Individualism

[zeek]

If you have genuinely experienced the Body of Christ you will be conscious of something wrong whenever you begin to show your individualism, and obviously you dare not take any action. Or else, when you or several others should make a wrong move, this Body consciousness will cause you to be aware of being disconnected from the other children of God, thus preventing you from proceeding further. There is something in you which restrains, speaks, reproves, warns, or hinders. This consciousness of life can deliver all of us from any taint of division.

(Lesson Book, Level 5: The Church—The Vision and Building Up of the Church, Chapter 21, Section 2)

A crowd is indeed made up of single individuals; it must therefore be in everyone's power to become what he is, a single individual; no one is prevented from being a single individual, no one, unless he prevents himself by becoming many. To become a crowd, to gather a crowd around oneself, is on the contrary to distinguish life from life; even the most well-meaning one who talks about that, can easily offend a single individual. But it is the crowd which has power, influence, reputation, and domination - this is the distinction of life from life, which tyrannically overlooks the single individual as the weak and powerless one, in a temporal-worldly way overlooks the eternal truth: the single individual.

Kierkegaard, Soren (2013-12-28). The Crowd Is Untruth (Kindle Locations 109-110). Vanessa Myers. Kindle Edition.

Witness Lee was a merciless critic of individualism. I don't remember him ever saying a good thing about it. I think many of us will agree that in this he went too far. But, where do you draw the line? How much individualism is too much. Who makes the call and on what basis? It seems that it always the individual who decides. Is there ever a valid reason to give up that choice?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Witness Lee was a merciless critic of individualism. I don't remember him ever saying a good thing about it. I think many of us will agree that in this he went too far. But, where do you draw the line? How much individualism is too much. Who makes the call and on what basis? It seems that it always the individual who decides. Is there ever a valid reason to give up that choice?

I truly agree with the first part. Lee was determined that we stifle ourselves and follow him.

And the second part is always true. We do decide where to draw the line. (Well, unless we are in prison and can't even determine when we will get to eat lunch. But even then, hey can't make you think anything you don't agree to think.)

But there is an aspect of Christianity that does somewhat end aspects of individualism. But nothing like Lee taught. We are asked to terminate our prejudices and love our neighbors — all of them. The liberals and the conservatives. The gay and the straight. The black and the white (and every shade in between). We are asked to conform our lives to one that was righteous.

But that conformity is not like joining the Red Brigade. You don't have to wear a uniform and speak only the stuff provided in the indoctrination materials. It starts with instruction that we are "commanded" to obey. And it provides strength to obey, and grace when we don't. (Very unlike the LCM.) It sets a high standard and challenges us to rise to it, yet knows we will not achieve it in full.

Yet we are never expected to be just like anyone else. We are told that we will have different abilities and charges. We are not all just like all the others. As that great philosopher, Steve Martin once said "Repeat after me. I promise to be different! I promise to be unique! I promise not to repeat things other people tell me to repeat!"

So the real questions become what kind of individualism is out and what kind is in. And maybe that is not the real question. It is whether you will be an individual who is in, or an individual who is out. And if someone suggests that you can be "in" as long as you check yourself at the coat room, then it is probably a sign that you don't belong because they are not letting you in.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

But there is an aspect of Christianity that does somewhat end aspects of individualism. But nothing like Lee taught. We are asked to terminate our prejudices and love our neighbors — all of them. The liberals and the conservatives. The gay and the straight. The black and the white (and every shade in between). We are asked to conform our lives to one that was righteous.

Right. But, all we "know" of the "one that was righteous" is the image of we project based on what we read. Even that he was righteous and how he was righteous is a conclusion we reason to based on limited and sometimes conflicting data. There are few hints what his self-understanding was. I think the long self-referential Jesus monologues in the Gospel of John represent the theological reflections of the author not actual statements of Jesus. In the synoptic gospels Jesus preached the Kingdom of God not himself as he does in John. If we seek objective truth about who Jesus was, we don't merely get to choose whatever Jesus we prefer. But, we must also admit we are not certain if we are right about are reading of who he was and what he stood for. So any obedience is going to be riddled with uncertainty. How do we know that we are not simply being obedient to our own idealized self. Does it matter?

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

we must also admit we are not certain if we are right about are reading of who he was and what he stood for. So any obedience is going to be riddled with uncertainty. How do we know that we are not simply being obedient to our own idealized self. Does it matter?

Authoritarian groups solve this dilemma of uncertainty. Whatever Maximum Brother (or Big Momma if headed by a female) says is the certainty, the True Jesus. The MB is the only one who has the truth. So we must obey MB without question.

Originally Posted by zeek

Witness Lee was a merciless critic of individualism. I don't remember him ever saying a good thing about it. I think many of us will agree that in this he went too far. But, where do you draw the line? How much individualism is too much. Who makes the call and on what basis? It seems that it always the individual who decides. Is there ever a valid reason to give up that choice?

First off, don't forget the cultural influence, here. We went into this at some detail in the "Asian mind and the Western mind" thread.

Second, I say let the individual decide where to draw boundaries between self and the collective. The Hive Mind of Lee shamed away all our boundaries. We were "trained" to stand up before the MB and be exposed, stripped bare. This was for the good of the Hive, so we thought. The individual is nothing, the Hive is everything; the Hive Mind trained us to give up self, family, job, thought, for the Hive.

But in truth the individual has to make a choice, and usually chooses the group at some level, anyway. No one likes to be alone, right? People will typically choose a collective association on some level. So don't let the collective impose terms on the individual. Let the individual choose how they want to associate with the group, and where they draw the boundary. A numb bunch of automatons, waiting passively for MB to direct, does not enrich the collective expression. There's no Spirit; only the flat intonation, "Our brother said", and "Our brother wanted".

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

So any obedience is going to be riddled with uncertainty. How do we know that we are not simply being obedient to our own idealized self. Does it matter?

It does matter.

But my idealized self does not look like what I see that scripture as commanding. Otherwise I would more naturally think that way even if I have trouble carrying it out. But I need something outside me to remind me that mine is not the way.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

It does matter.

But my idealized self does not look like what I see that scripture as commanding. Otherwise I would more naturally think that way even if I have trouble carrying it out. But I need something outside me to remind me that mine is not the way.

Good point bro OBW. I don't know why zeek said "idealized self." I'll let him explain that.

What I get from bro zeek in "obedient to our own idealized self" is not that we in action or perception seek an idealized self. But rather that even in our idealizing of God and/or Christ it may turn out to be of our own making.

Let's face it, even if we're totally devoted to a collective our subject experience is still individualistic; in that we draw images subjectively from the collective. It can't be helped.

But I doubt when conceiving these idealism's we think we are conceiving an idealization of our self. If so God wouldn't be necessary.

Maybe bro zeek is thinking of the line in his tagline:

"You are the spirit you are seeking to follow.."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

Authoritarian groups solve this dilemma of uncertainty. Whatever Maximum Brother (or Big Momma if headed by a female) says is the certainty, the True Jesus. The MB is the only one who has the truth. So we must obey MB without question.

This gospel is the power of God unto salvation (1:16). In the book of Romans salvation means a great deal. Salvation not only means to save us from God's condemnation and from hell; it means to save us from our naturalness, our self-likeness, our individualism, and our divisiveness. This salvation saves us to the uttermost, enabling us to be sanctified, conformed, glorified, transformed, built up with others as the one Body, and not divisive in the church life. The gospel of God is the power of God unto such a full, complete, and ultimate salvation. It is the power of God for all who believe. Praise the Lord! We believe. (Life-Study of Romans, Chapter 2, Section 4)

You are spot on with your identification of a problem with authoritarianism. Christianity has a long history of authoritarianism, and the European Enlightenment the eventually spawned the USA with it's Declaration of Independence and Constitution was an outcome of Enlightenment thinking.

First off, don't forget the cultural influence, here. We went into this at some detail in the "Asian mind and the Western mind" thread.

Yes. We were misguided to abandon our cultural heritage of individualism for Witness Lee's concept of "the Body of Christ."

Second, I say let the individual decide where to draw boundaries between self and the collective. The Hive Mind of Lee shamed away all our boundaries. We were "trained" to stand up before the MB and be exposed, stripped bare. This was for the good of the Hive, so we thought. The individual is nothing, the Hive is everything; the Hive Mind trained us to give up self, family, job, thought, for the Hive.

In my expereince, what I gained through that process was less rich and real then what I lost by giving up family ties.

But in truth the individual has to make a choice, and usually chooses the group at some level, anyway. No one likes to be alone, right? People will typically choose a collective association on some level. So don't let the collective impose terms on the individual. Let the individual choose how they want to associate with the group, and where they draw the boundary. A numb bunch of automatons, waiting passively for MB to direct, does not enrich the collective expression. There's no Spirit; only the flat intonation, "Our brother said", and "Our brother wanted".

I don't think it is an either/or kind of thing. By dropping out of church participation, I may on the individualistic extreme. But, look where I am...on LCD in a dialogue with you. If the "Body of Christ" is a reality, perhaps it isn't something we have to make happen by our own efforts to sacrifice our individuality but rather a spiritual reality that we experience spontaneously.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

It does matter.

But my idealized self does not look like what I see that scripture as commanding. Otherwise I would more naturally think that way even if I have trouble carrying it out. But I need something outside me to remind me that mine is not the way.

If it matters, I don't know what to do about it. I don't see how you can differentiate your view of Jesus from your idealized self. This ideal if not a consciously accessible objective Jesus. That Jesus will always be a "more or less" of our thought and imagination. Our idealized self is the not fully conscious self that is the source of our conscience and ideals. It is the Christ within us that Paul talks about in Galatians 2:20. The way we interpret the Jesus of scripture is in response to the inner Christ which is our idealized self.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

"You are the spirit you are seeking to follow.."

I hadn't thought of it, but I suppose that's true. The problem is, we are always more than we know. Even if we were to conceptualize this process accurately and objectively, we wouldn't grasp it completely. We exist in God and God is unknowable as "He" exists in "Himself".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

If it matters, I don't know what to do about it. I don't see how you can differentiate your view of Jesus from your idealized self. This ideal if not a consciously accessible objective Jesus. That Jesus will always be a "more or less" of our thought and imagination. Our idealized self is the not fully conscious self that is the source of our conscience and ideals. It is the Christ within us that Paul talks about in Galatians 2:20. The way we interpret the Jesus of scripture is in response to the inner Christ which is our idealized self.

"Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty.""
Jesus - Gospel of Thomas v.3

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

If it matters, I don't know what to do about it. I don't see how you can differentiate your view of Jesus from your idealized self. This ideal if not a consciously accessible objective Jesus. That Jesus will always be a "more or less" of our thought and imagination. Our idealized self is the not fully conscious self that is the source of our conscience and ideals. It is the Christ within us that Paul talks about in Galatians 2:20. The way we interpret the Jesus of scripture is in response to the inner Christ which is our idealized self.

It appears you are over-thinking it. That I may not be able to fully figure out what it is simply from Jesus does not make it what I think it should be. Rather it makes it what I think Jesus is saying it should be.

Of course, the more honest I am, the more it will not necessarily align with what I would otherwise think it should be. And the more self-centered and narcissistic I am, the more Jesus is just a better me.

And we have once again created God in our image. An age-old problem that began at the fall, and was very largely displayed in the golden calf at the base of Mt Sinai.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

It appears you are over-thinking it. That I may not be able to fully figure out what it is simply from Jesus does not make it what I think it should be. Rather it makes it what I think Jesus is saying it should be.

Maybe you haven't thought it through. On this and other forums people argue about who Jesus was and what he taught. That suggests to me that they have an idea, and image and conception of who he was and what he stood for over against their conception of themselves. If they believe he was God or sinless or a model of compassion or self sacrifice, and they feel obliged to follow him or obey him it is because he represents to them an ideal of what they should be instead of what they have been or what they are. In other words, he is the image of their ideal self. If that isn't the way it seems to you then how does it seem?

You have argued for obedience to Christ's commandments. That is an important piece that was missing in the WL's ministry. But, Jesus is more than commandments. In this way, he exceeds a list of commandments like the ones in the Old Testament. The ideal that he represents to us is the motive power that draws us to surpass ourselves. Jesus is the image of a person who embodies our highest values that pulls us out of our small selves and our little lives.

Of course, the more honest I am, the more it will not necessarily align with what I would otherwise think it should be. And the more self-centered and narcissistic I am, the more Jesus is just a better me. And we have once again created God in our image. An age-old problem that began at the fall, and was very largely displayed in the golden calf at the base of Mt Sinai.

If we create Christ in the image of what we have been we are displaying the age old problem--the old man or old being. But, if Christ appears to us as the embodiment of our highest value, that's not a problem. That's the new man or new being. Jesus as our ideal of what we would be acts as an attractor to pull us out of our old selves up into authentic meaningful life.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

Witness Lee was a merciless critic of individualism. I don't remember him ever saying a good thing about it. I think many of us will agree that in this he went too far. But, where do you draw the line? How much individualism is too much. Who makes the call and on what basis? It seems that it always the individual who decides. Is there ever a valid reason to give up that choice?

Not only Witness Lee, but blended co-workers like brother Ron characterize individualism to be a word with negative implications.
I shouldn't be too surprised after all. Since I often compare the blendeds to Nobama and other political liberals in lacking transparency, truthfulness, and integrity, there's another trait in being anti-individualism/pro-socialism.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

I often compare the blendeds to Nobama and other political liberals in lacking transparency, truthfulness, and integrity, there's another trait in being anti-individualism/pro-socialism.

And Dubya and the conservatives were not also lacking transparency and truthfulness? Whatever happened to that yellowcake from Nigeria that was the smoking gun, showing us Saddam was creating WMDs to blow us all up? Whatever happened to Dick Cheney's "They will welcome us with open arms"?* How many thousands of dead bodies and trillions of wasted taxpayers monies will be needed for you to see that Dubya, Condi, Dick and Don were not the paragons of truthfulness and transparency?

Or maybe that's not on your radar.

*"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet the Press," March 16, 2003

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

I shouldn't be too surprised after all. Since I often compare the blendeds to Nobama and other political liberals in lacking transparency, truthfulness, and integrity, there's another trait in being anti-individualism/pro-socialism.

And Dubya and the conservatives were not also lacking transparency and truthfulness?

It all comes down to where one gets his news from.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

And Dubya and the conservatives were not also lacking transparency and truthfulness?

The previous administration wasn't speaking about transparency and claiming to be transparent.
Previous administrations (Bush, Clinton, etc), weren't so blatantly anti-Christ as the current administration is.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Terry

Not only Witness Lee, but blended co-workers like brother Ron characterize individualism to be a word with negative implications.
I shouldn't be too surprised after all. Since I often compare the blendeds to Nobama and other political liberals in lacking transparency, truthfulness, and integrity, there's another trait in being anti-individualism/pro-socialism.

So, if Witness Lee, the "Blended co-workers" and "Bro. Ron are anti-individualism, does that make them "liberal" in some sense to your way of thinking?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

Previous administrations (Bush, Clinton, etc), weren't so blatantly anti-Christ as the current administration is.

You obviously missed Obama's eulogy for Reverend Clementa C. Pinckney. It's worthy of your time:
http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/1000...harleston.html

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, if Witness Lee, the "Blended co-workers" and "Bro. Ron are anti-individualism, does that make them "liberal" in some sense to your way of thinking?

Being anti-individual, anti-spiritual gifts, and wanting everyone to be the same, by default makes them appear to be more supportive of communism than democracy.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Terry

Being anti-individual, anti-spiritual gifts, and wanting everyone to be the same, by default makes them appear to be more supportive of communism than democracy.

So, as you see it, are those the only alternatives, either democracy or communism? What about theocracy?

[awareness]

I think bro Terry was speaking of individualism and anti-individual ... and communism and democracy are examples of the two extremes.

A Theocracy on the other hand is even more anti-individual ... has failed miserably in the past, and isn't pretty in current examples.

I don't know. I've joked in the past (not so much joking) that I'm not for heaven or hell, because both have a dictator running the show.

Some might say I've become so independent that I'm like the devil that rebelled against God. Not so. I'm not taking sides. Their fight is their fight. They're fighting for dominance. I'm neutral. I'm like the neutral angels, that wanted no part of the supernatural cosmic battle.

Am I being too individualistic?

[awareness]

Aron, brought a quote from this thread and put it on the thread entitled: The Psalms are the word of Christ on the main forum.

And I wanted to do the same from Aron's Psalms thread:

Aron:
I wanted to copy a quote from another thread, and respond here, because it matches a theme I've been exploring on this thread: obedience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness View Post
Terry was speaking of individualism and anti-individual ... and communism and democracy are examples of the two extremes. A Theocracy on the other hand is even more anti-individual ... .
(The following isn't presented as 'truth' per se, but some current thoughts).

The paradox of "He who loses his soul-life will gain it" is relevant in the discussion of individualism, and I'd use a quote from the Psalms to shed light. The psalmist wrote, "I run in the pathways of Your command/For You have set my heart free." There's a juxtaposition here, of complete obedience and complete freedom. The writer is a slave to God's every command, but in being obedient has found his true "self", his real being.

We once were slaves to sin, now we present ourselves as slaves to righteousness. The paragon of this latter aspect is of course Jesus Christ Himself, who was completely subsumed by the Father's will, and in so doing became the complete and real human being, i.e. the only true Individual. Hebrews 5:8,9 says that Jesus alone was "made perfect in obedience"; the rest of us, tainted by the fall, became automatons, driven by the flesh and the fallen soul. Jesus alone was completely dependent upon God's command, and thus completely independent of the fallen human sphere.

WL completely misunderstood obedience in the context of the psalmists' writings. He passed it off with, "Nobody is obedient. All are sinners", and held up David's many sins as an example. But he ignored the coming Messiah. Again and again the NT writings point to this, that the OT declarations of piety, obedience, and salvific rescue were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. WL said, "No; David rescued himself", and unwittingly repeated the same charge the scoffers made at the cross: "He trusted in God, let Him save Him (Jesus) now". Hey Jesus, You did so many miracles - Let's see You climb down from that cross! Nyah-nyah-nyah!

No, we know this isn't the case. Jesus obeyed the Father, and the Father delighted in His Son, rescued Him from the grips of death, and gave Him glory.

True individualism is thus to find the Christ who's there before us in the Word. Not the Christ that Lee's theology presents, one shorn of historical context, but the real and true Man who walked in the reality that was set before Him by God's commands. That those commands were previously written in scripture, by fallen men like Moses and David, is not irrelevant, not at all.

In one sense I'm like WL, captured by an idea. But in another sense my idea is different, in that it requires nobody to line up behind me or anyone else. True freedom is to obey God. Only Jesus found this freedom, and only through faith in Jesus Christ will I find it, as well. Only in Jesus can I run in the pathways of His commands; only in Jesus is my heart set free.

"If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed." For me, this is the only true individualism. All other attempts are crushed by hard reality.

Comments anyone, as to how this relates to individualism?

Does being under God's commandments make us more of an individual? How in the world does that work?

Is God a dictator that sets us free?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Some might say I've become so independent that I'm like the devil that rebelled against God. Not so. I'm not taking sides. Their fight is their fight. They're fighting for dominance. I'm neutral. I'm like the neutral angels, that wanted no part of the supernatural cosmic battle.

I'm kind of skeptical that there are any "neutral" angels.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm kind of skeptical that there are any "neutral" angels.

I know. They get so little press. They've managed to slip away from it all into oblivion; away from the cosmic battles, and feuds. Jesus took his disciples away from the masses to the Mountain where he told them, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." Maybe God likes the neutral angels so much that he keeps them in His very special place; away from all the press agents, paparazzi, Bible writers, and fighters.

True tho, we'd rather have everything clearly cut; into, either/or, good/bad, conservative/liberal, hot/cold, light/dark. right and wrong. Neutral just doesn't fit into it.

And Jesus said he'd spew the neutral angels out of His mouth .. er, ah ... maybe not

Let's face it. We don't have a clue about the angels .. er, ah, again .. we have enough clues that we don't really know anything.

So just to play it safe, I'm going with the neutral angels. They obviously don't like dictators either.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, as you see it, are those the only alternatives, either democracy or communism? What about theocracy?

Those who consider themselves to be absolute with LSM, believe the blended co-workers are God's government on earth.
The problem is making the claim there's no politics in the church. (I've actually been told that by a regional responsible brother.)
Even then, the individual rights is neutered for the good of the LSM system.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Terry

Those who consider themselves to be absolute with LSM, believe the blended co-workers are God's government on earth.
The problem is making the claim there's no politics in the church. (I've actually been told that by a regional responsible brother.)
Even then, the individual rights is neutered for the good of the LSM system.

OK so the LSM is claiming to be a theocracy. As far as "politics", the question is what do they mean by that term. Apparently, politics is something other than government if they claim to be God's government. Perhaps by saying there are no politics in the church, they mean that there is no debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power there. Now when I was in the LCM, I saw evidence that there was a power going on there at times. But, it was denied by the leadership and the rank and file members were not allowed to speak of it. For example, there was a struggle for leadership in the Church in Fort Lauderdale following the "consolidation." When brothers failed to achieve power, they often left the church there and went to another locality.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

Perhaps by saying there are no politics in the church, they mean that there is no debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power there.

That may have been the case for the brother who told me, "there's no politics in the church". However LC history is quote clear the brothers who were ambitious for position or power displayed apathy towards right verses wrong, morality verses immorality, etc. All about outmaneuvering brothers who were under the headship of Christ. Now that they're blended brothers or part of their clique, playing politics is still subtle as it's been said, "I'm not stepping aside for anyone".

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Terry

That may have been the case for the brother who told me, "there's no politics in the church". However LC history is quote clear the brothers who were ambitious for position or power displayed apathy towards right verses wrong, morality verses immorality, etc. All about outmaneuvering brothers who were under the headship of Christ. Now that they're blended brothers or part of their clique, playing politics is still subtle as it's been said, "I'm not stepping aside for anyone".

Studies of group and organizational behavior show that politics as I defined it below is common if not ubiquitous. So, we shouldn't be surprised to find politics in any or all organizations including religious ones like churches.

The problem is that Witness Lee and his followers claimed that there was something higher about their organization. This, of course, led to the expectation that behavior like playing politics wouldn't happen there, which, in turn, resulted in either denial or disappointment when it did. Lee also neglected basic teachings such as forgiveness and sharing and caring for one another as Jesus taught. That kind of thing was taught in Christianity. So Witness Lee, who despised Christianity, taught us to aim higher. Consequently, we missed basic Christian love to a large degree.

Jesus liked to turn social norms on their head. Thus, he taught that would-be leaders should be servants. "It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant..." But, I'm not sure something like that can be institutionalized. Maybe that was his point.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

The problem is that Witness Lee and his followers claimed that there was something higher about their organization. This, of course, led to the expectation that behavior like playing politics wouldn't happen there, which, in turn, resulted in either denial or disappointment when it did. Lee also neglected basic teachings such as forgiveness and sharing and caring for one another as Jesus taught. That kind of thing was taught in Christianity. So Witness Lee, who despised Christianity, taught us to aim higher. Consequently, we missed basic Christian love to a large degree.

Part of their claim is they are only accountable to God and they bear no accountability to fellow members of the Body of Christ. They (meaning the blendeds) will do what they want. Any reaction will be met with "it's not about right or wrong , but about life) along with other phrases meant to imply let's move on..."let's not make issues of person, matters, or things".

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Terry

Part of their claim is they are only accountable to God and they bear no accountability to fellow members of the Body of Christ. They (meaning the blendeds) will do what they want. Any reaction will be met with "it's not about right or wrong , but about life) along with other phrases meant to imply let's move on..."let's not make issues of person, matters, or things".

Then the Blendeds claim to supersede ethical considerations altogether. To do that is to claim the authority of God [which is what deputy authority means.] That places authority [the Blended in this case] above criticism.

Abraham is supposed to have suspended the ethical under God's command when he went up the mountain to sacrifice Isaac in obedience to God's command. To obey God's command was child murder from a human ethical point of view.

But, even Abraham's suspension of the ethical was apparently only a temporary spell which was broken when the ram [poor innocent critter who through a Christian lens represents OUR SAVIOR AND LORD and is thus worthy of our loving attention] was seen in the thicket. The Blended if they hold Witness Lee's POV see LIFE as categorically super-ethical, i.e. beyond considerations of right and wrong. [That, incidentally makes life absurd {not that there is anything wrong with that }] Does the Bible support this doctrine? What about the Jesus of the Gospels? Regardless, the claim has proven to be a refuge for scoundrels.

Nevertheless, the claim is easily refused. Unless we grant the authority to be above the law and ethics to a claimer, their claim means nothing and has no power. It's worse than a fallacious argument; it's a conjurer's trick. Witness Lee supported his claims to absolute authority by appealing to our fear that we didn't follow his dictates absolutely we would be cast into outer darkness for 1000 not so Arabian nights unless your into weeping and gnashing of teeth. What do the Blendeds say?

Ironically, I walked away from the Local Church when I saw that those in authority were ethically bankrupt. There was a tear in the fabric that supposedly connected them to the Biblical symbols [APOSTLES, CHURCH, BODY OF CHRIST etc.] they claimed to embody. Witness Lee's overreaching claim to be minister of the age, his law-suits against Christians, his greedy business failures, sociopathic elders, repressive practices against the laity, the IRS scams and the phony business meetings...everything they commanded us not to see under the cloak of the LIFE that transcends good and evil. When I had saw how the leadership used their power systematically to suppress the saints and aggrandize themselves their claims lost all authority over me. After 13 years of it, when I walked out of my last business meeting, the hold of the MOTA and his minions dropped off me like chains. But I don't know your story. What was your ticket out?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

What was your ticket out?

There was a series of things that chipped away at me. The first of which was door-knocking followed by Witness Lee's whitewashing of issues in Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. Followed by preferential treatment for full time trainees, reading Watchman Nee's The Normal Christian Life, marriage to a sister not steeped in LC culture, becoming a father, and the final one was telling an elder belittling non-LSM churches is not edifying. The elder saw things differently. At the time my older children were on the cusp of being teenagers. Perhaps part paranoia and part precaution, I didn't want my children to go through what I went through as a teenager in the local churches.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

and the final one was telling an elder belittling non-LSM churches is not edifying. The elder saw things differently.

Being honest and courageous will get you evicted from the program right quick.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Being honest and courageous will get you evicted from the program right quick.

Truth is before I began meeting with the church in Renton (2009/2010) the elder and another brother came to my home and said not to make Steve Isitt an issue. One of the most ludicrous things I ever heard. Anyone who knows me knows that would be out of character.
Previously the years I met with the church in Bellevue (1994-2000), I never made John Ingalls an issue. In my subsequent visits to the churches in Bellingham and San Bernardino, I never made any quarantined brother an issue when it would be far too easy to.
Back to Ohio's post. I wasn't evicted. Would the elder have evicted me, I wasn't around to discover. My family and I began meeting with a community church closer to our home.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Terry

There was a series of things that chipped away at me. The first of which was door-knocking followed by Witness Lee's whitewashing of issues in Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. Followed by preferential treatment for full time trainees, reading Watchman Nee's The Normal Christian Life, marriage to a sister not steeped in LC culture, becoming a father, and the final one was telling an elder belittling non-LSM churches is not edifying. The elder saw things differently. At the time my older children were on the cusp of being teenagers. Perhaps part paranoia and part precaution, I didn't want my children to go through what I went through as a teenager in the local churches.

What did you go through as a teenager?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

I never made any quarantined brother an issue when it would be far too easy to.

Especially in recent years concerning Nigel Tomes and Titus Chu. In my adult life, I had never known of Nigel or Titus to minister in California or Washington state. Yet, it's so simple for LC brothers from these states to take action of quarantine/excommunication not based on anything these Nigel or Titus said, but based on preferential relationships.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

What did you go through as a teenager?

In the 80's friendships/acquaintances of the opposite gender was discouraged. One experience I remember distinctly well as a bystander. It was at the Spring 1985 Young People's conference at Oak Glen in Yucaipa, California. During the afternoon's there was free time for the young people. I was with the brothers from my locality. One of them was speaking to two sisters from another locality. A serving brother comes running over and gives us a word of outrage that u brothers and sisters should not be socializing together.
So, I wouldn't want my son or my daughter to subjected to such an experience.
(Even after I stopped meeting with the Church in Renton, I received offers from a brother (I used to live with in the brothers house) and his wife offering to pick up my children for summer school of truth. I politely declined. Knowing most of my daughters peers are from families meeting with Highlands Community Church, I knew she wouldn't want to be in an environment in the absence of friends.)

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

Witness Lee was a merciless critic of individualism. I don't remember him ever saying a good thing about it. I think many of us will agree that in this he went too far. But, where do you draw the line? How much individualism is too much. Who makes the call and on what basis? It seems that it always the individual who decides. Is there ever a valid reason to give up that choice?

During the late 80's Turmoil. John Ingalls among others tried the council approach, but as much of a critic Witness Lee was of individualism, he wasn't open to fellowship when it involved his son Philip.

"There was a couple in Anaheim who were seriously injured by the misconduct related to the LSM office, and they were deeply offended with Brother Lee for tolerating such a situation to exist and also for not giving them an ear to relate the problems they had experienced when they went to him earlier in the year. We felt that Brother Lee should be made aware of the great offense on his part suffered by this couple, therefore we requested a time to speak with him. It was granted and on March 24, Godfred, Al, and I met with Brother Lee in his home. We explained the feeling of the couple toward him and appealed to him to give them a hearing. He agreed to do this, and a date was set for the following Saturday.
While we were with Brother Lee he remarked that it had been one hundred days since we had come to him on December 12th 1987, and opened our hearts regarding our concerns. He said that not one day had passed that he did not consider what to do. Moreover, he added that he felt that he should not do anything and not succumb to any pressure exercised upon him.
On Saturday evening, March 26th, Godfred, myself, and the husband of this couple met with Brother Lee. (Brother Lee felt it would be too awkward for the wife to be there as well.) The husband opened up with a very good attitude and related in some detail the mistreatment his wife had experienced in serving with the LSM office in the full-time training in Taipei. Brother Lee listened attentively with a most serious demeanor, and then expressed his feeling of sorrow for the whole affair, saying, "My heart is broken!" He explained why he did not feel free to listen to them previously, and then spoke of his appreciation for the faithful service of the wife over many years. At the end of the time Brother Lee pronounced the Lord’s blessing on this brother and his wife. We prayed and then departed, the brother feeling somewhat relieved that he was able to discharge his grief and burden to Brother Lee, but still not at all happy about the whole affair. This was the settlement rendered on one side to deal with a very serious offense stemming from the service in the LSM office."
From Speaking the Truth In Love

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Terry

During the late 80's Turmoil. John Ingalls among others tried the council approach, but as much of a critic Witness Lee was of individualism, he wasn't open to fellowship when it involved his son Philip.

"There was a couple in Anaheim who were seriously injured by the misconduct related to the LSM office, and they were deeply offended with Brother Lee for tolerating such a situation to exist and also for not giving them an ear to relate the problems they had experienced when they went to him earlier in the year. We felt that Brother Lee should be made aware of the great offense on his part suffered by this couple, therefore we requested a time to speak with him. It was granted and on March 24, Godfred, Al, and I met with Brother Lee in his home. We explained the feeling of the couple toward him and appealed to him to give them a hearing. He agreed to do this, and a date was set for the following Saturday.
While we were with Brother Lee he remarked that it had been one hundred days since we had come to him on December 12th 1987, and opened our hearts regarding our concerns. He said that not one day had passed that he did not consider what to do. Moreover, he added that he felt that he should not do anything and not succumb to any pressure exercised upon him.
On Saturday evening, March 26th, Godfred, myself, and the husband of this couple met with Brother Lee. (Brother Lee felt it would be too awkward for the wife to be there as well.) The husband opened up with a very good attitude and related in some detail the mistreatment his wife had experienced in serving with the LSM office in the full-time training in Taipei. Brother Lee listened attentively with a most serious demeanor, and then expressed his feeling of sorrow for the whole affair, saying, "My heart is broken!" He explained why he did not feel free to listen to them previously, and then spoke of his appreciation for the faithful service of the wife over many years. At the end of the time Brother Lee pronounced the Lord’s blessing on this brother and his wife. We prayed and then departed, the brother feeling somewhat relieved that he was able to discharge his grief and burden to Brother Lee, but still not at all happy about the whole affair. This was the settlement rendered on one side to deal with a very serious offense stemming from the service in the LSM office."
From Speaking the Truth In Love

I've read that before. Were you there? I wasn't. I base my opinions about the LC on my own first-hand experience not hearsay.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I've read that before. Were you there? I wasn't. I base my opinions about the LC on my own experience not hearsay.

Are you asking Terry if he was the husband?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

I've read that before. Were you there? I wasn't. I base my opinions about the LC on my own first-hand experience not hearsay.

So would you base the first hand accounts of others as hearsay for those who don't have the same first-hand experiences? Many have not had the experiences others have had. For example the experiences of Mario Sandoval as indicated in Hear the Cases. I don't know Samuel Liu or James Lee. Publicly they may project themselves very positively.
Pertaining to Witness Lee, what John Ingalls, Philip Lin, current blended coworkers, or former coworkers have to say might be their first hand experiences, but as you indicate to those of us that never met Witness Lee, it would all be hearsay.
That would seem my mistrust of blended coworkers is baseless since I don't have the first-hand experience to support my opinion and feeling.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

So would you base the first hand accounts of others as hearsay for those who don't have the same first-hand experiences?

If seeking the history of Lee's local church movement the eyewitness accounts are considered primary sources.

And we're very fortunate that we do have some primary sources. However, what we don't have is a whole slew of primary eyewitnesses. Cuz they aren't telling. They're busy and active in covering it up ... like a cat covering up its business.

Zeek seems to dismiss the primary sources we do have, calling them just hearsay.

But maybe bro zeek just wants to go by what his experiences were. And that's okay. It is enough, or he'd still be in the LC. And we're very happy for him. Plus, he's a primary eyewitness of what he saw, went thru, and experienced. And we'd never dismiss his accounts, when and if he shares them.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

If seeking the history of Lee's local church movement the eyewitness accounts are considered primary sources.

And we're very fortunate that we do have some primary sources. However, what we don't have is a whole slew of primary eyewitnesses. Cuz they aren't telling. They're busy and active in covering it up ... like a cat covering up its business.

Zeek seems to dismiss the primary sources we do have, calling them just hearsay.

But maybe bro zeek just wants to go by what his experiences were. And that's okay. It is enough, or he'd still be in the LC. And we're very happy for him. Plus, he's a primary eyewitness of what he saw, went thru, and experienced. And we'd never dismiss his accounts, when and if he shares them.

In my experience, what "the brothers say" is considered factual and truthful while contradicting accounts is considered rumors and hearsay.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

In my experience, what "the brothers say" is considered factual and truthful while contradicting accounts is considered rumors and hearsay.

So bro zeek is taking sides with LSM and the Blended Brothers.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Are you asking Terry if he was the husband?

No. He could have worked in the LSM office or had some other relationship to the principles in the story.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Terry

So would you base the first hand accounts of others as hearsay for those who don't have the same first-hand experiences? Many have not had the experiences others have had. For example the experiences of Mario Sandoval as indicated in Hear the Cases. I don't know Samuel Liu or James Lee. Publicly they may project themselves very positively.
Pertaining to Witness Lee, what John Ingalls, Philip Lin, current blended coworkers, or former coworkers have to say might be their first hand experiences, but as you indicate to those of us that never met Witness Lee, it would all be hearsay.
That would seem my mistrust of blended coworkers is baseless since I don't have the first-hand experience to support my opinion and feeling.

Well it's the testimony of John Ingalls, but he was not a first hand witness of the incidents in question at LSM. I had more of a personal relationship with John Ingalls than Lee because in my experience, John was a humble friendly guy and Witness Lee wasn't. So I had actually met and spoken briefly with Ingalls at conferences but not Lee. I have always tended to believe Ingalls' account because based on my limited knowledge of Ingalls, I find him credible. But, it's a judgment call based on limited information, so I can't be certain.

Anyway, I left the LC movement because the leaders made unacceptable claims of authority on me not because of gossip that occurred off stage from where I am. It wouldn't surprise me if the leadership sinned since I personally witnessed them doing questionable things and I sin myself. Therefore, I will meet them on a level playing field as equals. But, I don't recognize their ecclesiastical authority over me. They are single individuals as am I. So, now I have brought the thread back to the OP topic.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well it's the testimony of John Ingalls, but he was not a first hand witness of the incidents in question at LSM. I had more of a personal relationship with John Ingalls than Lee because in my experience, John was a humble friendly guy and Witness Lee wasn't. So I had actually met and spoken briefly with Ingalls at conferences but not Lee. I have always tended to believe Ingalls' account because based on my limited knowledge of Ingalls, I find him credible. But, it's a judgment call based on limited information, so I can't be certain.

Anyway, I left the LC movement because the leaders made unacceptable claims of authority on me not because of gossip that occurred off stage from where I am. It wouldn't surprise me if the leadership sinned since I personally witnessed them doing questionable things and I sin myself. Therefore, I will meet them on a level playing field as equals. But, I don't recognize their ecclesiastical authority over me. They are single individuals as am I. So, now I have brought the thread back to the OP topic.

Thanks for your post Zeek. I have placed in bold what I identify with.

[TLFisher]

In the LC culture, "The Body" is a spiritual sounding term for LSM group think. If I happen to say something in contrast to LSM, the response might be "Terry's individualistic."
To be "Body conscious" is to be anti-individualism.

Another example is why localities give to LSM instead of taking care of needy ones within their congregations. For example when Harvest House litigation was going on, localities pledged how much they could give towards the lawsuit. Why not pledge how they can help brothers and sisters within their congregation?
To take care of certain ones is to be individualistic instead of being Body conscious. To give to LSM/DCP/BFA, etc is considered to be Body conscious.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

If seeking the history of Lee's local church movement the eyewitness accounts are considered primary sources.

And we're very fortunate that we do have some primary sources. However, what we don't have is a whole slew of primary eyewitnesses. Cuz they aren't telling. They're busy and active in covering it up ... like a cat covering up its business.

Zeek seems to dismiss the primary sources we do have, calling them just hearsay.

But maybe bro zeek just wants to go by what his experiences were. And that's okay. It is enough, or he'd still be in the LC. And we're very happy for him. Plus, he's a primary eyewitness of what he saw, went thru, and experienced. And we'd never dismiss his accounts, when and if he shares them.

There was a long period of time when i discounted my own personal experiences as isolated or unique, and not indicative of systemic issues within the LC system. It was only after examining numerous accounts from well respected former members in various regions of the world did i obtain a fairly accurate and objective view of the system i was entrenched in for three decades.

I has had the ability to understand how the program deteriorated over time due to the unrighteousness and domination of LSM. I Always felt that my analysis of the Recovery must take into account all accounts, good and bad, recent and older.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well it's the testimony of John Ingalls, but he was not a first hand witness of the incidents in question at LSM. I had more of a personal relationship with John Ingalls than Lee because in my experience, John was a humble friendly guy and Witness Lee wasn't. So I had actually met and spoken briefly with Ingalls at conferences but not Lee. I have always tended to believe Ingalls' account because based on my limited knowledge of Ingalls, I find him credible. But, it's a judgment call based on limited information, so I can't be certain.

Many members were forced to choose between the account of Lee and that of Ingalls, based on reputation alone. Some followed Lee siding only with the majority. Personally, i never made any decision at the time since Titus Chu kept the information from us.

When i finally read Ingalls account in 2005, and compared the facts with Lee's record in Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, Lee suffered an incredible loss of respect due to the way he treated John, violated righteousness, and protected his profligate son Phillip, all the while sacrificing God's people, who dared to be faithful to their conscience. Lee's actions could only be summarized by the KJV phrase "filthy lucre."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many members were forced to choose between the account of Lee and that of Ingalls, based on reputation alone. Some followed Lee siding only with the majority. Personally, i never made any decision at the time since Titus Chu kept the information from us.

When i finally read Ingalls account in 2005, and compared the facts with Lee's record in Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, Lee suffered an incredible loss of respect due to the way he treated John, violated righteousness, and protected his profligate son Phillip, all the while sacrificing God's people, who dared to be faithful to their conscience Lee's actions could only be summarized by the KJV phrase "filthy lucre."

Individualism has been so heavily compromised in the LC, that it makes it hard for members to identify what the real issues are. Over the course of my life, again and again, I've seen people in the LC struggling. All too often, the specific problems that people are confronted with are not the problems that get addressed. An example of what I'm talking about is with something like Christmas. Lee lashed out against anything and everything related to it. But when I expressed my concern about LC attitudes regarding Christmas, I was met with a response "yeah some brothers are a bit too legalistic about it". Never was there an admission that Lee spoke to strongly or that his words were too closely followed. My point is that the real issues that I have been confronted with were always quickly skewed or wrongly attributed as different issues. I spent the majority of my time in an LC group environment, so never was there the opportunity for any kind of self-reflection or critical thought.

When I ventured out to the internet, I was met with different writings such as John Ingalls' account along with Nigel's and Steve's writings. Most of these writings discussed situations I knew nothing about. The only situation I was familiar with was the GLA quarantine, and that was only because they had called a meeting of all the Southern California LC's to issue the quarantine.

Anyways, what I discovered through the various writings that I read was that although the situations didn't have anything to do with me personally, they addressed problems that I had never really considered before. For example, exclusive use of LSM publications in the local churches. I had been doing that my whole life, but I had never considered if that was something reasonable or not. When I started getting clued into these abnormalities, I finally started to realize why I felt so bothered about the LC.

When I read John Ingall's account, it actually enlightened me to why I had certain experiences in my childhood. I grew up in the midst of the 80's situation, and there was family drama, even LC situations that happened as a result of that which I never understood. All the sudden it started to make sense why the LC has turned out to be what it is. I didn't read anything wanting to determine whose side to believe, I just wanted answers. I found the answers the LC/LSM couldn't provide. In my experience, finding answers has involved setting out on a path that is separated from the group environment of the LC, it has necessitated a good amount of individualism on my part. It made me realize why individualism is frowned upon so much in the LC.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When I read John Ingall's account, it actually enlightened me to why I had certain experiences in my childhood. I grew up in the midst of the 80's situation, and there was family drama, even LC situations that happened as a result of that which I never understood. All the sudden it started to make sense why the LC has turned out to be what it is. I didn't read anything wanting to determine whose side to believe, I just wanted answers. I found the answers the LC/LSM couldn't provide. In my experience, finding answers has involved setting out on a path that is separated from the group environment of the LC, it has necessitated a good amount of individualism on my part. It made me realize why individualism is frowned upon so much in the LC.

Very similar to my childhood experiences in the late 70's in Anaheim regarding Max Rapaport. (My family lived in Anaheim January 1976-June 1979)

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

And we're very fortunate that we do have some primary sources. However, what we don't have is a whole slew of primary eyewitnesses. Cuz they aren't telling. They're busy and active in covering it up ... like a cat covering up its business.

I think of Dan Towle. It wasn't until AFTER he spoke to Sherman Robertson (Bellevue's #1elder) at the time did Steve Isitt become set aside for writing In Wake of the New Way.
In my opinion Steve's writing was too sensitive for Dan to tolerate. The easy decision to make is to set one aside than to take time to shepherd and counsel them in sincere fellowship.
I believe Dan overreacted due to his conscience regarding the New Way. Knowing mistakes were made and as for the furtherance of LSM, image is everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpuFEpbE0d0

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When I read John Ingall's account, it actually enlightened me to why I had certain experiences in my childhood. I grew up in the midst of the 80's situation, and there was family drama, even LC situations that happened as a result of that which I never understood. All the sudden it started to make sense why the LC has turned out to be what it is. I didn't read anything wanting to determine whose side to believe, I just wanted answers. I found the answers the LC/LSM couldn't provide. In my experience, finding answers has involved setting out on a path that is separated from the group environment of the LC, it has necessitated a good amount of individualism on my part. It made me realize why individualism is frowned upon so much in the LC.

Freedom, you "found the answers the LC/LSM wouldn't provide."

I think we all came here because we had numerous unanswered questions. The gnawing questions grew until the pending quarantines (~2003) prevented me from ignoring them any longer.

One of which was, "how can we hear so much teaching on love and oneness, yet treat one another so badly with backbiting, abuses, and suspicions being the norm rather than the exception."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Freedom, you "found the answers the LC/LSM wouldn't provide."

I think we all came here because we had numerous unanswered questions. The gnawing questions grew until the pending quarantines (~2003) prevented me from ignoring them any longer.

One of which was, "how can we hear so much teaching on love and oneness, yet treat one another so badly with backbiting, abuses, and suspicions being the norm rather than the exception."

The ability of the local church leaders to cover up fecal matter amazes me.

I walked because my spirit was very disturbed. It took decades for what my spirit was disturbed about to come to light.

In short, my spirit led me out of the LC.

My spirit demanded that I be an individual.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Terry

In the LC culture, "The Body" is a spiritual sounding term for LSM group think. If I happen to say something in contrast to LSM, the response might be "Terry's individualistic."
To be "Body conscious" is to be anti-individualism.

Another example is why localities give to LSM instead of taking care of needy ones within their congregations. For example when Harvest House litigation was going on, localities pledged how much they could give towards the lawsuit. Why not pledge how they can help brothers and sisters within their congregation?
To take care of certain ones is to be individualistic instead of being Body conscious. To give to LSM/DCP/BFA, etc is considered to be Body conscious.

The question is: am I going to think for myself or become an adherent to someone else's theology, philosophy or political theory? According to Witness Lee being "body-consciousness" seemed to entail forsaking thinking for yourself. At the same time, he seemed to be doing a lot of thinking for himself.

Lee's theology was one of top-down authority. The Living Stream Ministry views the "living stream" as flowing down from the top though the MOTA. But, I notice that according to Jesus, the water he gives gushes upward from below. "The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life.” John 4:14

[OBW]

The question is: am I going to think for myself or become an adherent to someone else's theology, philosophy or political theory? According to Witness Lee being "body-consciousness" seemed to entail forsaking thinking for yourself. At the same time, he seemed to be doing a lot of thinking for himself.

The problem with this is that it is a false dichotomy. It ignores that my own thinking is influenced by the thoughts of others no matter how I try to be just me. And it makes those who follow someone out to be non-thinkers when they may have simply studied the ideas of the others and decided they were right and others were wrong.

And in the end, either it is truly a singular theology with gray areas around the edges, therefore we actually agree on the basics, no matter how much we want to say we are simply thinking for ourselves, or we jettison the basics in favor of a truly "just me" idea that is not exactly consistent with everyone else.

All this coming from a guy who is having a hard time with some of the core teachings and emphases of the group with which he is currently connected.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem with this is that it is a false dichotomy. It ignores that my own thinking is influenced by the thoughts of others no matter how I try to be just me. And it makes those who follow someone out to be non-thinkers when they may have simply studied the ideas of the others and decided they were right and others were wrong.

I am influenced by everything I read and everyone I talk to somewhat. But, I don't follow anybody unconditionally or accept their propositions uncritically. I call that "thinking for myself" and it's very different from what was expected of people in the LCM and other church groups.

And in the end, either it is truly a singular theology with gray areas around the edges, therefore we actually agree on the basics, no matter how much we want to say we are simply thinking for ourselves, or we jettison the basics in favor of a truly "just me" idea that is not exactly consistent with everyone else.

That seems like a false dichotomy or black and white thinking to me. Aren't there an infinite range of possibilities between those extremes?

All this coming from a guy who is having a hard time with some of the core teachings and emphases of the group with which he is currently connected.

I'm not sure who you are referring to there.

[TLFisher]

Something I have considered, over the last two turmoils the actions of current blended brothers was independent, individualistic, and self-serving. They had a paychecks to worry about and ambitions within Living Stream Ministry to achieve.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

Something I have considered, over the last two turmoils the actions of current blended brothers was independent, individualistic, and self-serving. They had a paychecks to worry about and ambitions within Living Stream Ministry to achieve.

Come to think of it, back when I knew Ron Kangas, he always had a unique mind of his own. And as far as I can see since, he's used it quite well.

Proving, those that use their mind to support Witness Lee climb to the top of the LC. While all others are told to get out of their minds, and into their spirit, they stay in their minds.

We all need to use our minds. So ... I advise: brother, get out of your spirit, and into your mind. You'll go further, whatever and wherever you go. And ... and ... you won't fall for mind tricks.