the LC, but maybe at the same time I was having "fun," someone else in the LC was being taken advantage of. Last night I happened to find my very first LC notebook, from my first year there. Included were Revelations trainings and those traumatic Chicago (think Berkeley) conferences during May 1977, which I believe is the same time frame of the events which opened the book TOG. Many of my notes were alarming indeed. Brothers hurting brothers trying to "cooperate" with the whirlwind coming out of Anaheim. So many notes I recorded in the meetings which I now find totally objectionable.

In those early days, I was just a sponge soaking in the good and the bad, just a piece of clay being shaped by the things I witnessed. If I only knew then what I know now ... but the past is not mine to change. When I first visited the web forums, I was surprised to learn how many dear saints had been hurt in the LC's. Until then I thought that my experiences were somewhat isolated, seeing only a few pieces of the puzzle, yet not realizing that nearly every piece was scarred and bruised. Some of the "scarred" were leaders who felt part of their ministry was to inflict the same on all others.

Like I have said before, hurting people hurt others. I wish it were not so, but it is, nevertheless. I am not without blame either. We all are emerging from a place where love had become almost extinct. Hopefully ... we can once again find the love of God which first won our hearts.

Sorry, if I was guilty of boasting. I did not mean to be inconsiderate and apologize to any I may have hurt.

I find the verses in their content to have a lot to apply not only to me but perhaps to the forum.

1 Cor 5:1-8
5:1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. 2 And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst. 3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? 7 Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8 Let us therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
NASB

I believe from the context that this boasting may have been in regard to how open and tolerant they were in Corinth. If not, please help me out.

Verse eight is also very captivating. THE LEAVEN OF MALICE AND WICKEDNESS. It does to me appear that at times I have seen MALICE expressed as different posters have related their experiences.

According to my understanding unleavened bread of sincerity would refer to purity of motive and intent. May the Lord forgive me if I have any axes to grind or mixed motives in how I relate events. I would also think that sincerity and truth would include seeking to be fair and objective and without any personal agenda or goal. If I lack such unleavened bread, then surely I will be a problem and damage any real fellowship or feasting on Christ.

I would also assume that the unleavened bread of truth would include being honest and accurate and circumspect. I do have a fear but need more fear of not relating things exactly as I knew they were. In this case, I did stress too much on the light frivolity and my own prowess. As I look at my post, I am convicted of too much personal boasting.

I have considered this passage again since it was referred to the forum in regard to what I had written. I do value correction and light from the Word of God.
Ps 119:105,
Your word is a lamp to my feet
And a light to my path . NKJV

Ps 19:8,
The precepts of the LORD are right,
giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the LORD are radiant,
giving light to the eyes. NIV

Ps 43:3
3 Send forth your light and your truth,
let them guide me;
let them bring me to your holy mountain,
to the place where you dwell. NIV

Your Brother in Christ Jesus,

Hope

aron · 05-06-2009, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

1Co 5:6-7 Your glorying (boasting) is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.

A couple of thoughts. First, this is in line with the teachings of Jesus. "Do not do your good works before men, but in secret, that the heavenly Father may see and reward. If you do your works before men, then you have your reward." (See Matt. ch. 6, beginning verses)

So even if the Corinthians didn't have the leaven of wickedness and malice evident (tolerating gross sin among their members), then their self-righteous pride shown by an arrogant and open display of their spiritual "achievements" was onerous to Paul. So he chastised them.

Likewise with John to the Laodicean assembly in Revelation chapter 3. Saying "I am rich" disqualifies you automatically. Our position should be one of humility and repentance, not glorying in our accomplishments and experiences, though indeed they may have been by God's grace. "So also you, when you do all the things which are ordered you, say, We are unprofitable slaves; we have done [merely] what we ought to have done." (Luke 17:10)

In 1 Corinthians ch.5 and Revelation ch.3 Paul and John seem to echo the Heavenly Master in His teachings. But my quandary is this: how to apply this word? At what point does "That which we have seen and heard we report to you, so that you may have fellowship with us and with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ"? (1 John 1:3; see also Acts 4:20) turn into "That which we have seen and heard (about) we boast and glory before men to receive earthly honor and reward, and thus quench the flowing Spirit"? To me, the line between faithfully reporting what occurred, and boasting beyond what is seemly, is not always so clearly delineated for us.

Look at Philip's experience in Acts chapter 8. He was directed by the Spirit to go to the south road, through the desert, then was also directed by the Spirit to a specific chariot where he was instrumental in the salvation of another. Then he let the man go, according to the Spirit, instead of directing him back to Jerusalem to be placed under the leading persons there. Okay. But that leaves the question, for me: Should Philip have reported this, or left it secret? Did Philip's later reporting of his experience cause the flow of the Spirit to fail, or weaken?

I myself have seen (and participated in) instances where the "reporting" of God's move on earth was tainted with human glorying, or simply being unwise. Remember how Jesus told Peter and James and John to keep their mouths shut about the mountaintop transfiguration scene? How many times has the Spirit longed for us to keep quiet? Yet we babbled away, and thus the move of the Lord, which might indeed have been real, got diminished.

Even Paul himself was reduced to "boasting, as necessary" in order to remind the Corinthians of his position before the Lord and among them (2 Cor. 12:1). But still, at what point does our faithful reporting of the 'facts' to one another become vain boasting, and fleshly glorying? Not so easy to tell, and I sense both in my case and in my obsevation that it is way too easy to slip from the necessary fellowship to the unseemly self-promotion.

These remarks are not meant to be specifically referenced to anyone on this thread, or elsewhere. They are merely general considerations which I occasionally have, which have resurfaced here.

TLFisher · 09-07-2009, 08:36 AM

Witness Lee spoke this portion from a conference in 1968 that would later be part of the book The Practical Expression of the Church:

THE PROPER RECEIVING OF THE SAINTS

It is only by being so liberal and general that we can receive all the saints in a proper way. If we are otherwise, we cannot avoid being sectarian in the matter of receiving. If we are special in anything and insist upon that, we will probably not receive those who differ from us in certain matters. But the Apostle said, “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.” What he meant when he referred to “him that is weak in the faith” is illustrated in the following verses: i.e., the matter of eating and keeping of days. By this we are affirmatively told that we must receive the saints who differ from us in these things. Any saint who holds a different opinion or concept regarding the things we are in favor, we must receive, “for God hath received him.” As long as he is a saint, as long as he has received hin, we have no right to reject him. Our receiving must be the same as God’s receiving, no less and no more. God’s receiving is the basis of our receiving. Our receiving must not be according to our taste, our opinion, or our assertion. It must be in accordance with God’s receiving. It must be based upon God’s receiving- nothing else.
God receives people according to His Son. As long as a person receives His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, as his personal Savior, regardless of the concepts he holds regarding all other things, God receives him immediately. Since God receives people in this way, we too must receive people in the same way. Our receiving must be in accordance with God’s receiving. If our receiving differs from His, it means that we are wrong: either we are more narrow or more broad than God. This will cause much trouble and damage to the church life.
God’s receiving is based upon Christ’s receiving, and Christ’s receiving is in accordance with our faith in Him. Whoever believes in Him, He will receive. Whoever receives Him, He will never reject. He said, “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37). Since coming to Him, believing in Him, receiving Him, is the only condition for Christ’s receiving, so we must receive people upon the same basis with nothing added. As long as anyone believes in Christ our Lord, as long as He receives Him as His personal Savior, we must receive him with nothing else required. Regardless of how he may dissent in so many other things, as long as he is a real believer in the Lord, we have no choice but to receive him, for the Lord has received him. This is why the Apostle said, “Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.” We must receive whoever Christ has received. We must have such a proper receiving of all the saints that we may keep the proper unity; otherwise, we can never keep ourselves from being sectarian and causing much confusion and damage to the church life. To practice the church life by keeping the proper unity, such a general receiving is necessary. May the Lord have mercy upon us! (page 66-67)

Is this the practice today? Would someone meeting in the local churches go to a home meeting apart from the local churches? Is there a willingness to drop the concepts and just let Christ reign in fellowship?

Terry

manna-man · 09-08-2009, 05:56 AM

“Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.” We must receive whoever Christ has received. We must have such a proper receiving of all the saints that we may keep the proper unity; otherwise, we can never keep ourselves from being sectarian and causing much confusion and damage to the church life. To practice the church life by keeping the proper unity, such a general receiving is necessary. May the Lord have mercy upon us! (page 66-67)

Is this the practice today? Would someone meeting in the local churches go to a home meeting apart from the local churches? Is there a willingness to drop the concepts and just let Christ reign in fellowship?

Terry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes Terry it happens today,

In Mainstream Christianity which are the local churches as well. They have been receiving all believers even the weird ones. Mainstream Christianity was forced to respond to the exclusive doctrine of the "lee local churches" or LLC<how fitting! And they didn't waste time they continued to proclaim the gospel even until now.

The "Lee Local Churches" need to do the same. Also they need to dump the Lee cache because it is like a ball and chain to them. And affects the work they are trying to do. Although this may be impossible as it would be for the Mormons to dump the book of Mormon and all their other publications. I know that was a gross analogy but it was the closest to reality.

The saints need to take their eyes off of Lee's teachings and focus them back on the Shepherd Jesus who will guide them to where they need to be.

Grace to the saints,

Don Jr.

NeitherFirstnorLast · 01-19-2011, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I agree, IDK. When we are in our proper place before the Lord, he can easily correct us, and no one has to get hurt, because it's all good.

Let's face it. Everyone is "wrong" in some way. We all need correction and change in some way. LSM/LC has their problems, and I have mine. It's not black and white. But if we are all humble and open, the Lord can correct and bless us all--often using a word from each other--without anyone having to relinquish that which we have which is genuinely true.

LSM's problem is that they have decided that they need not be corrected by anyone from the outside, in fact, they've even decided that such intrusions are most likely attacks from the devil.

That's just pride, plain and simple. And it's the kind of problem which has no means of self-correction. Like an alcoholic, they have an inevitable date with rock bottom.

Amen!
While not true of all of the brothers and sisters with whom I meet, I must confess it to be true of most (or an issue with which they are currently struggling); because it is the message that comes out of "the ministry". I've been fellowshipping with a sister who seems very conflicted. She is one who left during a later turmoil (Titus Chu, I think?)... but wound up coming back. Now, some days, she is 110% for LSM, and other Lord's Table meetings I see her sitting to the side with the most miserable look on her face... I can see a battle inside of her, and I don't think she knows where to stand.

This is the sister who... had a rather heated discussion with me the other day. She was expounding what she believed to be a proper biblical principle with which she knew I wasn't in complete agreement (I don't find it helpful to argue, and I can be wrong; but I will voice my opinion... especially when cornered). In any case, the talk somehow turned to "the ministry", and while I was saying we need to refer to the Word of God as the true source for our understanding (and drew forth my Bible to emphasize it), she held forth her booklet from the video training in agreement. "That isn't the Word of God." I said. "I'm not so sure about that!" she rebutted... and then proceeded to elaborate with all the "life" she's gained from it. I couldn't believe it. How could I argue with her, if that is truly her position?

How many out there in the LSM churches believe that what WL/WN wrote was the Word of God? Don't they know that the Bible is written and complete? That it is as deadly a sin to take away from the Word as it is to add to it?

I'm praying for that sister; and I pray for all those who've allowed the ministry to bind their spiritual eyes. We all have a spirit, Saints.... and the Spirit speaks to each one.

Matthew 23:8-10 "But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ."

In Christ,

Neither First nor Last

Ohio · 01-19-2011, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

While not true of all of the brothers and sisters with whom I meet, I must confess it to be true of most (or an issue with which they are currently struggling); because it is the message that comes out of "the ministry". I've been fellowshipping with a sister who seems very conflicted. She is one who left during a later turmoil (Titus Chu, I think?)... but wound up coming back. Now, some days, she is 110% for LSM, and other Lord's Table meetings I see her sitting to the side with the most miserable look on her face... I can see a battle inside of her, and I don't think she knows where to stand.

One of the most troublesome things about church conflicts and quarantines, is that bad decisions are thrust upon the saints which they never should have to make.

Think about how ugly a divorce is for young children. They are often forced to decide between parents, because the immaturity of one or both parents demands it from the children. Imagine the long-term effects of being forced to make such a decision. Just take a look at the crimes in our society and you will see every day the bad fruit of such divorces. No child should ever be forced to make such a choice.

Nearly every LC was forced to decide for or against TC. Rare indeed was the eldership which said we need to make no decision, because "all are ours, and we are of none." (see I Cor 3.18-23) Who in the LC's even knows how to apply these verses? Concerning the TC Quarantine, "the Lord knows the reasoning of the wise, that they are vain." Whistler was 1,000% "the wisdom of this world," but the Lord says all these "reasonings are vain."

I'll never forget the words of one dear sister, whom many considered was not very "spiritual." She said, "this quarantine is a fight between two ministries, and it should NOT involve the churches." Such wise words were not even thought of by all the "wise" brothers.

Many saints today are just hapless victims which have become "double-souled." Families and homes have been split and divided, just collateral damage of ministry wars.

Oh Lord be merciful, we are yours, and yours alone.

Suannehill · 01-19-2011, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

One of the most troublesome things about church conflicts and quarantines, is that bad decisions are thrust upon the saints which they never should have to make...

Oh Lord be merciful, we are yours, and yours alone.

Thank you Ohio!
My phrase that I repeated over and over was, "Do not let someone else frame your choice then force you to make one...YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE ONE OR THE OTHER"
That, as much as anything else drove me away...
ah, there was a third choice.

TLFisher · 01-19-2011, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'll never forget the words of one dear sister, whom many considered was not very "spiritual." She said, "this quarantine is a fight between two ministries, and it should NOT involve the churches." Such wise words were not even thought of by all the "wise" brothers.

Wow brother! What words of a discerning sister! I echo what Suanne spoke, there was a third option.

Ohio · 01-19-2011, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suannehill

Thank you Ohio!

My phrase that I repeated over and over was, "Do not let someone else frame your choice then force you to make one ... YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE ONE OR THE OTHER"

That, as much as anything else drove me away ... ah, there was a third choice.

Grace to you Suannehill.

So many dear brothers got swept away by the first or second choice, thus only adding fuel to the fire. Would to God we had more sisters like you who could speak for the Lord! So many brothers that I had talked to said, "we must take a stand for the truth" which were code words for "we must side with TC."

I just hate that LSM would not let any saints have a third choice, saying to them often that "neutral you cannot be" and that nonsense about "natural affections, like honey, spoil the sacrifices."

Ohio · 01-19-2011, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Wow brother! What words of a discerning sister! I echo what Suanne spoke, there was a third option.

She is from a tiny church of a few saints, struggling to survive.

At this point I would encourage them to just attach themselves to a nearby congregation. "Standing on the ground of oneness," is just bogus theology.

Paul Cox · 01-20-2011, 05:26 PM

Hope,

We must be constantly reminded of the peek we got of Witness Lee at the 1980's meeting in Pasadena, wherein he stated that ever since the mid forties he had been looking over the whole earth and couldn't find another "Oracle" speaking for God. It was clear that he held grandiose visions of himself even way back then, no matter what type of kind ole uncle he would present at strategic times later on.

TLFisher · 02-15-2016, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

djohnson, my impression is that most folks view WL/LSM to one extreme or the other. For 30+ years, that's about all I knew. Inside the LC, no one dared to think negative....
How rare indeed to find someone with a "balanced" view, acknowledging the bad and appreciating the good.

It is rare to find within the local churches. It could be there are more than are willing to admit. I for one served for a few years with such a brother. One who even suggested "Indiana" should sue Ron Kangas over what was said in Ecuador.....
There's been desire by such a one for leading LSM coworkers to be deposed under oath.

TLFisher · 02-15-2016, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Did he just change over time, or was he merely wise? I am beginning to think the latter more than the former. I didn’t think so originally. He may not have set out to declare himself the apostle of the age, but I believe he had a personal vision much grander than Benson’s and he did what it took to get there. It is unfortunate that he centered on Christian work in his vision instead of just business. If he had not shrouded his businesses in non-profit cloaks, any shenanigans might have been caught early on. But everything got wrapped up in “the Lord’s work” and we all forgave his failings. But he did not lose anything on those ventures. His portion of the Daystar enterprise made some motor homes and sold them all to the venture that his followers invested in. And their venture funded and guaranteed Lee’s. He made out alright. Then he found a way to make the entire operation into a not-for-profit.

Was Living Stream Ministry a family business, a non profit corporation, or both for a while?

OBW · 02-16-2016, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Was Living Stream Ministry a family business, a non profit corporation, or both for a while?

I'm pretty sure that the LSM was always a non-profit. But as someone has noted, LSM started about the time of the Daystar demise and his move to Anaheim. Prior to that, the publisher was Stream Ministries or something like that. I have no idea about its status as for profit or non-profit.

Freedom · 02-16-2016, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm pretty sure that the LSM was always a non-profit. But as someone has noted, LSM started about the time of the Daystar demise and his move to Anaheim. Prior to that, the publisher was Stream Ministries or something like that. I have no idea about its status as for profit or non-profit.

The following are quotes I posted on the Sacrifice and Sail On thread some time ago (my emphasis in bold).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philip Lin

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

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

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

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

It is clear that WL's family benefited financially from his ministry. On the surface, maybe that doesn't necessarily concern most people. But my question is why his adult children were needing his support? Why did his family as a whole need so much support? It's stated that at one point LSM was "ragged and rough", so we could presume that there was a point in time where everyone in Lee's family realized that they needed to fend for themselves. Apparently this never happened. Apparently what LSM needed all along was "the hard work of Brother Philip Lee..."

Ohio · 02-16-2016, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Was Living Stream Ministry a family business, a non profit corporation, or both for a while?

When I read Ingalls' Speaking the Truth in Love, I was shocked that Lee's wife sat on the board.

TLFisher · 02-16-2016, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

It is clear that WL's family benefited financially from his ministry. On the surface, maybe that doesn't necessarily concern most people. But my question is why his adult children were needing his support? Why did his family as a whole need so much support? It's stated that at one point LSM was "ragged and rough", so we could presume that there was a point in time where everyone in Lee's family realized that they needed to fend for themselves. Apparently this never happened. Apparently what LSM needed all along was "the hard work of Brother Philip Lee..."

I think LSM should have deep gratitude towards Philip Lee for having established the standing order as I have been led to believe....it's his creation.

As to your question Freedom, allegedly Timothy Lee became a millionaire as a result of Daystar. Lee's other children wanted a piece of the pie too. With Philip working for LSM in Anaheim, who knows how many other Lee children worked for LSM whether in Anaheim or Taipei?
In the mid-80's/early 90's I had attended a conference in Anaheim where Witness Lee referenced his grandson who was going to medical school. How would he go to medical school without support?

HERn · 02-16-2016, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

I think LSM should have deep gratitude towards Philip Lee for having established the standing order as I have been led to believe....it's his creation.

As to your question Freedom, allegedly Timothy Lee became a millionaire as a result of Daystar. Lee's other children wanted a piece of the pie too. With Philip working for LSM in Anaheim, who knows how many other Lee children worked for LSM whether in Anaheim or Taipei?
In the mid-80's/early 90's I had attended a conference in Anaheim where Witness Lee referenced his grandson who was going to medical school. How would he go to medical school without support?

Anybody can go to med school with loans. I know that grandson and he dropped out of med school. We were in two localities together. He was such a piss-poor husband and dad that his wife divorced him. One of the elders called him a Jacob. I love his wife and children, but he is one of the reasons that I concluded that the recovery was b---s---.

HERn · 02-16-2016, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

Anybody can go to med school with loans. I know that grandson and he dropped out of med school. We were in two localities together. He was such a piss-poor husband and dad that his wife divorced him. One of the elders called him a Jacob. I love his wife and children, but he is one of the reasons that I concluded that the recovery was b---s---.

His oldest child married a baptist and meets with them. His middle I'm not sure about. His youngest I believe is gay. We all have family problems, but he was weird in that he was never home. He always took jobs that required him to live in another state. He knew the Ministry like the back of his hand. He was a leading one in our locality but never used his connection to WL in an outward way.

HERn · 02-16-2016, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

His oldest child married a baptist and meets with them. His middle I'm not sure about. His youngest I believe is gay. We all have family problems, but he was weird in that he was never home. He always took jobs that required him to live in another state. He knew the Ministry like the back of his hand. He was a leading one in our locality but never used his connection to WL in an outward way.

I am so glad that I have been Lee-free for almost 18 months!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TLFisher · 02-16-2016, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

He was such a piss-poor husband and dad that his wife divorced him. One of the elders called him a Jacob.

When a brother is for the ministry, speaks positively,

it doesn't matter to fellow brothers what the real situation at home is, they'll look just the other way. LCM barometer is the ministry. That's what brothers get measured by. A brother can be physically abusive, verbally abusive, or even a substance abuser. Just as long as he's positive for the ministry, the rest doesn't matter.....The ends justifies the means.

TLFisher · 02-21-2016, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

And since there is some evidence of a similar pattern in Taiwan, even accepting some desire to turn over a new leaf in the US only lasts so long when things like Daystar were already underway in 1971. (I actually did not realize that Daystar was already 2 years underway when we came along. So they were looking for more money in 73 and my Dad lost a little as a result. I have no idea how much, but while we were comfortable, we were far from wealthy. Any loss was felt, at least by my Dad.)

Perhaps the reports that came out of Taiwan was very much who Witness Lee was in his flesh.
I have reconsidered "early Lee" and there's much to what everyone has said. Those who met Witness Lee in the 1960's, I believe Lee realized the sinfulness of his greed. During that time he did not seem to be surrounded by personalities that would enable his defect. It wasn't until the alleged report of a brother wanting to know what to do with the great sum of inheritance received. Thus the birth of Daystar. (See page 7 of the attached pdf What Deputy Authority Is Not)
Also included was the testimony of Brent Barber from thebereans.net Steve Isitt incorporated into the attached article.

Brent Barber: “Lee was guilty of many botched financial schemes that went sour. They were promoted in meetings. The "church" always strongly suggested that no one should seek any reimbursement. Some were incensed enough to get receipts. Most were intimidated into taking a big bath. There were several who lost everything in these deals that were sold in the meetings. Anyone remember the tennis racket factory? That one is hilarious. I think it was called ‘Delta. Get this. A hurricane destroyed the factory after Lee had gotten everyone to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars. I remember this one well because we had to cart around dozens of boxes of unsellable tennis rackets every time we moved...
On a strictly business level, they were simply bad investments. You play, you pay. But there was a whole different dimension to these investments in that they were being personally pitched by Lee and there was a suggestion this was for the Lord's way. One "elder" in OKC was still paying for his investment in Daystar in the late 80's, about 15 years after it quickly went belly up. He took out a big loan and was in hock ever since. Despite being an ‘elder,’
whenever he talked about that episode, he got red under the collar. A lot of people got burned.

My mom has told me about suits, jewelry, tons of import stuff. One time when she was washing the cup for the Lord’s Table she happened to walk into the kitchen where Lee was all wound up in a sales pitch to someone. She was shocked because he was a totally different person. According to her, he was unrecognizable and had a different personality when he was discussing money. When Lee saw her, he jumped a foot into the air and shut up.”

Seems as much as spiritual Witness Lee tried to be, he could never quite overcome his sinful nature, but with Living Stream Ministry there was a way to satisfy both ambitions.

OBW · 02-22-2016, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

I have reconsidered "early Lee" and there's much to what everyone has said. Those who met Witness Lee in the 1960's, I believe Lee realized the sinfulness of his greed. During that time he did not seem to be surrounded by personalities that would enable his defect. It wasn't until the alleged report of a brother wanting to know what to do with the great sum of inheritance received. Thus the birth of Daystar.

(The "quote" button did not work.)

Terry. While I understand your view in a general way, and don't completely discount it, the side of the MOTA was ingrained in Nee's theology and teachings, and though not visible to us Americans, was probably inevitable.

Some have suggested that Lee orchestrated Daystar and some other things to slowly gain control. I might agree on some of the things like encouraging the crazy conferences of the mid-late 70s that allowed him to point fingers (at the people he set up to take the fall). People like Max R.

Yet I can accept that maybe he did repent of his business issues, yet still fell right back into them when things were ripe for it.

But everything is not just like everything else. Even granting that Daystar was not simply SOP, working toward MOTA probably was. And even without Daystar, I think that most of us would still be right here singing this song about the errors of Lee. It is obvious that Daystar didn't drive hardly any of us out. Most of us that were here then were still around years after it was almost forgotten.

But the fluid rules that underpinned Lee's theology were not something he didn't already know. He knew he was going toward Deputy Authority. And there was always going to be the one who was the most spiritual in any room. And it was always going to be Lee. He just couldn't spring that one on us so early.

aron · 02-22-2016, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Perhaps the reports that came out of Taiwan was very much who Witness Lee was in his flesh..

He was in his flesh until the day he died. We all are. Anyone who thinks they have passed the riven veil is most deluded; those who presume to hold, instead hold nothing.

Somehow Lee was supposed to be "transformed" past the flesh. Past the soul. All spirit, all the time. What a con job.

Yes we are also "in Christ". Yes we can say to be "in the Spirit/spirit on the Lord's day." But to presume some 24/7 exalted state is delusional. Flesh hovers, lurks. It is there. You can say, "I have crucified my flesh" but 48 seconds later you are "satan", opposing God, or forgetting God.

Our faith is not in our transformation, it is in the One who is before us. He has passed the riven veil, forever.

HERn · 02-22-2016, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

He was in his flesh until the day he died. We all are. Anyone who thinks they have passed the riven veil is most deluded; those who presume to hold, instead hold nothing.

Somehow Lee was supposed to be "transformed" past the flesh. Past the soul. All spirit, all the time. What a con job.

That is so true. How can anyone claim to have gone beyond the apostles Paul and John. Not a hint of meglomania from them or the church fathers who followed them.

TLFisher · 02-23-2016, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Somehow Lee was supposed to be "transformed" past the flesh. Past the soul. All spirit, all the time. What a con job.

Yes we are also "in Christ". Yes we can say to be "in the Spirit/spirit on the Lord's day." But to presume some 24/7 exalted state is delusional. Flesh hovers, lurks. It is there. You can say, "I have crucified my flesh" but 48 seconds later you are "satan", opposing God, or forgetting God.

Our faith is not in our transformation, it is in the One who is before us. He has passed the riven veil, forever.

The blendeds promoted and promote he was perfected...all spirit all the time, but as some have said on this fourm in different ways to flourish in the local churches, you've got to provide a mask for your soulish nature. For Witness Lee, it was the image projected from the pulpit.

aron · 02-29-2016, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hope

I first met WL in the early Spring of 1966. He came to Waco, Texas where 12 or so young people were meeting as the church in Waco. He came again in 1968. During that stay, he came to my wife's and my little one room efficiency apartment. We invited one of the college students, Bob Soroosh, to join us for a simple supper. ... Brother Lee was not the least bit intimidating. Brother Lee showed great love and toleration toward Bob, my wife and myself. This is the image of Witness Lee that always comes first to my mind.

During this same time, Benson and I had a lunch with Brother Lee and an older bachelor man from Waco. He had been visiting some of our meetings and came to hear Brother Lee. Brother Lee showed him much respect and engaged him in fellowship. Afterwards he told Benson and I that the brother was surely a man of spiritual depth and was very complementary of him.

As I 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. Publicly he enjoyed stirring the pot and poking his thumb in the eye of official Christianity. When challenged on any level, public or private, he way over reacted, and a fight was surely on.

I have a hard time believing he was so complicated to have come up with a method of teaching and behavior in order to create a system for enriching himself or enshrining himself as an uncontested, anointed, God-man, who was God’s man of faith and power for this hour. But it did happen! How he, the local churches, the so called “recovery” got from that simple meal in a one room efficiency with three young people to La Palma headquarters is quite a story.

We in the west initially rejoiced that the Chinese were becoming more Christian, but we didn't see that simultaneously Christianity was becoming more Chinese. This is probably no different from the Greeks, the so-called Hellenists of Acts 2 and 6, importing their culture into a Jewish religious off-shoot, the Jesus-followers, called the Way. Look at the struggles Paul had with gentile and Jewish cultures! Or, for that matter, 19th century Europeans and Americans simultaneously bringing Western ways of thinking and organizational structures with their gospel to China, Africa, and elsewhere.

In the Case of Witness Lee, people got a humble, self-effacing man, deeply spiritual, who quietly harbored oriental ideas of despotism, lack of transparency, and non-accountability: the so-called Deputy Authority teaching, with its corollaries of "all churches must be absolutely identical", and "get in line, know who is ahead of you" and "we must not question God's oracle", and so forth. All of this cultural baggage was already there; just not yet evident.

Culture comes with humanity. This particular culture was so well-developed, and ingrained into its purveyors, that it often wasn't evident until it asphyxiated its new hosts. Even then some of them couldn't, or wouldn't, see the elephant in the room.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent Barber

I know that he [James Barber] 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.

04-01-2009, 12:32 PM	#2
djohnson Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	Re: This is the Witness Lee that I remember Did anyone really know Lee? What really did anyone know about him in America except he was a coworker of Watchman Nee? He was taken at face value and his history was taken as the history of the Little Flock movement (of course with him and Nee at the center.) How many brothers and sisters did he have? What were his parents and family life like when he was growing up? What school did he go to? What college if any did he go to? Did he grow up in poverty? What was he like as a father, husband, friend etc? What were his financial dealings in the name of the "Lord's work" prior to coming to America? etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc Did anyone even bother to somehow attempt at verifying his claim that Nee essentially passed the mantle on to him to the exclusion of Simon Meek, Faithful Luke, Stephen Kaung etc. When he started bad mouthing TAS in America did any American leader in his movement go directly to TAS and ask him about his version of events? If so who did it and what was the outcome? __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

04-01-2009, 12:36 PM	#3
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: This is the Witness Lee that I remember Don, I can accept your observation for what it is, a truthful observation at a point it time. But it must be noted that at some level, Lee was an outsider in 1966. He had not yet become of prominence to be what he eventually was. Even if not his intent, he would surely know that a bunch of Americans were not going to put up with an unknown Chinaman coming among them and being discourteous or condescending to what were essentially complete strangers. But that was not the demeanor of the man who refused to even listen to John Ingalls in private, or listen to complaints about the LSM office dictating local church activities, which I note you stood up to do and were effectively rebuffed by an unceremonious termination of the elders meeting. It was not the man who spoke of having spies who saw a rebellion and allowed those words to be published. It was not the man who sort of like being exalted. So we can ignore the evidence from the 50s. We can ignore Daystar, and the robbery of the savings of young people (probably not his direct doing anyway). Ignore the lawsuits. Ignore the words he spoke in which he indirectly called himself THE APOSTLE of the age. (Neither of us were around for that.) Did he just change over time, or was he merely wise? I am beginning to think the latter more than the former. I didn’t think so originally. He may not have set out to declare himself the apostle of the age, but I believe he had a personal vision much grander than Benson’s and he did what it took to get there. It is unfortunate that he centered on Christian work in his vision instead of just business. If he had not shrouded his businesses in non-profit cloaks, any shenanigans might have been caught early on. But everything got wrapped up in “the Lord’s work” and we all forgave his failings. But he did not lose anything on those ventures. His portion of the Daystar enterprise made some motor homes and sold them all to the venture that his followers invested in. And their venture funded and guaranteed Lee’s. He made out alright. Then he found a way to make the entire operation into a not-for-profit. My Dad was over for a few hours on Saturday. I kept from talking about the LC. But I was on the verge of asking him whether there was any real draw other than the 35+ years of friendships that would be lost. Seeing his mental emotional condition at this time, I think the answer would have to be “no” even if he didn’t want to say it. I mention this because even after the things you’ve been through with the LSM and the now-BBs, I understand that it is hard to admit that you could have been that wrong for so long. I now believe that I was and that the LC was. It wasn’t your fault, or that of so many other normal local brothers and sisters. But there was already termites eating at its frame before any of us realized that the walls were crumbling. The condition of the LC, both now and even during Lee’s reign, are testimonies that there is and was something wrong. I believe it began with the man who put it in motion. That would be Lee. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-01-2009, 07:29 PM	#7
Hope Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Durham, North Carolina Posts: 313	Re: This is the Witness Lee that I remember Dear Forum, Can we really know the heart of a man? The most common psychological dysfunction or defense mechanism is projection. A person projects an opinion or view onto another. The final outcome of a person’s life is seldom determined by their beginning. The Past is not necessarily Prologue. Of course the past can certainly influence the present. From my early days in the local churches there were many myths and endless genealogies. I have heard many adventure tales regarding Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. I have heard oft repeated details of who knew who when and who spent time with whom and what was this one’s spiritual pedigree etc. Among believers there is always a lot of hagiography. In the same vein there is often a lot of diatribe. I prefer to take the approach of the early Apostles. They reported “what they had seen and heard.” What I would expect from you all and intend to do myself also is to critically examine a report and seek to determine if it is reasonable. Are there any confirming witnesses? Is it consistent? Etc. With any and every Christian leader their life must match their teaching. When it does, we should recognize it. When it does not then they should be held accountable. We are admonished to examine everything carefully. 1 Thess 5:20-22, do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil. NASB I have always expected whatever I write here to be examined carefully and I examine what I read here carefully. Thank you all for being patient with this brother in Christ Jesus. Hope

04-02-2009, 08:23 AM	#10
Hope Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Durham, North Carolina Posts: 313	Re: This is the Witness Lee that I remember Hello Mike, I always get a lot out of your posts. Do you just fire them off? How could that be since you are full of good points and thoughts? Do you really have a job or is that just part of your cover? Actually, I have had a couple of appointment cancel this AM, and have decided to log in to the forum. I have a few thoughts in response to your post. I may be a little philosophical but it is important to establish our base from which we will discuss various observations and positions. Regarding seeking to understand WL based on his history in China, Taiwan etc. Very valid. But on the other hand the greatest prophet, Elijah, has no background history except that he was from the tiny village of Tishbah on the wrong side of the Jordan. Yet we have a very complete early history of Moses. Paul was not joking when he declared, 1 Tim 1:3-6, As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus, in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, NASB I have learned to take a big grain of salt regarding the tall tales of dragons that come out of China. Same if they are pro WL or anti WL. I have heard the same stories told from very different angles. One side portrays WL as the key co-worker of WN who was commissioned and sent out to carry out and preserve their work. The other side portrays WL as a fearful man who wanted to escape the persecution of the communists. In addition, WN allegedly warned them of WL and his strong natural disposition and dominating tendencies. One side portrays the imprisonment of WL by the Japanese as a cruel ordeal through which the Lord miraculously preserved dear brother Lee for the great work he was destined to carry out. The other side tells another tale. The Japanese held him until bribes etc were paid by members of the church. Brother Lee had a dream while in prison which was regarding his future ministry. In 1975, he told some of us that the work in Anaheim would be the fulfillment of the dream. (On another occasion, I will share the dream.) Yet, Anaheim did not work out at all the way WL portrayed it to us according to his dream. I have heard the “chariots of fire,” stories. I have heard the elders coming to town in a fleet of flying saucers stories. If you are pro LSM, the “chariots of fire,” tales are accurate and God’s vindication. If you are anti-LSM and can claim you have been hurt, then the flying saucer stories are okay. Once upon a time, I was a three sport athlete. I attended college on an athletic scholarship. On some rare occasions some of the old players get together. How interesting as to which set of memories are rehashed. Once I made two miraculous touchdown catches, (the real truth not an exaggeration.) On another occasion I dropped a pass in the end zone. I was wide open and it hit me in the hands right in stride. As a result we lost the championship game. I talk up the former not the latter. One of my Baylor baseball buddies, Don Looper, liked to talk about the time he was Five for five against Texas A&M. He never brought up the time that his throwing error on a simple routine play cost us a game against the Uni. Of Texas and consequently allowed them to tie us for the conference championship and we were denied the chance to go to the College World Series. We humans are that way. We do remember and report history with a personal bias. By the way, I never reminded him of that dark day. But I do agree that we need background research in order to grasp some aspects of our history. Just remember, Solomon had his good points and his bad points. Both are recorded in the Bible. Oh that we could be as fair as the Bible. Hope

04-02-2009, 11:06 AM	#11
djohnson Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	Re: This is the Witness Lee that I remember Actually I think people at least on this forum seem be a lot smarter than to think in extremes i.e. Lee was all good or all bad. Obviously he was both. But since the LSM propaganda machine runs 24/7 praising and glorifying Lee and how great he was and since they have littered the web with endless sites about their idol I don't think it's really that necessary for anyone else to do so. Instead we need a forum like this is discuss the other side of the situation i.e. to explode the mythmaking. __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

04-02-2009, 06:35 AM	#8
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: This is the Witness Lee that I remember I interviewed for a job about a month ago. I met with 5 different people at this company over a 3-1/2 hour period. When it was over, I had an impression about them. The following week, there was a one month project that my current employer was doing at that very company and I was assigned to it. So for one month got to observe some of the workings of these very people. What I now understand is very different from what I originally saw. The top boss seemed very driven, but also seemed to be a very likeable person. Since then I have learned that he often simply “goes off” on people over small things. It seems that one of the others is looking for a way to get another of the people I interviewed with fired. Now I’m sure that a lot about our personalities and even how we grow is nurture and not just nature. But just because one observes one thing at one point in time does not mean that something observed later did not exist even before the first observation. In the case of Lee, I point back to Taiwan and even China because there are signs that what was presented in the 60s may not have been a complete representation of what was already there. I know I never like to admit that I could have been wrong. But when I learn something that I could not have known at the time but that was already true, I simply have to accept my error. While I do not say that Lee’s demeanor in 1966 was completely false, it now appears that it was not a complete and open display of what was already in existence. Was this an attempt to fool you? We can’t say. But even if it was an honest attempt to change back to what he realized he should be, we now know that there was already a history. Alcoholics sometimes get “on the wagon” for a while and can put on the face of succeeding at being rid of their addiction. If you never knew of their addiction, you might think they were the epitome of upright society. But if they fall back into drunkenness, you can think it is a new thing, but if it really is not, then you are deceived. It is not your fault. But the deception, whether or not intentional is very real. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-02-2009, 12:12 PM	#12
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: This is the Witness Lee that I remember Don, You may notice that I have only been posting sporadically for some time. I also have a job. And until yesterday, I was so busy that I sometimes only had time to look a the posts quickly and decide that others had said enough. (And even when I post, they probably already have said enough.) It is in my nature to sit by unobtrusively until I see/hear something that seems incomplete, inaccurate, needs clarification, etc., then I spring to action. I'm sure that it seems like I think pretty highly of my own thoughts. While I'm sure we all do, I'm willing to accept that I am quite fallible. And when my ideas are shot-down, it is what it is. Unfortunately, I think through things in a linear fashion, seldom jumping from issue to conclusion. What I write is often so long because I take everyone through my thought process. Then I edit the heck out of it. So if I'm busy at work, it doesn't happen. I'm hoping that you caught early on that my comments in this particular series were not meant to disparage you or your observations, but to note that we too often cannot know everything. You have further added that even where we think we know more, unless we have absolute knowledge, we cannot claim absolute certainty concerning what we think as a result of our knowledge. That means that what we can determine for certain is essentially nothing. Neither the stories from Taiwan and China, nor the descriptions by you, Francis Ball, and those who had direct run-ins with Lee describes the whole man. What was driving each encounter cannot be known. Yet when I back away, I begin to see a pattern that would tend to make me wary of accepting Lee as a significant voice from God instead of something else. What that something else is/was may not be clear, but I begin to see too many "oh no's" to just let it slide. That is my point of reference. In any case, I'm glad to see you back on the forum. Your perspective, even if not always what we want to hear, is not otherwise easily found in first person. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-07-2009, 06:42 PM	#20
IDon'tKnow Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 67	Re: SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee I think something to consider when considering early Lee and later Lee is the matter of the minister of the age. More specifically Witness Lee believed he was the Minister of the Age and that this was his position within the Body. An interesting thing to note is that when we are functioning in the Body in the measure that we are supposed to our yoke should be easy and our burden should be light. This should be because when we are our correct position we are yoked to the Lord, He is also yoked to us thus we find that we do not need to work by our flesh to function. If we attempt to assume a position within the Body which is not our own then it is reasonable to assume that we will find ourselves with heavy burdens. We are not properly yoked and we will inevitably find that if we want to maintain our position we will inevitably have to exercise self effort. What I'm saying is that when we are accepting our proper God appointed position we can comfortably live by faith knowing that the Lord will take care of everything. When we seek to go above our position we can no longer have faith that Lord will take care of everything (Actually I think we can have faith in this so long as we accept that his taking care of things means returning ourselves to our rightful position), we have to work to maintain our position. Ergo when we are in our rightful position in the Body when something like Daystar goes belly up we can repent of wrong doing and trust that however it turns out (whether we are able to gather the money to rectify things or not) it will be according to His plan and we need not be anxious over it, If we are not in our proper position we must deal with the problem any way we can whether or not that involves performing more shady actions. When we are in our proper place we know that when others speak evilly of us we are blessed, When we are not we must sue them to shut their mouth. When we are in our place we can trust that when we minister whether or not what we minister will be received either wholly or in part is in the Lord's hands, When we are not we must force the brother's to take our ministry in spite of any leading from the Lord. I believe that this would be the major reason for most of the problems. I also believe that this trait became more manifest as time went on because at the end I believe he saw that in many respects his ministry had failed. He supposedly was releasing the high peak of the divine revelation but the recovery itself was having little increase and was stagnating. At this point he needed to work hard to prove that He truly had been the minister of the age.

04-12-2009, 07:24 PM	#24
IDon'tKnow Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 67	Re: SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee Can I simply state what I believe is the importance of understanding Witness Lee. To me it is important to understand him because I refuse to believe that he was some kind of conman simply out to lord it over and lie off the saints. Why? because I believe that would be too easy. If I say this I don't have to recognize that he was one who was zealous to study the word, pray, and in general pursue the Lord. And as such I don't have to face the fact that I can very well fall into the same error if I am not careful. For my part I believe that the main cause of error on Witness Lee's part was that he (this is speculation on my part) probably wanted to do great things for the Lord and His move more than he wanted great things for the Lord and His move. I believe that one of the things which is required of us to be greatly used by the the Lord is a willingness to only moderately used by the Lord. If we are not willing to be the one talenter I do not believe we are qualified to be a five or two talented one.

04-30-2009, 06:40 AM	#26
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee First, I think that IDon’tKnow has reasonably questioned the reason for the apparent differences in “Early Lee” and “Later Lee.” This is in response to the posts currently flooding ABrotherINChrist’s blog. I know that I would rather any lengthy discussion be moved outside of my blog, keeping the blog for my posts and somewhat brief one-off responses. There are two views of Early Lee (EL) v Later Lee (LL). And they depend on whether you look exclusively from the perspective of the US or you look back to Taiwan, and even China, and reject Lee’s excessively sanitized version of history in favor of the ones that suggest that he had effectively been kicked out of Taiwan when he came to America. But even looking at it from the perspective that there was nothing before the US, I see problems. First, there is a telling phrase in Hope’s post #19 (in ABC’s blog). “trying to be God's best in God's move on earth today” It says a lot. Maybe Lee did not actually orchestrate the burnings and other crazy things like the green and white pom-poms in that conference in Dallas in 73, or the rest of the craziness of what was called the “pots and pans” era. Maybe the first orchestrations were indirect when Max was sent out with a vague mission. But where did the ideas of being “God’s best” and “God’s move on earth today” come from? Did a bunch of crazy people come up with these? Or did these help create a bunch of crazy people? After creating these crazy people, did standing by as they did crazier and crazier things help them become more grounded, or did it reinforce the craziness? Hope, I fully accept that you are giving what is probably one of the more accurate accounts, at least from what could be seen from Texas. But by ignoring what is reported as having happened before the US, are we incorrectly assuming that Lee’s diminutive stature and appearance as a bystander are not just part of that “inscrutable” nature of the Chinese, as even Lee called it, and that rather than holding strings of puppets, he was holding a few strings attached to a large net? I like the picture of a net. If you have a net and pull just a little at one place, there is not much movement, but it fans out in many directions. It may be more subtle, but it is every bit as effective as that single string attached to the hand of the marionette. What I am suggesting is that Lee did not hold puppet strings of control in the 60s and early 70s. But he did hold a small string on “God’s best” and “God’s move.” He pulled gently on a string concerning idols that, while not entirely incorrect, made our non-Christ distractions into huge issues. That string started a chain reaction of net strings moving around. Somewhere out in the net was a message about the burning of the occult books and objects. The fires were kindled. Did Lee orchestrate burnings, especially of such personal things, to control people? No. But did every action taken to be unique relative to the rest of Christianity, and to have a higher and purer stance (real or imagined) just fuel a craziness that put us more and more in the mindset to believe anything that Lee said, and to do anything he wanted, and to buy every word he spoke and printed? Whether it was intentional or just happened, control does not occur overnight. There is no spell that is cast in one meeting. The kind of control that happened takes time. One of the strongest battle cries of the LC is the claim that every denomination is saying they are of someone, or have some kind of name. But 400+ of the leaders signed a statement of allegiance to Lee. You may have been one of them. At least from what I recall of this discussion before, even in your reluctance and troubled mind, you may have been persuaded to go along. I am not pointing a finger at you. You are just a picture of what happened to us all. If you were unable to simply stand and say “this is wrong” then even your reluctance, and even if you did not sign, your own account suggests that there was still a significant fog. And his grip just got tighter and tighter as the years went by. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-30-2009, 09:54 AM	#27
Hope Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Durham, North Carolina Posts: 313	Re: SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee Greetings dear Brother OBW, As per usual you have raised many thoughtful considerations. But in your analysis as well as nearly all of the attempts to find the common thread in Nee and Lees actions the key element is missed. Nee introduced his concept of "The Work." The Work was a parallel entity to the local church. Lee could kick out workers from the workers home because he was the head worker. As the head worker he could un appoint elders and solicit oaths of loyalty. Nee did the same type of things in China. At the same time they could proclaim that there was no "Church" hierarchy but that every church was "local" and each answered to the Lord. I believe hymn #824 in "Hymns" declares this. The hymn was written by WL himself. Originally in the USA, there was really no "Work" but rather a spontaneous happening in many places and in many ways. Among many Christians there was the conviction that the Lord was doing something new and fresh. The local churches were not unique in wanting to be at the forefront of whatever the Lord was in the process of doing. In my opinion, the development in the USA of "the Work" killed the genuine and spontaneous move of the Spirit among the local churches. If I am led to continue my history, I will develop this. I know that WL had some conviction to get away from his practice of "the Work." In addition the churches in Taiwan were very regulated. He wanted to get away from that. I heard him express many times that he wanted to have a new start in the USA. He told us in 1967 as he was organizing the trip to visit the churches in Taiwan that he hoped we could bring in freshness and breakdown their old dead practices. As the LSM and "the Work" developed in the USA things were always murky. WL believed he should have very strict control over "the Work." This was a key element of the "Deputy Authority" notions and practices. Yet we had a lot of teaching and truth about the "local" church and the direct headship of Christ to the local church and to each individual member. These really cannot co-exit. One has to go. In the case of the LSM, WL and the BBs, the independence of the "local" church went by the wayside. It was when I finally realized that I must cling to the truth of the church, the Body of Christ, that I begin to see the error of "the Work." The loyalty pledge was actually a pledge to follow WL as the lead Co-Worker. My big problem was the push to get the brothers at the meeting to sign off as elders. In addition, I had a check in my spirit from ever commiting to the LSM work. I knew in my spirit that something was very wrong but was foggy at the time due to the confusion of "the Work" vs the church. Of course I was confused since there is no such thing as a parallel entity "the Work" in addition to the church. I disagree that every random and crazy action can be fitted into an overall scheme masterminded by WL. Some things just happened, such as the pom poms at the conference in 1973. The key events involved the ascendancy of the "work" over the church and over the members of the Body of Christ. Your Brother in Christ Jesus, Hope

04-30-2009, 12:40 PM	#28
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee Hope, I will start at the end because it is easy. If I seemed to be saying that the craziness was part of a masterminded, that was not my intent. But allowing whatever happened to run its course can have an effect that might be useful, or turn out to the benefit of whoever is trying to gain control. If I am constantly being chided by getting it wrong ─ first getting rid of my nice car, then being told that I spend too much time keeping an old one running; or running along for a few months doing crazy things just be “versus religion” or more accurately to be different ─ one of two things will happen. I will either get tired of the runaround and leave, or I will decide that I am a foolish sheep that needs someone to straighten me out. (This is clearly an over simplified analysis.) So what comes next? Migrate out. Move all over the country thinning ourselves out. Write songs about it. Then a year later consolidate to be strengthened with numbers. Even if the last paring ends in the way it does for the logical reason, the constant shifting has its effect. We talked about “new turns” almost biannually. You either become immersed or you leave. Those who stay will do anything. Did Lee orchestrate it? Probably not. Did he watch it set things in motion? Could be. You refer to Lee’s view of parallel items of the work and the church. Yet your own account of his desire to control the work while being hands off with respect to the church suggests a problem with the latter. That problem is where the line was between the two parallel items. I note that among the earliest talks that you or George gave in Dallas that I heard concerned the “hireling.” This was juxtaposed against the typical Christian system of needing a pastor, music director, or whatever, and going out to hire one who would stay until either they got a better offer or the board of elders/deacons (whichever the particular church had) voted him out. But an elder was supposed to be part of the flock, even from the flock in human terms. And when I read Paul’s accounts to Timothy and Titus concerning the character and duties of the elder, I see someone who is concerned with the well-being of the flock. He is not concerned with something external, like a ministry, although he may help to identify ministries that are helpful and those that are not. But if the elder is answerable to a person whose existence is an external ministry, even if somehow the only legitimate ministry, then his position with respect to the flock, the assembly, becomes that of a hireling. And even if Lee said out loud that he had no intent to control any church, when his ministry office, an organization, and even person (his son), of which he should have knowledge of its workings, requires that assemblies ─ the parallel item that is not the ministry and is not under his control ─ buy a predetermined amount of LSM materials, who does he think is actually being asked to make those purchases? Unless a church is stockpiling excess materials in a back room, or burning the excess for heat and power, they must push it on their membership. And if someone is sent from the LSM, the FTTA, or whatever, from afar to be, among other things, and elder, or even just a “coworker” who is required to be subsidized by the local assembly, has the line not been crossed? Last, there is something telling in your account first of Lee wanting to get away from the practice of “the Work” yet believing he should have strict control over it, and second, the almost Jekyll and Hyde coexistence of the ministry and the church. Speaking strictly to the latter, while I must say that there were many positive things about being in the Local Church versus the AOG where I was before, those positive things had to do mostly with the opening of the word. But at the same time, there were already the beginnings of things in that opening that were off the mark. It was the desire of local brothers and sisters, like yourself, that these positives flourished as long as they did. Despite the way things had become, even in Irving, we were not having the kinds of contentious meetings that happened in Anaheim. What I am seeing now is that Lee’s focus was not the church, but the ministry. But without the Local Church, he couldn’t survive on the ministry. It had to remain loyal to him. But rather than give good sound teaching, he constantly had “push the envelope” teaching. He intentionally stirred up the saints against Christianity. Somewhere behind a wall is a kitchen. It continually turns out food for the people who live nearby. They have grown used to its flavors and actually despise the normal entrees available at the local Italian place and the Tex-Mex place, the burger joint, etc. They keep being told that the other food will poison them. But what they do not see is that the kitchen is not even up to health standards of a small village in a third world country, and the ingredients include whatever has been scraped off the nearby highway. (While I never saw it, there was a movie in 1973 called “Soylent Green” that concerned the discovery of the ingredients in this all-important foodstuff in a futuristic, overpopulated earth.) Now I cannot say that what we were taught was entirely drivel and the equivalent of road kill. But when you add in the “push the envelope” teachings, like becoming God, and the control issues, it might be that a significant ingredient was a spiritual equivalent. And when the “taste” of the members of the assemblies turns to the output from the darkest part of the whole combined organization, you have to wonder if we were all infected with an illness that altered our taste buds to miss the sour taste. No, you are correct that there is no overwhelmingly clear evidence that Lee had a plan before coming to America. But even if that is true, the very history of the churches in the US and Lee’s history of double purposes, like making money, first through secular business ventures then through a non-profit, and becoming the revered and followed leader that Paul told the Corinthians to quit following exclusively and in a sectarian manner, suggests that Lee’s heart was not pure from a fairly early point, if not the beginning. He had mixed motives. He may have believed every teaching he espoused, even the rotten ones. But I’m not sure it was ever just about the ministry or the churches. It was about him. In his early meekness he rose in our estimation. If that was intended, his method was wise, because a foreigner coming in to assert himself as superior to the whole of the US, or at least Western teachers would have gone over like a lead balloon. But having gained that estimation, he could rise further through his demonstration of superior knowledge, which lead to him begin to suggest superiority in his demeanor, then in his sideways talking about the ministry and the one who brings it (and other similar sayings). Now the BBs have simply made the bold declarations “oracle of God,” “acting God” and the like. I can almost hear Benson’s voice saying “our Brother Lee.” Lee is their “Brother Lee.” While I do not deny him salvation, he is not “my Brother Lee” in the way Benson would say it. You are providing what is probably one of the most objective analyses of events possible. While there is no way to state that the roughly 30 year history of Lee in the US could be distilled to A caused B which caused C which cased D, etc., patterns are immerging. Surely the potential for ambition in others, such as Benson, Ron, Ray, Max, and many others had an influence on how it all played out. But it is clear that the oracle of God, the acting God, the apostle of the age, etc, was not just duped by these others. All the trouble cannot be exlcusively the result of his trusted inner circle and he be essentially free of responsibility. Things like the speaking/writing of Fermentation are not products of the oracle of God, therefore the very claim must be false. And if he was reaching for such a title ( even sort of, like sort of liking to be exalted) then he was false. And since there is some evidence of a similar pattern in Taiwan, even accepting some desire to turn over a new leaf in the US only lasts so long when things like Daystar were already underway in 1971. (I actually did not realize that Daystar was already 2 years underway when we came along. So they were looking for more money in 73 and my Dad lost a little as a result. I have no idea how much, but while we were comfortable, we were far from wealthy. Any loss was felt, at least by my Dad.) __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-30-2009, 01:16 PM	#29
Hope Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Durham, North Carolina Posts: 313	Re: Memories of early days Just one or two more things about the crazy, wacky early days. Frankly, during the late 60s and early 70s I never laughed so much and never had so much fun. In Dallas for several years, my wife and I had single brothers live with us. We had a blast. My two boys still talk about the great times they had wrestling and rough housing with the brothers as well as the healthy mentoring they provided. In our home, every now and then I would need to give a show of strength and maintain my alpha male role in the pack. The young single men liked to try and take me on. (Now keep in mind that I am at this time an elder and occasional conference speaker.) We did not scuffle but I would be challenged to feats of strength and or endurance. Unfortunately, they would talk to other young brothers and occasionally a young brother would come over and challenge ole Don. Poor guy. Sorry, Mike, OBW you never had the chance to take me on. At any rate, I was only 5’11” but weighed 210 lbs with a 28 inch waist. (But no longer. Sigh.) I had grown up a little like a mountain man but in the bottoms of the Mississippi river. At that time in Dallas, I did a 15 minute exercise routine each morning which became a little famous. No one else could complete it. Young brothers would challenge the ole lion. The only person to ever complete the set was Gary C. As he finished, he fell to the floor and began to throw up all over the floor. All the other brothers broke into gales of laughter. He told us he could hardly walk for three days. I immediately followed him, finished the set and walked up to the kitchen had a glass of milk and large piece of pie. How come no one ever tells about the crazy fun things we did in those days. In the Eldon days on Mondays during a conference/training we would have a fun day. We went to the beach and body surfed. We went to Disney land. Once some of us brothers went to muscle beach. What a hoot!! In L.A. during a couple of free times, I happened to be invited to a park to play a little soft ball and enjoy a picnic. I let the others cajole me into playing a little ball. Ho, ho, ho. I was not above showing off. Again we had a great time. Once at the beach, some Southern California brothers challenged me to a little swimming contest. (They thought I was from the plains of Texas. Now what they did not know was that as I had grown up in the river bottoms of East Arkansas and you needed to be a strong swimmer. I never was foolish enough to take on the mighty Mississippi during spring floods but on one occasion I swam a smaller river from one set of breaks to the next, a little over 1`.5 miles, then ate a sandwich, and raced a dozen or so boys over the same distance. Whew, that was tough.) Well anyway after beating them badly they decided to gain up on me and hold me under the water and gain a little revenge. (Young men are known to do such things.) But alas they had to learn the hard way that I was raised in a cane break by on old mama lion. We had a ball. Got home late and missed the meeting. But no big deal. We had a great morning watch the next day and loved the Lord just as much as before. My host just shook his head with a wry smile on his face and mumbled “single brothers!” We all had another good laugh. In Houston, I helped several people move. It was always one big session of laughing, joking and good fun. Some to the brothers who lived with me were very good with the guitar. I had a great time setting around and singing and singing and singing. When I think about the early days, these are the kind of things that dominate my memory, not a woman burning her baby's photos. Am I the only one who had a little fun and has some fond memories? Your Brother in Christ Jesus, Hope Last edited by Hope; 04-30-2009 at 01:21 PM. Reason: spelling

04-30-2009, 02:06 PM	#30
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee Too bad those "fun days" had already vanished by the time of the Anaheim trainings. I think I missed the last meeting one time to get a start on the road home and had to consider that I might not get to go the next time because of it. Of course, I was headstrong enough not to worry about it. I'm convinced that it was the people that made the good side what it was at any time. And it was much easier in the early days. Today, I have had to bite my tongue on occasion to not ask my Dad what, besides 36 years of familiarity, keeps him in the LC. I'm not sure he really wants to think about an answer to that question. But it is the people, I'm sure of it. I must admit that even the "horror" of the events at my mother's funeral could not diminish the delight in seeing some of those people for the first time in over 20 years (in some cases even longer). I just wish that there was not the baggage that came with it. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-30-2009, 03:34 PM	#31
IDon'tKnow Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 67	Re: SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee One thing I liked to point out is that if we look at the kicking out of the coworkers in Taiwan. This happened in 1965 and I believe he had been recalled from the US by the brother's loyal to him in Taiwan to deal with the situation of some not speaking exactly the same thing. Ergo if he did come to the US wanting to get away from the control of the work, he still was not will to relinquish it in Taiwan even while he was getting away from it in America. So perhaps he was less inclined to get away from being controlled and regulated than he suggested, or perhaps even though he wanted the work to be less controlled he wanted to be the one controlling it even more. Perhaps the thought here was that seeing as how he was the minister of the age or whatever he needed to keep himself in command in order for the Lord to be able to move effectively. On the other subject, yes even now I agree the people are and were wonderful. That was the only reason why I wanted to stay. Unfortunately that had nothing to do with the ministry. I distinctly remember sitting around a table reading a ministry book and wondering "does anyone actually want to be here?", same thing having corporate morning revival every morning, I mean it okay for people to have a bad day, but everyday for 6 months. I remember Ed Marks said something about seeing the look on the faces of the worldly people after the weekend and they realised it didn't satisfy. It set of warning bells in me that my first thought was that I don't need to go out into the world to see that, I see it right here everyday.

04-30-2009, 04:01 PM	#32
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee Funny that you bring up Ed Marks. I did not know him well, but I did know him. He was clearly a rising star in the 80s. But when I hear his name (along with a few others I sort of knew in Dallas or Irving) as someone who is a significant trainer, or writer of the LSM's apologetics, I really shake my head. I was not that impressed back then. I doubt I would be that impressed now. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-30-2009, 04:43 PM	#33
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee I would like to point back to one of the early posts in this thread by Ohio in which he makes reference to the difficulty of knowing truly great people (in terms of talents and abilities) when we tend to think in more simplistic terms. What I wonder is whether Lee had some natural talent in oratory. I'm not suggesting that he was an excellent speaker in either Chinese or English, but that he had a way with words. He clearly was an excellent story-teller. He used stories, examples, analogies, metaphors to his advantage. He painted a picture with words of what he wanted to portray. The question becomes whether the picture was an accurate representation of the underlying facts. A study in logic shows that there are facts. We think about the facts. Then we convey the facts with words. (There are surely complex facts, but let’s keep it simple for now.) If we do not understand the facts correctly, we may describe them incorrectly in words. But even if we understand the facts correctly, we may not transfer it to words accurately unless we take care to use unambiguous words. In theological discussions, we start with scripture as a fact. But also understand it as a representation of underlying fact, or truth. The problem here is not with the words because, unlike our own representations of fact, we have started with an acceptance that the words of scripture accurately convey the actual facts, truths, etc., that God wishes to convey. So what is the problem? It is still the faulty mind of the human that must understand the words correctly. When I listened to Lee many years ago, and when I have read some of his printed works, there are many stories that he uses. He often reads a verse, then sets out on a story that paints a picture. During that time, you are not reading the verse. Then he slowly brings it to his point where he says that some verse “simply” means or is “just” something. But he essentially dismisses the actual words in the verse ─ not that he says to ignore them. He just does ignore them, providing his analysis as the “obvious” one. And he tricked us into accepting his version. He may not have meant it in an underhanded way, but rather than provide evidence of something he was saying, he would say something like “throughout all of scripture we see that ...” (not an actual quote) and never show any place where we can see it. I first saw this when I started rereading The Economy of God. I also saw some of this in Nee’s Further Talks. They may honestly believe what they are teaching. But they are dishonestly skipping by the evidence and asking us to follow anyway. Unfortunately, we often did. They are also dishonestly claiming to have actually considered the verse rather than the metaphor they create in its place. It is probably a dishonesty to even themselves. It served them well for years and they did not even realize their error. So unless someone challenges him on the spot, he has casually taken us where scripture did not. We are already beholden to him for teaching us something that other Christian teachers are not teaching. (I wonder why they are not.) No. A person with those kinds of skills in speech may seem harmless because of demeanor, but with their words they spin a web that we never see. They paint an awesome picture. But what we are told is green is actually blue, and the light is darkness. Was it intentionally error? Probably not. But their own devices were probably the cause of their own blindness to their error. Just an opinion. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

04-30-2009, 07:53 PM	#34
IDon'tKnow Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 67	Re: SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee All I know is that the overwhelming sense I got from listening to and reading Lee was that I don't trust this person.

05-01-2009, 04:34 AM	#35
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 13,653	Re: SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee I suppose that I was far more naive than most ... because I trusted and revered WL unreservedly and unquestioningly, ready to defend him and his ministry to the death, that is until I learned how he treated his former co-workers John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon, etc. when they attempted to correct certain wickednesses at the LSM ministry "Office." __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

05-01-2009, 05:08 AM	#36
IDon'tKnow Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 67	Re: SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee For me it was more a case of everyone else saying that he knew what he was talking about and me kind of assuming well it seems he the expert and how could everybody be so wrong. Then I started realising that I was looking at people trying to see some one who seemed to be really truly enjoying in order to provide me with some sort of hope. Who's more naive the person who came in while reportedly the freshness was still there, and had the pot slowly boil around him, or the person allows himself to ignore all the warning signs. Personally I think I'm the prince of fools.

05-01-2009, 05:14 AM	#37
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee Ohio, Don't feel so bad. I was out of the LC for almost 20 years before I stopped defending Lee. I may not have been unreserved in my defense, nor did I "revere" him, but I thought he had taught well. I knew something was wrong, but I thought it was just the practice and that this was a problem with individuals and local leadership. Boy did I have that wrong. It was a systemic problem whose root was "the ministry" and Lee is the center of that — even if the source of the more outward problems was the LSM office and the circle of workers around it, including Benson and Ray. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

05-01-2009, 09:26 AM	#39
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee Hope, I would like to note that, in the brief interaction with you, no matter how I have sounded, I have not disagreed with you. We are dealing with observations from the past in which no one knew the whole story. Even if the actual events are clear, the motivations are not. I am more than clear that you are mostly providing a somewhat cold relating of observable facts. (I say "mostly" because given our past association with Lee and the LC, it would be impossible to be without bias. And that bias could be either way because of the relative sway of past observations and feelings in opposition to more recent observations and feelings.) On the other hand, I have been providing a clearly subjective "is it possible" kind of analysis. I may be springing from observed facts, but I am also allowing the totality of history to affect how single points in time are understood. If we were dealing with robots, my analysis might be more certain because of the predictability of machines. But since we are talking about people, I fully realize that my theoretical chain of thoughts and intents is just that — theoretical. But my real goal is not to somehow determine that Lee has always been some wolf in sheep's clothing. Instead, I think we should simply reconsider what it was about the early LC days that was so enjoyable. And we should even reconsider how sound some of those early teachings were. Without casting any aspersions at Lee concerning his motives, I note that The Economy of God is from messages spoken in 1964. I honestly believe that its very opening chapter is an exercise in shoehorning a doctrine into existing scripture by ignoring the actual words of scripture and using logical fallacies to bring the listener/reader along. In this case it is significant in that this doctrine was an underpinning on how so much of the rest of scripture was read. It provided a significant portion of the color in what I call "Lee colored glasses." Without calling Lee a charlatan, I note that this would indicate that the progression of "the ministry" is already taking a turn toward error as the young believers, like yourself, are enjoying freedom in Christ and learning much more about Christ than you might otherwise have within your previous Christian affiliations. While Lee continues to open things all over the scripture, surely a lot of it is simply sound Christian teaching that was being ignored. But did the dramatic change from routine Christianity to where you were help to blind almost everyone to the things that were already off the mark? I really am not looking for a generic analysis of the early days. I'm looking to find whether error was already on the rise. It is too easy to want to consider the positives since we already have learned that things really got bad and there was ample reason to leave. My goal is not to burst the bubble that the early days were good, but to point out that even if Lee was changing over time, that there appear to have been problems from the very start. Continue to look back at those days with fondness. You and the others did grow in Christ. It was an enjoyable time. But we were already in a pot and the fire was on at some level. The boil came later. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

05-01-2009, 02:26 PM	#41
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee Steve, you have mentioned "DB" at least twice now (or someone else did just a day or so ago). I had this sudden "aha" and wondered if this was a "bright" guy? __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

05-02-2009, 10:16 PM	#45
IDon'tKnow Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 67	Re: SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee I would just like to ask? How much of the crazy fun joyous times back in the 60s and 70s were related to the ministry of the age. That is to say how much would you say would have been related to getting brother Lee's ministry. Because for my part I remember having a lot of fun with the brothers, I also remembered being with the brothers reading a life-study message with everybody, looking around to see the look on every bodies faces, well I can't say definitely what everyone was thinking, but I can't say that it was the looks of people who were being filled up with life and joy and whatever (I had the same reaction when looking at the faces of all the brother's and sisters in the video messages which brother Lee gave (Late ministry) funnily enough, especially when looking at the coworkers). Then of course after coming home from said meeting hearing the brother I went with beat himself up because he had been natural before the death-study (laughing, joking what have you). Which given the testimonies about baseball games and the like I have to ask, Was the joy at least in part killed by a certain legalism which while not necessarily explicitly spoken in the ministry was nonetheless mixed in with it. You could then ask whether or not the God Ordained Way was an attempt to return to the "structure" or what have you of the earlier days without actually realizing what killed them.

05-02-2009, 10:48 PM	#46
IDon'tKnow Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 67	Re: SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee To further comment on MikeH's question as to how much WL might have been manipulating things throughout the 70s. Doug Krieger gave a testimony through KSA on the bereans here. In which he seems to suggest that Witness Lee manipulated things to destroy Berkeley back in the 70s. I'm not certain whether this is sour grapes or not, I was wondering whether those who were around, around that time could comment about what they know of the situation. I'd also like to say that Witness Lee somehow managed to create for himself, within the local church the image of a humble, kind, gentle, little brother in the Lord. This is in spite of events such as daystar. In spite of his likening himself to the being the husband of the coworkers. In spite of saying seeking the Lord's will whether to take his leading or not was a subtle form of dissent which could not be tolerated. Witness seemed to come through everything smelling of roses, I have to ask the question whether or not this was simply luck on his part, or cunning. Last edited by IDon'tKnow; 05-02-2009 at 11:03 PM. Reason: wanted to make it look like I wasn't the Illiterate

09-07-2009, 08:36 AM	#59
TLFisher Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Renton, Washington Posts: 3,508	Re: SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee Witness Lee spoke this portion from a conference in 1968 that would later be part of the book The Practical Expression of the Church: THE PROPER RECEIVING OF THE SAINTS It is only by being so liberal and general that we can receive all the saints in a proper way. If we are otherwise, we cannot avoid being sectarian in the matter of receiving. If we are special in anything and insist upon that, we will probably not receive those who differ from us in certain matters. But the Apostle said, “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.” What he meant when he referred to “him that is weak in the faith” is illustrated in the following verses: i.e., the matter of eating and keeping of days. By this we are affirmatively told that we must receive the saints who differ from us in these things. Any saint who holds a different opinion or concept regarding the things we are in favor, we must receive, “for God hath received him.” As long as he is a saint, as long as he has received hin, we have no right to reject him. Our receiving must be the same as God’s receiving, no less and no more. God’s receiving is the basis of our receiving. Our receiving must not be according to our taste, our opinion, or our assertion. It must be in accordance with God’s receiving. It must be based upon God’s receiving- nothing else. God receives people according to His Son. As long as a person receives His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, as his personal Savior, regardless of the concepts he holds regarding all other things, God receives him immediately. Since God receives people in this way, we too must receive people in the same way. Our receiving must be in accordance with God’s receiving. If our receiving differs from His, it means that we are wrong: either we are more narrow or more broad than God. This will cause much trouble and damage to the church life. God’s receiving is based upon Christ’s receiving, and Christ’s receiving is in accordance with our faith in Him. Whoever believes in Him, He will receive. Whoever receives Him, He will never reject. He said, “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37). Since coming to Him, believing in Him, receiving Him, is the only condition for Christ’s receiving, so we must receive people upon the same basis with nothing added. As long as anyone believes in Christ our Lord, as long as He receives Him as His personal Savior, we must receive him with nothing else required. Regardless of how he may dissent in so many other things, as long as he is a real believer in the Lord, we have no choice but to receive him, for the Lord has received him. This is why the Apostle said, “Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.” We must receive whoever Christ has received. We must have such a proper receiving of all the saints that we may keep the proper unity; otherwise, we can never keep ourselves from being sectarian and causing much confusion and damage to the church life. To practice the church life by keeping the proper unity, such a general receiving is necessary. May the Lord have mercy upon us! (page 66-67) Is this the practice today? Would someone meeting in the local churches go to a home meeting apart from the local churches? Is there a willingness to drop the concepts and just let Christ reign in fellowship? Terry

09-08-2009, 05:56 AM	#60
manna-man Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Fort Lauderdale Florida Posts: 405	Re: SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee “Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.” We must receive whoever Christ has received. We must have such a proper receiving of all the saints that we may keep the proper unity; otherwise, we can never keep ourselves from being sectarian and causing much confusion and damage to the church life. To practice the church life by keeping the proper unity, such a general receiving is necessary. May the Lord have mercy upon us! (page 66-67) Is this the practice today? Would someone meeting in the local churches go to a home meeting apart from the local churches? Is there a willingness to drop the concepts and just let Christ reign in fellowship? Terry ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes Terry it happens today, In Mainstream Christianity which are the local churches as well. They have been receiving all believers even the weird ones. Mainstream Christianity was forced to respond to the exclusive doctrine of the "lee local churches" or LLC<how fitting! And they didn't waste time they continued to proclaim the gospel even until now. The "Lee Local Churches" need to do the same. Also they need to dump the Lee cache because it is like a ball and chain to them. And affects the work they are trying to do. Although this may be impossible as it would be for the Mormons to dump the book of Mormon and all their other publications. I know that was a gross analogy but it was the closest to reality. The saints need to take their eyes off of Lee's teachings and focus them back on the Shepherd Jesus who will guide them to where they need to be. Grace to the saints, Don Jr.

01-20-2011, 05:26 PM	#67
Paul Cox Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 181	Re: SPLIT THREAD - Early Lee - Later Lee Hope, We must be constantly reminded of the peek we got of Witness Lee at the 1980's meeting in Pasadena, wherein he stated that ever since the mid forties he had been looking over the whole earth and couldn't find another "Oracle" speaking for God. It was clear that he held grandiose visions of himself even way back then, no matter what type of kind ole uncle he would present at strategic times later on.