TheStarswillFall Testimony

[TheStarswillFall]

It is evident that there is a common thread weaved through the narratives/testimonies of (most) saints who left the Lord's Recovery.

I was in the LR from 2008 - 2019. I attended the FTT (not Anaheim) from 2013-2014. It is fair to say that I became a devout disciple of Witness Lee. I was quarantined in 2019.

Backtrack to 2008 when I received Christ as my Lord and Saviour (outside of the LR). From the very beginning of my walk with the Lord I was very burdened for the truth. As a young believer I got entangled in Calvinism (because my salvation was precious to me, and I did not believe I could lose it). Then one day I read God's Economy (W Lee) and the rest is history as they say. I received W Lee's word that we must put down our "toy doctrines" and just take care of the Spirit with our spirit. I remember that day. I cried for joy! I have a spirit and God is Spirit and that is all that matters! Amen.

I still remember those honeymoon years in the Recovery. The Bible opening up like a gold mine. The wonderful emphasis on Christ's work and Person. The high revelation concerning the church being the Body of Christ and not a human organization and on and on I can go.

But nothing is as it seems. The truth and the practise in the LR often do not match each other. There is a word in the Bible describing this very condition - "hypocrisy."
To name a few:
1. There should not be any hierarchy in the church (Nicolaitans)
2. "Christ + nothing"
3. In the church we must be "general", not insisting upon anything "special"
4. Christ is the Head of every man (no mediator)
5. One man speaking is of degraded Christianity
6. All the saints have the freedom to function according to their gifting
7. The recovered church (Philadelphia) does not take any name other than the name of her Husband.

Then there are the blatant heresies like
1. Minister of the Age (with the Ministry of the Age)
2. The unique ground of oneness as the main determining factor of a genuine local church.
3. Restricting saints to one man's ministry
4. Referring to oneself as the Lord's Recovery

So I wrote the leading brothers a well-mannered letter wherein I raised my concerns regarding the unhealthy exaltation of brother Lee in the LR as the Minister of the Age. Looking back now I can actually chuckle at my ignorance. As if Martin Luther's nailing of his 95 theses into that door changed anything wrt the Catholic Church. To this day the Catholic church has not changed. But Luther did initiate reformation and freedom from religious bondage for many...including himself...

So my well-mannered letter was received with utter disgust and the Lord sovereignly unlocked my Lord's Recovery chains via the brothers' quarantining me.

It has been 4 years since that day I was quarantined, and I still have many unanswered questions. I am just relieved that Jesus is (still) Lord. When I gave my heart to Christ on that day in 2008 I was very specific. My heart belongs to Jesus Christ, to no other.

[ACuriousFellow]

Amen. Thanks for sharing your story. I was in it from 2013-2023. I left this past January. Interestingly enough I was very much interested in the book "The Economy of God." The same topic that drew you in also drew me in at first. It was quite a ride, and the end was very bumpy for me. It's no secret to most former members (and, frankly, even current members) that questioning their "not-pope" Witness Lee is a big no-no. Your intentions don't matter at all. It's not about "right and wrong," remember? It's about "life and death."

I was about ready to start flipping tables over from hearing that nonsense phrase for so many years. Even now it stirs up much anger in me.

Anyhoo, welcome to the club.

[alwayscurious]

Originally Posted by TheStarswillFall

I was in the LR from 2008 - 2019. I attended the FTT (not Anaheim) from 2013-2014. It is fair to say that I became a devout disciple of Witness Lee. I was quarantined in 2019.
...
It has been 4 years since that day I was quarantined, and I still have many unanswered questions.

Hi TheStarswillFall,

Thanks for your testimony. I have to ask, do you still happen to have that letter you wrote the leading brothers, and perhaps even a copy (email, letter, etc) of their response and how exactly you were quarantined?

It might be of great help to me and perhaps others as well, as I am planning on meeting with a leading brother here in Anaheim (who I am close with) sometime in the near future but am not sure how to approach the conversation, and perhaps you may have some advice?
I would like to ask this leading brother questions about LR history, why LSM exclusive materials are only used, and about the "ground" of the LC...

Best,

[Nell]

Originally Posted by alwayscurious

Hi TheStarswillFall,

Thanks for your testimony. I have to ask, do you still happen to have that letter you wrote the leading brothers, and perhaps even a copy (email, letter, etc) of their response and how exactly you were quarantined?

It might be of great help to me and perhaps others as well, as I am planning on meeting with a leading brother here in Anaheim (who I am close with) sometime in the near future but am not sure how to approach the conversation, and perhaps you may have some advice?
I would like to ask this leading brother questions about LR history, why LSM exclusive materials are only used, and about the "ground" of the LC...

Best,

alwayscurious,

As you prepare for your Q&A with a leading brother, I'll throw in my two suggestions.

1) You may already be planning this, but I would ask for verses to support each teaching you are questioning. You might even make a list and write the answers you receive including any verses.

2) There is an important matter to consider when studying the Bible. That is, you must determine whether a verse is "prescriptive" or "descriptive". This would be an exellent approach to pin down answers from the LC leadership.

From "Got Questions":
"When studying the Bible, it is important to determine whether the verse or passage at hand is descriptive or prescriptive. The difference is this: a passage is descriptive if it is simply describing something that happened, while a passage is prescriptive if it is specifically teaching that something should happen. Simply put, is it a description or a command? Is the passage describing something (it happened) or is it prescribing something (it should happen)? The difference is important. When a biblical passage is only describing something but is interpreted as prescribing something, it can lead to errant thinking and behavior."

Is OCOC (One Church One City) really a command or are the verses simply descriptions of the church at the time the scripture was penned? The church in any city, was not a prescription or a command to be obeyed for all times.

This was one of the most helpful matters on reading/teaching the Bible, which Bill Mallon shared with a group of us when we first left.

I hope this helps you too.

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

Is OCOC (One Church One City) really a command or are the verses simply descriptions of the church at the time the scripture was penned. The church in any city, was not a prescription or a command to be obeyed for all times?

This was one of the most helpful matters on reading/teaching the Bible, which Bill Mallon shared with a group of us when we first left.

I hope this helps you too.

Nell

Great point, Nell. Once this principle is applied, much of Recovery theology collapses like a house of cards. A couple more instances:

1. Yes, initially Peter, and then Paul, were leading, but never does the Bible nor church history ever prescribe that “there always was one minister who led in every age.”

2. Also, the early apostles did appoint elders, but never was this prescribed for future appointments of elders and deacons.

Both instances are used by LSM to maintain their vast control over their member churches. I actually tried to implement this false standard of Bible interpretation once when fishing. I cast my net in on the right side of the boat, and I still caught nothing! (John 21.6)

[TheStarswillFall]

Originally Posted by alwayscurious

I have to ask, do you still happen to have that letter you wrote the leading brothers...

It might be of great help to me and perhaps others as well...

I apologize for the length of this post.

Here is my original letter (I have decided not to conceal names).

Prescript to my letter: My views of W Lee today is not as favourable as it was at the time of writing the letter.

2019.04.15
Brothers Rolf and Gustav,
It has been in my heart for a while to write this letter. In principle, I have already done so in the letter I wrote to brother Thielen on 2018.07.23. I did share that letter with both of you. Brother Rolf and I also had positive fellowship, for the most part, concerning the content of that letter dated 2018.07.23. In that letter I addressed a particular concern that I perceived to be prevalent in the “church life” namely
1. The exaltation of brother Lee as "the Minister of the Age"

In my initial fellowship with brother Rolf concerning that letter, brother Rolf mentioned that he is also not entirely comfortable with calling any one brother “the Minister of the Age”. Some weeks after that initial fellowship with brother Rolf, myself and brother Rolf and brother Viaan had another discussion concerning the content of that letter. During that second time I openly expressed my disapproval of calling any one brother the “Minister of the Age”. Brother Rolf then again admitted to his own uneasiness concerning this very matter, whereupon brother Viaan immediately corrected the both of us by stating that both brother Lee and brother Nee taught positively concerning the/a minister of the age and that we should speak the same.

I do acknowledge that brother Rolf never expressed a strong opinion concerning this matter and that he encouraged me to discern these matters for myself before the Lord and not make it a matter of contention amongst the saints.

Brothers, I do not presume to be your teacher, but the only way I can express my conviction is by stating my understanding of God’s Word, the Bible, concerning this very matter: The Bible is the unique source of God’s revelation to man. Every teaching of man should be evaluated by God’s Word. If any teaching contradicts God’s word, that teaching must be rejected as false, even if the whole world would celebrate it as truth. In Acts 17:11 Paul reveals a most wonderful trait prevalent amongst the believers in Berea - although these believers received the apostle’s gospel with gladness of heart and with joy, they none the less, “searched the Scriptures to see whether these things were so”. Paul was not insisting upon his authority as God’s oracle, on the contrary, he praised these saints for being more noble, because they searched the Scriptures to discern his ministry for themselves. {1 John 2:27; John 6:45}

Concerning my conviction of brother Witness Lee and his ministry, I will say the following:
The Lord has used the ministry of brother Lee to open up His heart to me, to make known to me the purpose of the ages. I love brother Lee, I love his ministry and I will continue to do so as I discern that it is from God.

In Matthew 23 (v8 to 11) the Lord expressly tells His apostles not to be called teacher nor to be called instructor nor to be called Father, “for One is your Teacher and One is your Instructor - the Christ; and you are all brothers.” Brothers, the Lord cannot speak a clearer word than this. The Lord’s word here is not obscure nor is it hidden. It is not open for misinterpretation. “Do not be called teacher. Do not be called instructor. I (Christ) am your Teacher, and I am your Instructor. Do not usurp My Headship. Do not exalt yourself amongst the brothers. Do not take on a title. You are all brothers and I am your Head and Teacher and Instructor .” Brother Nee (Orthodoxy of the Church) applies this portion in Matt 23 (v8 to 11) to the church in Philadelphia, showing that Philadelphia is the fulfilment and reality of the Lord’s word concerning His unique Headship and His desire for His believers not to establish hierarchy amongst the brothers. The Lord praises Philadelphia for having little power, for keeping His Word, and for not denying His Name. I believe that Philadelphia is the reality of the Body of Christ, where Christ is honoured as the Head (not in doctrine only, but in practice actually). Christ is practically honoured as the Head of His Body by keeping His Word (the Bible) and by not denying His Name (not associating with any other name) and by loving (and receiving) all the brothers (not being sectarian).

To contend that we do not transgress the Lord's word in Matt 23 (v8 to 11) by calling brother Lee the “Minister of the Age” is a wilful deception. It is to call darkness light. It is to go directly against the Lord’s word (and our own teaching that there must not be hierarchy in the church). To insist upon calling brother Lee the “Minister of the Age” is to usurp Christ’s headship and to establish rank amongst the brothers. We usurp our unique Head, and we divide the Body of Christ by insisting upon allegiance to a special minister.

Not only did the Lord Jesus tell us not to call anyone the “Minister of the Age”, but the apostle Paul affirmed the Lord’s word in his first letter to the Corinthians. Paul said that some believers had become divisive because they insisted upon the ministry of their preferred apostle. Some said “I am of Paul” while others said “I am of Apollos”, still others said “I am of Peter”. Paul charged the believers in Corinth to stop that behaviour, because that brought in division amongst the believers. To call brother Lee the “Minister of the Age” is nothing less than saying “I am of Witness Lee”. The Bible clearly calls this divisive. Again, to deny this, is to be wilfully deceived.

The issue of the false teaching of “a/the minister of the age with the ministry of the age” is the erroneous understanding of "the one flow” being uniquely embodied in the ministry of one man. The testimony of the New Testament contradicts the understanding of God only flowing through the speaking (and re-speaking) of one man and his ministry. For example, the four Gospels (Matt/Mark/Luke/John) were written during the age and ministry of the apostle Paul. These four Gospels, as part of the “one ministry”, were written by four different brothers during the same age of the apostle Paul’s ministry and became the very foundation of the Christian faith. Each Gospel is unique in its writer, unique in its words and unique in its emphasis. If Paul was the unique minister of the age with the unique ministry of the age why did the Lord speak (give) the four gospels through Matthew, Mark, Luke and John during the age of Paul’s ministry? If the flow was uniquely with the apostle Paul and his ministry (as claimed by the ministry), how do we account for the other 7 writers of the New Testament who all wrote and ministered during the age of Paul’s ministry? The flow is one (and the ministry), because the Source is One. The flow is one, because the flow is the Spirit (John 4, John 7 and Rev 22) issuing from the throne of God and of the Lamb. The New Testament is the apostleS’ (plural!) teaching spoken by the Son through 8 brothers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude) during the same age; the age of the genuine apostles. Clearly, the one flow was not just with “the minister of the age” but simultaneously with the Lord's other 7 writers of His New Testament. This understanding is according to the principle of the Body under the unique headship of Christ.

To use the example of Paul and Barnabas to justify the understanding that the Lord’s one flow is uniquely with one minister and his ministry is to wilfully reject the greater testimony of the New Testament and the principle of the Body of Christ (having one Head with many members with varied gifts, ministries and operations). The Lord Himself appointed 12 apostles, not one! These apostles lived, ministered and wrote the New Testament concurrently (in the same age)! It is the apostleS’ teaching, not THE APOSTLE’s teaching.

(Sidebar: Moses is not a type of “the minister of the age”. Moses is a type of Christ {Dt 18:15, 1 Cor 10:2, He 3:v5 to 6})

Why does this matter? Because the Body of Christ can never be realized where Christ’s Headship is violated and where the believers have a special fellowship that does not include all other believers (open to receive their portion and function). We will suffer a tremendous loss if we are only able to receive the portion of one member of the Body, no matter how gifted that member may be. For the Body to grow, the Body needs the functioning and portion of all the members, who function out of the Head Christ (not out of the ministry of one man).

Am I too strong in stating my conviction? Paul openly opposed Peter before the brothers when Peter did not walk in a manner worthy of the truth of the gospel. Paul opposed Peter because of his hypocrisy. Keep in mind that Peter was the foremost apostle through whom the Lord saved thousands of Jews and Gentiles. But Peter, like any man, is not infallible, nor is he all-inclusive. Peter had to be corrected by Paul in his hypocrisy so that the truth of the gospel might remain with us today. We also know that Peter received Paul’s open rebuke as that from the Lord {2 Pet 3:16}.

I know of a few brothers (all of them my elder in the Lord) who have never been comfortable in their hearts with the teaching of “the minister of the age”. I do not know what brother Gustav’s conviction is concerning this matter. Brothers, I do not follow a man. If I can’t affirm the truth of any matter in God’s word, I reject it, no matter whether most of God's people take the other way.
{Exo 23:2}.

I reject the teaching of “the minister of the age with the ministry of the age”. I also reject the understanding that the Spirit’s “one flow” is uniquely embodied and realized within the speaking and the re - speaking of “the ministry of the age”. The Bible positively affirms that the Lord has many oracles at any given time {1 Pet 4:11} and that the one flow is the one Spirit flowing within and without every regenerated believer {John 4:10,14; John 7: v37 to 39; Rev 22:1}. This understanding is in harmony with God's word.

Exactly how to go on from here, I do not know. I do know that the Lord calls for the overcomers from within the midst of the degradation of their local churches. I have been aloof and not so willing to join myself to the local fellowship, as I have been struggling with these matters, which are of no small consequence given the nature of our fellowship within "the Lord's Recovery". I might have not been altogether wise in the manner I have shared my conviction with the saints. I do need the Lord’s mercy. I am not calling for a reform brothers, we all desire fellowship that is genuinely in the light and not merely diplomatic – not merely keeping an outward oneness. My main desire is that we will become Philadelphia in reality. Philadelphia is the Lord's choice. I love the saints and I love the church. I believe that Philadelphia has the testimony of love for all the saints irrespective of their condition or doctrine. It is easier to be clear concerning the truth, than it is to love all the saints. For a while now my prayer to the Lord has been that He would bring me/us "to the end of the charge which is love out of a pure heart and out of a good conscience and out of unfeigned faith" {1 Tim 1:5}.

May the Lord be the Head in our fellowship tomorrow.
Your brother

Originally Posted by alwayscurious

I have to ask, do you still happen to have... a copy (email, letter, etc) of their response and how exactly you were quarantined?

It might be of great help to me and perhaps others as well...

Here is their response.

31 July, 2019
Dear brother,
It is with a deep sense of regret that we brothers are writing this letter to you. We have come a long way together and have treasured your portion of the Lord during the past few years. Unfortunately matters have changed a lot during the past year or so and we finally, after much waiting and consideration, feel we can no longer but address these matters directly with you.

“Now there were in Antioch, in the local church, prophets and teachers...And as they were ministering to the Lord...” Acts 13:1-2

According to the above verse and other verses (e.g. Eph. 4:12-16) we believe genuine ministry occurs within the church and is for the building up of the church unto the building up of the Body of Christ. Our overriding sense is that you seem to have allowed a critical concept to develop in you that the churches have an improper relationship to ministry. We find it difficult to come to any other conclusion than that you have allowed your questioning to spoil your and your wife’s church life, in spite of our repeated appeals to you to desist from letting something like this take hold of you.

We are perturbed that you have also disturbed the normal church life of other saints in numerous localities with your lengthy discussions with them over the phone regarding your critical views of the church in this regard. Despite our wishing it would not have come to this point we now have come to the conclusion that you will hold on to your views come what may. We also feel that it seems impossible for you to not share this with other saints thereby unsettling them. We find it hard to understand, but simultaneously you have sought out the company of others who harbour negative views about the church and who, at least outwardly, seem to thrive on expressing them. One of these viciously attacked the church and the saints with his words and as far as we know never repented to those he spoke to in this way. Yet now you receive him and even speak well of him and if we are correct, even attend meetings which he arranges.

“A factious man, after a first and second admonition, refuse” Titus 3:10

Our impression, and we would be delighted to learn that it is not so, is that you have already chosen to distance yourself from the district in which you were meeting and we now have been left with no other choice but to ask you to also stop your contact with any saints meeting in the churches in South Africa. We also ask you to no longer attend any meetings of the church. It is very sad for us to have to ask this of you, you are beloved to us, but we feel this is best for you so that you have an opportunity to be recovered later by not doing any further damage to the church. We, after much fellowship nationally and also internationally, will also have to advise the saints to not contact you at this stage. Likewise we will advise the saints to not contact brother Dolf or brother Thielen, both of whom, we believe, have contributed towards
marring your experience of oneness.

May you experience the Lord’s sweet dispensing into your soul and ruling over your inner being so that you can be filled exclusively with His view and feeling concerning the church. We believe you can then be brought back into the enjoyment of the glorious church without spot and wrinkle (Eph. 5:27), beholding no iniquity in her (Num. 23:21).

Until then we commit you to the Lord in love.

Your brothers,
Nils Groeneveld,
Rolf Stumpf,
Mike Reitz,
John Hwang,
Gustav de Bruyn,
Viaan Strydom

[aron]

Originally Posted by TheStarswillFall

The issue of the false teaching of “a/the minister of the age with the ministry of the age” is the erroneous understanding of "the one flow” being uniquely embodied in the ministry of one man. The testimony of the New Testament contradicts the understanding of God only flowing through the speaking (and re-speaking) of one man and his ministry. For example, the four Gospels (Matt/Mark/Luke/John) were written during the age and ministry of the apostle Paul. These four Gospels, as part of the “one ministry”, were written by four different brothers during the same age of the apostle Paul’s ministry and became the very foundation of the Christian faith. Each Gospel is unique in its writer, unique in its words and unique in its emphasis. If Paul was the unique minister of the age with the unique ministry of the age why did the Lord speak (give) the four gospels through Matthew, Mark, Luke and John during the age of Paul’s ministry? If the flow was uniquely with the apostle Paul and his ministry (as claimed by the ministry), how do we account for the other 7 writers of the New Testament who all wrote and ministered during the age of Paul’s ministry? The flow is one (and the ministry), because the Source is One. The flow is one, because the flow is the Spirit (John 4, John 7 and Rev 22) issuing from the throne of God and of the Lamb. The New Testament is the apostleS’ (plural!) teaching spoken by the Son through 8 brothers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude) during the same age; the age of the genuine apostles. Clearly, the one flow was not just with “the minister of the age” but simultaneously with the Lord's other 7 writers of His New Testament. This understanding is according to the principle of the Body under the unique headship of Christ.

Paul said that he was apostle to the Gentiles, just as Peter was to the Jews (Gal 2:7). There's no hint of one restricted flow through one chosen vessel. Only Jesus ever held that claim, and only Jesus ever will. He is the Christ - singular by definition. Otherwise there is always mutuality and interdependency in function. Then, if you look through the history held up by the Lord's Recovery narrative, it shows cases where God is seen to be moving independently. Wesley in England and Edwards in the American colonies for example... which one had the ministry of the age? It was never considered, in fact it couldn't be considered, as the opposite was plainly indicated.

All of this seems straightforward to consider, until you bring it up. Then, the conversation turns. You're being negative, divisive, factious etc etc. Attacking our dear brother and tearing down the precious work etc etc. And it only gets stranger, if you persist in consideration. For example, Watchman Nee was said to have used a library of some 3,000 "Christian classics" from which he gleaned all the riches of the spiritual life and practice. Yet who wrote all these 3,000 classic books? A series of Ministers of the Age? Or a plurality of believers? How can you say the 3,000 books by probably hundreds of different authors were somehow restricted to "one flow" before Nee showed up? The narrative contradicts the concept.

[TheStarswillFall]

Originally Posted by aron

For example, Watchman Nee was said to have used a library of some 3,000 "Christian classics" from which he gleaned all the riches of the spiritual life and practice. Yet who wrote all these 3,000 classic books? A series of Ministers of the Age? Or a plurality of believers? How can you say the 3,000 books by probably hundreds of different authors were somehow restricted to "one flow" before Nee showed up? The narrative contradicts the concept.

"plularity of believers"... ApostlesS' Teaching...

In The Orthodoxy of the Church W Nee accounts how the Lord raised up the initial Philadelphian age with the Brethren during the time of J.N. Darby, J.G Bellett, George Muller, C.H. Mackintosh, James G Deck, George Cutting, William Kelly, F.W Grant, Robert Anderson, Charles Stanley, S.P. Tregelles, Andrew Miller and R.C Chapman to name but a few.

W Nee said of these men that they were "brothers God has given as gifts to His church. These were the brothers at that time. If we recount in detail others among the brothers, the number of all who were greatly used by the Lord would exceed at least a thousand. Now we will see what these brothers gave us: They showed us... We thank the Lord that the problem of the church is solved by the movement of the brothers".

This is W Nee's take on the (initial) fulfilment of the prophecy of Philadelphia (Rev 3:7) through the plurality of believers.

Any sober minded person will have to concede that what W Nee describes and identifies as Philadelphia in The Orthodoxy of the Church is irreconcilable with the testimony and practises of today's Lord's Recovery.

[Ohio]

They don't even deny that they are "of WL." Obviously in their "international" communications about you these brothers have been informed not to even discuss your scriptural convictions. "Just go directly to Titus 3.10!"

Years ago I remember talking to one LSM brother about being "of WL" according to I Cor 1.12. He insisted that he never said, "I am of WL." I responded to him, "does someone really need to walk in circles wearing a sandwich board stating 'I am of Lee' before you will actually admit it?"

[aron]

Originally Posted by TheStarswillFall

So I wrote the leading brothers a well-mannered letter wherein I raised my concerns regarding the unhealthy exaltation of brother Lee in the LR as the Minister of the Age. Looking back now I can actually chuckle at my ignorance. As if Martin Luther's nailing of his 95 theses into that door changed anything wrt the Catholic Church. To this day the Catholic church has not changed. But Luther did initiate reformation and freedom from religious bondage for many...including himself...

I don't know if you've had a chance to read the "Writings by former members" section. There's one named "Indiana" (Steve Isitt) who had a similar experience. He was in a meeting with Witness Lee, who said that it was a shame that some had left, that they should find out where they were and invite them back to the LR.

Of course everyone nodded and said, Yes, and did nothing. But Steve got on the phone and started calling people, and tracking down ex-members, and began to find out what happened, why people left. He then wrote a report to the local 'elders' and they were horrified. They didn't want to see anything 'negative'! He persisted in presenting his findings, and was summarily expelled, even though he was never combative or confrontational. He just wanted voices to be heard, what had happened.

Eventually, he called his experience "Hiding History in the Lord's Recovery". These were real histories with real, wounded persons, but the authorities didn't have a heart to hear it, because it wasn't the official story line. But WL himself had said to find out! Steve was punished for taking the ideal at face value, and not just paying lip service.

https://artemisbelt.wordpress.com/

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by aron

Steve was punished for taking the ideal at face value, and not just paying lip service.

When I spoke to my friend about my concerns about Witness Lee's doctrines, he asked if I read the whole chapter, then the whole book, then all the books. How can one judge Witness Lee if they haven't read every single one of the 100+ books he wrote?

So I started reading more of his books. Then I became more and more convinced of his folly. I also started looking into the church history, including the "We Were Wrong" article. Jo Casteel. John Ingalls. Phillip Lee, Steve Isitt, Daystar, Harvest House, SCP, Andrea McArdle, Titus Chu, John Myer, and more.

The more I read, the more my heart was grieved. It was torn into a million pieces. I did not want it to be true, but I knew it was.

He asked me if I've read Witness Lee's works. I want to ask "have you?"

I found out that he started doing research into it all just like I did, but he decided to stop because it was too unpleasant. "I realized that all things just lead back to the Lord" he said.

The man who challenged me to look into it was not able to bare it himself.

Still, I can't bring myself to be too angry. I understand the hesitation. It was painful to look at. It was gut-wrenching. I was told he wanted to try and fellowship with me. I was told he would be willing to start with an email. No word yet, but I'm praying.

I'm honestly not sure what to expect if he ever does contact me. Will he rebuke me? Tell me I'm poisoned and full of death? Call me a zealot once more? Will he hear me out? Actually listen to what I have to say and take a hard look at The Recovery? Will he have discovered the truth by the time he decides to send a message? Will he even contact me at all? It's been about 5 or 6 months now. Feels like an eternity.

99% of my loved ones are in there. Mentors and mothers and brothers and sisters. Every now and then I am overwhelmed with emotion and sorrow for them. I haven't the slightest idea how to help them. I really don't.

[Bible-believer]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

When I spoke to my friend about my concerns about Witness Lee's doctrines, he asked if I read the whole chapter, then the whole book, then all the books. How can one judge Witness Lee if they haven't read every single one of the 100+ books he wrote?


I'm honestly not sure what to expect if he ever does contact me. Will he rebuke me? Tell me I'm poisoned and full of death? Call me a zealot once more? Will he hear me out? Actually listen to what I have to say and take a hard look at The Recovery? Will he have discovered the truth by the time he decides to send a message? Will he even contact me at all? It's been about 5 or 6 months now. Feels like an eternity.

99% of my loved ones are in there. Mentors and mothers and brothers and sisters. Every now and then I am overwhelmed with emotion and sorrow for them. I haven't the slightest idea how to help them. I really don't.

I was asked the same questions, and I could relate to you. Some once were close but are now diluted as nodding acquaintances. I don't have answers to your questions; I prayed and will pray for you. May God's love, mercy, and strength be upon you unceasingly.

[StevenLi89]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Amen. Thanks for sharing your story. I was in it from 2013-2023. I left this past January. Interestingly enough I was very much interested in the book "The Economy of God." The same topic that drew you in also drew me in at first. It was quite a ride, and the end was very bumpy for me. It's no secret to most former members (and, frankly, even current members) that questioning their "not-pope" Witness Lee is a big no-no. Your intentions don't matter at all. It's not about "right and wrong," remember? It's about "life and death."

I was about ready to start flipping tables over from hearing that nonsense phrase for so many years. Even now it stirs up much anger in me.

Anyhoo, welcome to the club.

I remember receiving the book called God's Economy from the full time training students. I don't think I have it anymore because I might have discarded it. I don't remember the contents, but that's not relevant to my cause. I've been trying to reach out to former members of LC if they are any. I was disillusioned during my time at LC cult by Witness Lee.

Steven, you can join the Facebook group: Former Members Of The Lord’s Recovery Movement (“Local Churches”)

[StevenLi89]

Originally Posted by Estranged

Steven, you can join the Facebook group: Former Members Of The Lord’s Recovery Movement (“Local Churches”)

I don’t use Facebook anymore, so I don’t know if that group are still active to this day.

[aron]

Originally Posted by TheStarswillFall

one day I read God's Economy (W Lee) and the rest is history as they say. I received W Lee's word that we must put down our "toy doctrines" and just take care of the Spirit with our spirit. I remember that day. I cried for joy! I have a spirit and God is Spirit and that is all that matters! Amen.

An illustrative passage on several fronts. I note your use of Lee's word "must", as in "we must put down" such and such. In any HWMR outline one can see a large number of sentences containing "we must" and "we should" and "we ought to" and "we all need to" and "we have to". Again and again, an imperative tone is used, telling people what they should do. He's taking away people's capacity to reflect and decide, and he's bending them to his will, and removing choice. WL has a commodity (a teaching, a message, a training, a book) and it's making it's recipients into a commodity as well. Christ was processed and now you masticate Christ and become a nobody in Witness Lee's Local Church. And it's all presented in an authoritative, "you must do this" tone.

Next is the "toy doctrines" part. There's some Christian thought and teaching that's oversimplification and/or missing the mark, perhaps by a wide margin. But Lee replaces such toy doctrines with his own, using makeshift theology, like "tea-ification". Paul doesn't write, "Remain in Ephesus and teach tea-ification". Homespun analogies are at best fragmentary illustrations. If stressed as encompassing truth, they're new toy doctrines, often worse than the ones they replace.

Lastly, "I have a spirit and God is Spirit and that is all that matters" The first two parts may be true, but "that is all that matters" comes from Lee. He's trying to get his audience to ignore plain commands in scripture, by his simplifying the narrative down to his pet theme, which he claims will subsume all other teaching, all other truth. That's the creation of toy doctrines in a nutshell.

Just keep eating, just keep drinking - do you remember such phrases? Just call, O Lord, He'll change your life... the Bible does say to call on the Lord, but it doesn't say to just call O Lord. You also have to do a lot of other stuff, as well! But we got a simplified version where we just called O Lord to the exclusion of everything else. And that kind of obsessive oversimplification caused us to miss so much else that was equally critical. "Why do you call, Lord, Lord, and don't do what I say?"

It took me years of just calling, calling calling every day, to realize there was more in the Bible, much more. There's more than just the Spirit with my human spirit. I wasn't getting the metabolic transformation that I was promised, just by calling every day. There was a lot more, and I'd been ignoring it, by paying attention to Lee's "we need to do this" and "just do this" and "this is all that matters". Jesus said, "I am the way", but in the Local Church we got, "Calling is the way". We felt that by fixating on certain religious processes we could ignore most everything else. That looks like the epitome of toy doctrines to me.

[Ohio]

Incredibly insightful post, aron. Thanks.

[TheStarswillFall]

Originally Posted by aron

An illustrative passage on several fronts. I note your use of Lee's word "must", as in "we must put down" such and such. In any HWMR outline one can see a large number of sentences containing "we must" and "we should" and "we ought to" and "we all need to" and "we have to". Again and again, an imperative tone is used, telling people what they should do. He's taking away people's capacity to reflect and decide, and he's bending them to his will, and removing choice. WL has a commodity (a teaching, a message, a training, a book) and it's making it's recipients into a commodity as well. Christ was processed and now you masticate Christ and become a nobody in Witness Lee's Local Church. And it's all presented in an authoritative, "you must do this" tone.

Next is the "toy doctrines" part. There's some Christian thought and teaching that's oversimplification and/or missing the mark, perhaps by a wide margin. But Lee replaces such toy doctrines with his own, using makeshift theology, like "tea-ification". Paul doesn't write, "Remain in Ephesus and teach tea-ification". Homespun analogies are at best fragmentary illustrations. If stressed as encompassing truth, they're new toy doctrines, often worse than the ones they replace.

Lastly, "I have a spirit and God is Spirit and that is all that matters" The first two parts may be true, but "that is all that matters" comes from Lee. He's trying to get his audience to ignore plain commands in scripture, by his simplifying the narrative down to his pet theme, which he claims will subsume all other teaching, all other truth. That's the creation of toy doctrines in a nutshell.

Just keep eating, just keep drinking - do you remember such phrases? Just call, O Lord, He'll change your life... the Bible does say to call on the Lord, but it doesn't say to just call O Lord. You also have to do a lot of other stuff, as well! But we got a simplified version where we just called O Lord to the exclusion of everything else. And that kind of obsessive oversimplification caused us to miss so much else that was equally critical. "Why do you call, Lord, Lord, and don't do what I say?"

It took me years of just calling, calling calling every day, to realize there was more in the Bible, much more. There's more than just the Spirit with my human spirit. I wasn't getting the metabolic transformation that I was promised, just by calling every day. There was a lot more, and I'd been ignoring it, by paying attention to Lee's "we need to do this" and "just do this" and "this is all that matters". Jesus said, "I am the way", but in the Local Church we got, "Calling is the way". We felt that by fixating on certain religious processes we could ignore most everything else. That looks like the epitome of toy doctrines to me.

True:
Lots of bait and switch for sure. It is good bait though...especially if you are hungry (seeking after a deeper understanding of salvation). Lee had some good stuff, especially in his earlier ministry, but somehow he developed a messiah complex...maybe it was there from the beginning but hidden.

My question remains: How is it possible for such a rich ministry to ultimately do so much damage? (It is a given that Lee misaimed in parts of his ministry, none more so than his MOTA teaching and Ground of Locality teaching).

To try and answer my own question: I believe the root lies with offending the headship of Christ.

[Nell]

I heard an analogy, back in the day, of the “calling on the Lord” teaching something like incessantly calling someone who is already there. I.e., a mom who keeps calling “Johnny Johnny Johnny!” And Johnny says “Mom! I’m right here in front of you!” Yet Mom continues to “call”.

Remember “just call Oh Lord…he’ll change your life” ? The truth is, you’ll change your own life when you obey his voice.

The “calling” teaching, is little more than a chant for you to figure out how often, how long, and how to get it right.

I also remember people calling on the Lord AT me when I didn’t fall in line with the protocol. Aka shunning. In today’s context, a weaponized teaching. I remember X-Ray Graver sitting in the front row, head down, “moaning on the Lord”.

I don’t “call” any more. I talk to him a lot. I listen to him. I listen for him. I ask questions. I obey him.
Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by TheStarswillFall

True:
Lots of bait and switch for sure. It is good bait though...especially if you are hungry (seeking after a deeper understanding of salvation). Lee had some good stuff, especially in his earlier ministry, but somehow he developed a messiah complex...maybe it was there from the beginning but hidden.

My question remains: How is it possible for such a rich ministry to ultimately do so much damage? (It is a given that Lee misaimed in parts of his ministry, none more so than his MOTA teaching and Ground of Locality teaching).

To try and answer my own question: I believe the root lies with offending the headship of Christ.

True. Yet Lee also developed false standards (e.g. one-church-one-city) which were then used to condemn all others. Remember Jesus’ warning to “judge not?” Lee’s wholesale condemnations on all-things-Christian were legendary. Perhaps the root also lies in pride, the kind of feel-good-pride that negatively influences and degrades the hearers. For a time, I really believed that this poor sinner was better than everyone else.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

I also remember people calling on the Lord AT me when I didn’t fall in line with the protocol. Aka shunning. In today’s context, a weaponized teaching. I remember X-Ray Graver sitting in the front row, head down, “moaning on the Lord”.

I don’t “call” any more. I talk to him a lot. I listen to him. I listen for him. I ask questions. I obey him.
Nell

Reminds me of John Myers book, “Future and Hope.” He’s sitting outside a courtroom, sued by his fellow brothers over possession of the meeting hall and their church “name,” while they sat there moaning and “calling on the Lord.”

And the Whistler Canada “quarantining” meeting of TC and the Midwest LC’s which ran on for hours. The room full of elders and leaders got a little weary with it all. “Let’s all stand up and call on the Lord five times.” Now we all feel so much better!

[aron]

Originally Posted by TheStarswillFall

My question remains: How is it possible for such a rich ministry to ultimately do so much damage? To try and answer my own question: I believe the root lies with offending the headship of Christ.

I once saw a t-shirt with a picture of Bob Marley's face against that of a lion. Bob Marley (the Reggae singer) was facing to the right, the lion to the left, and Bob's dreadlocks were kind of woven into the lion's mane.

In the OT, King Solomon had a visit from an African queen. Later, the NT records visitors from Ethiopia getting converted to the Christian faith (Acts 8). In the 19th century, travelers from Europe found remnants of the Ethiopian Orthodox faith which could trace itself back to the early NT era. And there were apparently Jewish descendants in Ethiopia from a genetic/cultural lineage. So much for the facts, or general accounts of history widely held by all.

Now, here's where it gets strange, and my t-shirt illustration comes in. One of the Ethiopian Kings got a "revelation" and usurped the Headship of Christ and declared that he was the returned Messiah. Haile Selassie, the Emperor of Ethiopia was Christ, and thereby was the Son of David, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. And it gets stranger - one of his chief proponents, Bob Marley the reggae singer, now is - in the t-shirt version anyway - the new "lion" of acclaim. So it looks like the self-promoter/usurper gets usurped (in common imagery anyway) by the next generation of promoters. And thus popular culture rolls on, ever more removed from whatever source it once drew on.

The same thing happened with Nee and Lee. They promoted "Reformation Giants" like Luther, JN Darby, Jessie Penn-Lewis and so forth, as a kind of back door for themselves to become the "great one". I was there when Lee died, and the dilemma was plain - who now was the MOTA? We were faced with the unenviable choice of either saying, as the Blendeds did "The age has changed, the age of Spiritual Giants is over", without offering any scriptural basis (!!), or just adding a new MOTA to the narrative, as the Nee/Lee/Chu and Nee/Lee/Dong acolytes did. Either way, the narrative gets more and more stilted, and removed from the simple gospel once put forth by Galilean fishermen.

In order to make the current narrative palatable to the least common denominator, i.e. "popularized", it gets watered down to the point that it's illogical nonsense. All we can do today is identify such error and call it out for what it is.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nell

Remember “just call Oh Lord…he’ll change your life” ? The truth is, you’ll change your own life when you obey his voice.

If you look for the narrative of obedience in the NT, it is clearly evident that this was intrinsic to the gospel put forth by Matthew, Mark, Luke, Peter, Paul, James et al. "As I obey the Father and live, so you should obey me, and live", and "My food is to do the will of the Father", and "Every word I speak is from the Father." Yet we got this "just call" and "intrinsic metabolic transformation" stuff, while obedience was panned as "dead works". It really was a perversion.

To TheStarswillFall's point, there were gaps in current Christian experience and expression, which the Local Church Life experience did try to address. If "Christianity" were on more solid footing, the post-Protestant personality cults wouldn't flourish as they have. So I don't pan TSWF experiences, or any others', as less valid. (Subjectivity is tricky because if I pan yours, that's probably my own rearing up). From an objective (textual) basis, it looks like an unbalanced and constant stress that eventually wore people out. Once the excitement of shouting and arm-waving ended, what was left? More arm-waving, more heel-rocking and fist-pumping, neck-rolling, sing-song chanting. More strange theology propping up the tottering regime. The 'just' part stripped away textual essentials and created new space for human imagination and non-biblical culture to flourish. Instead of 'fallen and deformed Christianity' we got something far worse.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by TheStarswillFall

I apologize for the length of this post.

Here is my original letter (I have decided not to conceal names).

[letter]

Here is their response.

[response]

TheStarswillFall,

Thank you for sharing both these letters in their entirety. It's such strong proof of the true weakness of the foundation of the core doctrines in the local church. In reading your letter, I was struck by your thoughfulness, respectfulness, and care to be on biblical basis. When contrasted right next to their response, the difference is astounding. Right away they resort to schoolyard tactics: YOU have a critical concept, YOUR questioning has spoiled you and your wife's church life, YOU have disturbed the normal church life, YOU harbor negative views.

But they didn't provide a single shred of justification for anything they said! They didn't address any concern you brought up, and simply labeled you and then shunned you - on a COUNTRY-WIDE basis! How weak a belief they hold if genuine-hearted concern causes them to shudder this much and slam the doors in your face.

Thankful you've been saved out of such a place, and that many more are on their way out.

Trapped

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by Nell

I don’t “call” any more. I talk to him a lot. I listen to him. I listen for him. I ask questions. I obey him.
Nell

I initially thought that this is what the teaching was suppose to be. Because of this, I gained the habit of speaking to the Lord more and trying to listen to his word more and more. I asked questions to gain understanding and knowledge.

~gasp~ I said the "k" word!

Jokes aside, I did give into the more mantra-like calling and it was like a drug for me at times, but as the years went on I saw the emptiness of it and how it was used to shut down conversations and passively rebuke people who tried to bring up difficult but genuine questions, comments, or concerns. It was a pacifier to stop all thinking from the smallest to the greatest matters, and it began to drive me mad by the end of my time there. I can say that because of how it was used, many were the ones that called on the Lord in vain. It's not that they never called on the Lord properly and sought him out, but when used in those abusive ways I mentioned, especially when someone had a genuine critique (another bad word in Lee's Recovery), it was most certainly vain and quite damaging over time.

Makes me think of death by a thousand cuts. Each individual moment in which it was done was not so damaging, but done again and again with all the saints in every setting the damage builds up and corrodes the church life, both on a grand scale with the whole assembly and on a small scale with individual groups or persons.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They don't even deny that they are "of WL." Obviously in their "international" communications about you these brothers have been informed not to even discuss your scriptural convictions. "Just go directly to Titus 3.10!"

Reminds me of the communication between the Blended brothers and the Great Lakes area brothers. It does seem invoking Titus 3:10 is a last resort to avoid transparency and truthfulness. When a discussion or correspondence becomes too difficult to continue or simply don't have the necessary response to change the narrative, Titus 3:10 is the go to.

[alwayscurious]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Makes me think of death by a thousand cuts. Each individual moment in which it was done was not so damaging, but done again and again with all the saints in every setting the damage builds up and corrodes the church life, both on a grand scale with the whole assembly and on a small scale with individual groups or persons.

What a perfect encapsulation and a perfect illustration that points out my greatest and deepest grievances in the LC.