"Heavenly Language"

[Peter Debelak]

Because the "Organic Salvation" thread has a "unique language of the LC" discussion, I thought it best to create a new thread on this topic.

If I may, I would like to use the example of how Witness Lee discussed the Trinity in order to highlight good arguments from both sides of the debate.

Many have taken Witness Lee to task for "confusing the persons of the Trinity" (indeed, it was part of the mission of the last forum). Yet I personally thing the notion of "person" when it comes to the Trinity is too "nice and tidy" - not capturing all of what the Bible has to say about the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit.

In that light, here's Witness Lee (in the book Divine and Mystical Realm):

Understanding the second (Christ) and the third (the Spirit) of the Divine Trinity has been most bothersome and troublesome. Who is Christ? In answer to this question, most Christians would say that Christ is the Son of God. However, many believers do not realize that Christ is not merely the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16) but also the firstborn Son of God (Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:18; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 1:5). How could the only begotten Son become the firstborn Son? As the only begotten Son He must be the only Son and cannot be the first, and as the firstborn Son He is the first Son and thus cannot be the only Son. How should we explain this?

Theologians claim that the persons of the Trinity should not be confused. Nevertheless, we need to ask certain questions. Is Christ only the Son and not also the Spirit? Is the Spirit only the Spirit? Is the Spirit not also related to Christ and involved with the Son? Another question concerns the seven Spirits (Rev. 1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6). According to Revelation 5:6 the seven Spirits are the seven eyes of the Lamb. Are the seven Spirits and the Lamb one person or two persons? Surely They are two, yet the seven Spirits are the seven eyes of the Lamb. Are They one or two? If we say that the Lamb and the seven Spirits as the seven eyes of the Lamb are one, others, insisting that the Spirit is the Spirit and the Son is the Son, will accuse us of confusing the persons of the Divine Trinity. But in Revelation 5:6 the third of the Divine Trinity is the eyes of the second. How, then, can the Spirit be separate from the Son? Are your eyes separate from you yourself? While your eyes are looking at someone, you are looking at that person. No one would say, “Only my eyes are looking at you; I myself am not looking at you.” Your eyes are you. For your eyes to look at something means that you yourself are looking. These are brief illustrations of the shortages of the theology in today’s Christianity.

Because the matters of the Son and the Spirit in the Divine Trinity are very difficult and complicated, we have been compelled to give Christ a particular title—the all-inclusive Christ. Christ is all-inclusive because He is everything. He is God, He is the Father (Isa. 9:6), He is the Son, and He is the Spirit. According to the revelation in the New Testament, the Father is embodied in the Son (Col. 2:9), and the Son is realized by the Spirit (John 14:17, 20). Thus, the Son is the embodiment of the Father, and the Spirit is the realization of the Son. This surely is a divine and heavenly language.

On the one hand, Witness Lee lays out a compelling argument that the traditional "language" about the Trinity is inadequate. Thus, he attempted - from a well-intentioned place - to try to capture the more nuanced Biblical record. There may still be room for disagreement, but this impulse to use extra-biblical language specifically in an effort to more closely capture what the Bible says, is notable.

But he then takes another step. Not only is his articulation "more accurate" or somesuch, he makes the claim this is a "divine and heavenly language."

Thus, in one fell swoop he both attempts to engage the Bible itself more accurately and then immediately elevates his articulation to mythical proportions.

The first impulse is good. The second, dangerous and unnecessary.

It may or may not be objectively true that his articulation is "divine and heavenly." But in either case a believer doesn't need to know or believe this to gain whatever value the articulation has. The only logical reason to add this "divine and heavenly language" element is to elevate his ministry. It doesn't add to his argument, except to create a new argument - a self-validating one. Which is no argument at all.

I sat in one Lord's Table with brother Lee in Anaheim. During prophesying, a sister - who was brilliant, educated and articulate - wove together a great narrative. She said (paraphrased from memory), all anthropologists know that when studying an ancient people, their language is what illumines their nature as a people. She went on to say that in generations from now, when archeologists study the Lord's Recovery, they will encounter such a rich language. And from this language they will uncover a mystical or spiritual people.

Witness Lee was visibly moved by her speaking and said something about the pride a father must have (directing it at her father who was a leading one in So. Cal). Honestly, it really was a well crafted speaking.

There is something amiss when a Word-based faith finds a separate pride in its own language which are "proxies" for what the Word itself says.

I don't take umbrage at using "coined terms" especially when they are coined in an attempt to better capture nuanced biblical truths than existing articulations. But a pride in that - indeed, a declaration that the terms are "heavenly," is dangerous territory.

Thoughts?

In Love,

Peter

P.S. Hey Unto, perhaps this will get us out of the last discussion....but embroiled in a new one! Sorry, frying pans and fire have such an allure...

[coalsoffire]

When I heard Jackie Evancho sing "Pie Jesu," what I heard I would not hesitate to describe as "divine and heavenly."

Once I was listening to a piece of classical music. It may have been played by atheists, for all I know. I had the thought, "This music is eternal." Later I came to know that what I heard was Bach's "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring."

Once, at a Celtic Spirituality conference, I heard Theresa Schroeder-Sheker speak and then play her harp. Both her speaking and music were "divine and heavenly." She was, without a doubt in my mind, an inspired person, a person infused with divine and heavenly things. Unearthly.

Is it heresy to term something "divine and heavenly" other than from the Bible? Yes, it elevates the thing described. Have you not ever wondered at some moments, "Where did that come from?! I surely have not the capacity to write or speak such a thing. God must have been involved." The term elevates God, not the medium through which he is expressed. It is nothing less than his mercy that we may experience divine and heavenly expressions of the Creator through his creatures. He is there, in us!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by coalsoffire

Is it heresy to term something "divine and heavenly" other than from the Bible? Yes, it elevates the thing described. Have you not ever wondered at some moments, "Where did that come from?! I surely have not the capacity to write or speak such a thing. God must have been involved." The term elevates God, not the medium through which he is expressed. It is nothing less than his mercy that we may experience divine and heavenly expressions of the Creator through his creatures. He is there, in us!

If God alone is elevated, then we probably agree there is little concern, but when the thing itself is elevated, then there is concern that we have made a new idol, and at what point do we stop appreciating God, as we bestow unending honors upon the one inventing the "new language."

I remember reading a book by Ron Kangas, "Response to Recent Accusations." One of the so-called "accusations" by John Ingalls et. al. was that the Recovery as a whole excessively elevated Witness Lee and his ministry. Ron Kangas' answer in the book was "can we ever honor a brother too much?" One of the elevations concerning WL was his promotion of the "new language."

[coalsoffire]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If God alone is elevated, then we probably agree there is little concern, but when the thing itself is elevated, then there is concern that we have made a new idol, and at what point do we stop appreciating God, as we bestow unending honors upon the one inventing the "new language."

I remember reading a book by Ron Kangas, "Response to Recent Accusations." One of the so-called "accusations" by John Ingalls et. al. was that the Recovery as a whole excessively elevated Witness Lee and his ministry. Ron Kangas' answer in the book was "can we ever honor a brother too much?" One of the elevations concerning WL was his promotion of the "new language."

Mother Theresa said of the lepers she ministered to, "touching God, in his distressing disguise." She honored them, and by honoring them, she honored God.

On the other hand, when the people said of Herod's speech, "The voice of a god and not of a man," and Herod did not give glory to God, an angel killed him.

It says "instantly" killed him--I am not sure Herod had much of a chance to attribute his words to God, but perhaps the wording means his speech did not give glory to God.

If words (or art or music or acts of charity) are intended and able to point people to God, to give him the glory, perhaps then we might call such things "heavenly & divine."

I was at a foot washing once. I noticed one very socially awkward brother washing his brother's feet, and after drying his brother's feet he put the brother's shoes back on, but forgot the socks. What I saw really touched me deeply--the awkward brother stretching himself in love--a heavenly and divine scene.

I hope to continue to see such scenes, and I hope to see less of the Herod type scenes, which abound in our culture. I treasure what there is to be treasured and I thank God for his mercy. I cannot say I treasure (hmm... I did say I love) the word "organic," but I am thankful for food grown the natural way, without pesticides or growth hormones. I am thankful that God is our organic food as well. Sometimes, perhaps, he is 'sold' to us with traces of pesticides & additions of growth hormones.

Perhaps this is why I love the word organic: The very best food for infants is breast milk--I like this picture: the mother gives of what she has taken in, digested, and, then, really, has been divinely transformed into the best food for her child. Other products, transformed by man, can also produce growth, but they do not contain all the mysterious elements of the breast milk, such as the mother's natural immunities.

HWMR: "Composition for prophecy with main points and sub points"--I encounter this particular space provided, for the first time, today, with that title. I plan to be rebelliously curious about me, what I've read this week, God, my experience, and write uncensored, like a journal entry. This title could be intimidating, and it appears intimidating, yet I refuse to give in to my fears. Perfect love casts out all fears & Jesus says not to fear because he is with me.

If I decide to drive the one hour to the nearest "meeting," I plan to keep my prophetic mouth shut, and listen, and learn. God knows what is in my heart. If he wants me to share it, then it will gush, quite organically, maybe like vomit even, out of my mouth.

Lord have mercy on us all!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

One of the elevations concerning WL was his promotion of the "new language."

To me, this was a "divide and conquer" strategy. You end up with a special terminology from a special speaker which has a special meaning for an insular group.

I remember visiting a brother after a long absence. I told him where I was now living. He asked, "Are there any saints there?" I replied, "Yes, thousands of them." He kind of flinched and said, "You know what I mean." I said, "No, I do not." I refused to acknowledge a special meaning to the word.

Look at the words Lee uses in Peter's quote: "embodiment" and "realization". Good words. But no more divine than "love" or "respect" or "obedience" or "peace" or "righteousness". There is a whole nuther level of reality in front of us in the person of Jesus Christ. Or levels. Coining new words does not bring reality to our grasp. But the danger is that we may think it does; that somehow we have crafted the perfect box to contain God.

I was not impressed with Lee the wordsmith back in the day, when I was an LC acolyte. It was something I put up with to be in "the church life". I am even less sanguinary today. Contrary to what that sister declared in the meeting, I think that generations from now will equate Lee's terminology with Mao's "Great Leap Forward" rubric. It is phraseology designed to market a very earthly plan.

"Youth Propagation Groups" -- remember that one? "Ministry of the age"? "One trumpet"? Inward-looking rhetoric of an insular sect. "Trainings"; "Blending"; "Consummation": as if somehow declaring these words loudly with clenched fists will bring some higher "heavenly" level of existence. That sister's eloquent and heartfelt speech could not cover this.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by coalsoffire

Is it heresy to term something "divine and heavenly" other than from the Bible? Yes, it elevates the thing described. Have you not ever wondered at some moments, "Where did that come from?! I surely have not the capacity to write or speak such a thing. God must have been involved." The term elevates God, not the medium through which he is expressed. It is nothing less than his mercy that we may experience divine and heavenly expressions of the Creator through his creatures. He is there, in us!

Just because man fell, and sin and death entered the world, it does not negate the fact that man is the crowning glory of his creation. We are the only creature made “in his image, according to his likeness”. We are now damaged goods as it were, but goods made directly by the hand of God nonetheless. Due to man’s disobedience, the world was damaged as well. We are broken creatures living in a broken world. In a sense, all of world history is a record of mankind, along with creation, suffering from and dealing with this brokenness. Intertwined, though, throughout the whole process God reveals and expresses himself though his creation. There is a “divine spark” within man – we are all “hardwired” with the image and likeness of God. As his creation, yes, God is involved with everything – the good, the bad and the ugly. Your statement “He is there, in us!” reminded me of a passage in Acts 17, where the Apostle Paul was conversing with the religionists and philosophers of his day:

Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, "What does this babbler wish to say?" …So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious…The God who made the world and everything in it, he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we are indeed his offspring.'"

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. (Psalm 19:1)

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves (Romans 2:14)

For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. (Romans 8:22)

[aron]

Originally Posted by coalsoffire

If words (or art or music or acts of charity) are intended and able to point people to God, to give him the glory, perhaps then we might call such things "heavenly & divine."

John wrote, "Little children, guard yourselves from idols." He was, I believe, referencing spiritual things which could ultimately usurp the place of God Himself in our hearts. Anything can point us to God. Many things do. The heavens themselves, wordlessly, declare the glory of God (Psa 19). But we do not elevate any of the starry messengers above their allotted station. When I see someone tout their "rich ministry" I remember John's warning.

Brother Lee's ministry was perhaps heavenly, and divine. But arguably so was that of Mother Teresa and Billy Graham and many, many others. To call particular attention to any ministry as heavenly and divine, as if somehow distinctive from any others, is to attempt evalutations that only God Himself is truly capable of.

To be safe, I think there is only one name, the name of Jesus. There is only one ministry, that of Jesus. There is only one speaking: through Jesus Christ (See Hebrews 1). The rest of us are but faint echoes. I am not comfortable lifting any voice above the rest, save the Shepherd alone.

Originally Posted by coalsoffire

HWMR: "Composition for prophecy with main points and sub points"--I encounter this particular space provided, for the first time, today, with that title. I plan to be rebelliously curious about me, what I've read this week, God, my experience, and write uncensored, like a journal entry.

If I decide to drive the one hour to the nearest "meeting," I plan to keep my prophetic mouth shut, and listen, and learn.

Enjoy the journey. If you keep your heart humble and open surely the Lord will meet you along the way.

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. (Psalm 19:1)

Amen. May we have opened eyes and heartstrings attuned to the vibration of the universe! Our own words are merely feeble attempts to point back to the incarnate Word of God.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I sat in one Lord's Table with brother Lee in Anaheim. During prophesying, a sister - who was brilliant, educated and articulate - wove together a great narrative. She said (paraphrased from memory), all anthropologists know that when studying an ancient people, their language is what illumines their nature as a people. She went on to say that in generations from now, when archeologists study the Lord's Recovery, they will encounter such a rich language. And from this language they will uncover a mystical or spiritual people.

Generations from now archeologists studying the LC? Even silver tongued eloquence cannot cover up the humor in that narrative!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I remember reading a book by Ron Kangas, "Response to Recent Accusations." One of the so-called "accusations" by John Ingalls et. al. was that the Recovery as a whole excessively elevated Witness Lee and his ministry. Ron Kangas' answer in the book was "can we ever honor a brother too much?" One of the elevations concerning WL was his promotion of the "new language."

In response to Ron's rhetoric, yes you can honor a brother too much. Look no further than the Gospel of John chapter 5. Problem with this is when you honor a brother too much, you become man-honoring. See verse 43:

"I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him."

As for the new language Ohio, when I was meeting in the local churches I found this language to be a distraction. When you focus on the intricate terminologies, I found my focus was lost why I'm there for. Moreover recieiving one another was more about learning and reciting the new terminologies and phrases than it was our salvation.
By the time I was led to meet elsewhere, it became apparent this language was not so heavenly, but something of the flesh in order to distinguish and exalt the local churches from other Christian assemblies within the Body life.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

To me, this was a "divide and conquer" strategy. You end up with a special terminology from a special speaker which has a special meaning for an insular group.

When believers become persuaded that their extra-Biblical, elevated terminology somehow imbues them with some special spiritual status, it is dangerous indeed, aron. Look at these quotes from the Blendeds ...

“By 1994 the ministry in the Lord’s recovery had brought the recovery into a new realm, a new stage, and a new culture with a new language. The ability to speak this new language as a native speaker is a testimony that we have been reconstituted. Today there is opposition to learning this language.” [RK, The Ministry, vol. 9, No. 5, May 2005, p. 51]

“The Lord’s move in His recovery is always advancing…This culture is so divine and mysterious that it requires a mysterious and divine language to communicate it… Therefore, we have a new language today. We need to pick up the new language. Even if we do not understand what it all means, we should still begin speaking … We need to speak the new language.” [MC, The Ministry, vol. 9, No. 3, March 2005, p. 51]

“Where is there pure language today? It is not in the world. It is not in Christianity … In the Lord’s recovery there is a pure language, the language of the pure God.” [RK, The Ministry, vol. 9, No. 5, May 2005, p. 11]

The arrogance coming out of Anaheim is simply incredible. They have convinced themselves that they, and only they, speak the pure language of God, a language only found in the books published by LSM, and not the plain old "Babylonian" language spoken in the Bible. God has "improved" his vocabulary and only let a select few know it. In fact, if we can get unbelievers to speak the new vocabulary, they will be reconstituted with this pure language directly from the pure God, thus bypassing the overly tedious steps of believing, suffering, obeying, walking by faith, loving your brothers, etc.

.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The arrogance coming out of Anaheim is simply incredible.

First pride, then the crash—the bigger the ego, the harder the fall. Proverbs 16:18, The Message

(Pride goes before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.)

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The arrogance coming out of Anaheim is simply incredible. They have convinced themselves that they, and only they, speak the pure language of God, a language only found in the books published by LSM, and not the plain old "Babylonian" language spoken in the Bible. God has "improved" his vocabulary and only let a select few know it.

Language is the primary concern of Witness Lee and the Anaheim Politburo (and I would also say with Titus Chu/Cleveland.) They decide what words can and cannot be used.

In addition to their boundless arrogance IMHO 2 other obvious problems are:

1. Nobody knows what they are talking about outside the LC. Good preachers and teachers are able to contextualize the gospel and use language and examples that people understand.

2. Their theological vocabulary has no semblance at all to their own reality. E.g. they teach being saturated with the processed Triune God while suing their brothers and sisters in Christ for real estate, etc.

Originally Posted by Ohio

When believers become persuaded that their extra-Biblical, elevated terminology somehow imbues them with some special spiritual status, it is dangerous indeed, aron. Look at these quotes from the Blendeds ...

The arrogance coming out of Anaheim is simply incredible. They have convinced themselves that they, and only they, speak the pure language of God, a language only found in the books published by LSM, and not the plain old "Babylonian" language spoken in the Bible. God has "improved" his vocabulary and only let a select few know it. In fact, if we can get unbelievers to speak the new vocabulary, they will be reconstituted with this pure language directly from the pure God, thus bypassing the overly tedious steps of believing, suffering, obeying, walking by faith, loving your brothers, etc.

.

I am pretty sure the term "pure language" is based on the prophecy in Zephaniah 3:9. Most expositors understand this to refer to the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is when the rest of the prophecy was fulfilled:


Zephaniah 3:11 In that day shalt thou not be ashamed for all thy doings, wherein thou hast transgressed against me: for then I will take away out of the midst of thee them that rejoice in thy pride, and thou shalt no more be haughty because of my holy mountain.
3:12 I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the LORD.
3:13 The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth: for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid.
3:14 Sing, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel; be glad and rejoice with all the heart, O daughter of Jerusalem.
3:15 The LORD hath taken away thy judgments, he hath cast out thine enemy: the king of Israel, even the LORD, is in the midst of thee: thou shalt not see evil any more.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Nobody knows what they are talking about outside the LC.

This. I was talking about exactly this with someone yesterday. He likened this "heavenly language" to what Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians 14.

v. 6 Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction?

v. 9 So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.

v. 11 If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me.

I think the analogy between the local church language and tongues is right on. Brothers and sisters should be able to understand each other. If Christians can't understand other Christians when speaking about tenets of faith then something is wrong.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Language is the primary concern of Witness Lee and the Anaheim Politburo (and I would also say with Titus Chu/Cleveland.) They decide what words can and cannot be used.

Titus Chu in Cleveland really did not promote this kind of thing, in fact it was regularly exposed as foolishness, especially after WL passed. Titus, in fact, much preferred creative and inspirational thoughts about the Bible and our Christian walk rather than mere vocabularies.

He would regularly walk the fine line by never saying anything against WL, who was the source of this "Heavenly Language," yet continually berate the Blendeds for latching on to it and promoting it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Nobody knows what they are talking about outside the LC.

This is what eventually turned me off about the high-peak theology conveyed in the "Heavenly Language" -- who could I speak this too?!?

Except for a few minutes in the Anaheim trainings during prophesying time, this stuff was totally useless to me. What was I supposed to do with it? Do LC people actually speak this way with their wife and children?

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Titus Chu in Cleveland really did not promote this kind of thing, in fact it was regularly exposed as foolishness, especially after WL passed. Titus, in fact, much preferred creative and inspirational thoughts about the Bible and our Christian walk rather than mere vocabularies.

He would regularly walk the fine line by never saying anything against WL, who was the source of this "Heavenly Language," yet continually berate the Blendeds for latching on to it and promoting it.

Titus Chu was a master at being 2 faced when it came to Witness Lee. His way of handling it probably confused a lot of people. IMHO to be "against" the Anaheim Politburo is to be against Witness Lee because in fact they pride themselves in following him in word and deed and do it quite well - including ousting Titus Chu for flimsy reasons with no biblical basis. They admitted that they asked each other WWWLD and they did it to Titus.

But anyway I'm glad to hear he is not a proponent of the "Heavenly Language" theory! I was mostly thinking of him not liking the use of the word "pastor" and other such language violations.

(BTW how much do you think Titus' clinging to Witness Lee, ground of locality, certain music styles, etc. is to pander to a certain constituency within the LCs in the GLA who are supportive of him? I.e. would he be less LCish if his most supportive constituency was as well?)

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Brothers and sisters should be able to understand each other. If Christians can't understand other Christians when speaking about tenets of faith then something is wrong.

I totally agree with this and would also include unbelievers - which Paul also addressed in Corinthians.

To a great extent Witness Lee and now the Anaheim Politburo are isolated from society at large. They live and work in the LC system bubble where their special language can be used and understood by the initiated. Outside of that place their language cannot be understood and they pride themselves in this fact as if outside listeners are somehow inferior.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

But anyway I'm glad to hear he is not a proponent of the "Heavenly Language" theory! I was mostly thinking of him not liking the use of the word "pastor" and other such language violations.

(BTW how much do you think Titus' clinging to Witness Lee, ground of locality, certain music styles, etc. is to pander to a certain constituency within the LCs in the GLA who are supportive of him? I.e. would he be less LCish if his most supportive constituency was as well?)

You are right about that. The brothers with Titus hate the word "pastor" as being anathema to Christian service. The word rapidly spread that John Myer wanted to be a "pastor," and thus he received little sympathy from the staunchest of TC's supporters.

Not sure how much Titus Chu clings to the local ground. In his last meeting with John Myer, apparently he posed a question to John about the local ground, and he was not satisfied with John's response. The local ground is part of the "spiritual identity" of all the old Recovery people. How could Titus begin to question that? Even the Cleveland elders might quarantine him if he did that!

Titus loves the classics. He put together a symphony of quality musicians who traveled about playing some of WN's songs. A few times he asked some sister to sing a hymn and she had a beautiful opera voice. Titus himself had a beautiful voice. But he was also pragmatic. He knew that the LC's would die off if they only sang classics. He promoted the young people churches with contemporary music, whether he liked it himself or not. He definitely was concerned about the future increase, and knew that changes were needed to reach Caucasians.

Titus encouraged the most gifted brothers to work with the young people on the campuses. Some of whom, like Myer and Debelek, were quite fruitful too. Yet Titus would continually "shoot himself in the foot" by the way he treated those he worked with. Many felt they were treated like "dogs," and have since left. And that's the irony with Titus, he is so gifted, and at the same time he can be so abusive, just like his mentor Witness Lee. Currently there is one "young people" church in Cleveland Heights. Since the leader there is his son-in-law, they might have a chance for long-term survival, since Titus' daughter would never tolerate her husband being abused by daddy. The other "young people" churches have either collapsed or sided with LSM.

[Peter Debelak]

(

BTW how much do you think Titus' clinging to Witness Lee, ground of locality, certain music styles, etc. is to pander to a certain constituency within the LCs in the GLA who are supportive of him? I.e. would he be less LCish if his most supportive constituency was as well?

growing up in Cleveland in 80s and early 90s, our YP meetings were almost entirely Bible-only. In junior/senior year, Craig Riesen was the serving one and we had an intense Bible study that pointedly did not use footnotes. I presume this was Titus influenced, tho Craig was pretty independent.

This was also around the time that Titus dubbed the Summer School Of Death because it had been too "doctrine" focused. I recall in one of these summer schools the very talented Esther Chung wrote a
Song that almost made fun of the "high peak" language (like, "what's that all mean anyhow - where did Christ as life go?").

Anyhow, just some recollections...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

growing up in Cleveland in 80s and early 90s, our YP meetings were almost entirely Bible-only. In junior/senior year, Craig Riesen was the serving one and we had an intense Bible study that pointedly did not use footnotes. I presume this was Titus influenced, tho Craig was pretty independent.

This was also around the time that Titus dubbed the Summer School Of Death because it had been too "doctrine" focused.

Just another couple examples of what tipped the scales and opened the door for me to leave. Why is it that dear brothers like Craig, whose heart was focused on the Lord and His people, found it impossible to stay? Why is it that the tough, abrasive ones like Titus, who place the program and "the work" first, never seem to leave?

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not sure how much Titus Chu clings to the local ground. In his last meeting with John Myer, apparently he posed a question to John about the local ground, and he was not satisfied with John's response. The local ground is part of the "spiritual identity" of all the old Recovery people. How could Titus begin to question that? Even the Cleveland elders might quarantine him if he did that!

I especially think the older generation transplanted from the Far East cling tightly to the local ground. They have a lot of behind the scenes influence in the LC system which I think is either unknown or underestimated by Americans.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Titus encouraged the most gifted brothers to work with the young people on the campuses. Some of whom, like Myer and Debelek, were quite fruitful too. Yet Titus would continually "shoot himself in the foot" by the way he treated those he worked with. Many felt they were treated like "dogs," and have since left. And that's the irony with Titus, he is so gifted, and at the same time he can be so abusive, just like his mentor Witness Lee.

I agree there are a lot of similarities between Witness Lee and Titus Chu. I'm not sure if it's because of their culture or personalities or family backgrounds or a combination. Or if Titus was different at one time but learned how to behave this way from Witness Lee.

Indeed as you point out they are both very gifted but they don't know how to work on a team of coworkers with equal standing. They have to be the boss with subordinates taking their direction. Those who refuse will be set aside or worse publicly humiliated.

IMHO the LCs have suffered a big loss because of this way of operating. Over the years they could have benefited tremendously from the ministries of TAS, Stephen Kaung, Devern Fromke and others. Today they could benefit from the ministries of John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, Phil Comfort and others left by the wayside for no good reason. And as you mention John Myer and Chuck Debelek - both gifts to the Body with manifest fruits of ministry. IF Witness Lee and Titus Chu didn't have to be the boss and were willing to work well with others I believe the LCs today would not have the sordid history that they have and neither would they be Witness Lee focused (or in the GLA Titus Chu focused.) I think the situation would be much healthier and balanced. Just my opinion.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

growing up in Cleveland in 80s and early 90s, our YP meetings were almost entirely Bible-only. In junior/senior year, Craig Riesen was the serving one and we had an intense Bible study that pointedly did not use footnotes. I presume this was Titus influenced, tho Craig was pretty independent.

This was also around the time that Titus dubbed the Summer School Of Death because it had been too "doctrine" focused. I recall in one of these summer schools the very talented Esther Chung wrote a
Song that almost made fun of the "high peak" language (like, "what's that all mean anyhow - where did Christ as life go?").

Anyhow, just some recollections...

IMHO by the time kids are in HS they don't need to hear more about their "parent's religion". So I think high school ministry should be a minimum of doctrine and even general bible teaching and instead should focus on addressing practical issues from a biblical perspective: human sexuality, relationships, life skills, career choices, etc. Plus music with the genres they are accustomed to and many outings and activities e.g. trips, sports, etc. And social justice (which in my observation is a concern among young people today) i.e. actively helping the poor, disadvantaged.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

IMHO the LCs have suffered a big loss because of this way of operating. Over the years they could have benefited tremendously from the ministries of TAS, Stephen Kaung, Devern Fromke and others. Today they could benefit from the ministries of John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, Phil Comfort and others left by the wayside for no good reason. And as you mention John Myer and Chuck Debelek - both gifts to the Body with manifest fruits of ministry. IF Witness Lee and Titus Chu didn't have to be the boss and were willing to work well with others I believe the LCs today would not have the sordid history that they have and neither would they be Witness Lee focused (or in the GLA Titus Chu focused.) I think the situation would be much healthier and balanced. Just my opinion.

I agree. There have been so many gifted members given to the LCs by the Lord. This is scriptural per Ephesians 4. However, all these gifts were "thrown out" because they didn't follow a man (either WL or TC). What a tragedy! I grew up in the GLA. As a young person, I tremendously enjoyed the speaking and ministry from various brothers, such as John Myers, Chuck Debelak, Craig Riesen, Rick Acosta, and even Titus Chiu. Unfortunately Titus Chiu's ministry had to dominate everyone else's ministry. He always seem to be at the top of the chain. Why couldn't he be just a brother with a ministry. Why did he have to be THE BROTHER with THE MINISTRY? Just like his mentor WL. Sad situation indeed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

IMHO by the time kids are in HS they don't need to hear more about their "parent's religion". So I think high school ministry should be a minimum of doctrine and even general bible teaching and instead should focus on addressing practical issues from a biblical perspective: human sexuality, relationships, life skills, career choices, etc. Plus music with the genres they are accustomed to and many outings and activities e.g. trips, sports, etc. And social justice (which in my observation is a concern among young people today) i.e. actively helping the poor, disadvantaged.

According to my best recollection, TC was critical of every brother who ever served with the young people, no matter how fruitful or effective they were, that is until his son-in-law starting working with them.

I mentioned this story before. Three brothers I knew from three cities were coordinating for summer activities (derisively tagged by Titus as the "Summer School of Slaughter.") They prayed together and felt fervently that they had to ask Titus to stop with his criticisms. The young people themselves were mocking the summer camp, and the morale was low. Titus said in response, "you want me to stop, then I will do it 10x more!"

How does one serve under a leader such as that? None of these three brothers still meets or serves. When one considers how many gifted brothers have come and gone over the years, John Myer's hypothetical exhortation from his final chapter should have long ago been implemented --

... accountability is a key factor here. What would happen if a number of influential elders set a policy for leaders: “You will not be given free pass for rude, abrasive remarks and public shaming. Insults from the podium will no longer be treated as the Lord’s Word from an angry prophet. Instead, it will be seen as sinful human weakness and will be met with censure. Outbursts of anger are works of the flesh. It is simply childish to insist on something and then make snide remarks (especially from the pulpit!) when you don’t get your way. If you continue to act out in unchristian ways, regardless of your elevated status and past history, you will be asked to step down.” -- A Future and a Hope, Chap 15, page 28

Step down indeed! And how many brothers would have remained! And what a different scenery might we see today!

[OBW]

Going back to Peter's opening post in this thread, I note that Lee seemed so concerned with "firstborn" v "only begotten" and needed to reconcile these (or use it to make some point not really found anywhere). This seems so trivial to me. While it might be technically true that an "only" cannot truly be a "first," we actually say things like this all the time.

We have the "first annual" whatever. Yes, there is a presumption of repetitions in the future. But at the time there is only the one.

I am now a grandfather. My grandson, now only a little over 6 weeks old, has been referred to as our "first" grandson many times. Yet, at this point, he is the only grandson, therefore no one against which a ranking can be made. But the acknowledgment of "first grandson" is not considered weird or meaningless because there is not a second.

I think that this is just exactly the kind of problem with so much of Lee's (and the LRC's) lexicon. It is treated as being special in and of itself. The actual truth that is the same no matter how it is described is not really in question. Instead, the way you say it becomes important.

"Two notes of the chord, that's our fluoroscope.
But to reach the chord is our life's hope.
And to name the chord is important to some.
So they give a word, and the word is [fill in the blank]."

The final word in this particular poem is irrelevant. The point is that this mantra is repeated over and over in the LRC concerning one peculiar word after another. I must refer to the Spirit as the "all-inclusive sevenfold intensified Spirit" or I have become degraded.

Hogwash.

That's decidedly NOT a heavenly language.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How does one serve under a leader such as that? None of these three brothers still meets or serves. When one considers how many gifted brothers have come and gone over the years, John Myer's hypothetical exhortation from his final chapter should have long ago been implemented

I completely agree. Both Witness Lee and Titus Chu did this in public meetings - they put down and shamed elders and coworkers thus undermining them to the local flocks where they served. Essentially what this allowed them to do is erode respect and move loyalty away from those at the point-of-service to themselves and their ministries as the center. (Not to mention the men being derided had their wives and children sitting there listening to abuse being heaped upon their husbands and fathers.)

As John suggests a clear policy and practice to counter this kind of behavior should have been put in place. It would have curbed a lot of abusive and disrespectful behavior and created a more healthy atmosphere in which to work together.

Of course I doubt Witness Lee or Titus Chu would accept such "rules of conduct" because it is contrary to their personalities and their need for control. Witness Lee did not consider that he had any equals and now neither does Titus Chu. He has had 40ish years in the GLA to cultivate and develop a team of peers to counterbalance him and each other but he has not done so. Like Witness Lee his "model" for the work is Paul as "the boss" and all his coworkers (Timothy, Titus etc.) taking their directions from Paul and doing whatever he says to do. And it just so happens that their interpretation of how Paul operated exactly matches their personalities. They like this "model" but not the fact that along with Paul was Apollos, John, Peter, etc. all within the context of "the work". In the LC system there is no room for the expanded version of "the work" as actually found in the NT.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

I completely agree. Both Witness Lee and Titus Chu did this in public meetings - they put down and shamed elders and coworkers thus undermining them to the local flocks where they served. Essentially what this allowed them to do is erode respect and move loyalty away from those at the point-of-service to themselves and their ministries as the center. (Not to mention the men being derided had their wives and children sitting there listening to abuse being heaped upon their husbands and fathers.)

As John suggests a clear policy and practice to counter this kind of behavior should have been put in place. It would have curbed a lot of abusive and disrespectful behavior and created a more healthy atmosphere in which to work together.

Of course I doubt Witness Lee or Titus Chu would accept such "rules of conduct" because it is contrary to their personalities and their need for control. Witness Lee did not consider that he had any equals and now neither does Titus Chu. He has had 40ish years in the GLA to cultivate and develop a team of peers to counterbalance him and each other but he has not done so. Like Witness Lee his "model" for the work is Paul as "the boss" and all his coworkers (Timothy, Titus etc.) taking their directions from Paul and doing whatever he says to do. And it just so happens that their interpretation of how Paul operated exactly matches their personalities. They like this "model" but not the fact that along with Paul was Apollos, John, Peter, etc. all within the context of "the work". In the LC system there is no room for the expanded version of "the work" as actually found in the NT.

Even though I disagree with the BB and their behavior on many fronts, I have to commend them on this point. At least they are able to work with each other as co-workers. TC and WL both had no equals. Very dangerous for an organization. And sickening to me.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Yet I personally think the notion of "person" when it comes to the Trinity is too "nice and tidy" - not capturing all of what the Bible has to say about the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit.

Actually I don't believe the term person, or persons is addressing the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit, it is only a very biblical way of describing the self-existence (self existing identity) of each of the three of the Godhead. I think the term Trinity could be thought of as addressing the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit, and I believe this to be a biblical term as well. “The Triune God” could also be thought of addressing the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit. I believe the term “The Triune God” is biblical as well, but Witness Lee sulleyed it greatly by adding on, and coming up with “The processed Triune God”. (probably an argument for another day)

The earliest church fathers, scholars and teachers did not arrive at the use of the term “person” lightly. There was much contentious debate among them. We know from biblical accounts, as well as from outside witness, that there were many false teachers and apostle wannabes polluting the churches with all manner of “destructive heresies”(2 Peter 2:1) Most of these heresies involved the nature of the Trinity, as well as the person and work of Jesus Christ. Many of the early councils addressed these heresies, and ended up producing a number of creeds, which in turn ended up becoming a major element in the “Statement of Faith” in much of what we know today as orthodox Christianity. I believe that the term person or persons is used in many (most) of these creeds, and the reason is that they were combating many of the early heresies, some of which denied the "personhood" of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit or both.

On the one hand, Witness Lee lays out a compelling argument that the traditional "language" about the Trinity is inadequate.

I don’t think the traditional language about the Trinity is inadequate in the least, and even if it was, Witness Lee was hardly qualified to single handedly change and/or add on to this traditional language. Of course this simple fact didn’t stop him, nor has it stopped his followers from trying to pass his unorthodox teachings off as “heavenly language”.

Thus, he attempted - from a well-intentioned place - to try to capture the more nuanced Biblical record. There may still be room for disagreement, but this impulse to use extra-biblical language specifically in an effort to more closely capture what the Bible says, is notable.

The problem is that when numerous other Christians (including Dr. Walter Martin, the original bible answer man) pointed out the flaws and weaknesses in Lee’s extra-biblical language, instead of challenging his critics to come and reason together, he took out full-page newspaper ads claiming they were tritheists and heretics. There was simply no disagreeing with Lee and his followers, or even "agreeing to disagree". Everyone was to swallow his every word wholesale, or be considered as evil opposers. This mindset is still very much alive in the Local Church to this day, and until this mindset goes away the LC will remain nothing but a tiny and uninfluential fringe group.

There is something amiss when a Word-based faith finds a separate pride in its own language which are "proxies" for what the Word itself says.

Very well said! As I noted before, many Local Churchers, and certainly most of the leadership, treat Witness Lee’s teachings as a proxy for the Word of God. In some cases, they even elevate Lee’s words to a position above the Word of God. This is a very serious error with very serious consequences. Unfortunately we are seeing the consequences born out in real time right before our eyes in the words and actions of many of the blended brothers. Their consciences are so compromised that they cannot tell the truth from fiction. This is what happens after decades of imbibing in the words of a man at the expence of the Word of God.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Truth

Even though I disagree with the BB and their behavior on many fronts, I have to commend them on this point. At least they are able to work with each other as co-workers. TC and WL both had no equals. Very dangerous for an organization. And sickening to me.

I'm not sure the BB are really able to work together as co-workers as it would normally be understood. They are essentially cheerleaders and repeaters of Witness Lee's ministry. Their organizing principle is their interpretation of Witness Lee and his ministry. It is relatively easy to work together within such a context. They are basically just representatives of LSM.

IMHO a team of coworkers who work well together may have different ministries based on their giftedness, books published, events, etc. When making decisions they are able to challenge and balance one another, etc.

For example, let's suppose Titus Chu didn't have to be the "boss" and let's say Phil Comfort, Chuck Debelak, John Myer and Keith Miller were on the same team as Titus working in the GLA. Titus is a good teacher and strategist. Phil Comfort is a scholar and teacher. Chuck Debelak is a good counselor and pastor esp with young people. John Myer is an evangelist and pastor. Keith Miller is a missionary. (I'm probably missing many of their gifts.) Titus might write a few books. Phil is also an author so he writes some too. John might hold an evangelistic event while at the same time Chuck is doing a weekend HS retreat. Meanwhile Keith is starting another church in Uganda. And John then starts writing a book too. There is a diversity of ministries and various activities going on at the same time. And Titus doesn't get to decide and dictate what everyone is doing and neither do they need "his blessing" to do anything. He is just another member on the team of equal standing with the others. And if while meeting together to discuss their work he has done something or suggests something the others disagree with they say so - they counter it openly. There's a mutual respect and admiration between the members but there is also a healthy tension with checks and balances i.e. it's not one man running the show while the rest are subordinate to him. This to me is what working together looks like in application.

[Truth]

I understand what you are saying. But even as cheerleaders, they still have to work together. They still have to decide who gets to speak in the 7-feasts, who is responsible for which regions, who gets to edit WL's material, etc... So far it looks like they have been able to move forward without ripping each other apart. At least outwardly, they don't look like they are in competition with each other. It isn't easy considering that there are at least 50 of them. So I have to give them credit for that.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Truth

I understand what you are saying. But even as cheerleaders, they still have to work together. They still have to decide who gets to speak in the 7-feasts, who is responsible for which regions, who gets to edit WL's material, etc... So far it looks like they have been able to move forward without ripping each other apart. At least outwardly, they don't look like they are in competition with each other. It isn't easy considering that there are at least 50 of them. So I have to give them credit for that.

Sure they deserve credit for that but what you are really talking about are housekeeping details. None of them actually have a ministry they are all repeaters of another man's ministry. Once being repeaters of another man's ministry is agree upon as an organizing and I might add unifying principle then the minor details become incidental.

Also many of the key BB are on staff at LSM and would probably lose their jobs if they did cause any problems over the incidentals. And in deciding the details I'm sure Benson Phillips and Ron Kangas are the key decision makers. So in effect the BB do have a couple of "bosses" but their jobs are easy because the rest of the BB are so passively compliant.

If each of the 50 actually had ministries, wanted to publish, speak etc. then the BB would implode. It can't exist without Witness Lee and his ministry as the glue.