The Asian Mind/The Western Mind

[aron]

I'm not sure where to post these thoughts, so I'll put them here. Admin can move them if needed. This largely is in response to amrkelly's point about Asian subterfuge (relating to Dana Roberts going to the PRC to investigate WN), how the Chinese will nod and smile and feed you a load of baloney.

So I wanted to relate an experience that I had that gave me some insight to the Asian culture. I trained in martial arts for years, and once I was doing tai chi in a small room with a bunch of Chinese. We all were moving together through the forms, and if you made a bad move you would bump into the other person. You would violate their space.

If you can imagine a flock of birds flying together, and each bird has to watch out for the one in front and on the side. Each bird instinctively processes all that to keep in the space allotted, even though that space is changing, because the flock is moving. Or think of a school of fish swimming together; you get my point, I hope. At that time I really saw something of the Asian preference for "order". If everybody is free to move about in an unconstrained way, then they will bump into each other.

This is completely different from my upbringing. I grew up in the Western U.S. where there are wide open spaces and everybody has to be independent. You have to figure it out, and do it. You are not flying in a flock, but solo. The rugged individual is sort of the cultural model.

So Nee's model, and Lee's model, is a kind of Asian-leaning model, "that we would all have the same mind, and speak the same thing." The proper, orderly, harmonized church life is the conceptual vehicle that guides everything. So "Witness Lee is always right, even when he's wrong" is not so much a self-aggrandizement (though he bought into it, to some degree) but rather a central organizing principle for an orderly functioning religious body. The Big Boss speaks and we all say "Amen". So if WL says that Solomon with all his foreign wives is a type of Christ and his bride, we say "Amen". Then, if in the next breath WL says that David is not a type of Christ because he was a sinner (he numbered Israel in his pride, he dallied with Bathsheba, had Uriah the Hittite killed, he -"gasp"- threw a stone at Goliath instead of forgiving him!) we still say "Amen". Because good order in the church requires us to say "Amen" whenever WL speaks. So all of this is perfectly reasonable, even essential, in the Asian-created mind. So the "truth", or reality, of "good order in the church" is greater than the requirement for consistency when interpreting the Bible, for example.

But in my rugged individualistic "cowboy" mind, I see the verse that says, "As the wind blows where it will, and you hear the sound of it, but nobody knows where it comes from and where it goes, so is it with everyone who's born of the Spirit." So I see the "freedom of the Spirit" calling me. I don't want to wait for Headquarters to tell me how to function. In fact, I get a resentment when HQ shows up and tells me who are my "vital group" members. And I want to be free to see what I see when I read the Bible. I want to use my reason, and function in my inspired spirit.

I read the Bible and see Philip going down the south road out of Jerusalem, and running up to a chariot. Then afterward the newly saved Ethiopian went down to his home country, and Philip never told him to report to HQ for vital group assignment or full-time training. And 2,000 years later Ethiopia is still a christian nation! Who told Philip to go down to the south road? An angel! Who told him to run up to the chariot? The Holy Spirit! Deal with it. That is how God moves.

Actually, the "rugged individual" and the "harmonious coordination" aren't necessarily contradictions. They are just cultural predispositions. And I have to get over mine, and try to understand the other. Which is what I am doing here, typing this.

My point is that perhaps WL wasn't necessarily a snake oil salesman, as much as he was trying to fulfill his "church" mandate. The Living Stream Ministry, the full-time training, all of that came out of the requirements for the collective. WL's cultural predisposition wasn't the individual looking for the Spirit to guide him home. Instead his primary "vision" was the collective, and so he worked for the collective, and was willing to lie, to cover-up, to manipulate people, and to lift himself above the flock. Because he felt that was what the collective needed to go forward. All this was required for "good order in the church." So that was where the Deputy God teaching came from, and the idea of unquestioning obedience to the one in front of you.

To me this is the Hive Mind, and it has produced a lot of crazy stuff over the years, not limited to the Local Churches of Lee. I remember reading one testimony of a "rebellion", where the LSM representative angrily told the questioning Local Church elder, "We do what we are told." To some degree this is effective, but eventually it totally quenches the Spirit.

But on the other hand my cultural mindset can fixate on "freedom" and end up being wild, uncoordinated, and not caring for anyone else. Then I'm useless to God. So I'm not saying that my cultural metaphor is superior, just trying to understand how others think. Does anyone else have any insight to the "Asian mind", as I've tried to relate to it?

[zeek]

When making generalizations about the "Asian mind' how do we avoid ethnic stereotypes rather than realistic and authentic depictions of actual cultures, customs and behaviors?

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

When making generalizations about the "Asian mind' how do we avoid ethnic stereotypes rather than realistic and authentic depictions of actual cultures, customs and behaviors?

We could do a survey. Go to China and randomly ask people, "Do you value order or freedom more?" Then go to Butte Montana and Boise Idaho and rural hamlets of Colorado. Ask the same question. Then you will have a quantification of cultural values.

[InChristAlone]

Good observation, Aron.

I'm neither Western nor Asian but I live in a Chinese community. I like these people. Though I believe I'll be always an outsider for them. Anyway, in three words, I'd describe the Chinese mentality as:

1) Subordination;
2) Collectiveness;
3) “Us” versus “Them” mentality. (Well, that is slightly more than one word )

Generally, the Chinese are also lack of creativity and tend to imitate or copy someone else's models and patterns.

BTW, can you guess whose quote is this: "The individual is subordinate to the organisation. The minority is subordinate to the majority. The lower level is subordinate to the higher level"...

That was Mao Tse-tung's quote but it pretty much sums up the LC's value system.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

We could do a survey. Go to China and randomly ask people, "Do you value order or freedom more?" Then go to Butte Montana and Boise Idaho and rural hamlets of Colorado. Ask the same question. Then you will have a quantification of cultural values.

Maybe somebody has done research already that provide us guidance lest we simply confirm our prejudices to ourselves. Or is there some value in comparing and contrasting prejudices in a discussion such as is possible here? Or rather I should say that is what I would like to avoid if possible.

[zeek]

Generally, the Chinese are also lack of creativity and tend to imitate or copy someone else's models and patterns.

Do you have any evidence to support this proposition? Do all Chinese lack creativity? If only some or even most, than how much less creative are they than whom? Americans? How do you put a meter on creativity?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

When making generalizations about the "Asian mind' how do we avoid ethnic stereotypes rather than realistic and authentic depictions of actual cultures, customs and behaviors?

I don't know. I married a Chinese sister, and saw Chinese culture and customs close up. There are distinct differences between the cultures of east and west.

Personally, I wonder if Nee's development of deputy/delegated authority comes from him growing up in his culture and heritage ... that he superimposed upon the Bible ... and then impressed upon those in his movement.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

Do you have any evidence to support this proposition? Do all Chinese lack creativity? If only some or even most, than how much less creative are they than whom? Americans? How do you put a meter on creativity?

I put a meter on Chinese creativity but the original products and new technologies that the whole world buys from China. What are they?..

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know. I married a Chinese sister, and saw Chinese culture and customs close up. There are distinct differences between the cultures of east and west.

Personally, I wonder if Nee's development of deputy/delegated authority comes from him growing up in his culture and heritage ... that he superimposed upon the Bible ... and then impressed upon those in his movement.

Does that make you an expert about the Chinese or about that sister? Would she endorse your expertise?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Does that make you an expert about the Chinese or about that sister? Would she endorse your expertise?

Of course not, on both accounts. On the 2nd account she was my wife. What do you think?

But I was shaped by it, and have views based upon it ... that certainly doesn't speak for all Chinese.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know. I married a Chinese sister, and saw Chinese culture and customs close up. There are distinct differences between the cultures of east and west.

Personally, I wonder if Nee's development of deputy/delegated authority comes from him growing up in his culture and heritage ... that he superimposed upon the Bible ... and then impressed upon those in his movement.

It's hard to well nigh impossible to separate certain teachings like Nee and Lee's Deputy Authority from several millennia of Chinese dynasties.

Even the British mindset, with centuries of the ruling monarchy, differs from the pioneering mindset of the US.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

. that certainly doesn't speak for all Chinese.

Nor was I, nor any of us. But it does show how Titus Chu could stand in front of WL in public and declare how "ashamed" he was that Cleveland was not fully implemented in the new way. It does show how the majority could sit there and think, "Oh, this is good. This is a well-regulated church life." In another society that might be a sign of despotism.

People do polls all the time. It's not some secret science. What does the population think about this value, versus that value? Then they know what to title the next Hollywood movie or fragrance or utility vehicle.

Generalizations are merely generalizations. I am not afraid to make them. I don't pretend they are some absolute truth for all people at all times. If anyone is offended by my making a generalization, well I will go look at the poll numbers and see if I can back it up.

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

Maybe somebody has done research already that provide us guidance...

http://www.asanet.org/images/members...hart_Baker.pdf

From American Sociological Review, 2000.

Turns out Asians are much more rational... "I do this because it's the best thing to do" versus Americans who are more traditional... "I do this because my daddy did it."

But Asians are more oriented toward social coherence and conformity... "I do this because that's what the group wants me to do" versus Americans who are more independent... "I do this because I want to do it."

Zeek is right, though: I should have titled this thread something less inflammatory and provocative, like "Shared cultural norms and values: East vs West"

I've been tooting this horn about the dichotomy between Eastern and Western cultures being at the root of the problems in the Recovery for years. Waking up to the realization that I had grown up in, and given my life to propagate, an incognito Chinese church was deeply disturbing, but the conviction only gets clearer as the years go by.

I stumbled in here today by chance. Wasn't even aware this forum existed. Reading this thread almost gave me goosebumps, to finally hear some traction for this understanding. In a discussion that I didn't personally initiate, no less. Actually, most of what I've had are monologues, not discussions. Nice to see that someone else can connect the dots.

Once you see this dichotomy clearly, I believe you'll recognize that nearly every gripe from disgruntled ex-members or frustrated current members has its roots in Asian cultural values that got institutionalized so deeply into the practices of the Local Churches that they create an atmosphere of expectations so rigid they are just as effective at enforcing conformity as posting a bouncer at the door, or a requiring a profession of doctrinal faith that one must sign in order to be fully received into the circle of fellowship. Some of the Asian cultural elements relate to standards of conduct that are pushed as if essential to the Christian life. Others elements are Eastern cultural values that make their way into doctrinal stances on minor truths, and then get stressed like major ones. The manifestations are numerous, but the root is the same. We (they) failed to distinguish between Lee's culture and his portion of Christ.

On the one hand, I believe this is the glaringly obvious "elephant in the room" that even the current leaders in the Recovery acknowledge has been wreaking havoc and hemorrhaging the life-blood of what, by all rights, should be a thriving organism. Whether they see the elephant for what it truly is or not is not for me to say, but I've been encouraged just to hear they acknowledge the problems it causes for them. And that encouragement is not rooted in cynicism toward them.

On the other hand, though, there is a reason why so many members can't see the elephant, and why the leaders (in my view) should be given some slack for failing to evict it. I bumped into it daily, got trampled by it with bothersome frequency, and wrestled with it on and off for over a decade before all the loose threads of my chronic frustrations got tied together by the common thread of Asian culture, at which point the resultant tapestry finally came together. It was a relief in the small sense that the puzzle finally got solved and yielded a coherent picture. But it was devastating at the same time -- my faith got rocked and my Christian life got shipwrecked by the disappointment. Blindness is not always willful, and the more painful the picture, the more innate subconscious defense mechanisms there are to prevent you from seeing it.

Plus, it's a complex picture, not a simple line-drawing. I blame no one for not being able to connect the dots without help. It took me about 30 pages even just to put my thoughts on the topic together when a brother asked me to connect the dots for him by giving detailed explanations rather than generalizations. It's like walking someone through calculus, when you can jump 5 steps at a time, but they need each little one spelled out for them separately in order to see the connections at first. I'll probably share pieces of that effort here as the discussion progresses, but I'm leery of becoming one more disgruntled bozo with an angry manifesto. (Sorry if that that offends anyone here; I trust most of you here, like me, have been there for a time, even if you've moved past that phase.)

For the record: I have no interest in WL, LC, or BB bashing. I bless the Lord for the privilege of growing up and giving my best years whole-heartedly to be receive what these people gained of Christ, and serve together with them. Some of you here, I feel, have some issues with bitterness that you would do well to seek help dealing with. God forbid that He eventually has to judge you with the same strictness and enthusiasm with which some of you here are casting stones. I have no interest in participating in that or providing ammunition for those who are just looking for rocks to throw rather than to build something with.

If there have been moral or ethical wrongdoings that set some of you off, I can't speak to that, as I never noticed such things in greater frequency or severity than are common to any institution, sacred or secular. I'm just talking about the personal offenses and reactionary cynicism that rise up when a person finds out they don't fit in to something they had hoped to be a part of at some point. I still struggle with disappointment that there seems to be no place for me among what those dear folks are doing. But I'm dealing with it, and staying positive is part of how that is best done.

[caveman]

OK, I'm registered now. Post #14 is mine. Upon re-reading it I wish I could go back and edit some things. Sounds arrogant the way that came out. I'll dodge the light and claim I wasn't my usual charming self only due to lack of sleep.

Originally Posted by aron

Actually, the "rugged individual" and the "harmonious coordination" aren't necessarily contradictions. They are just cultural predispositions. And I have to get over mine, and try to understand the other. Which is what I am doing here, typing this. ... my cultural mindset can fixate on "freedom" and end up being wild, uncoordinated, and not caring for anyone else. Then I'm useless to God. So I'm not saying that my cultural metaphor is superior, just trying to understand how others think. Does anyone else have any insight to the "Asian mind", as I've tried to relate to it?

At the risk of sounding arrogant again, I think I've got some insights into this that I'll try to share as time allows. I think your own insights are fully in line with the reality of the situation, though, and it's nice to see you are honest enough to apply the same critical standards to your own culture.

Originally Posted by zeek

When making generalizations about the "Asian mind' how do we avoid ethnic stereotypes rather than realistic and authentic depictions of actual cultures, customs and behaviors?

Easy. "Ethnic" is spelled e-t-h-n-i-c, and "cultural" is spelled c-u-l-t-u-r-a-l. When someone speaks about cultural matters, don't assumr they're talking about racial ones. It's that simple. To suggest that it is somehow difficult to discuss the two separately without being racist is extremely PC, and stifles legitimate & respectful discussion. Keep in mind that cultural stereotypes are not the same thing as ethnic stereotypes, and that the former, unlike the latter, tend to be descriptive rather than vicious, and are quite often rooted in reality. Everyone knows that when it comes to complex systems like people, generalizations don't fit all situations, and that there are exceptions to every rule. But that doesn't mean the generalizations and rules don't still do a good job of accurately describing things most of the time.

Originally Posted by aron

We could do a survey. Go to China and randomly ask people, "Do you value order or freedom more?" Then go to Butte Montana and Boise Idaho and rural hamlets of Colorado. Ask the same question. Then you will have a quantification of cultural values.

The East/West divide alluded to in the OP is a very well-established and universally accepted dichotomy in academia. It is one of the most obvious and most striking phenomena in global cultural studies.

Originally Posted by zeek

Maybe somebody has done research already that provide us guidance lest we simply confirm our prejudices to ourselves. Or is there some value in comparing and contrasting prejudices in a discussion such as is possible here? Or rather I should say that is what I would like to avoid if possible.

I'm guessing that you have felt victimized by prejudice at some point in life. Please forgive if I'm being too presumptuous. I'm not trying to patronize you. But I don't understand your repeated suggestions that cultural differences can't be discussed respectfully outside the realm of racial stereotypes and prejudice, both of which imply open bigotry. Especially considering the tone of the OP, which I felt was a perfect example of someone's respectful insight into cultural differences. He was every bit as appreciative of Eastern cultural values as he was of his own Western ones, and offered just as much criticism of his Western ones as he did about their Eastern ones. That's called a respectful, balanced discussion, with no hint of the racial or bigoted stereotypes and prejudices that you seem to be afraid of. Where's the problem? Are folks just supposed to consider cultural differences taboo for fear that someone might say they're racist for noticing that such things exist?

Originally Posted by zeek

Does that make you an expert about the Chinese or about that sister? Would she endorse your expertise?

Does anecdotal evidence have any place at all in your universe? If he gives you quantifiable evidence, will you then question the statistical validity of those numbers? The guy is just trying to have a discussion.

Originally Posted by aron

Zeek is right, though: I should have titled this thread something less inflammatory and provocative, like "Shared cultural norms and values: East vs West"

Nothing against Zeek personally, but I disagree. I fail to see how either title is less inflammatory or provocative than the other. Am I just blind and insensitive? Both seem perfectly fine. What I feel is provocative and inflammatory is to suggest that generalizations about cultural differences are inherently racist, bigoted, or critical, and that they shouldn't be discussed without first issuing a full-page disclaimer before each and every sentence that someone can potentially misinterpret in a manner that wasn't intended.

Sorry. Maybe I just need to get some more sleep again. I know I'm new here so I hope I'm not crossing the line.

[aron]

Originally Posted by caveman

I have no interest in WL, LC, or BB bashing. I bless the Lord for the privilege of growing up and giving my best years whole-heartedly to be receive what these people gained of Christ, and serve together with them. Some of you here, I feel, have some issues with bitterness that you would do well to seek help dealing with. God forbid that He eventually has to judge you with the same strictness and enthusiasm with which some of you here are casting stones. I have no interest in participating in that or providing ammunition for those who are just looking for rocks to throw rather than to build something with.

Thanks for posting and welcome. Your voice is refreshing. I grew up in rural and semi-rural community church (i.e. Protestant) environments, and when I had problems and realized I desperately needed God, I got active there. I was in one church on Tuesday night for prayer meeting, and another one on Friday night with high school students, and in another on Sunday trying to help with Bible study. And some of these churches didn't get along: one pastor told me, when I related my fellowships with him, not to let the others know that I was with him, and in a small town, yet! What!

So to be exposed to the Local Church "oneness" culture with its integrated service, and fellowships, was very attractive. There were many opportunities to get involved, as well, and not "pew sitting." And I found the approach to the Bible very rational, which had an appeal. In the community churches there were pastors who didn't have formal training, but they spoke on Sunday morning because they were the one reading the Bible on Monday through Saturday! They didn't know much but they knew more than the rest. But often they didn't bring much depth of insight to the Word. Contrast that to my first exposure to the Local Church meetings, where the rank-and-file could stand up and go into details on the nuances of the Word like few pastors I had heard. I liked it and jumped in.

But over time I saw the fellowships go from being "local" to being franchises of Living Stream Ministry. Every time the Big Brothers from HQ showed up everybody got real stiff, and afraid to go off script. And the terminology was off-putting... "the new way"..."vital groups"... does anyone remember the "youth propagation groups"? That one really rolled off the tongue! Eventually, as well, as I got some experience in the Word, I got kind of resentful that my own insights only had so much value as I could square them with the LSM version. Otherwise I should keep my thoughts to myself.

So I went back to the Podunk Community Church. I still told everyone there about "God's economy", but at least I could re-arrange it in my own language without the thought police pulling me back into line. And eventually, looking back, I realized that while WL had some insight, he didn't have the last word on Bible understanding. In an organizational system that required him to have the final word he was forced into a position that nobody but God alone should be in. And as I tried to allude to in my opening post, I eventually realized that there was a big cultural element behind this.

Originally Posted by caveman

If there have been moral or ethical wrongdoings that set some of you off, I can't speak to that, as I never noticed such things in greater frequency or severity than are common to any institution, sacred or secular. I'm just talking about the personal offenses and reactionary cynicism that rise up when a person finds out they don't fit in to something they had hoped to be a part of at some point. I still struggle with disappointment that there seems to be no place for me among what those dear folks are doing. But I'm dealing with it, and staying positive is part of how that is best done.

Christians believe that there is a loving God who sent His Son to save us from sin and death. We know that our Christ has passed through the mortal veil and now always lives to intercede for us. Given that, I think that passing judgment on one another, while still ourselves dwelling in the flesh, is probably counterproductive. Nee & Lee & many others might all be higher than I at the proverbial Great Banquet in the Sky. But at the same time I can point out the possible cultural similarities of Mao's "Great Leap Forward" with Lee's "New Way" and their stifling effects.

And I now, outside the system, I also have freedom to point out inconsistencies in WL's expositions. David was too rough on people in the Psalms, said WL. He was supposed to bless his enemies. Yet elsewhere in the OT narrative they were hacking one another to bits with swords and burning cities. Of course my expositions are often inconsistent, also. But I am not in a system in which one person (me, naturally) has to be unquestioned as "God's current oracle". If you require this kind of arrangement for social coherence and your "oracle" is not named Jesus Christ you are probably headed for trouble. WL was indeed logical, and that is attractive, as I am logical too. I like to think, and to solve puzzles, not the least of which is how do I follow the Spirit home to my Father in heaven. I found that in the Local Churches I didn't have much freedom to think, or speak, so I left.

And my point of starting this thread was that this lack of individual freedom, as I experienced it, wasn't perhaps due to the fact that Nee & Lee were power-hungry usurpers of God's throne as much as they were from a cultural mind-set that put great emphasis on the collective, and on social coherence and conformity. And they brought that mind-set to the Bible and created an interpretive template that stressed some things and ignored others.

Now, we all do this, to some degree, which is why I mention my own history. But Lee, in presuming to have gone beyond culture, missed its effect and was unable to mitigate it. Eventually what we all assumed didn't exist actually dominated the scene. It was your proverbial "elephant in the room." I will let you have the last word, and again thanks for posting.

Originally Posted by caveman

The manifestations are numerous, but the root is the same. We (they) failed to distinguish between Lee's culture and his portion of Christ.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Some of the Asian cultural elements relate to standards of conduct that are pushed as if essential to the Christian life. Others elements are Eastern cultural values that make their way into doctrinal stances on minor truths, and then get stressed like major ones. The manifestations are numerous, but the root is the same. We (they) failed to distinguish between Lee's culture and his portion of Christ.

Welcome Caveman!

Your insights and attitude are much appreciated here.

As a typical Westerner, as if growing up in the west side of Cleveland, Ohio qualifies me of that, I have often thought that we were fooled into thinking that Lee's Chinese culture was "spiritual" just because it was foreign to our own. Admittedly being active in the Titus Chu-led LC's was a kind of Lee-Lite experience, while at the same time introducing a new set of dynamics.

It has always amazed me that the justification for regular leadership "dress-downs" by both Lee and Chu were sourced in a missionary sister from England. Supposedly M. E. Barber's brutal rebukes of Watchman Nee, which reportedly "perfected" him, gave all subsequent leaders the privilege to repeat such a shameful practice with others. For a collection of brothers, so "faithful" to the pure word of God, it is quite surprising since the New Testament provides not even a single verse fragment warranting such a leadership style. How do we attribute this ongoing practice to a sister, and without any scriptural support, if Chinese culture is ruled out?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

But over time I saw the fellowships go from being "local" to being franchises of Living Stream Ministry. Every time the Big Brothers from HQ showed up everybody got real stiff, and afraid to go off script. And the terminology was off-putting... "the new way"..."vital groups"... does anyone remember the "youth propagation groups"?

Funny reminder.

Those "propagation groups" took on life like a government program.

We had campus PG's, family PG's, work PG's, etc.

Eventually some brainchild developed IPG's -- Individual Propagation Groups -- which takes us back to the other LC maxim -- "even when he's wrong, he's right!"

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It has always amazed me that the justification for regular leadership "dress-downs" by both Lee and Chu were sourced in a missionary sister from England. Supposedly M. E. Barber's brutal rebukes of Watchman Nee, which reportedly "perfected" him, gave all subsequent leaders the privilege to repeat such a shameful practice with others. For a collection of brothers, so "faithful" to the pure word of God, it is quite surprising since the New Testament provides not even a single verse fragment warranting such a leadership style. How do we attribute this ongoing practice to a sister, and without any scriptural support, if Chinese culture is ruled out?

One of the interesting things about culture in general, and religion in particular, is that we build shrines to stuff from days gone past that we never would allow in present time. So we had all these sisters in the LC narrative that would never be allowed to function today. M Barber was only one of them... I remember Peace Wang, Dora Yu, etc. I forget all the names that were reverently cited in the LC lineage. Probably none of them could exist in the present organization.

I think Jesus mentioned something about building shrines to martyred prophets. Quite similar. We eulogize stuff we'd never allow today. Welcome to planet earth.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

And my point of starting this thread was that this lack of individual freedom, as I experienced it, wasn't perhaps due to the fact that Nee & Lee were power-hungry usurpers of God's throne as much as they were from a cultural mind-set that put great emphasis on the collective, and on social coherence and conformity.

For me these go hand-in-hand. As previously noted, I had far more time with Titus Chu than with Witness Lee himself. And the case could be made by many that the true "duplication" of Witness Lee was not with the Blendeds, who were only talented observers and repeaters, but with Titus Chu, who of all Lee's adherents most nearly matched Lee in talent and mannerisms.

It took quite a while to finally realize that the continual public shamings of other leaders had little to do with actual "perfecting" and had everything to do with the establishment and maintenance of the power base. The basis for this had much to do with Chinese cultural norms, both within the leader and the followers, which explains why the demographic "color" of the LC's in the US slowly "transformed" from white to yellow.

I may be "seeing" Lee through the person of Chu, but from all accounts, the picture is accurate. Not just was power-grabbing a primary motivation, but going further, LC leaders demanded a glory -- a vain-glory (see John 5.43-44) -- that rightfully belonged only to the Son of God, the Man Christ Jesus. The result was a collection of man-pleasers, deteriorating over time with each successive expulsion (i.e. quarantine) of those who refused to pay homage.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

One of the interesting things about culture in general, and religion in particular, is that we build shrines to stuff from days gone past that we never would allow in present time. So we had all these sisters in the LC narrative that would never be allowed to function today. M Barber was only one of them... I remember Peace Wang, Dora Yu, etc. I forget all the names that were reverently cited in the LC lineage. Probably none of them could exist in the present organization.

I think Jesus mentioned something about building shrines to martyred prophets. Quite similar. We eulogize stuff we'd never allow today. Welcome to planet earth.

Great points.

And lest you forget another sister ... Madame Jeanne Guyon, the 17th century MOTA ...

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by caveman

For the record: I have no interest in WL, LC, or BB bashing. I bless the Lord for the privilege of growing up and giving my best years whole-heartedly to be receive what these people gained of Christ, and serve together with them. Some of you here, I feel, have some issues with bitterness that you would do well to seek help dealing with. God forbid that He eventually has to judge you with the same strictness and enthusiasm with which some of you here are casting stones. I have no interest in participating in that or providing ammunition for those who are just looking for rocks to throw rather than to build something with.
If there have been moral or ethical wrongdoings that set some of you off, I can't speak to that, as I never noticed such things in greater frequency or severity than are common to any institution, sacred or secular. I'm just talking about the personal offenses and reactionary cynicism that rise up when a person finds out they don't fit in to something they had hoped to be a part of at some point. I still struggle with disappointment that there seems to be no place for me among what those dear folks are doing. But I'm dealing with it, and staying positive is part of how that is best done.

Welcome to the forum caveman

Thanks for your insightful post. Don't know how old you are, but many (most) of the frequent posters here are "middle aged" refugees who were in "the glorious churchlife" back in the 1970s. Some of us left the Local Church 20 years ago or even more. Some just recently. We do have a few scattered current LC members. Anyway, much of the "perspective" you see in the postings here come from us surly old curmudgeons. Most of us are very much aware of our rock-throwing tendencies, and we try to stay on the positive side, but much of the time our willing spirit is overcome by our old, weak flesh. Many of us are living proof that calling on the Lord, pray-reading and going to 5 or 6 meetings a week do not a transformed person make. So when you catch us picking up stones, just do what the Lord Jesus did when those people were going to stone the adulteress and say "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone" and we'll probably put our tail between our legs and walk away.

Seriously, this forum is in need of some new blood and some fresh air - from BOTH sides of the fence. I have been trying my best to see how we can further promote this forum and maybe you can help us.

Your brother who is unto Him.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Caveman

God forbid that He eventually has to judge you with the same strictness and enthusiasm with which some of you here are casting stones.

I don't know about anyone else but when I got the boot the stones were coming my way, not the other way around.

But I don't know that for sure either. Cuz I was bucking the Lee/apostle/oracle "Flow of Oneness" push. So maybe stones were flying both ways, it could be claimed, by the leaders.

It was at that time I woke up, and realized I was in a cult.

So is it throwing stones to tell everyone the local church is a cult?

Let's face it, we'll never be able to determine with any degree of certainty, how much Chinese culture influenced Nee and Lee's theology and hermeneutics.

We can say that "Authority and Submission," with its deputy/delegated authority, and their insistence on "Hand-over," "follow the one in front of you, and the leader," certainly appear to be very totalitarian in nature. Did it come out of Chinese culture/history? Does it matter where it came from?

That's what makes the local church a cult. And that's not a stone. That's a boulder ... for all in the Recovery.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I've been tooting this horn about the dichotomy between Eastern and Western cultures being at the root of the problems in the Recovery for years...

Once you see this dichotomy clearly, I believe you'll recognize that nearly every gripe from disgruntled ex-members or frustrated current members has its roots in Asian cultural values that got institutionalized so deeply into the practices of the Local Churches that they create an atmosphere of expectations so rigid they are just as effective at enforcing conformity as posting a bouncer at the door...

... there is a reason why so many members can't see the elephant, and why the leaders (in my view) should be given some slack for failing to evict it. I bumped into it daily, got trampled by it with bothersome frequency, and wrestled with it on and off for over a decade before all the loose threads of my chronic frustrations got tied together by the common thread of Asian culture, at which point the resultant tapestry finally came together....

Plus, it's a complex picture, not a simple line-drawing. I blame no one for not being able to connect the dots without help. It took me about 30 pages even just to put my thoughts on the topic together when a brother asked me to connect the dots for him by giving detailed explanations rather than generalizations. It's like walking someone through calculus, when you can jump 5 steps at a time, but they need each little one spelled out for them separately in order to see the connections at first. I'll probably share pieces of that effort here as the discussion progresses...

"it's a complex picture, not a simple line-drawing.''

I hope that you'll eventually take the time to spell out your thoughts. Unfortunately I'm not a very systematic thinker, and probably the readers would benefit if someone out there is able to state an argument coherently. If you can actually present a "detailed explanation" I imagine that it might be very helpful. I sort of have a habit of meandering, and at the end I hope that my point has been made somewhere in the text.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

"The individual is subordinate to the organisation. The minority is subordinate to the majority. The lower level is subordinate to the higher level"...

That was Mao Tse-tung's quote but it pretty much sums up the LC's value system.

Actually that's quite perceptive. In the U.S. you'd never get away with subordinating the individual. Our country is founded on the rights of the individual coming first.

Of course the state has been encroaching steadily but it is telling that no politician could make that kind of statement in the U.S. today but they can, and have, in China. That's exactly what I was alluding to in starting this thread.

If you look back at the Local Church established in the U.S. by Witness Lee as a product of someone who came from a society where a Mao Tse Tung could make that statement, then what we experienced there suddenly doesn't seem so weird after all. It almost makes perfect sense.

"The individual is subordinate to the collective" in spiritual terms became morphed into "Christ and the church" which of course is directed by Christ's bondslave Witness Lee who just happens to have the ministry of the age. So if you don't subordinate yourself utterly (being "one") to the ministry of the age, which is actually fronted by a book publishing house (and now a multimedia company) then you are not cooperating with God on the earth today.

The collective thus becomes the lens through which reality itself is perceived. God is pushed off, somewhere beyond the collective, waiting for us to approach Him through the "church life".

[zeek]

Mao Tse-tung was a self-described Marxist-Leninist. The principles of the collective that he refers to, he got from them. Marx and Lenin were Europeans. So, in what sense are these ideas "Asian"? Also, isn't subordinating oneself to a collective the opposite of subordinating oneself to one man like the MOTA?

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

Mao Tse-tung was a self-described Marxist-Leninist. The principles of the collective that he refers to, he got from them. Marx and Lenin were Europeans. So, in what sense are these ideas "Asian"? Also, isn't subordinating oneself to a collective the opposite of subordinating oneself to one man like the MOTA?

Do you believe it was an accident that China became a breeding ground for Marxism-Leninism, while the USA rejected that political and economic theory?

These formulas work fine for the CPC and the LRC:

Mao = Communist party of China (CPC)
Communist Party of China (CPC) = Mao

WL = LRC
LRC = WL

If you don't subordinate yourself to Mao (WL), that means you don't subordinate yourself to the Communist Party of China (LRC).

BTW, in the USSR, they used a similar formula for one of the Party slogans: “We say 'Lenin' and mean the Party. We say 'the Party' and mean Lenin.” All sects, cults, and totalitarian regimes have similar characteristics. They just need a breeding ground.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

It was no accident that China became a breeding ground for Marxism-Leninism, while the USA rejected that political theory.

These formulas work fine for the CPC and the LRC:

Mao = Communist party of China (CPC)
Communist party of China (CPC) = Mao

WL = LRC
LRC = WL

If you don't subordinate yourself to Mao (WL), that means you don't subordinate yourself to the Communist party of China (LRC).

And "The lower level is [not] subordinate to the higher level"

And like the CPC, in the LRC your are OUTTA THERE ... ELIMINATED.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Do you believe it was an accident that China became a breeding ground for Marxism-Leninism, while the USA rejected that political and economic theory?

These formulas work fine for the CPC and the LRC:

Mao = Communist party of China (CPC)
Communist Party of China (CPC) = Mao

WL = LRC
LRC = WL

If you don't subordinate yourself to Mao (WL), that means you don't subordinate yourself to the Communist Party of China (LRC).

BTW, in the USSR, they used a similar formula for one of the Party slogans: “We say 'Lenin' and mean the Party. We say 'the Party' and mean Lenin.” All sects, cults, and totalitarian regimes have similar characteristics. They just need a breeding ground.

I don't know. "Breeding ground" is a nebulous term. Anywhere that communism took over may be supposed to be a breeding ground. It's a truism. But then, the LRC took hold among some indigenous Americans. Was there something Asian about us as compared with those that rejected the LRC?

I did find some support for the OP thesis in this article, http://www.develop-top-talent.com/ta...or-styles-asia that states "This research showed that cultural difference do indeed show up in self-expressed behavioral preferences by leaders. However, within each culture there is still room for a diversity of styles and approaches even where one or a cluster of styles is preferred more often than others." But, whether a leadership style is a matter of cultural difference or individual difference is going to be a judgment call in every case, isn't it?

[bearbear]

Another hypothesis I have is that the LRC culture of submission was created in an environment where a leadership claims to have special revelation of the bible that no other Christians have. Under such an environment followers would gravitate towards trusting and blindly submitting to and following their leaders because no longer is Jesus to source of divine revelation, but their leader is. Their identity is no longer in Christ, but it's wrapped up in the revelator. That's why those in the LRC become so offended when Witness Lee is criticized, because their identity is wrapped up in him. An attack on Lee would subconsciously be viewed as an attack on themselves.

Jehovah's Witness, a sect which now claims over 8 million members developed in the United States and have something similar going on. They believe that only their leaders are qualified to interpret the bible for them and that every other Christian outside of their sect is misled. It's even more taboo than in the LRC to question authority. But then again they are considered by most to be a cult...

Here's a video of Francis Chan's conversation with a JW:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcFMGKLTI5k

The JW tells this pastor "Your problem is that you read the bible by yourself. You need our leaders to interpret it for you."

This is a similar mindset I've heard from ex-JW I've met online who all say they lived in an environment where no one could ever question the elders or the Watchtower's teachings, but they were pretty much expected to blindly follow.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by bearbear

...no longer is Jesus the source of divine revelation, but their leader is. Their identity is no longer in Christ, but it's wrapped up in the revelator. That's why those in the LRC become so offended when Witness Lee is criticized, because their identity is wrapped up in him. An attack on Lee would subconsciously be viewed as an attack on themselves.

"Their identity is not longer in Christ, but it's wrapped up in the revelator".
So, I've been reading and writing on these forums for over 10 years now, and how is it that bearbear is able to say in just a dozen or so words what I've trying to say for 10 years and probably over 100,000 words? It's just not fair I tell you, it's just not fair! Ok, Ok, it's fair... but only because God is making it fair. Otherwise...

Seriously though, "no longer is Jesus the source of divine revelation". Can we just stop right there my friends? Any church, group of churches or association of churches, or any ministry, or any man that has lost "Jesus as the source of divine revelation" is not worthy of our slightest attention, much less giving our hearts and souls to. Nuff said?

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't know. "Breeding ground" is a nebulous term. Anywhere that communism took over may be supposed to be a breeding ground. It's a truism. But then, the LRC took hold among some indigenous Americans. Was there something Asian about us as compared with those that rejected the LRC?

Communists were a marginal group in the US, but in China they managed to take over the country. Mao became a dictator in China. Chiang Kai-shek and his government had to retreat to Taiwan, where Chiang Kai-shek also became a dictator. There were two Chinese states ruled by dictators at the same time. And I believe if it were not Mao and Chiang, it would be another Mao and another Chiang. (It's the same analogy with the USSR, where one dictator replaced another dictator. Czars were followed by Lenin. Lenin was followed by Stalin. If it were not Stalin, it would be another dreadful alternative named Trotsky).

The US never knew dictatorship. America was born as a republic, while China has always been a monarchy or an authoritarian regime. Puyi, the last Chinese emperor, reigned until 1917, while the US never had their own monarchy.

American saints bought a pig in a poke, i.e. they didn't know what they bought with the LRC. To put it tentatively, firstly, they were told that the Lord loved them and they had to love the Lord. Then they were told that if they wanted to love the Lord, they also needed to love His church. And next step was a substitution, when they were told that if they wanted to love the Lord and His church, they also had to be submissive to WL because he was the MOTA, his vision was God's vision, and the LRC was the only genuine Christian church. By that time, the saints had been brainwashed well enough not to get off the hook. WL just "helped" American saints to substitute their values for his values.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"Their identity is not longer in Christ, but it's wrapped up in the revelator".
So, I've been reading and writing on these forums for over 10 years now, and how is it that bearbear is able to say in just a dozen or so words what I've trying to say for 10 years and probably over 100,000 words? It's just not fair I tell you, it's just not fair! Ok, Ok, it's fair... but only because God is making it fair. Otherwise...

Seriously though, "no longer is Jesus the source of divine revelation". Can we just stop right there my friends? Any church, group of churches or association of churches, or any ministry, or any man that has lost "Jesus as the source of divine revelation" is not worthy of our slightest attention, much less giving our hearts and souls to. Nuff said?

That's true for us. But members of the LRC keep on praising the Lord for He is still speaking to them. They also believe that Jesus is the source of divine revelation, therefore everything they hear at their conferences is the word of the Lord. The more conferences they have, the more the Lord speaks to them. I can't stop saying to my wife that it is not the word of God but one man's opinion about it. But it is useless to talk.

I just came back from the Lord's Table where they had a long "sermon", full of cliches: "exercise your spirit", "grow in life", "grow in the Church" (or in the church life - I didn't bother to listen), etc. That's just a lot of hot air, but the saints are confident that it is the Lord who speaks to them through the brothers. They believe their church is unique because it's only in the LRC where God is still speaking to His "chosen people". (BTW, which commandment is easier to fulfill: "exercise your spirit", "grow in the church" or "love thy neighbor as thyself"? I don't remember if I've ever heard the last phrase in the LRC).

Saints can't notice that they substituted the word of God (the Holy Bible) and their own word to God (their prayer) for someone else's talk about God. They take the life with man's interpretation of God for the life in and with God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

That's true for us. But members of the LRC keep on praising the Lord for He is still speaking to them. They also believe that Jesus is the source of divine revelation, therefore everything they hear at their conferences is the word of the Lord. The more conferences they have, the more the Lord speaks to them. I can't stop saying to my wife that it is not the word of God but one man's opinion about it. But it is useless to talk.

I just came back from the Lord's Table where they had a long "sermon", full of cliches: "exercise your spirit", "grow in life", "grow in the Church" (or in the church life - I didn't bother to listen), etc. That's just a lot of hot air, but the saints are confident that it is the Lord who speaks to them through the brothers. They believe their church is unique because it's only in the LRC where God is still speaking to His "chosen people". (BTW, which commandment is easier to fulfill: "exercise your spirit", "grow in the church" or "love thy neighbor as thyself"? I don't remember if I've ever heard the last phrase in the LRC).

Saints can't notice that they substituted the word of God (the Holy Bible) and their own word to God (their prayer) for someone else's talk about God. They take the life with man's interpretation of God for the life in and with God.

This post is right up there with BearBs post.

So Untohim you asked, and there wasn't "Nuff said."

[InChristAlone]

Awareness, my problem is that I don't know how to explain my wife that "Their identity is not longer in Christ, but it's wrapped up in the revelator". It is a conclusion, not a solution. I know that the phrase is true. Most of the posters know that, too. It's obvious for you and me but not for everyone. Solution is how to make that statement true for others. And I don't know how. The members of the LRC look at their identity from another angle. For them, it's all Christ, from Christ, and about Christ.

[UntoHim]

InChristAlone,

Harold's right, your post was right up there, and actually there is never "Nuff said" around this place...or why keep this little forum going?

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

It is a conclusion, not a solution.

Another golden nugget. Bless you my friend. And may God and his Word comfort and strengthen you. Rest assured there are a number of brothers and sisters in your situation that are hanging around this place. And that's one of the biggest reasons that this forum has some value.

[Truth]

Reading this gave me goosebumps. In the past, multiple 'new ones' have told me that the Local Church reminds them of communist dictatorship. These are people who know NOTHING about the LC. They visit for the first time, and this was their impression. Scary huh?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Communists were a marginal group in the US, but in China they managed to take over the country. Mao became a dictator in China. Chiang Kai-shek and his government had to retreat to Taiwan, where Chiang Kai-shek also became a dictator. There were two Chinese states ruled by dictators at the same time. And I believe if it were not Mao and Chiang, it would be another Mao and another Chiang. (It's the same analogy with the USSR, where one dictator replaced another dictator. Czars were followed by Lenin. Lenin was followed by Stalin. If it were not Stalin, it would be another dreadful alternative named Trotsky).

The US never knew dictatorship. America was born as a republic, while China has always been a monarchy or an authoritarian regime. Puyi, the last Chinese emperor, reigned until 1917, while the US never had their own monarchy.

American saints bought a pig in a poke, i.e. they didn't know what they bought with the LRC. To put it tentatively, firstly, they were told that the Lord loved them and they had to love the Lord. Then they were told that if they wanted to love the Lord, they also needed to love His church. And next step was a substitution, when they were told that if they wanted to love the Lord and His church, they also had to be submissive to WL because he was the MOTA, his vision was God's vision, and the LRC was the only genuine Christian church. By that time, the saints had been brainwashed well enough not to get off the hook. WL just "helped" American saints to substitute their values for his values.

I agree generally with your comments about China and Russia. But you're describing particular political conditions that were present at the time not cultural patterns related to an "Asian mind." European Enlightenment values had not made deep inroads in China or Russia in contrast to the US which was born of those values and where those values continued to develop. I don't disagree with your characterization of the LRC but I don't think that you have explained what made the US a "breeding ground" for the LRC. Lee avoided pushing Nee's "Spiritual Authority" probably because he figured, Americans would reject it. But, he was able to sell a kind of spirituality that negatively sanctioned reason to Americans who should have known better. If what he was pedaling was an "Asian mind-set" why did we buy it?

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

I agree generally with your comments about China and Russia. But you're describing particular political conditions that were present at the time not cultural patterns related to an "Asian mind."

For the Asian mind, a leader has an indisputable authority, be it family, business or politics. But it is always people who give him this authority. A ruler like Mao or Stalin is impossible in the US. Nobody will give him so much power.

In my opinion, political system is a reflection of people's mindset. If people tend to be submissive and lacking initiative, with the need of a strong head to organize them, they will always end up with the leader and political system that represent their character best.

We can also see the same mind-set in Asian business. Paternalistic leadership is the prevalent leadership style in Chinese and Japanese business organizations. And again -- this business style is just a reflection of the Asian mind-set.

Originally Posted by zeek

If what he was pedaling was an "Asian mind-set" why did we buy it?

I never said that WL was pedaling the "Asian mind-set". He was pedaling his doctrines. But as a Chinese man, I believe he had the Asian mind-set. His paternalism (in the bad sense of the word) towards saints manifested itself in the way how he treated them. And he treated them as if they were foolish children who were not equal to him. (Well, any dictator or cult leader has a similar leadership style, so we can't blame only the Asian mindset).

Why did Americans buy WL's mindset? If my previous post did not sound true to you, then I don't have the answer. I believe the saints didn't even notice how the change happened in their minds. One day they just became a part of the system. "When in Rome do as the Romans do". And they did.

Anyway, I don’t want to say that I know everything about the Asian mind-set or that I understand why American saints bought WL’s mind-set. I just share my viewpoint which can be mistaken.

[InChristAlone]

Awareness, UntoHim, thank you brothers. It's really tough and frustrating for me when I am trying to talk to my wife. My talks seem to be useless, but I still hope that God helps me to plant some seeds. Anyway, I thank God for everything. My experience helped me realize that if I can't change my wife, I'd better start changing myself.

Originally Posted by Truth

In the past, multiple 'new ones' have told me that the Local Church reminds them of communist dictatorship.

I spent my childhood and schooldays in the USSR. I remember our meetings and how proud we were for we belonged to the first communist country. We were absolutely sure that we lived in the best country in the world, our leaders were the most intelligent ones, and communism was the best system of social organization. Our enemies, i.e. those foreigners who opposed the USSR and the Party were spawn of hell: Western capitalists, militarists, imperialists, and just naive folks, deceived by corrupted American politicians. Of course, it was us who were deceived by our own corrupted politicians. But we had no idea about that. Our believes had a "solid ground". We had great science, Yuri Gagarin was the first person in space, we had free medicine (including surgery and dental treatment), free education (kindergarten, school, college, university), we didn’t know such thing as unemployment, etc. It was all true. But it was only half-truth. We lived in a fallacious world created for us by our leaders. The past, the present, and prospects were filtered. We trusted everything. Every word from our leaders was the ultimate truth. Who wanted to oppose the ultimate truth? That would not be only suicidal but also mentally unbalanced. Since our leaders told us that black was white, it would be stupid of us to say that it was not white but red. We knew that the Western world was black and our world was white. We knew that the West was decaying, and the USSR was prospering. And we could not imagine that it was the other way around. Our ideology, based on lies, distrust, and control, was false, therefore the whole system was false.

As an ordinary Soviet schoolboy, I was a member of a few Communist organizations of schoolchildren. That was mandatory. In a way, it was fun, like the Scouts. But there were always sessions of brainwashing when our elder comrades told us fairy tales about how the US wanted to destroy the world and how the USSR was struggling consistently for universal peace. And we believed all that crap because there was no other information. We lived in, with, and by the myth. We were sure that the USSR was struggling for peace. And we had no idea that our country was sponsoring dictatorial regimes, with hope for communism to conquer the whole world one day. We didn’t know that “good grandfather Lenin” was not “the most kind man” but an arrogant and narrow-minded executioner. Of course, he didn’t murder people personally, with his own hands, but he made orders. However, for us Soviet kids, he was a holy man. That was the only Lenin we knew. There was no alternative reality. Any word against the Party, her leaders or politics could make you a pariah, social outcast.

Thank God, the last 10 years of the USSR were quite liberal. In Stalin's time, any critical remark could cost man his life or 10 years in a labor camp. However, control, manipulation, and lack of freedom of speech were always there. But we didn’t feel that. It was a part of the system. And it was a part of us. We were like a man who were born with chains around his legs but never noticed the chains because he didn't know the difference. He got used to his chains so much that he didn’t imagine a life without them. Moreover, he had fear to fall if he loses his chains. And we were like that. We wore chains but we thought we were free. We blindly followed instructions of our elder comrades and never questioned a thing. To question the ideology meant to lose your identity. From a good Soviet man, you turn yourself into a capitalist henchman, traitor, and servant of your Motherland’s enemy.

BTW, not many people know that the USSR was not a communist state. The ideology was communist but the USSR was a socialist state, ruled by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Lenin wanted to build a communist state but 75 years later the experiment failed.

Well, it’s a different topic and a long talk. So I'd better to stop here. Anyway, I don’t want to say that everything in the USSR was bad. Not at all. I had a great childhood. But since the system was based on half-truth, lies, and constraint, it had only two ways: to reform itself or collapse. The reforms didn’t work out and the system didn’t survive in the real world. When the control weakened, the myth died, the truth came out and everything started to collapse like a house of cards. Will the LRC collapse like the USSR? I doubt it. The control, lack of information, and lack of freedom of speech are still there. But it’s a good thing that we have a forum like this where everyone is free to discuss his or her opinion.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

...the [LRC] saints are confident that it is the Lord who speaks to them through the brothers. They believe their church is unique because it's only in the LRC where God is still speaking to His "chosen people". (BTW, which commandment is easier to fulfill: "exercise your spirit", "grow in the church" or "love thy neighbor as thyself"? I don't remember if I've ever heard the last phrase in the LRC).

Saints can't notice that they substituted the word of God (the Holy Bible) and their own word to God (their prayer) for someone else's talk about God. They take the life with man's interpretation of God for the life in and with God.

I was in a meeting of the FTTA where a trainee asked about shepherding the poor. The trainer said, "Don't waste your time." He said to go for "good building material." I protested. I said that Jesus talked about inviting those who could not repay you to the feast. The trainer ignored my comments and the meeting continued. It was as if I'd never spoken.

So what kind of group can fixate on "exercise your spirit" and ignore verses like "they told me to remember the poor, which I was eager to do" (Gal. 2:10)? They say that they are "closely following the apostle (Paul) yet they ignore Paul's words that are not convenient to their philosophy. The greatest commandment, given by Jesus, to love one another is nothing compared to building up the organization.

This probably shows that the "oracle" has supplanted God's word. If the Maximum Leader says that a scripture is 'natural' or 'fallen', then they ignore it. And other concepts derived from the Word become the new "speaking from God." And thus you have the plain words of the scripture being ignored or even spoken against, while the "interpreted word" reigns supreme.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I don’t want to say that everything in the USSR was bad. Not at all. I had a great childhood. But since the system was based on half-truth, lies, and constraint, it had only two ways: to reform itself or collapse...

It is interesting that the LRC is so proud of its "goodly heritage" in Protestant Christianity, yet they resist reform, which was what the Protestant movement was largely about. Have you ever heard of the "Reformation"? That's what they call it in the history books. Yet the LRC leadership is completely opposed to any kind of reformation. So they want it both ways: They want to be "children of the Reformation" without any actual reformation at all.

Now, having said that, the new poster caveman brought up a very good point. He said that the problems in the LRC are not any worse than anywhere else. Their hidden scandals are pale compared to the scandals in the RCC and many denominations. And who are we? What throne do I sit upon, to render judgment? NO.

But at the same time we should admit our imperfections, and resist a system which pretends to be perfect. In such a system the Maximum Leader is not allowed to make any mistakes, because he/she is the current "oracle from God", and God does not make mistakes. That kind of a system will not allow change but it will be rigid and inflexible and will eventually collapse. That system is built on a foundation of lies. No one is truly "good" except God. Even Jesus said this, while he was in the flesh. (Mark 10:18)

The only truth is to love one another, forgive one another, encourage one another, comfort one another. The rest of it we should be willing to be flexible and work out together, as those who have believed into the Lord Jesus Christ, and are trying to return home to the Father, and not alone but together.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Why did Americans buy WL's mindset? If my previous post did not sound true to you, then I don't have the answer. I believe the saints didn't even notice how the change happened in their minds. One day they just became a part of the system. "When in Rome do as the Romans do". And they did...

I think this is an important question. My experience was that the system WL created offered us security and comfort. You no longer had to think, or wrestle with the tough questions. The "oracle" gave you all the truth. And if the "oracle" said don't bother, you could ignore those bothersome questions, with a good conscience. "Just exercise your spirit", we were told.

So you had firm direction, which is good. We were "wild Americans" with few boundaries and we suffered in a wild system. WL offered us a very controlled environment. The truth was clear. No more gray areas.

Secondly, we had "home". We were "home in the church". Our feeling of alienation disappeared. We had a place to go. We had purpose. Our job on earth was "to build up the church".

Thirdly, we were offered a charismatic experience, which touched us at a deep level. Many of us cried when we "touched our spirit" in the church. The Bible was no longer a book of black and white "dead letters" but now was living and operating within us. So we really felt alive.

I tried to start this thread with the idea of having a balanced and objective look at the LRC experience. I was encouraged that caveman (and others) have related to the idea. But it is not an easy one to work through. When we become simple we risk being simplistic. That is why it is good to have others consider our ideas.

So I will try to be simple and clear, with the warning that I may be too simplistic. I think WN started his indigenous Chinese church at least partly as a reaction to Western "imperialistic" domination of Asia. Remember that the Boxer Rebellion was happening also. The Russo-Japanese War, etc. WN was not operating in a social vacuum. Far from it: one of the main reasons for the successful Little Flock expansion was it offered an alternative to the largely Protestant missions that were operating. I believe both WN and WL came out of the Protestant denominations.

So the Little Flock was a local, indigenous, "biblical" alternative to the Western "Reformed" tradition. But with its success WN found the same problems as the earlier churches. How to organize, how to coordinate, how to maintain growth. And the Asian mind-set really emerges there. If you read WN's organizational works after WWII it's pretty clear. The "Spiritual Man" has receded and the "Organizational Man" is now at the fore-front. And it is the Asian Organizational Man that we see. One that emerges from an oriental culture.

Again, there is no problem with this, any more than the Puritans coming from England and imposing their idea of "progress" on the so-called "savages." The problem, as I see it, is that we assumed that WL had left human culture behind. We were not getting oriental culture but heavenly culture. And who could criticize heaven? So when problems occurred, as they always do, we had to pretend they didn't exist.

In the Local Church meetings we were free, even encouraged, to criticize "Christianity", and that meant the Protestants, the RCC, the EO, the "free groups", etc. But we were not free to question the Local Church organization, or the Maximum Leader in Anaheim. So a group that offered "home" actually became quite alienating, because there was nowhere else to go. Many American saints testified that they were "wrecked" for the Local Church. I don't know what they say there in Russia, but in the U.S. Local Churches they strongly push "burning all your bridges" with any connections outside the collective. It is an immersive, intense experience where everything inside the collective is "good" and everything outside is "bad." Your family doesn't know any better, the Christian Church is degraded, the world is sinful, etc etc. Supposedly the only source of information free from corruption is from the Maximum Leader who is "God's oracle." And thus the path has been cleared for a distorted Christian journey. No longer do you hear your conscience, the Bible, or the Spirit; instead your focus is on the speaking of God's current oracle.

[OBW]

The problem that we have was said well in this quote:

It is a conclusion, not a solution. I know that the phrase is true. Most of the posters know that, too. It's obvious for you and me but not for everyone. Solution is how to make that statement true for others.

And this is where we find that postmodernism is not just a disease of those who want to reject knowledge or have an "I'm Ok, You're OK" kind of existence.

We see the things we see as true. But they don't. They see something else as true. Doesn't matter that it is actually false.

And the real problem is the first sentence in the quote. We are busy pushing conclusions rather than finding solutions. We want to tell them that they are wrong rather than show them how they are wrong. Or how we are right.

It takes the opening of the eyes. Theirs have been shut to everything not published by the LSM. They are so used to having blinders and colored glasses on that they do not even notice the apparatus on their heads or the weight of the coke-bottle prescription, Lee-colored glasses on their noses. They think that anything to the left or right of the path straight ahead into the door of the meeting hall is poison and dangerous. If it did not come as the result of their standing order with LSM, they are unqualified to read it and discern whether there is truth in it or whether Lee's still echoing mantra that all they need is in the LSM materials is the truth.

Sometimes a simple "but that's not what it says" may be the opener. And you may not get another opportunity to say another word for some time. Maybe even several years. They may just avoid talking anything spiritual, religious, etc., with you from then on. But there will be that "but that's not what it says" bugging them. Maybe they will eventually begin to read a little on their own and see that you are right. It might take years.

But I've seen it work.

How did Americans get fooled by such a thing? They were searching for "different" and they found it. But it was a cold pot with gallons of water in it and a single candle underneath trying to heat it. The change was subtle and slow.

The only other thing to say is that some are predisposed to be followers. They will follow what is in front of them. When a car passes on the highway, they unconsciously speed up and follow. When a poll says that more people are voting for candidate X today than yesterday, they decide to join the herd.

I know. That is very cynical. But I see the first day after day. And there is no other reason to publish political polls to the general population. It is a factor in the nature of people. And some will take advantage of it whenever they can.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

I think this is an important question. My experience was that the system WL created offered us security and comfort. You no longer had to think, or wrestle with the tough questions. The "oracle" gave you all the truth. And if the "oracle" said don't bother, you could ignore those bothersome questions, with a good conscience. "Just exercise your spirit", we were told.

So you had firm direction, which is good. We were "wild Americans" with few boundaries and we suffered in a wild system. WL offered us a very controlled environment. The truth was clear. No more gray areas.

Secondly, we had "home". We were "home in the church". Our feeling of alienation disappeared. We had a place to go. We had purpose. Our job on earth was "to build up the church".

Thirdly, we were offered a charismatic experience, which touched us at a deep level. Many of us cried when we "touched our spirit" in the church. The Bible was no longer a book of black and white "dead letters" but now was living and operating within us. So we really felt alive.

I tried to start this thread with the idea of having a balanced and objective look at the LRC experience. I was encouraged that caveman (and others) have related to the idea. But it is not an easy one to work through. When we become simple we risk being simplistic. That is why it is good to have others consider our ideas.

So I will try to be simple and clear, with the warning that I may be too simplistic. I think WN started his indigenous Chinese church at least partly as a reaction to Western "imperialistic" domination of Asia. Remember that the Boxer Rebellion was happening also. The Russo-Japanese War, etc. WN was not operating in a social vacuum. Far from it: one of the main reasons for the successful Little Flock expansion was it offered an alternative to the largely Protestant missions that were operating. I believe both WN and WL came out of the Protestant denominations.

So the Little Flock was a local, indigenous, "biblical" alternative to the Western "Reformed" tradition. But with its success WN found the same problems as the earlier churches. How to organize, how to coordinate, how to maintain growth. And the Asian mind-set really emerges there. If you read WN's organizational works after WWII it's pretty clear. The "Spiritual Man" has receded and the "Organizational Man" is now at the fore-front. And it is the Asian Organizational Man that we see. One that emerges from an oriental culture.

Again, there is no problem with this, any more than the Puritans coming from England and imposing their idea of "progress" on the so-called "savages." The problem, as I see it, is that we assumed that WL had left human culture behind. We were not getting oriental culture but heavenly culture. And who could criticize heaven? So when problems occurred, as they always do, we had to pretend they didn't exist.

In the Local Church meetings we were free, even encouraged, to criticize "Christianity", and that meant the Protestants, the RCC, the EO, the "free groups", etc. But we were not free to question the Local Church organization, or the Maximum Leader in Anaheim. So a group that offered "home" actually became quite alienating, because there was nowhere else to go. Many American saints testified that they were "wrecked" for the Local Church. I don't know what they say there in Russia, but in the U.S. Local Churches they strongly push "burning all your bridges" with any connections outside the collective. It is an immersive, intense experience where everything inside the collective is "good" and everything outside is "bad." Your family doesn't know any better, the Christian Church is degraded, the world is sinful, etc etc. Supposedly the only source of information free from corruption is from the Maximum Leader who is "God's oracle." And thus the path has been cleared for a distorted Christian journey. No longer do you hear your conscience, the Bible, or the Spirit; instead your focus is on the speaking of God's current oracle.

That helps to explain your OP. And helps me somewhat with the "Asian Mindset."

It doesn't, however, explain what Zeek brought up. If Nee and Lee's theology was informed from an Asian mindset, how is it that we Americas fell for it?

I read somewhere in this thread a mention that Nee and Lee were raised in some form of the protestant movement. If I'm not mistaken, they were both raised in Christian homes.

So weren't they raised with a Christian Mindset?

They were Chinese in China. If Lee let go of that then why was he still speaking in a broken English Chinese accent?

None of us failed to realize that the local church came out of China. In a sense the Christian missionary imperialists invaded China, and China, thru Lee, invaded America back. Now who was the imperialist? Now who was, like the Christian missionaries bringing Western culture and ways into China, bringing Chinese culture and ways to America?

With something new, to American Christians. And high grade Christians joined the Nee/Lee movement, that invaded America.

It was something new, and it came out of China.

Our question is, how much of China was brought in? How much of the local church was influenced by China?

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by aron

The problem, as I see it, is that we assumed that WL had left human culture behind. We were not getting oriental culture but heavenly culture. And who could criticize heaven?

Aron, I believe you answered the question, at least to me. In the USSR, they tried to kill all local cultures and traditions. We were not Kazakh, Russian, Ukrainian, Armenian, Georgian, Uzbek, Moldavian, Belorussian, etc. We were Soviet. Each of us was a Soviet man. Our nationalities, traditions, and cultures were our past. Our Soviet culture was our present and our future. And we believed it was the "heavenly" present and the "heavenly" future. Almost nobody dared to criticize it. And those who did, they did not end well.

Originally Posted by aron

In the Local Church meetings we were free, even encouraged, to criticize "Christianity", and that meant the Protestants, the RCC, the EO, the "free groups", etc. But we were not free to question the Local Church organization, or the Maximum Leader in Anaheim.

That reminds me the same situation in the USSR. There was this joke:

Question: Is it true that there is freedom of speech in the Soviet Union, just like in the USA?

Answer: In principle, yes. In the USA, you can stand in front of the White House in Washington, DC, and yell, "Down with Reagan!", and you will not be punished. Equally, you can also stand in Red Square in Moscow and yell, "Down with Reagan!", and you will not be punished.

They say there are about 200 Local Churches in Russia, but I don't know anything about the situation there. I have never attended any LC in Russia. About 7 years ago I read a review of a Russian guy who was invited to an LC meeting. He said he had never attended anything more boring than the meeting.

Originally Posted by OBW

The only other thing to say is that some are predisposed to be followers. When a poll says that more people are voting for candidate X today than yesterday, they decide to join the herd.

I can't say for the Chinese but that is very Russian. Probably, that is why there are 200 Local Churches in Russia.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

About 7 years ago I read a review of a Russian guy who was invited to an LC meeting. He said he had never attended anything more boring than the meeting.

I think the reason LC meetings are boring is because all spontaneity has been stripped away. Everybody is afraid to say anything not in the 'script' that Headquarters has put out.

At one point the LC meetings were quite local. In the Jesus Movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s you had all these young people, who were allowed and even encouraged to function in the LC meetings. But as regional and local leaders were raised up in this system who exercised their "gifts" and became a threat to the central power, then the Maximum Leader, WL, said that every LC group must be "absolutely identical" (see e.g. RcV footnotes in Revelation 2 and 3). Absolutely identical to what?

They ended up with meetings of people who were afraid and unable to think and speak beyond the footnotes and training outlines.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I can't say for the Chinese but that is very Russian. Probably, that is why there are 200 Local Churches in Russia.

It is interesting that the LCs propers in places like Russia, Mexico, and major countries in Asia, but NOT the US and Europe. This tells you something about the culture of the LC, perhaps it is not so much "Chinese" based, but as someone mentioned in an earlier post: it is about "independence" vs "group", and "freedom" vs "organization", etc...

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

If Nee and Lee's theology was informed from an Asian mindset, how is it that we Americas fell for it?

I read somewhere in this thread a mention that Nee and Lee were raised in some form of the protestant movement. If I'm not mistaken, they were both raised in Christian homes.

So weren't they raised with a Christian Mindset??

In some ways, to the young people of the 1960s and 1970s "Jesus Movement" (I know this is a generalization but it is the best I can do here) the oriental Nee/Lee offered the best of both worlds. They were overtly Christian but you had the oriental "discipline" and structure that was attractive. Remember that movie Kung Fu? We thought Bruce Lee was the Man. Notice the groups that made inroads, like the Hare Krishnas, the Sun Myung Moons and so forth. There was an attractive element to the Asian way. When Deming tried to teach quality to the Ford and GM companies they waved him away, but then he went to the Japanese and they were kicking Detroit's butt in about 15 years. Quality. Boom! Bruce Lee rises.

I spent time in Japan and it was totally different than the U.S. No trash. You go to Louisiana and they still have trees down from hurricane Katrina. You go to where the Japanese tsunami hit and they have it totally cleaned up. The culture of entitlement is not there in Japan. You don't work, you don't eat.

So Lee was attractive to all these young Americans. You didn't have to be from a broken home. The guy got up early and he worked late. Surely he was more impressive than any theology professor RK saw in Princeton.

But he was still a man, and he put his pants on one leg at a time, just like everbody else. And eventually his "humanity" came forth, and it was not the humanity of Jesus. But he built a system that taught us to look the other way.

Originally Posted by awareness

None of us failed to realize that the local church came out of China. In a sense the Christian missionary imperialists invaded China, and China, thru Lee, invaded America back. Now who was the imperialist? Now who was, like the Christian missionaries bringing Western culture and ways into China, bringing Chinese culture and ways to America?

With something new, to American Christians. And high grade Christians joined the Nee/Lee movement, that invaded America.

It was something new, and it came out of China.

Our question is, how much of China was brought in? How much of the local church was influenced by China?

I wish I could do a better job answering these questions. They are good and important, in my view. Hopefully someone like caveman will do a better job than I have. I am just sharing my impressions, but obviously not every one is going to see what I see.

But in a way, you touch on the system going full circle. Only it wasn't the divine system. Nee raised up a local alternative to Western imperialism, which arguably was there. His movement was very successful. Eventually one of the strains of that movement made its way to America, and the imperialism was returned. And this time the cloak was cleverly set; once you "saw the local ground" you were set up to swallow the whole thing, "Deputy God" and all. You gotta give Satan credit - he isn't called the "subtle one" for nothing. Eventually we re-created the Roman monster. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[awareness]

Aron, you are doing an impressive job.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

LOL ...

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

But he built a system that taught us to look the other way.

From post #14, "On the other hand, though, there is a reason why so many members can't see the elephant, and why the leaders (in my view) should be given some slack for failing to evict it."

When it comes to the leaders looking the other way, I cannot in sound conscience cut them any slack.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

which takes us back to the other LC maxim -- "even when he's wrong, he's right!"

This LC maxim Ohio brought up is very Asian..at least in my wife's culture witnessing first hand. In this case even if the elder brother was wrong to provoke his younger brother, the older brother is still right. In the language of local dialects, there are certain words added to sentences in order to show respect to your elders.

By contrast in the Western culture I've heard the saying many times, "respect is earned and not given". Even with the current administration of the US government, every move made by the president is scrutinized and critiqued as if under a microscope. Just as on this forum there has been much scrutinizing and critiquing. It's easy for one to say "respect the feeling of the Body". Respect is earned and not given.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

This LC maxim Ohio brought up is very Asian..at least in my wife's culture witnessing first hand. In this case even if the elder brother was wrong to provoke his younger brother, the older brother is still right.

When the serving brothers touched Philip Lee they found an Asian culture. They heard an Asian maxim, something like, "If you touch the master's dog you touch the master." The Asian code of 'face' had been violated.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

For the Asian mind, a leader has an indisputable authority, be it family, business or politics. But it is always people who give him this authority. A ruler like Mao or Stalin is impossible in the US. Nobody will give him so much power.

In my opinion, political system is a reflection of people's mindset. If people tend to be submissive and lacking initiative, with the need of a strong head to organize them, they will always end up with the leader and political system that represent their character best.

We can also see the same mind-set in Asian business. Paternalistic leadership is the prevalent leadership style in Chinese and Japanese business organizations. And again -- this business style is just a reflection of the Asian mind-set.



I never said that WL was pedaling the "Asian mind-set". He was pedaling his doctrines. But as a Chinese man, I believe he had the Asian mind-set. His paternalism (in the bad sense of the word) towards saints manifested itself in the way how he treated them. And he treated them as if they were foolish children who were not equal to him. (Well, any dictator or cult leader has a similar leadership style, so we can't blame only the Asian mindset).

Why did Americans buy WL's mindset? If my previous post did not sound true to you, then I don't have the answer. I believe the saints didn't even notice how the change happened in their minds. One day they just became a part of the system. "When in Rome do as the Romans do". And they did.

Anyway, I don’t want to say that I know everything about the Asian mind-set or that I understand why American saints bought WL’s mind-set. I just share my viewpoint which can be mistaken.

I appreciate your comments and admission that you could be wrong. Me too. I think the closer we stick to observed behavior, the closer we will get to propositions about people that can be verified or falsified. Until we can record what is going on in the brain of people under discussion with an fMRI or similar device, what is going on in other people's minds is always no more than an inference. Only the individual we are postulating about can verify or falsify our inference and even they might be lying. I can describe behavior that I observed when I was in the church. For example, Chinese brothers and sisters often spoke Chinese among themselves. Now that's a significant difference between them and the "Westerners." But what was in their minds at any given time is hard to say. I'm not saying that mindsets don't exist. Just that they are hard to pin down. What can be pinned down, to a larger extent is what people do. I'm not excluding verbal behavior. The whole idea of "The Lord's Recovery" was a proposition asserted by Witness Lee. It has been effectively argued on this website that it was a false proposition. It is at least a questionable one. Whenever, we say "LRC" we should say "alleged LRC" or "putative LRC". It was a social construct. If you believed it, you were part of it. You could call that a mind set. But what you would actually observe is what people did. Like how often they went to meeting. Did they shout or sing? Did they live with extended family, in a nuclear family or alone? Who made the decisions? What did we actually see, hear, and touch? Who was doing what to whom? When? Where? How? And of course how much? What do Westerners do differently than Asians? If we stick to observed behavior maybe at the end of the day we more likely to reach a common understanding of what we are talking about.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Well, it’s a different topic and a long talk. So I'd better to stop here. Anyway, I don’t want to say that everything in the USSR was bad. Not at all. I had a great childhood.

Actually, when one thinks about crime, the USSR was a great system. Nearly no theft, rape, or murder, and no drugs, or no gangs, all of which are an American blight.

The USA would rather let 10 guilty men roam the streets, than let one innocent man be wrongly imprisoned. The USSR, however, would rather have ten innocent men in prison, than let a guilty man go free.

Great incentive to "behave.'

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

I think the reason LC meetings are boring is because all spontaneity has been stripped away. Everybody is afraid to say anything not in the 'script' that Headquarters has put out.

At one point the LC meetings were quite local. In the Jesus Movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s you had all these young people, who were allowed and even encouraged to function in the LC meetings. . . .

The LRC meetings are boring because the content is boring.

In the 60s and 70s, at least we had an exciting form to wrap the lack of true content in. They had all these Jesus people who were ready (and allowed) to make the meetings exciting. So much so that we swallowed hooks with ruber worms on them to believe all kinds of nonsense and become aligned with a movement of error.

How did Americans buy into a Chinese movement? Like so many, they were seeking spirituality and there is something about Eastern things that seems spiritual. The phrases had enough use of spiritual talk. It had an "elevated" lexicon of terms.

They are convinced that saying it better makes it better. And if you can get a bunch of excited hippies to spice-up the meetings . . . .

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Actually, when one thinks about crime, the USSR was a great system. Nearly no theft, rape, or murder, and no drugs, or no gangs, all of which are an American blight.

I think it is important to realize that any system that takes hold and prospers, at least temporarily, has some claim to validity. Marx' "Communist Manifesto" at least was a trenchant critique of capitalism, when such criticisms were almost unknown.

And the Soviet confederated system, like the Yugoslavian one, held together for some decades. McDonald's, for all their blandness (or because of their blandness) has sold billions of burgers. The Mormons have captured millions of adherents. And so forth.

And likewise I think we can appreciate the system Nee & Lee set up, even if we disagree with it, even vehemently. And in the sub-systems of TC and DYL we have to recognize its ability to "morph" even while retaining some of its essential characteristics. And under those essential characteristics we may find certain cultural traits still predominating.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

In the 60s and 70s, at least we had an exciting form to wrap the lack of true content in..

That's about it in a nutshell. Thanks for that observational chestnut.

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

If we stick to observed behavior maybe at the end of the day we more likely to reach a common understanding of what we are talking about.

Well I don't perceive a common understanding looming, but what I simply tried to point out is that there is this thing called culture. And while I cannot say how much it drove WL's thinking, it is kind of naive to think it had no effect on his ministry at all. And I'd add that the people who study society don't perhaps say "How much was individual 'x' driven by his native culture" as they say, "If you try to sell a McDonald's hamburger in Country X what factors do you have to take into consideration?" Or, "If Politician Y wants to get votes, what demographic is key here?" Or, "If you want a good opening night for this movie, what sort of title and billboard poster will bring in the crowds? What separates a mediocre showing from a blockbuster?"

All of that stuff is under the "common understanding" of the people that study it. And in evaluating the Local Church experience in its successes and failures, we might profit by considering the effect of culture. Because human culture does exist, and even though we insisted as Christians that we were the "one new man", if you step back and look carefully you might still see traces of the old man's culture(s), even in the framework of the religious collective. I think WL successfully blinded us to this, to some degree, and it may have been a big part of his survival.

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think the closer we stick to observed behavior, the closer we will get to propositions about people that can be verified or falsified.

Let me put my reply another way: we can observe the behavior of masses of people, and ask why millions went to this movie instead of thousands, or why a car sold well in one country and not another.

So there is actually a lot of observed behavior to look at. If you step back and examine it en masse, there are actually some generalizations that you can safely make. Enough so that there are plenty of folks who make a good living doing just that. And if we want to be persons of insight (Proverbs 20:5) we might learn something from them, as well. If we think that we are too spiritual to learn, then we learn little if at all.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

I think it is important to realize that any system that takes hold and prospers, at least temporarily, has some claim to validity. Marx' "Communist Manifesto" at least was a trenchant critique of capitalism, when such criticisms were almost unknown.

Thanks for putting these two in the same paragraph.

I will start by saying that just because a system takes hold and prospers is not a sign that it has validity, but that it has people who are determined that since they have put themselves into it, they are going to be damned if it does not look good.

But putting the LRC and Marx in the same paragraph is insightful, even if you didn't realize it.

Seems that Marx was a master at using words with more than one meaning as a way to get the ignorant fired-up for his subterfuge. He saw that the word "exploit" was used in the economic sense to mean that a resource was used. If you work, your work is used. To an economist, that is to "exploit" your work. But the word is commonly understood to mean "used" in a negative sense, such as in an illicit manner. you are said to "exploit" the homeless by getting photo ops with them for political purposes but not actually intending to do anything about it. But this use of the word "exploit" is not what the economists are talking about.
But Marx makes sure that the word "exploit" is used in a way that makes the fact that you work for someone else seem as if you are being cheated. That fired-up a bunch of ignorant workers and we had a workers revolution.

Then came Nee and Lee. They used words just as masterfully as Marx. They did it well in Chinese. And despite the choppy "English-as-a-second-language" schtick, Lee was a master at using words in just as underhanded a way. He embellished as much as possible, then when it suited his aims, he carved away every meaning of words so that they only meant the one thing he wanted them to mean. "This simply means that . . . ."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

Well I don't perceive a common understanding looming, but what I simply tried to point out is that there is this thing called culture. And while I cannot say how much it drove WL's thinking, it is kind of naive to think it had no effect on his ministry at all. And I'd add that the people who study society don't perhaps say "How much was individual 'x' driven by his native culture" as they say, "If you try to sell a McDonald's hamburger in Country X what factors do you have to take into consideration?" Or, "If Politician Y wants to get votes, what demographic is key here?" Or, "If you want a good opening night for this movie, what sort of title and billboard poster will bring in the crowds? What separates a mediocre showing from a blockbuster?"

All of that stuff is under the "common understanding" of the people that study it. And in evaluating the Local Church experience in its successes and failures, we might profit by considering the effect of culture. Because human culture does exist, and even though we insisted as Christians that we were the "one new man", if you step back and look carefully you might still see traces of the old man's culture(s), even in the framework of the religious collective. I think WL successfully blinded us to this, to some degree, and it may have been a big part of his survival.

I agree. In fact, if culture is defined as a system of learned behavior patterns which are characteristic of the members of a society, then what I was suggesting is that describing cultural differences is going to be more productive than talking about minds or mind-sets. Witness Lee claimed to have transcended culture when he said he preached the "pure Word of God." It isn't clear to me that anyone can do that. When I was sitting listening to Lee, I thought that some of his interpretations sounded like Buddhism or Taoism or Confucianism. He may not have been conscious of that because he was acculturated into that way of thinking as a child. We are all acculturated into some kind of society. If we don't examine our own behavior in terms of culture, we don't become aware of it. He taught that everyone has a blind spot. That might have been his.

[love4truth]

I am new to this forum and just posted in Introductions. Concerning culture. The LC seems to want us to dispense with our culture altogether. We are to cease being individuals, which is against what we as Americans have been taught all our lives. We are free in this nation because we fought for individual and collective freedom. According to the LC, we are to dispense with holidays and the "selfish" celebration of our own or others' birthdays. We are to have only a collective mentality. We are not to form close personal relationships and have buddies. All these things are part of our culture, and I, for one, like these things. I do not believe Jesus wants us to cut off our emotions and be robots. I believe God loves variety, as evidenced by His varieties in creation. He made us emotional creatures. Loving life is being free to enjoy many things. Any church that tries to suppress our emotions and control our attitudes is a cult.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

Let me put my reply another way: we can observe the behavior of masses of people, and ask why millions went to this movie instead of thousands, or why a car sold well in one country and not another.

So there is actually a lot of observed behavior to look at. If you step back and examine it en masse, there are actually some generalizations that you can safely make. Enough so that there are plenty of folks who make a good living doing just that. And if we want to be persons of insight (Proverbs 20:5) we might learn something from them, as well. If we think that we are too spiritual to learn, then we learn little if at all.

I don't think I'm spiritual at all. In fact, no one has been able to explain what spirit is. Spirit seems to be even more elusive than mind which might be defined as the images that the brain makes. I ventured the definition that a spirit is a person without a body. But then it was pointed out that in I Corinthians 15 it talks about spiritual bodies. Any way I am certainly amenable to looking at the claims these folks who make a living making generalizations. I studied the social sciences enough to get a B.A. in Psychology from Wayne State University and a M.A. in Children and Family Therapy from Florida International University. One thing that I have learned along the way is to be skeptical about claims people make. That goes for academics, preachers, people on websites like this one, and everybody else. My experience with the Local Church was very instructive in that regard. If you consider hindsight as a kind of insight, then I might be a "person of insight" myself.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by love4truth

I am new to this forum and just posted in Introductions. Concerning culture. The LC seems to want us to dispense with our culture altogether. We are to cease being individuals, which is against what we as Americans have been taught all our lives. We are free in this nation because we fought for individual and collective freedom. According to the LC, we are to dispense with holidays and the "selfish" celebration of our own or others' birthdays. We are to have only a collective mentality. We are not to form close personal relationships and have buddies. All these things are part of our culture, and I, for one, like these things. I do not believe Jesus wants us to cut off our emotions and be robots. I believe God loves variety, as evidenced by His varieties in creation. He made us emotional creatures. Loving life is being free to enjoy many things. Any church that tries to suppress our emotions and control our attitudes is a cult.

My experience in the Local Church was much like yours. It appears that the experience is fresh for you. I encourage you to free yourself from the Local Church culture if you can and you haven't already.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

In fact, no one has been able to explain what spirit is. Spirit seems to be even more elusive than mind which might be defined as the images that the brain makes. I ventured the definition that a spirit is a person without a body. But then it was pointed out that in I Corinthians 15 it talks about spiritual bodies.

I know this is another topic, but I have been thinking over this for quite a while, since I tried to definite what spirit, spirituality, and spiritual life are.

BTW, there is a verse that distinguishes between the body, soul and spirit:

"May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."(I Thess. 5:23)."

I can't explain what spirit is, either. Probably, it's elusive because it's invisible, not physical. I tried to find answers reading the EOC doctrines, got some insights, but I am still unable to give a clear definition. And I believe even if I could get a definite answer, I'd not be able to comprehend it, anyway. Nevertheless, I'll try to explain the term "spirit". But first of all, let's definite what body and soul are:

1. The body, “dust from the ground” (Gen. 2:7), is the physical or material aspect of man’s nature.

2. The soul is the life-force that vivifies and animates the body, causing it to be not just a lump of matter, but something that grows and moves, that feels and perceives. In the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition, the term 'soul' refers both to the spiritual (not physical) element in our existence and to life itself. Anything that has life is called a soul. The soul is the sign of life, but it is not the cause of life. It is the bearer of life. Animals also possess a soul, and so perhaps do plants. But in man’s case the soul is endowed with consciousness; it is a rational soul, possessing the capacity for abstract thought, and the ability to advance by discursive argument from premises to a conclusion. These powers are present in animals, if at all, only to a very limited degree.

In the New Testament, the soul appears also to be the bearer of eternal life, and therefore, the salvation of the soul is identified with the possibility of life which does not know corruption and death.

3. The spirit is that force which God breathed into man when He created him. Spirit, the “breath” from God (Gen. 2:7), is the highest aspect of the soul, which the animals lack. Animals have feelings and different character traits but they don't strive for God. The spirit represents man's active participation in God. It is important to distinguish “Spirit”, with an initial capital, from “spirit” with a small "s". The created spirit of man is not to be identified with the uncreated or Holy Spirit of God, the third person of the Trinity; yet the two are intimately connected, for it is through his spirit that man apprehends God and enters into communion with him.

With his soul (psyche) man engages in scientific or philosophical inquiry, analyzing the data of his sense-experience by means of the discursive reason. With his spirit (pneuma), which is sometimes termed nous or spiritual intellect, he understands eternal truth about God or about theology or inner essences of created things, not through deductive reasoning, but by direct apprehension or spiritual perception – by a kind of intuition that St Isaac the Syrian calls “simple cognition”. The spirit or spiritual intellect is thus distinct from man’s reasoning powers and his aesthetic emotions, and superior to both of them. (I mainly quoted Metropolitan Kallistos Ware's book 'The Orthodox Way').

Spirituality in the EOC means the everyday activity of life in communion with God. The term spirituality refers not merely to the activity of man's spirit alone, his mind, heart, and soul, but it refers as well to the whole of man's life as inspired and guided by the Spirit of God. Every act of a Christian must be a spiritual act. Everyday thought must be spiritual, every word, every deed, every activity of the body, every action of the person. This mean, that all that a person thinks, says and does must be inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit so that the will of God the Father might be accomplished as revealed and taught by Jesus Christ the Son of God.

"…whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Corinthians 10:31)

Doing all things to the glory of God is the meaning and substance of life for a human being. This "doing" is what Christian spirituality is about. A person can abide in Christ, accomplish His commandments and be in communion with God the Father only by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in his life.

Spiritual life is life in and by the Holy Spirit.

I can't logically understand WL's words when he said that God doesn't need spiritual giants. Was it something Asian or was he just afraid of competition? In my culture, spiritual giants are those who bear the fruit of the Holy Spirit: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Their life is the life in and by the Holy Spirit. The more spiritual giants, the better. But according to WL, God needs a different type of people. They don't need to be spiritual. They don't need to develop their personal relationship with God. They just need need to belong to the LRC, "exercise their spirit" by reading WL's books, and do all things to the glory of WL and his church. That's a spiritual life in the LRC.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by love4truth

I am new to this forum and just posted in Introductions. Concerning culture. The LC seems to want us to dispense with our culture altogether. We are to cease being individuals, which is against what we as Americans have been taught all our lives. We are free in this nation because we fought for individual and collective freedom. According to the LC, we are to dispense with holidays and the "selfish" celebration of our own or others' birthdays. We are to have only a collective mentality. We are not to form close personal relationships and have buddies. All these things are part of our culture, and I, for one, like these things. I do not believe Jesus wants us to cut off our emotions and be robots. I believe God loves variety, as evidenced by His varieties in creation. He made us emotional creatures. Loving life is being free to enjoy many things. Any church that tries to suppress our emotions and control our attitudes is a cult.

Welcome to the forum!

The ONLY holiday which the church endorced was the celebration of Chinese New Year. Supposedly it was celebrated as a means to introduce Chinese guests to the gospel. But why then didn't we use Christmas to introduce American guests to the gospel?

Friendships in the LC's are discouraged. The members are convinced that friendships spoil their spiritual sacrifice much like honey spoiled the OT offerings. The teaching is extremely manipulative, forcing member loyalties to only adhere to LSM leadership, and no others.

[aron]

From Don Rutledge

Ray Graver was strongly bent toward the teaching of “Deputy Authority.” He believed that in every activity of the church deputy authority should be manifested. Before the consolidation in Houston a few brothers in Waco and Lubbock were given copies of the “Eldership Papers.” These were messages given by Witness Lee in Taiwan. One of the main points was that there was an order in the eldership and in all manifestations of God’s work. There was a number one elder, a number two elder, a number three elder, and so forth. The same was true in the practical service in the church, such as cleaning the meeting hall, serving in the children’s meeting, and preparing food for a love feast. Until the number one person made a decision, there would be discussion (fellowship) regarding a matter, but once the “number one” gave his judgment all fellowship was over on that matter and any desire for further discussion was considered to be dissension and against God’s authority.

Ray Graver had come up with a teaching and a principle from the listings of the names of the twelve apostles in the New Testament. He discovered that the various listings in Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts could be divided into three groups of four and that the first name in each grouping was always the same. Therefore, one might infer that here was a clue regarding divine deputy authority. While the order of number two, three and four could shift, the number one was always the same.

This was introduced about the same time that the elders set up the practical service with various service groups. The elders used a model that Witness Lee had used in China and Taiwan. All the members of the church were organized into various service groups: children’s meetings, cleaning, yard work, visitation etc. They also appointed four deacons including myself four deacons, one of which was myself. Ray met with me personally to go over the entire service list. He emphasized that I was the number one deacon and should communicate with each service group through the number one person listed under each group. I was specifically charged to draw up a procedural manual for the deacons called “the common way.” This was a term and practice lifted directly from Witness Lee’s practice in China and Taiwan. The elders charged each service group leadership to develop a “common way” and to submit it to the deacons.

I never complied and never developed a “common way.” I was the youngest brother and newest Christian among the deacons (Don Looper, Herman Massey and Jim Coleman being the other three), and for me to have some kind of official leadership or authority was a little silly.

When I moved to Dallas, the “number one” concept and “common way” practice were left behind in Houston with Ray Graver. We did have service groups with leadership and oversight, but did not carry out Ray Graver’s concept.

Ray was very gifted in the area of organizing activities and projects. He worked hard to push for one project after another. Over time, his projects became more important than his participation in church meetings, shepherding, fellowship and gospel work. The more he dedicated himself to the projects coming from Witness Lee or Benson Phillips, the more he became suspicious of individual saints and different churches. Eventually he saw a competition between the spiritual work of an individual saint and an LSM project. He seemed to always think that the worst motives were motivating an individual saint, and especially those of a local leadership.

Witness Lee had an illustration regarding how “the self” is expressed and how to apply the cross to “the self.” He often declared that your opinion is the expression of the self. Thus, when someone offered a different perspective from that of a “number one,” they may be exhorted to deny their self by denying their opinion even if they are “right.” Ray Graver and a few others ran with this notion. They applied it widely. It seemed that there were a number of West Texans who latched onto this idea: Francis Ball, James Barber, Benson Phillips, Ben McPherson and others. Though Ray was originally from Virginia, he went to college at Wayland and adopted the West Texas code. I believe that the cultural background of the leadership was a big factor in the development of the local churches in the USA.(My italics)

The men from West Texas brought a male-dominated and male-centric culture into the local churches that melded well with the male-dominated culture of China, the place where Witness Lee and other leaders were from. These West Texans were anything but weak. Several came from the oil fields and working ranches. They could sacrifice comfort and self interest and expected the same from others. The West Texas culture promoted strong leaders and fierce loyalty to the leader. The followers of the leader were expected to lay aside their own feelings and follow the leader fearlessly into whatever situation they may face.

Lest the reader ask “where does Don Rutledge get off talking about West Texas culture?”, let me mention that Baylor University, my school, has the Texas Library and Texas Ranger Museum. It is the center for the study of Texas history. While in Waco, I developed an interest in Western history and particularly Texas history. This has been a hobby of mine for forty-plus years. I have read scores of books on this subject including many on the character of the early and later Texans.

In contrast to West Texas, I come from the poorest section of the USA, the lower Mississippi River valley. I did appreciated the West Texans’ rugged character, as I myself had slept in the rain, had friends who needed to hunt and fish for food and who worked “can till can’t” in the hot southern sun. (“Can till can’t” means this: you start working when there is enough daylight so that one “can” see and you do not stop until it is so dark that one “can’t” see.) There was no lunch break. You ate whatever you had while you worked. You were not paid by the hour but by the day, provided the boss thought you had worked hard enough. I did see young teenage boys sent home without any pay because they had not pulled their share of the load. As a result, they faced a beating at home. But the next day, they did “jump up and turn around” and carry their share of the work. Thus, I appreciated the West Texan toughness, but I did not come from a culture which honored a leader as did the West Texans did. In fact, we in Arkansas had plenty of resentment toward the exploiting “planter class” which oppressed the peasants. It was sports that provided us a level ground with the sons of the planters. During pre-season, our high school football team had live scrimmages and hitting drills every day. The hitting and contact was ferocious. Not one son of a planter ever survived pre-season. They all would quit rather than continue to take the beating the peasants handed them.

We peasants had sympathy toward the weaker members of our society, and especially for ones oppressed. I believe the Lord Jesus puts into his believers a strong desire to bestow more abundant honor on the less comely and to protect the weak. One of the main reasons I eventually left the local churches was the rough treatment received by weaker ones and ones whose opinions did not match the leaders’ ideas. I recognize in some ways my reaction to the “lording it over” that came in later days may have been partly due to my culture. (My italics) Ransford Ackah of Ghana once told me, “Don, you always favor the poor.” I had to confess to him that his statement was true. Regardless of our background, culture, disposition, or how our mother raised us, we all need to be transformed and conformed to Christ. As this book develops, I ask the reader to allow me to comment on the personalities and background of different leading figures.

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

I am certainly amenable to looking at the claims these folks who make a living making generalizations. I studied the social sciences enough to get a B.A. in Psychology from Wayne State University and a M.A. in Children and Family Therapy from Florida International University. One thing that I have learned along the way is to be skeptical about claims people make. That goes for academics, preachers, people on websites like this one, and everybody else. My experience with the Local Church was very instructive in that regard. If you consider hindsight as a kind of insight, then I might be a "person of insight" myself.

I apologize for being somewhat "flip" in my reply. Sometimes it is too easy to write. Circumspection (being careful of tongue) has always been a struggle for me. Please forgive me for seeming to be disrespectful. Sometimes I try to defend my ideas to zealously. The feelings of respect and mutuality toward others should always outweigh any "truth" that I think I'm promoting.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

I apologize for being somewhat "flip" in my reply. Sometimes it is too easy to write. Circumspection (being careful of tongue) has always been a struggle for me. Please forgive me for seeming to be disrespectful. Sometimes I try to defend my ideas to zealously. The feelings of respect and mutuality toward others should always outweigh any "truth" that I think I'm promoting.

No problem aron. Apologies are rare on internet forums. I accept yours without reservation.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by love4truth

I am new to this forum and just posted in Introductions. Concerning culture. The LC seems to want us to dispense with our culture altogether. We are to cease being individuals, which is against what we as Americans have been taught all our lives. We are free in this nation because we fought for individual and collective freedom. According to the LC, we are to dispense with holidays and the "selfish" celebration of our own or others' birthdays. We are to have only a collective mentality. We are not to form close personal relationships and have buddies. All these things are part of our culture, and I, for one, like these things. I do not believe Jesus wants us to cut off our emotions and be robots. I believe God loves variety, as evidenced by His varieties in creation. He made us emotional creatures. Loving life is being free to enjoy many things. Any church that tries to suppress our emotions and control our attitudes is a cult.

Welcome love4truth.

Take heart. I have bunches of friends from the local church. But they are all exLCers. In fact, my most dearest and precious friends are from the local church. And I love them to death.

But we weren't suppose to be friends while in the LC.

What a funny and unnatural rule and practice not having friends is. Of course the supposed reason is that, our hearts are suppose to be wholly for Christ, and nothing else. They seem to forget about "the least of these."

My advice is to run, run, run, from the LC. If your LC friend cuts contact with you after leaving, she wasn't a real friend in the first place ; she's just pretending to be a friend, while hoping you get captured in the LC.

Go find a church where they've never heard of such a silly rule. That's not a cult.

If you stay, not being friends is just one aspect of your humanity that will be condemned and stripped away. It's a cult. You won't be allowed to even be your self, if you stay. You'll have to take Witness Lee's personally as your own.

Run Forest run.

[aron]

More from Don Rutledge's testimony on Local Church leadership

Originally Posted by Hope

We occasionally visited the small church in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In late 1973 while visiting there, we were joined for a day by Max Rapaport of San Diego. It seemed like an audition. He spent a long time, two to three hours, telling us how well San Diego was doing because of his leadership and “his” gift in the gospel and shepherding. He told us Witness Lee wanted him to be president of Daystar. According to Max, the business was about to go under and needed him to rescue it. He said he was willing to give up his very successful insurance business in order to serve Witness Lee. He declared that he did not want Witness Lee occupied with business but rather to give his full attention to the ministry of the word. He also stressed that Witness Lee was very concerned for the lack of gospel work and increase in the churches and was looking to Max to help all the churches. Finally, Max stated that many of the elders were not qualified to care for the churches.

As soon as Max finished with his report, he left to return to San Diego. He seemed to have no interest in what was happening in Albuquerque or in Dallas. Bob Bynum told me I looked like the RCA dog staring into the phonograph as I listened to Max. The next day, on the way home, I asked Benson Phillips regarding what had transpired. He said that if Witness Lee was going with Max, he was going with Max. Things would never be the same again

I find that statement from Benson very telling: "He said that if Witness Lee was going with Max, he was going with Max." And as soon as WL dumped MR, so did BP & the WL loyalists.

One of my Local Church elders was very similar: if Elder #1 said to jump off a bridge, we all were to jump. So your conscience and following the Spirit and discerning the word all got telescoped to a very narrow range, that of supporting the one over you. "Follow the one in front of you." In some cultures this may be more normative but I find it very anathematic, yet I tried, "for the church life".

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

From Don Rutledge

Ray Graver had come up with a teaching and a principle from the listings of the names of the twelve apostles in the New Testament. He discovered that the various listings in Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts could be divided into three groups of four and that the first name in each grouping was always the same. Therefore, one might infer that here was a clue regarding divine deputy authority. While the order of number two, three and four could shift, the number one was always the same.

I have three questions: do you really think for a minute that Paul rebuking Peter in front of the rest, in the account of Galatians chapter 2, meant that Paul was now possessor of the "ministry of the age"? How about maybe that Paul simply felt that Peter was wrong?

#2 If the apostle John and Paul were in the same room, do you think that John would really listen to Watchman Nee's idea that he should know who was over him (i.e. Paul)? John would laugh in Nee's face if he told him to be submissive to Paul. Nor, importantly, did John ever attempt to boss Paul.

#3. Did John then get restored to the "mantle" once Paul exited the scene, to write his memoirs (Gospel, epistles, Apocalypse)? Now that he was the Big Kahuna he got the Spirit to write?

This "God can only move through one servant; all others must line up" idea is looney tunes. It was from Jump.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

This "God can only move through one servant; all others must line up" idea is looney tunes.

It is just incredible to think that we truly believed that the God of the universe, Who upholds all things by the word of His power, Who alone knows the hearts of some 7 billion people, not to mention all the creation we no nothing about, would limit Himself to the speaking of one fallen, limited, mortal man.

Like aron said, that was akin to looney tunes.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is just incredible to think that we truly believed that the God of the universe, Who upholds all things by the word of His power, Who alone knows the hearts of some 7 billion people, not to mention all the creation we no nothing about, would limit Himself to the speaking of one fallen, limited, mortal man.

Like aron said, that was akin to looney tunes.

My wife worked at a bank. She brought the wife of the president of the bank to the church ... and she proved to be a live firecracker on fire for the Lord.

She eventually talked her husband, and one of his friends to a meeting. They were right behind me.

Well, the meeting got going and was on fire with great enthusiasm, action, lively testimonies, songs, and heavenly festivities, with everyone on their feet.

And I overheard the friend say to the president next to him, "These people are a half a bubble off level." (They were smart. That's the last we saw of them.)

Well I didn't take it to heart at that time, nor were I insulted. But I never forgot it.

Bro Zeek and I were talking and I brought that incident up.

And we quickly went to: We were at least a half a bubble off level, if not more, and prolly still are.

Methinks we were all looney tunes, and Tinker Bells.

Just own it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

We were at least a half a bubble off level, if not more, and prolly still are.

Now it's my turn. Touche.

But think about it this way. God, who is holy and righteous, sent His only Begotten Son, Jesus, into Satan's vortex where we were trapped, and rescued us. Jesus said that the angels cheer when we repent and turn back to God. Why? Because they love us, man, they love us! Sometimes I sense a whiff of the divine love and it is so intoxicating, so overwhelming that I don't want anything else. Then 5 minutes later I forget! Oh, man!

God loves us. God loves us. God loves us.

Yes, I'm a little bit teched in the head.

[james73]

Well here's a nice Christian church in Changzhou, China, built in the architecture of the western mind, adorned with consumer stores in the style of the Chinese consumer mind, offering five or six services a week and scarily reminiscent of the LC with a lot of "Amen" chanting going on inside.

The painting to the right of the interior shot was interesting, I didn't get it all in, sorry, but it features a westernized non-Middle-Eastern pastoral Jesus with a very Chinese "Three Gorges" mountainous background. The sheep, as best I can figure, are Scottish.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I know this is another topic, but I have been thinking over this for quite a while, since I tried to definite what spirit, spirituality, and spiritual life are.

BTW, there is a verse that distinguishes between the body, soul and spirit:

"May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."(I Thess. 5:23)."

Until we can define spirit and soul let's look at this verse as if it were an algebra problem and see where that takes us. "May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole x, y and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." Oh look, it implies a tripartite man. Watchman Nee wasn't all wet after all.


I can't explain what spirit is, either. Probably, it's elusive because it's invisible, not physical.

Perhaps that's a clue. What is spiritual is what is incorporeal, intangible, invisible. Like infinity, the spirit is defined by negation. Infinite is what is not finite. Spirit is what is not corporeal. To say something is spiritual is not to specify what it is but to specify that it is not corporeal.

I tried to find answers reading the EOC doctrines, got some insights, but I am still unable to give a clear definition. And I believe even if I could get a definite answer, I'd not be able to comprehend it, anyway. Nevertheless, I'll try to explain the term "spirit". But first of all, let's define what body and soul are:

1. The body, “dust from the ground” (Gen. 2:7), is the physical or material aspect of man’s nature.

2. The soul is the life-force that vivifies and animates the body, causing it to be not just a lump of matter, but something that grows and moves, that feels and perceives. In the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition, the term 'soul' refers both to the spiritual (not physical) element in our existence and to life itself.

This statement confirms what I said above.

Anything that has life is called a soul. The soul is the sign of life, but it is not the cause of life. It is the bearer of life. Animals also possess a soul, and so perhaps do plants. But in man’s case the soul is endowed with consciousness; it is a rational soul, possessing the capacity for abstract thought, and the ability to advance by discursive argument from premises to a conclusion. These powers are present in animals, if at all, only to a very limited degree.

Simply put, humans appear to have physical and nonphysical aspects the combination of which makes us "living souls." Insofar as consciousness is a non-physical phenomenon, it is spiritual.

In the New Testament, the soul appears also to be the bearer of eternal life, and therefore, the salvation of the soul is identified with the possibility of life which does not know corruption and death.

3. The spirit is that force which God breathed into man when He created him. Spirit, the “breath” from God (Gen. 2:7), is the highest aspect of the soul, which the animals lack. Animals have feelings and different character traits but they don't strive for God. The spirit represents man's active participation in God. It is important to distinguish “Spirit”, with an initial capital, from “spirit” with a small "s". The created spirit of man is not to be identified with the uncreated or Holy Spirit of God, the third person of the Trinity; yet the two are intimately connected, for it is through his spirit that man apprehends God and enters into communion with him.

I think I understand what is being asserted. WL drilled John 4:24 "God is spirit" into my head for 13 years. So spirit is a generic term that includes God and some non-God entities. What they have in common is non-corporeality not divinity. Construing the spirit as a force is problematic except by analogy. A person such we and the Holy Spirit are supposed to be more than a mere forces.


With his soul (psyche) man engages in scientific or philosophical inquiry, analyzing the data of his sense-experience by means of the discursive reason.

We are souls (Gen. 2:7). So how would we do something "with" ourselves? Or, perhaps the question should be, would we do anything without ourselves? We cannot be other than what we are and what we are are souls. Therefore, the statement should more accurately be: As a soul, man engages in scientific or philosophical inquiry, analyzing the data of his sense-experience by means of the discursive reason.



With his spirit (pneuma), which is sometimes termed nous or spiritual intellect, he understands eternal truth about God or about theology or inner essences of created things, not through deductive reasoning, but by direct apprehension or spiritual perception – by a kind of intuition that St Isaac the Syrian calls “simple cognition”. The spirit or spiritual intellect is thus distinct from man’s reasoning powers and his aesthetic emotions, and superior to both of them. (I mainly quoted Metropolitan Kallistos Ware's book 'The Orthodox Way').

Yes, I think I get what you're postulating...the spirit is like a sixth sense through which we directly perceive the Divine. Why do you suppose this sixth sense is attributed to the spirit? Spiritual intuition is not a sense of the physical world as vision or hearing is. It's a putative ticket to an unseen world.

Spirituality in the EOC means the everyday activity of life in communion with God. The term spirituality refers not merely to the activity of man's spirit alone, his mind, heart, and soul, but it refers as well to the whole of man's life as inspired and guided by the Spirit of God. Every act of a Christian must be a spiritual act. Everyday thought must be spiritual, every word, every deed, every activity of the body, every action of the person. This mean, that all that a person thinks, says and does must be inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit so that the will of God the Father might be accomplished as revealed and taught by Jesus Christ the Son of God.

That's confusing isn't it? A purely spiritual act would not involve the body would it? It's a contradiction of terms.

"…whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Corinthians 10:31)

That quote doesn't mention the spirit so how it is related is unclear to me.


Doing all things to the glory of God is the meaning and substance of life for a human being. This "doing" is what Christian spirituality is about. A person can abide in Christ, accomplish His commandments and be in communion with God the Father only by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in his life.

No mention of the human spirit in all that. You include a lot that is not obviously spiritual in what you call spirituality.

Spiritual life is life in and by the Holy Spirit.

What happened to the human spirit? It seemed drop out of the account after the initial statement. As far as the Holy Spirit, we could call it the Holy Incorporeal or the Holy Non-physical. Those are better synonyms than Holy Ghost that came to have the unintended connotation that someone had died.

I can't logically understand WL's words when he said that God doesn't need spiritual giants. Was it something Asian or was he just afraid of competition? In my culture, spiritual giants are those who bear the fruit of the Holy Spirit: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Their life is the life in and by the Holy Spirit. The more spiritual giants, the better. But according to WL, God needs a different type of people. They don't need to be spiritual. They don't need to develop their personal relationship with God. They just need need to belong to the LRC, "exercise their spirit" by reading WL's books, and do all things to the glory of WL and his church. That's a spiritual life in the LRC.

I think he meant guys like himself and Watchman Nee. He didn't think they needed more big names after himself apparently. And he stuck to it by blending the brother rather than naming a successor.

Since we're speculating already, I may as well go further. You know, God is supposed to be the God of the entire universe. So for God to act within the universe as God would really mess things up. I mean there are laws of physics that would be violated and that almost never happens outside of the Bible. But, from time to time people get a sense of a momentous presence that they can't explain. The experience is so awesome that they suppose that they are in the presence of that which cannot be exceeded. They can never really explain it and they have to use a symbol to point to it. That symbol is "the Holy Spirit."

Now, have I said anything more than your text? Maybe not. But I thought I should at least try to put the matter in my own words rather than settle for rote repetition like WL taught us to do in his training sessions. He didn't want original thinkers there either, just parrots.

[InChristAlone]

That's a great post, Zeek. Thanks! It's hard for me to argue with someone who got a B.A. in Psychology. Nevertheless, l'll try to put my two cents in.

Originally Posted by zeek

We are souls (Gen. 2:7). So how would we do something "with" ourselves? Or, perhaps the question should be, would we do anything without ourselves? We cannot be other than what we are and what we are are souls. Therefore, the statement should more accurately be: As a soul, man engages in scientific or philosophical inquiry, analyzing the data of his sense-experience by means of the discursive reason.

When you say we are souls, don't you neglect man's physical aspect? What about "the dust of the ground"? (Gen. 2:7) When the body is alive, it is a part of us, a part of our human nature on the earth.

Originally Posted by zeek

That's confusing isn't it? A purely spiritual act would not involve the body would it? It's a contradiction of terms.

I'd not say "confusing", I'd call it a paradox. (Or if you don't like paradoxes, we may call it another meaning of the word "spiritual"). When you read or preach Gospel, is it a part of your spiritual life or not? If yes, then it's a spiritual act. When it's your strive for God and you share your love and God's love with others, then it's definitely spiritual. Why? Because you are inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit and you are not concerned with material values or pursuits. However, you still use your physical body to open and read the Bible for others. And you still use your hands to help people in need. But if you help them for your sake -- to glorify your name, that's not spiritual. But if you do it to the glory of God, then it is. In other words, spiritual life is God/Christ - centered life, not man-centered life.

Originally Posted by zeek

"…whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Corinthians 10:31)

That quote doesn't mention the spirit so how it is related is unclear to me.

In my opinion, a quote doesn't need to have the word "spirit" to give a spiritual direction. To do all things in our sake, to glorify our own name, is not spiritual. Our acts must glorify God, His Spirit, not our own being.

As for spirituality in our daily life, I like this quote by St Thophan the Recluse:

We are all servants of our God. God has assigned to each his place and responsibilities, and He watches to see how each approaches his assignment. He is everywhere. And He watches over you. Keep this in mind and do each deed as if it were assigned to you directly by God, no matter what it is.

Do your housework in this manner: When someone comes to visit, keep in mind that God has sent you this visitor, and is watching. When you have to leave your house, keep in mind that God has sent you out on an errand, and is watching. Will you complete it as He wishes?

By orienting yourself to God at all times, your chores at home and responsibilities outside the house will not distract your attention from God, but, on the contrary, will keep you intent on completing all tasks in a God-pleasing manner. All will be performed with the fear of God, and this fear will keep your attention on God unswervingly.

To determine which duties inside and outside the family are God-pleasing, take the books in which these matters are discussed as your guides. Be careful to distinguish between concerns prompted by frivolity, passions, flattery and worldliness, from those that are correct, appropriate and honorable.

Originally Posted by zeek

What happened to the human spirit? It seemed drop out of the account after the initial statement.

I can be mistaken, but I don't see a contradiction. To me, spiritual life is when the human spirit is being guided by the Holy Spirit. With this guidance, we walk with God day and night, fulfilling His commandments, fighting our passions, and having a continual awareness of God's presence from communion with Him through constant prayer.

"The principal thing is to walk before God, or under God's eye aware that God is looking at you, searching your soul and your heart, seeing all that is there. This awareness is the most powerful lever in the mechanism of the inner spiritual life. (Theophan the Recluse)

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

And the real problem is ... We are busy pushing conclusions rather than finding solutions. We want to tell them that they are wrong rather than show them how they are wrong. Or how we are right.

I am not sure that I can adequately treat this point, but would like to try. I am in some ways firmly in the "postmodern" camp, or at least the "relativistic" aspect of it. You know, the one that says, "Your truth is just as real to you as mine is to me". Because I see my positions change, over time. I realize that others see what I do not. I am not omniscient, and thus accept "reality" outside my ken (Ken = 'the range of what I can know').

But I do know this: I have a story in front of me. It is the story of God's love. God is holy, and because of our sin we were lost. We were so lost we didn't know we were lost. We didn't know what love was. How could we? We had no reference point. But then, in the gospel of the Son, Jesus Christ, we sensed God's love and we repented and turned back (yes, I got that from WL: 'repentance' as not only being sorry, or regretful, but changing one's course).

We have the written narrative in front of us, in all the details, of Jesus Christ. All the ancient writings pointed to the coming One, and one day Jesus was here; seemingly the son of a Nazarene carpenter, whose brothers argued with him (see e.g. John ch. 7). We have the four gospels, fulfilling the OT prophecies to the 'jot and tittle'. We have the rest of the NT, which is arguably all of apace.

Now, here the discussion turns to the 'church life'... I cannot say with the conviction of a Nee or Lee that some organizational model is right, or true. But I can say that no discussion that distracts me from the story of God's love will gain much traction. And if the church, the collective witness of the saints, tells these church-occupied people that they are missing the mark, that we as the church should rather be occupied with our Christ, and with receiving one another, than with building better organizational mousetraps, then even if they don't agree, at least they'll know that they've been spoken to. Then if they want to reject that and pursue another reality, fine. That is their journey. What more can we say?

Originally Posted by OBW

How did Americans get fooled by such a thing? They were searching for "different" and they found it.

The Oriental culture certainly has a lot to offer. There is a lot of accumulated, hard won wisdom in those societies. It is not coincidental that the Beatles went off to some eastern guru for help. They were coming from a society that had recently "won the war" against fascism, and was on some levels returning to prosperity, but remained deeply troubled.

Certainly the U.S. in the 1950s into the early 1960s was a dominant cultural, military, and economic power. But we had: #1 the race issue. Big problem. Not only African-Americans, but Hispanics, Native Americans, etc. A lot of marginalized and repressed people that were tired of it, and were talking. #2 The environmental issue. 'Prosperity', arguably merely shallow materialism, meant ruining the environment. Very discouraging, even frightening. #3 The whole nuclear annihilation thing. Armageddon was one red button away, with some 22-year old sergeant in a bunker in North Dakota staring at the thing all day long, waiting to be told to push it. #4 Political unrest; JFK shot, then his brother RFK, then MLK shot, etc, etc. #5 Vietnam came along; our friends, brothers, and cousins were going off to get blown up in some jungle, for what? For Monsanto? For Dow Chemical Corp? #6 There is more (the women's rights issue, for example), but you get my point. A society that by all rights should be peaceful and contented, but hardly. Actually a very alienated and restless society.

So the "eastern way" offered Americans a sophisticated alternative. I don't see much coming out of Africa except Rastafarianism. South America? Central America? I don't see anything significant, which can compete. The European, Protestant-dominated model was tired and exposed. So the Asian model certainly had some traction. "Model" meaning "way of doing things". Like what I wrote earlier about Philip Lee and the idea of 'face'. That was an Asian thing, largely, and we unwittingly let it in when we let in WL. Asian culture isn't superior or inferior to Western, but we pretended it didn't exist, in our new and shiny "Normal Christian Church Life". So it became the proverbial elephant in the room, to a significant degree.

http://www.livingstreambooks.com/ser...h-Life,/Detail

"The Normal Christian Church Life is a record of messages given during conferences held in Shanghai and Hankow. Watchman Nee spoke to his fellow workers on the principles in the New Testament concerning the practical arrangement of the churches, the ministry, and the work. In his speaking, he honestly examined his own work before the Lord in the light of these principles, provided adjustment and encouragement to his co-workers, and confirmed through personal testimony that the practice of the normal Christian church life revealed in the New Testament can be recovered."

So my question is, in the "practical recovery" of the supposedly normal Christian church experience, as presented by Nee, how much is a culturally-conditioned response to imperialism? And how much of that became the new imperialism, as we experienced it, in the American Local Churches of Lee? Go back and read the testimonies of those who went through Lee's "recovered" Local Churches, and if you keep these questions in mind as you read, you may be surprised.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Sometimes I sense a whiff of the divine love and it is so intoxicating, so overwhelming that I don't want anything else. Then 5 minutes later I forget! Oh, man!

I've been watching "Cosmos." Both the Sagan version in the 80s, and the Neil deGrasse Tyson version today. And since they both were written by Ann Druyan, Sagan's widow, they both demonstrate how immense the universe is.

In this immenseness, by comparison, even our sun and solar system are invisible specks. Then we have the earth, an even smaller invisible speck, and finally us humans, less than an invisible speak of dust ; completely nothing by comparison with the immense universe.

And yet, as you say, "God loves us. God loves us. God loves us."

And that blows my mind.

Originally Posted by aron

Yes, I'm a little bit teched in the head.

I think you mean tetched ... unless you mean you are of the Silicon Valley.

And if we, by comparison to the universe, are less than an invisible speck of dust, what do you think our brain is? Is it any wonder we're all a little tetched in the head? Our thoughts are even smaller.

And I say: wonders of wonders, mysteries of mysteries ... not only is the universe mysterious, but so is God ... and so is God's love.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

That's a great post, Zeek. Thanks! It's hard for me to argue with someone who got a B.A. in Psychology. Nevertheless, l'll try to put my two cents in.

I only mentioned my college degrees to show that I don't reject social science out of hand. The social sciences usually reject the spirit as a concept because it is too vague and there is little empirical evidence for such a thing. On the other hand, the subject can be approached phenomenologically by taking seriously what people say about their experiences of it. Anyway, psychology degrees don't privilege my opinions on this subject. Evaluate my arguments on their own merits and I'll do the same with yours.

When you say we are souls, don't you neglect man's physical aspect? What about "the dust of the ground"? (Gen. 2:7) When the body is alive, it is a part of us, a part of our human nature on the earth.

I was suggesting the idea that the soul is the result of combining the spirit with the body in that verse. Taken that way the soul includes the body. But, in Bible usage the soul is often mentioned even by Jesus as something we possess as when he say you can "lose" your soul.

I'd not say "confusing", I'd call it a paradox. (Or if you don't like paradoxes, we may call it another meaning of the word "spiritual"). When you read or preach Gospel, is it a part of your spiritual life or not? If yes, then it's a spiritual act. When it's your strive for God and you share your love and God's love with others, then it's definitely spiritual. Why? Because you are inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit and you are not concerned with material values or pursuits. However, you still use your physical body to open and read the Bible for others. And you still use your hands to help people in need. But if you help them for your sake -- to glorify your name, that's not spiritual. But if you do it to the glory of God, then it is. In other words, spiritual life is God/Christ - centered life, not man-centered life.

I take a paradox to be a question about which there are good arguments on both sides. The problem with spirit talk is that it makes what is essentially ethereal seem concrete. It is an instance of misplaced concreteness. When we in the church speaking this kind of spirit language we were under the illusion that we knew what we were talking about. Perhaps it was a case of shared delusion that was reinforced group behavior. An example of that would be when the group said "Amen" after someone testified about the spirit in a socially approved way or when the group groan "Oh Lord Jesus" when someone said something that did not line up with group norms. That's a form of social control. Under those conditions an individual learned what could be said and what could not. Experiences that confirmed what WL preached resulted in positive feelings. Those that did not conform were rejected as were individuals who did not learn to make socially approved sounds.

In my opinion, a quote doesn't need to have the word "spirit" to give a spiritual direction. To do all things in our sake, to glorify our own name, is not spiritual. Our acts must glorify God, His Spirit, not our own being.

You may be right about that. But unless the relationship between whatever is asserted and the spirit is made explicit the relationship, if there is one, will remain unclear.

As for spirituality in our daily life, I like this quote by St Thophan the Recluse:

We are all servants of our God. God has assigned to each his place and responsibilities, and He watches to see how each approaches his assignment. He is everywhere. And He watches over you. Keep this in mind and do each deed as if it were assigned to you directly by God, no matter what it is.

Do your housework in this manner: When someone comes to visit, keep in mind that God has sent you this visitor, and is watching. When you have to leave your house, keep in mind that God has sent you out on an errand, and is watching. Will you complete it as He wishes?

By orienting yourself to God at all times, your chores at home and responsibilities outside the house will not distract your attention from God, but, on the contrary, will keep you intent on completing all tasks in a God-pleasing manner. All will be performed with the fear of God, and this fear will keep your attention on God unswervingly.

To determine which duties inside and outside the family are God-pleasing, take the books in which these matters are discussed as your guides. Be careful to distinguish between concerns prompted by frivolity, passions, flattery and worldliness, from those that are correct, appropriate and honorable.

I can be mistaken, but I don't see a contradiction. To me, spiritual life is when the human spirit is being guided by the Holy Spirit. With this guidance, we walk with God day and night, fulfilling His commandments, fighting our passions, and having a continual awareness of God's presence from communion with Him through constant prayer.

"The principal thing is to walk before God, or under God's eye aware that God is looking at you, searching your soul and your heart, seeing all that is there. This awareness is the most powerful lever in the mechanism of the inner spiritual life. (Theophan the Recluse)

When I was a young Christian I often had the sensation of God's presence. It was a positive feeling that I carried around with me. It could also evaporate in an instant for no apparent reason. Then I would try to get it back by praying or reading the Bible. Sometimes that worked. Other times it returned spontaneously. Still others I related to spiritual dryness or the dark night of the soul metaphor. I don't think there is any need for a complicated understanding of spirit or soul to have the experience though. And the expereince is cross cultural so neither the Eastern nor the Western mind owns it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

When I was a young Christian I often had the sensation of God's presence. It was a positive feeling that I carried around with me. It could also evaporate in an instant for no apparent reason. Then I would try to get it back by praying or reading the Bible. Sometimes that worked. Other times it returned spontaneously. Still others I related to spiritual dryness or the dark night of the soul metaphor. I don't think there is any need for a complicated understanding of spirit or soul to have the experience though. And the expereince is cross cultural so neither the Eastern nor the Western mind owns it.

One of the more troublesome aspects of the Christian life is how to deal with dry times. And how to "get the feeling again" (as Barry Manilow sang).

The question that I have is whether we were made to feel alive or to be alive? If you don't feel alive, are you no longer alive?

This whole realm fits in nicely with the question I raised in another thread about "God's plan." We are so often conditioned to believe that our "inner sense" is a barometer of God's activity in and around us. And we think that a lack of discernible activity is somehow evidence of a failure on our part. A variant on the prosperity gospel. We seek the feeling because it proves to us that we are on the right track. And if we don't feel it, then we are doing something wrong.

That is what Lee's dispensing did for us. We learned to consider that "getting dispensing" was all we needed so we learned to feel good about that. And we also learned that just doing what we knew was right was not right. But we were duped. It really was right.

In the meantime, as we felt good for doing "spiritual things" and "getting dispensing" while ignoring righteousness, it would be safe to say that any accurate sense of God should have been displeasure. But it was not. Or at least we thought it was not.

God's goal is not to be active everywhere and everyone know it because they sense it. It is (as it was) to have his created people be his representative. To bear his image on the earth. That can only be meaningful if he is not constantly visible and moving without us. We must become his hands and feet. We must be those who live the righteousness of God. It should not matter how we feel about it. We must be about our Father's business.

Seems dry? No sense of personal speaking from God? Do we think that is the measure of the presence of God? What happened to omnipresent? What happened to "I am with you always"? Why do we allow the feelings to drive us? You will probably feel at least a little better for realizing that the way you feel is not an indicator of God's presence.

And what if the feelings are self-created and revolve around the irrelevant? What then? I guess we strike out on our own based on whatever seems right to us based on a jolt of static electricity, a bad taco, or a reduction in back pain for the day.

Yes, neither the Eastern nor Western mind owns these. They are natural and illusory. The difference should be that their religions have embraced it while our has (or should) ignore it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

One of the more troublesome aspects of the Christian life is how to deal with dry times. And how to "get the feeling again" (as Barry Manilow sang).

The question that I have is whether we were made to feel alive or to be alive? If you don't feel alive, are you no longer alive?

This whole realm fits in nicely with the question I raised in another thread about "God's plan." We are so often conditioned to believe that our "inner sense" is a barometer of God's activity in and around us. And we think that a lack of discernible activity is somehow evidence of a failure on our part. A variant on the prosperity gospel. We seek the feeling because it proves to us that we are on the right track. And if we don't feel it, then we are doing something wrong.

That is what Lee's dispensing did for us. We learned to consider that "getting dispensing" was all we needed so we learned to feel good about that. And we also learned that just doing what we knew was right was not right. But we were duped. It really was right.

In the meantime, as we felt good for doing "spiritual things" and "getting dispensing" while ignoring righteousness, it would be safe to say that any accurate sense of God should have been displeasure. But it was not. Or at least we thought it was not.

God's goal is not to be active everywhere and everyone know it because they sense it. It is (as it was) to have his created people be his representative. To bear his image on the earth. That can only be meaningful if he is not constantly visible and moving without us. We must become his hands and feet. We must be those who live the righteousness of God. It should not matter how we feel about it. We must be about our Father's business.

Seems dry? No sense of personal speaking from God? Do we think that is the measure of the presence of God? What happened to omnipresent? What happened to "I am with you always"? Why do we allow the feelings to drive us? You will probably feel at least a little better for realizing that the way you feel is not an indicator of God's presence.

And what if the feelings are self-created and revolve around the irrelevant? What then? I guess we strike out on our own based on whatever seems right to us based on a jolt of static electricity, a bad taco, or a reduction in back pain for the day.

Yes, neither the Eastern nor Western mind owns these. They are natural and illusory. The difference should be that their religions have embraced it while our has (or should) ignore it.

I'm not advocating having feelings like that. I was just describing what it was like when I had them. Sure, such feelings could be as meaningless as you suggest. What does living "the righteousness of God" and "being about our Father's business" mean to you? Is that what you think you're doing?

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

When I was a young Christian I often had the sensation of God's presence. It was a positive feeling that I carried around with me. It could also evaporate in an instant for no apparent reason. Then I would try to get it back by praying or reading the Bible. Sometimes that worked. Other times it returned spontaneously. Still others I related to spiritual dryness or the dark night of the soul metaphor.

I think I understand what you mean. I used to experience the same sensations. Were they illusive or not, I can't say for sure. But once you experienced this feeling, you can't confuse it with something else. At the same time, you feel peace, love, joy, and contentment that come from an awareness of God's presence. If you felt that sensation, you want to get it back and live with it all the time. Maybe a prayer of repentance is a key.

On the other hand, I admire my mother-in-law, an avid church-goer and long time member of the LRC, who says that she has never felt God's presence. Nevertheless, she is still faithful and, probably, loves God even more than I do.

[awareness]

Those good feelings, while sensing the presence of God, releases a dose of Oxytocin in the brain. And that is addictive. And it's neither Asian nor Western. It's human neurology.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Those good feelings, while sensing the presence of God, releases a dose of Oxytocin in the brain. And that is addictive. And it's neither Asian nor Western. It's human neurology.

My therapist advised me to seek experiences that engender good feelings and now I find out that not only are good feelings "illusory" {OBW} but also addictive {awareness}. But let me ask you, isn't being addicted to a good thing a good end?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I think there was a great loss when the Great Schism occurred between East and West. I don't know the details, nor do I care at this point. But I believe in my heart that something precious was lost. And when I read the Fathers I began to re-connect to this precious thread of common experience.

I am not trying to lift one group over another, but believe that these voices from the past are there for us, to guide us, encourage us, and comfort our hearts. Secondly, I ask you to consider the schisms that have followed the Protestant Reformation. Look at all the groups that have sprung up, each trying to "recover" some defect, either perceived or real, in the Protestant experience. And these perceived lacks may be associated with the fact that the Reformers were trying to find meaningful Christian experience through "sola scriptora", i.e. scripture alone, without the wisdom of the ancient Fathers to guide them.

So you got, in no particular order of importance, the Anabapists, the Puritans, the Unitarians, the Shakers, the Quakers, the the Brethren, the Mormons, the Jehovahs Witnesses, the Christian Scientists, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Local Church movement of Lee, and so on. All of these groups were trying to "recover" or "restore" the tattered fabric of the Christian testimony and faith. All of them, perhaps, reacting at least somewhat to lacks within Protestant Christianity as they experienced it and saw it.

Now, as I said, I grew up Protestant, and thereby look at everything as a Protestant; I simply don't know any other perspective. So I try to keep that in front of me. Even though the Eastern Christian traditions and practices often seem strange, and I don't plan on "joining" them, still I have found the ancient Fathers of the Eastern tradition, and I am grateful. These voices, to me, are the voices of the sheep who have gone on before me, who have followed the Master home.

Over the last 500 years, the post-Reformation sectarian movements in Christianity were arguably reacting to the disconnect they perceived between the written document and the status quo. So they got a vision or a revelation, and they moved on, to what always initially seemed like green pastures and still waters. And I don't doubt the Lord was with them, to some degree. Luther's treatises on justification by faith are powerful indeed.

But the fact remains that over the past half-millenia all these groups have emerged, each trying to repair what's been lacking. Even the Mormons have some justification, if you look at it that way. Probably the "church life" in upstate NY in 1825 was as dead as a doornail. So a restless young man goes out into the woods and suddenly there is a golden frog or a white salamander or whatever, and suddenly his spiritual life gets very interesting; engrossing even. But if the spiritual life of young Joseph Smith was engrossing in the first place he wouldn't have needed talking amphibians, would he?

I posit that perhaps all of these events show some reaction to the situation at hand, and they do it through an expression of the current popular culture. So Joseph Smith incorporates the seeking of gold, and instant wealth from the wilderness, with questions such as, "if Adam and Eve gave birth to all humanity, how did the American natives get here" and "what ever happened to the 12 tribes of Israel, anyway?" So young Mr. Smith gets a revelation that (surprise!) ties all the loose, unanswered threads together.

Likewise in 1917 young Mr. Nee was indeed in a situation of cultural imperialism. And indeed there was religious degradation, and sectarianism, and hypocrisy. Indeed there was a gap between the written word and the experience on the ground. So Nee got a nice revelation that exposed the situation and proposed a solution, all within his cultural lens. And if you don't believe it, read the testimonies of those who passed through his system. And today the Blendeds talk about rejecting teachings having a "different flavor"; what flavor is the one they are promoting?

Remember that the problem may be very real, and crying for a solution. But our solution is according to our cultural concepts, often subconscious. We can repress them and pretend they don't exist, but they do. Think of the "solution" the disciples wanted to the continuing Roman occupation, and the Herodian (who was an Idumean[Edomite]) usurpation, and Pharisaical religious hypocrisy, and the promise of the coming Son of David, whose kingdom would have no end. "Lord, are you at this time restoring the kingdom to Israel?" The kingdom they asked about there, was the kingdom of their cultural concepts. How could it have been any different? How can we see but else we can see? Only God can see the things of God. So the moral is, don't let people sell you their vision as if it were God's vision. Remember Lee's mocking degraded Christianity: how they hang socks every Christmas? We all laughed, yes; but what was his solution? The Local Churches/Little Flock is merely another "splinter cell", and arguably yet more collateral damage from the Great Schism of 1054.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I think I understand what you mean. I used to experience the same sensations. Were they illusive or not, I can't say for sure. But once you experienced this feeling, you can't confuse it with something else. At the same time, you feel peace, love, joy, and contentment that come from an awareness of God's presence. If you felt that sensation, you want to get it back and live with it all the time. Maybe a prayer of repentance is a key.

On the other hand, I admire my mother-in-law, an avid church-goer and long time member of the LRC, who says that she has never felt God's presence. Nevertheless, she is still faithful and, probably, loves God even more than I do.

She was in the LRC for years without sensing [or thinking she sensed as the case may be] God's presence? That's amazing! Why would she stay? Of course, if she made the right noises she would have no problem being accepted.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

She was in the LRC for years without sensing [or thinking she sensed as the case may be] God's presence? That's amazing! Why would she stay? Of course, if she made the right noises she would have no problem being accepted.

I don't get it. I'm with Mike, and omnipresence. I can sense the presence of God anywhere, like while laying on this couch, and typing one-handed on my keybd. God is everywhere for me. I resit labels, I'm a misfit, but I suppose that makes me a panentheist.

But I suppose others may not see God in this way. And that's okay too. To each his or her own.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Those good feelings, while sensing the presence of God, releases a dose of Oxytocin in the brain. And that is addictive.

I had a dramatic, life-changing, never-forgetting experience of salvation regeneration while all alone in my bedroom. It was like no "dose" I had ever had before, and I had been "dosed" up for a long time. I knew without a doubt that God Himself had visited me. No amount of torture or persuasion could ever convince me that my experience was not real, nor not God Himself. I also knew assuredly that this God had a name, Jesus Christ, whom I had heard about all my life growing up in a Catholic home.

I never asked for any feelings, neither did I have any time of heart-wrenching or soul-searching repentance. I just was reading this Book my new friend gave me, who also had given me a ride home from school, after my car broke down. It was the first time in my life that I was filled with inner joy and peace. Without being told a thing by any other person, I knew that I knew that I was no longer destined for hell. After that experience, I had to tell everyone about what happened, and what my Savior had done for me.

I really don't think that "releases a dose of Oxytocin in the brain" can adequately describe all that happened to me. Perhaps I am wrong, maybe I just got a mega-dose, like a super-sized salvation.

P.S. About 8 months after this experience, after numerous trials, both good and bad, I went to a gospel meeting near my home at the Church in Cleveland. In that meeting, I had the distinct feeling that the "dose" I received in the meeting was identical to the "dose" I had initially received, which was all the confirmation needed to stay with that church for a very long time.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

I wouldn't think of trying to unstick you for all the tea in China (in keeping in theme of the thread)

Seriously, and I'm not sure how much this relates to the Asian/Western dichotomy nature of this, but I don't think that many of us had even a slightly unremarkable initial experience of "touching the Church". I was a 17 year old Orange County, Calvary Chapel attending, space cadet with bushy blond hair who looked like a fish out of water...but there was something about the atmosphere that attracted me. I was in a "brother's house" (with a future Blended Brother) on the weekend of my 18th birthday.

I think the thing that set my parents and Christian siblings off as much as anything else was the "Asian flavor". Even though mid-1970s Orange County did have a substantial Asian population, there was not much of an Asian influence among evangelicals at that point. To me, Chinese people were a bit of a cultural/spiritual mystery, and that made Witness Lee all the more of an attraction (much to the chagrin of my parents and family).

Of course as time went by, I boldly declared to my family that "in the local church we don't have any culture!". At that point I was just a little college-aged punk who had no idea that I was firmly entrenched in one of the most "culturally intense" (if there is even such a term) religious movements to hit our fair land. But at that point if Witness Lee said we had no culture, then it must be true...we had no culture.

Looking back, it seems to me now that this was one of Witness Lee's many ruses on us gullible Americans - that we could actually establish and maintain a complicated, involved religious culture without actually having any culture.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm not advocating having feelings like that. I was just describing what it was like when I had them. Sure, such feelings could be as meaningless as you suggest. What does living "the righteousness of God" and "being about our Father's business" mean to you? Is that what you think you're doing?

Not sure about your question. Do I think that doing things here is "being about the Father's business"? Not necessarily. My point was that the goal of the Christian should be to become discipled, get baptized, and obey. Are we good at it? Often not very. But the goal was not for those who go to create followers of a man, get them indoctrinated well, and give them great spiritual feelings.

I find that there is one song that the LRC sang that they do not seem to really believe. A verse went something like "The feelings do not change the fact." It is not important what the rest of the song was about. That one statement was true. But then they go and accept or reject virtually everything based on their feelings and "taste."

My goal was not to chastise you, but to give a different perspective on the experience you had in the early days. Not saying that feelings are bad, but that they do not dictate whether things are good or bad. They do not define the truth or establish our spiritual condition. (Also not saying that if you feel really bad about something that you have done wrong and you sense a need to repent that such a feeling is a bad thing or to be ignored.)

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not sure about your question. Do I think that doing things here is "being about the Father's business"? Not necessarily. My point was that the goal of the Christian should be to become discipled, get baptized, and obey. Are we good at it? Often not very. But the goal was not for those who go to create followers of a man, get them indoctrinated well, and give them great spiritual feelings.

I find that there is one song that the LRC sang that they do not seem to really believe. A verse went something like "The feelings do not change the fact." It is not important what the rest of the song was about. That one statement was true. But then they go and accept or reject virtually everything based on their feelings and "taste."

My goal was not to chastise you, but to give a different perspective on the experience you had in the early days. Not saying that feelings are bad, but that they do not dictate whether things are good or bad. They do not define the truth or establish our spiritual condition. (Also not saying that if you feel really bad about something that you have done wrong and you sense a need to repent that such a feeling is a bad thing or to be ignored.)

You said, "We must be those who live the righteousness of God."
I asked if that is what you think you are doing. Apparently not, because you admitted that you [ as part of the royal "we"] are often not good at it. If that's the case, then I submit that your righteousness is not "of God" because, as I'm sure you are aware, God is supposed to be very good at it.
Perhaps you learned to ignore your feeling when you were in the Local Church. I know I did. As long as you went through the motions and made the right noises, it was OK with most of the "saints". We were taught to release our spirit [by which I mean shout slogans] regardless how we felt. Eventually I caught myself acting a part and I wondered if other people who shouted were acting too. Later on, some confirmed that they were. That's how the leadership got us to behave like robots. It's really healthy to pay attention to your feelings. They are an important part of consciousness that imparts information about what is good or bad, right or wrong, sometimes even before we can think our way through situations. This book supports what I am claiming about the importance of feelings: http://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Inte...l+intelligence

[awareness]

I'm still keenly interested in what means "righteousness of God," and "being about the Father's business." I picture the times of our record on it. And wonder if that's what they mean. How could we ever hope to live up to that?

That's why I would like an explanation on them.

[james73]

Originally Posted by zeek

My therapist advised me to seek experiences that engender good feelings and now I find out that not only are good feelings "illusory" {OBW} but also addictive {awareness}. But let me ask you, isn't being addicted to a good thing a good end?

being addicted to anything "good" or "bad" is bondage. the dopamine/oxycontin flood is a symptom of the illusions the mind creates for us and we get addicted to it very easily. It's a good question, "is it a bad thing?" and one I wrestle with a lot. Is being "addicted" to sunsets and warm soup a bad thing? well, they're better than crack but once you start thinking "i must have that sunset to be happy" then you are on the road to not appreciating and being grateful for being alive.

I practiced this is a monastery once, in Kathmandu, every morning was a beautiful sunrise at 5am or so and we would all go to take tea and watch it - in silence of course. And then one morning I decided this was merely an illusion. I sat in a corner facing a wall, still on the rotating planet, still feeling the sun come up, but without that "sunrise kodak moment". Just being. That felt like freedom and space. That was more of a divine revelation, to me, than the blah blah worshipful beauty of the dawn sky.

You could argue the "fall" was the first illusion - we're naked, we need clothes, and everything else since then has been just all in our minds.

[UntoHim]

I think this matter of "the righteousness of God" is very applicable to our discussions here on this thread.

In general, I think that Asian people are looked upon as more moral and/or "righteous" than us westerners. Whether this is actually true or not may not be as relevant as we might think. "Perception is reality" is more of a truism than we Christians may want to admit.

Now when it comes to Witness Lee, perception was most certainly reality, at least when it come to how he was viewed, admired and followed by his flock. The perception of who and what Lee was to us equaled reality. So when others from within or without told us otherwise, we simply blew them off as "opposers".

Anyway, one point I would make is that the righteousness of God is JUST THAT - THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD. It's HIS righteousness and not ours. The apostle Paul made it very clear: "Not having a righteousness of my own" (Phil 3:9). And how more clearer could have our Lord been when he exclaimed:"unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."?(Matt 5:30) These were pretty righteous dudes, those scribes and Pharisees. So it cannot necessarily be an outward, visible righteousness that was talking about. God is after MUCH more than the outward man, but moreso after the "hidden man of the heart".

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

She was in the LRC for years without sensing [or thinking she sensed as the case may be] God's presence? That's amazing! Why would she stay? Of course, if she made the right noises she would have no problem being accepted.

She is a simple woman with a pure heart; sincere, naive, and uneducated. She trusts everything that "more educated and knowledgeable" brothers and sisters tell her. So she just enjoys the meetings, messages, and mingling with saints. That is her way of "enjoying the Lord". BTW, she is Chinese, but I don't think it's the main factor here. The problem is that she does not know any other ways to "contact" the Lord. In the LRC (at least in my locality), prayer is not a dialog, conversation with God, but rather a mantra, authoritative command, and a vain repetition with a loud voice. But as I said earlier, my mother-in-law still loves God and, probably, more than I do. "Blessed are the pure in heart".

Originally Posted by Ohio

I had a dramatic, life-changing, never-forgetting experience of salvation regeneration while all alone in my bedroom. It was like no "dose" I had ever had before, and I had been "dosed" up for a long time.

Ohio, I have read about similar experiences like yours. So I find your story credible.

I want to share Anthony Bloom's testimony that always inspires me: "Up to my middle teens I was an unbeliever and very aggressively anti-church. I knew no god; I wasn’t interested and hated everything connected with the idea of God. Later, I began to look for meaning in life. Studying and making oneself useful for life didn’t convince me at all. As a member of a Russian youth organization I was talked into listening to a presentation by a priest. The presentation made me more indignant and angry. I immediately went home and asked my Mother for a book of the Gospel. I counted chapters looking for the shortest one and started reading St. Mark. While I was reading the beginning of St. Mark’s Gospel, before I reached the third chapter, I suddenly became aware that on the other side of my desk there was a presence. And the certainty was so strong that it was Christ standing there that it has never left me. This was the real turning point because Christ was alive and I had been in His presence. I could say with certainty that what the Gospel said about the crucifixion of the prophet of Galilee was true. History I had to believe, the Resurrection I knew for a fact. It began as an event that left all problems of disbelief behind because it was a direct and personal experience.” He saw nothing. He heard nothing. He just became aware of God's presence. This was neither a sensory hallucination nor a trance-like state, nor even the product of emotions. It was an encounter experienced with complete sobriety and equilibrium. Anthony Bloom used to say about this event that “God for me became a fact.”

I believe God must become a fact for every Christian, not just be a theory or an abstract idea. But this happens only through personal relationship of man and God. I don't know if God was a fact for WL, but I believe that in the LRC, God is rather an abstract principle than a fact. They are too busy with God's plan, God's church, and God's economy that they don't have time to establish a personal relationship with God himself.

“We should try to live in such a way that if the Gospels were lost, they could be re-written by looking at us.” (Anthony Bloom)

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I don't think that many of us had even a slightly unremarkable initial experience of "touching the Church". I was a 17 year old Orange County, Calvary Chapel attending, space cadet with bushy blond hair who looked like a fish out of water...but there was something about the atmosphere that attracted me. I was in a "brother's house" (with a future Blended Brother) on the weekend of my 18th birthday.

I think the thing that set my parents and Christian siblings off as much as anything else was the "Asian flavor". Even though mid-1970s Orange County did have a substantial Asian population, there was not much of an Asian influence among evangelicals at that point. To me, Chinese people were a bit of a cultural/spiritual mystery, and that made Witness Lee all the more of an attraction (much to the chagrin of my parents and family).

There is nothing wrong with an "Asian flavored" church any more than any other flavor. And we undoubtedly did get attracted, to some degree, because it was new and different. How many 18 or 19 year olds want something new and different? Not shocking to contemplate.

It's like a young college girl bringing home an African-American or Asian man to meet mommy & daddy. The parents may be liberal, they may be conservative, but this girl is reacting, at least unconsciously, to the "same old, same old" of her upbringing. Because face it, by the time you are 18, often, what you grew up with feels old and restrictive. You want new horizons. The Lee group's strangeness was not off-putting in that regard. Its newness was attractive, the same way a young person of a different race or culture may be to a teen: all the girls or boys of your peer group are familiar, and generic (boring), and suddenly here comes this exotic person, so alluring. Lee's group in some way offered that exotic alternative to the bored and restless young American Christian. We were discontented, and "seeking"; yes, but seeking what?

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Of course as time went by, I boldly declared to my family that "in the local church we don't have any culture!". At that point I was just a little college-aged punk who had no idea that I was firmly entrenched in one of the most "culturally intense" (if there is even such a term) religious movements to hit our fair land. But at that point if Witness Lee said we had no culture, then it must be true...we had no culture.

Looking back, it seems to me now that this was one of Witness Lee's many ruses on us gullible Americans - that we could actually establish and maintain a complicated, involved religious culture without actually having any culture.

This is where my problem with Lee & Co comes in. Supposedly our culture was straight from the Bible itself. When Lee arrived here, we assumed that all of his "old man" had been stripped away and his ministry was only the "new man"; everything from Lee was effectively from the mouth of God. His Bible interpretation was THE interpretation. Case closed, supposedly.

But actually, that is very Asian: the Maximum Leader is unquestioned. To Asian culture, unquestioning obedience is necessary for stability, and harmonious functioning of society. Look at Singapore, for example: it's not communist at all, and is a very impressive place. But it's highly regulated - they have a different idea of "freedom" than we do in the west. To them the system comes first. To them, without the system you have nothing. So freedom is only what you get from the system; it is not an innate right. If the system is functioning well, and it gives you some human right, then okay. But if the Singaporean system decides that something like "freedom of speech" is a threat to the stability of society, guess what? No free speech.

Lee's system was derived from that culture, and to some degree reflected its cultural roots. But since he assured us it was "heavenly", we took it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

She is a simple woman with a pure heart; sincere, naive, and uneducated. She trusts everything that "more educated and knowledgeable" brothers and sisters tell her. So she just enjoys the meetings, messages, and mingling with saints. That is her way of "enjoying the Lord". BTW, she is Chinese, but I don't think it's the main factor here. The problem is that she does not know any other ways to "contact" the Lord. In the LRC (at least in my locality), prayer is not a dialog, conversation with God, but rather a mantra, authoritative command, and a vain repetition with a loud voice. But as I said earlier, my mother-in-law still loves God and, probably, more than I do. "Blessed are the pure in heart".

How can we judge a person inside a system like that? We cannot. John even wrote, I think, about such situations. "Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan’s so-called deep secrets, ‘I will not impose any other burden on you, except to hold on to what you have until I come.’ " So you and I cannot impose any other burden upon your mother-in-law, or your wife, or anyone for that matter, if the Lord will not.

But we can decide for ourselves what is truth. And if the system tries to get us to reject the truth we can reject the system.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by james73

being addicted to anything "good" or "bad" is bondage. the dopamine/oxycontin flood is a symptom of the illusions the mind creates for us and we get addicted to it very easily. It's a good question, "is it a bad thing?" and one I wrestle with a lot. Is being "addicted" to sunsets and warm soup a bad thing? well, they're better than crack but once you start thinking "i must have that sunset to be happy" then you are on the road to not appreciating and being grateful for being alive.

I practiced this is a monastery once, in Kathmandu, every morning was a beautiful sunrise at 5am or so and we would all go to take tea and watch it - in silence of course. And then one morning I decided this was merely an illusion. I sat in a corner facing a wall, still on the rotating planet, still feeling the sun come up, but without that "sunrise kodak moment". Just being. That felt like freedom and space. That was more of a divine revelation, to me, than the blah blah worshipful beauty of the dawn sky.

You could argue the "fall" was the first illusion - we're naked, we need clothes, and everything else since then has been just all in our minds.

What if a person were addicted to saving people's lives? Can't you admit that would be a good if a life-saving addict saved you or someone you love? Perhaps all good feelings involve dopamine or some similar chemical reaction. Would you then condemn all good feelings? Maybe you had a dopamine rush when you turned away from the sunrise. Shouldn't you condemn that too? Sounds like you were practicing life-denying asceticism. Perhaps that is an addiction too. Taken to its logical extreme only death would satisfy that addiction. I'm not trying to get personal or advocating drug addiction with my questions, just following the logic. Only God is absolutely good. Everything else is more or less good. So while addiction is perhaps not as good as being addiction-free, it is itself perhaps better than something else, say telling lies to justify invading a foreign country.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I think this matter of "the righteousness of God" is very applicable to our discussions here on this thread.

In general, I think that Asian people are looked upon as more moral and/or "righteous" than us westerners. Whether this is actually true or not may not be as relevant as we might think. "Perception is reality" is more of a truism than we Christians may want to admit.

Now when it comes to Witness Lee, perception was most certainly reality, at least when it come to how he was viewed, admired and followed by his flock. The perception of who and what Lee was to us equaled reality. So when others from within or without told us otherwise, we simply blew them off as "opposers".

Anyway, one point I would make is that the righteousness of God is JUST THAT - THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD. It's HIS righteousness and not ours. The apostle Paul made it very clear: "Not having a righteousness of my own" (Phil 3:9). And how more clearer could have our Lord been when he exclaimed:"unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."?(Matt 5:30) These were pretty righteous dudes, those scribes and Pharisees. So it cannot necessarily be an outward, visible righteousness that was talking about. God is after MUCH more than the outward man, but moreso after the "hidden man of the heart".

I agree. And since I make mistakes everyday, that is, I do things wrong and I have never witnessed anyone who did not make mistakes, I don't even know what a human being exhibiting the righteousness of God would look like. Reading the Gospels, I can only try to imagine what Jesus might have like. With the possible exception of him, it seems like arrogance to claim that one is exhibiting the righteousness of God. Saying that we are called to God's righteousness, seems like setting ourselves up for failure. If someone thinks that is the way to go, I can't disprove it. But, if God is injecting us with his righteousness, he must be doing it is some hidden mysterious way that it takes wisdom to see.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

You said, "We must be those who live the righteousness of God."
I asked if that is what you think you are doing. Apparently not, because you admitted that you [ as part of the royal "we"] are often not good at it. If that's the case, then I submit that your righteousness is not "of God" because, as I'm sure you are aware, God is supposed to be very good at it.

I think you are both misunderstanding me and misrepresenting what I have said (though not necessarily intentionally).

That I, and any of us, are not always and completely righteous is a given. But whether we are or are not righteous is not a matter of feelings. It is a matter of fact.

The best among us will reach the end of this part of our experience of the kingdom without ever being 100%, all the time righteous. But dismissing the righteousness we do exhibit and experience as "not of God" because we aren't as good at it as He is misrepresents things. While there is an argument that we are not righteous until we are 100% righteous, at the same time, we are called to fulfill the righteousness of the law. In this lifetime. So it must be that what we do fulfill of righteousness is righteous despite the fact that we are not 100% righteous.

If we are righteous, it is not us but Him. The only true righteousness is His righteousness. If you think that we have to be 100% before it is his righteousness, then I do not know what scripture you subscribe to. Mine says to "just do it." There are others who clutter their version with footnotes that suggest that we not bother trying until it feels right. Or to forget about reckoning yourself dead to sin because it is hard.

Studies have shown that the mental aspects of emotional and physical pain are very related. They also show that we notice and remember what is wrong or bad much more than what is normal and good. So it might be that unless we are clinically depressed, feeling bad could be a choice rather than something concrete.

I did not go through that to say feelings are irrelevant. But feelings that are not clearly tied to specific things that legitimately should create those feelings may be telling us something that is not true. We become euphoric because a group gets whipped into a frenzy. As a result we are convinced that what we hear at the time has to be right. It is associated with euphoria. On the other hand, we get taught to feel bad when anyone mentions certain things — religion, clergy, communion (rather than Lord's table), "going to church," "Sunday" — and if they say it in a meeting, the groaning from some becomes a groundswell to drive out the heretic, or bring the wayward member back to their senses and shut them up.

Surely if we cut someone off on the road we should feel bad about it. we may not have the opportunity to stop and repent to that person, but we should at least repent to God. But that does not make every case of "feeling bad" into a spiritual problem. Neither does it make every case of feeling good into evidence of a spiritual mountaintop. And it does not mean that a period of days or even weeks or months in which we do not experience some kind of emotional high or other thing that we identify as a sense of the presence of God means that he has left us.

Where can a go from your presence? If I ascend to the heavens, you're there. If I make my bed in Sheol, you're there.

Despite my admitted lack of mastery of much of anything, I believe that it is in the realization of the presence of God without "feeling it" that causes us to act as if we are children of God without having a feeling about it. To obey because we know we are called to obey. To stop hiding behind Lee's nonsense that if I don't feel it, I shouldn't do it because it somehow turns from being out of grace and into duty. You may not think of it as being from Lee, and surely there are others who teach similarly. But it is wrong. Jesus did not tell the 11 to go and disciple, baptize, and teach them to obey when they have a feeling. I think that teaching such a thing would get you "least in the kingdom" status (Matt 5:19).

Guess what. We have a duty. It was not put upon us before grace came to us. But even the grace teaches us to obey. Stories about "waiting for dispensing" or "premature light" are cop-outs for those who don't want to at least try and fail. Better to try and fail at obeying than to just say "I knew I couldn't do it, so I didn't even try. I buried the little will-power I might have had in the sand with my one talent."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think you are both misunderstanding me and misrepresenting what I have said (though not necessarily intentionally).

Maybe what you said was unclear though not necessarily intentionally. I asked questions but also responded to what I thought you meant.

That I, and any of us, are not always and completely righteous is a given. But whether we are or are not righteous is not a matter of feelings. It is a matter of fact.

If it's a given then why do you suppose God demands that we "MUST" be the "RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD"? [The caps are not meant to suggest shouting so much to call attention the claims of divinity.]

The best among us will reach the end of this part of our experience of the kingdom without ever being 100%, all the time righteous. True

But dismissing the righteousness we do exhibit and experience as "not of God" because we aren't as good at it as He is misrepresents things.

Then it might be righteousness but not the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD. For instance, sometimes it could be right but just by dumb luck.


While there is an argument that we are not righteous until we are 100% righteous, at the same time, we are called to fulfill the righteousness of the law.

Seems like a set up for failure that...no?


In this lifetime. So it must be that what we do fulfill of righteousness is righteous despite the fact that we are not 100% righteous.

Do you mean we are right once in a while even though we're not right all the time? If so, I agree. In that case, righteousness seems to be a human ability to get something right sometimes without which we would never have survived as a species. It does not however seem like THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD.



If we are righteous, it is not us but Him.

Doesn't righteous just mean right? If so you are saying that every time a child tells the truth it is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD. If so then, exhibiting THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD is an ordinary every occurrence. If not, then it is possible to be righteous and it is not HIM. Which is it?


The only true righteousness is His righteousness. If you think that we have to be 100% before it is his righteousness, then I do not know what scripture you subscribe to. Mine says to "just do it." There are others who clutter their version with footnotes that suggest that we not bother trying until it feels right. Or to forget about reckoning yourself dead to sin because it is hard.

What's the difference between the only true righteousness and just being right? Maybe disambiguation will clear the matter up.

Studies have shown that the mental aspects of emotional and physical pain are very related. Premise1

What studies?

They also show that we notice and remember what is wrong or bad much more than what is normal and good. Premise2

So it might be that unless we are clinically depressed, feeling bad could be a choice rather than something concrete. Conclusion

Your conclusion ,may or may not be true but it doesn't follow from your premises.

I did not go through that to say feelings are irrelevant. But feelings that are not clearly tied to specific things that legitimately should create those feelings may be telling us something that is not true.

OK



We become euphoric because a group gets whipped into a frenzy. As a result we are convinced that what we hear at the time has to be right. It is associated with euphoria. On the other hand, we get taught to feel bad when anyone mentions certain things — religion, clergy, communion (rather than Lord's table), "going to church," "Sunday" — and if they say it in a meeting, the groaning from some becomes a groundswell to drive out the heretic, or bring the wayward member back to their senses and shut them up.

So you associate this kind of group behavior with feelings about God in general? Do you have but a negative feeling about being manipulated that way?

Surely if we cut someone off on the road we should feel bad about it. we may not have the opportunity to stop and repent to that person, but we should at least repent to God. But that does not make every case of "feeling bad" into a spiritual problem. Neither does it make every case of feeling good into evidence of a spiritual mountaintop. And it does not mean that a period of days or even weeks or months in which we do not experience some kind of emotional high or other thing that we identify as a sense of the presence of God means that he has left us.

So we have a duty to trudge onward anyway right?

Where can a go from your presence? If I ascend to the heavens, you're there. If I make my bed in Sheol, you're there.

Despite my admitted lack of mastery of much of anything, I believe that it is in the realization of the presence of God without "feeling it" that causes us to act as if we are children of God without having a feeling about it. To obey because we know we are called to obey.

To stop hiding behind Lee's nonsense that if I don't feel it, I shouldn't do it because it somehow turns from being out of grace and into duty.

When and where did he say that? I don't recall that teaching.


You may not think of it as being from Lee, and surely there are others who teach similarly. But it is wrong. Jesus did not tell the 11 to go and disciple, baptize, and teach them to obey when they have a feeling. I think that teaching such a thing would get you "least in the kingdom" status (Matt 5:19).

I don't recall ever being taught that. On the other hand, I remember hearing what you are teaching when I attended a Baptist Church before I came to the local church. They often slammed the Pentecostals on the feeling issue.



Guess what. We have a duty. It was not put upon us before grace came to us. But even the grace teaches us to obey. Stories about "waiting for dispensing" or "premature light" are cop-outs for those who don't want to at least try and fail. Better to try and fail at obeying than to just say "I knew I couldn't do it, so I didn't even try. I buried the little will-power I might have had in the sand with my one talent."

Is our will power God's will power like our righteousness is God's righteousness?

[UntoHim]

To all you people who actually know the mechanics of how the editor works here. Specifically, what's the easiest way to break up a long post into smaller quotes so we don't end up having everything in the quote box like zeeks last post? I'm sure it was time consuming for him to change his responses to red font.

Anyway, the way I do it, is to take the first sentence or two that I want to quote, keep the beginning part that contains the posters name: [QUOTE=OBW;33180] then at the point where I want to end the quote I manually type in: [ /QUOTE ] (without the spaces though) I then type my response immediately after.

Then for the next quote I simply highlight the word, sentence or paragraph(s) I want to quote and hit the quote icon, and then type m response to that particular quote immediately after.

Then so on an so forth for the rest of the post.

***one thing people sometimes forget is to always remove the [ /QUOTE ] at the very end of the original or it will show up in your last entry of the post.

I'm probably doing this the long way, so if anybody has a better explanation then feel free to jump in!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

***one thing people sometimes forget is to always remove the [ /QUOTE ] at the very end of the original or it will show up in your last entry of the post.

I'm probably doing this the long way, so if anybody has a better explanation then feel free to jump in!

I use the last [/quote], like I did here. I kept both the first and last "quote's."
Saves time.

[zeek]

Thank you UntoHim, Awareness. I have done it that way many times before. I think the black-red contrast makes the text easier to follow. As evidence to support that hypothesis, I present every Bible you have ever seen that had Jesus quotes printed in red and every other word in black.

[aron]

Here is an interesting notion: "The last apostle". Where did that one come from? It reminds me of the Sunni's and Shia's, now at discord over whether Ali followed Muhammad. Who was the last prophet? There seems to be an inability to reach consensus.

So the Blended's say it was WL. Supposedly he was the last spiritual giant, and now is the age of small potatoes. No more apostles, no more big leaders. Now I wonder, from where in the Bible is this idea derived?

The Brazilian Dong-ites and GLA Chu-ites perhaps believe that their man is the latest and greatest apostle sent from God. WL supposedly handed over the reins to Dong and/or Chu. That seems to have a little more biblical precedent than the Blendeds' position. I cannot see where the Blendeds come from, and that they're still pretending to be a Christian group. What kind of 'normal' New Testament church life pattern are they following? "Witness Lee is the last apostle"... What kind of idea is this?

Is this Asian culture manifested as ancestor reverence, even worship? Maybe filial piety and obsequiousness are divinely mandated in Asian culture; as WL, the divinely appointed successor, once revered WN, now it's the "Brothers Wee" who collectively revere WL? I'm guessing here; I don't know.

From whence came the idea of an unbroken line of apostolic succession, that then had to culminate, and even terminate, in the person of WL? I see nothing in the Bible remotely like this; it seems to be spun whole-cloth from the human imagination, and (perhaps) helped along by cultural pressures.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

So the Blended's say it was WL. Supposedly he was the last spiritual giant, and now is the age of small potatoes. No more apostles, no more big leaders. Now I wonder, from where in the Bible is this idea derived?

Who needs the Bible when you have the oracle, that speaks straight from the horses mouth ... er, ah, I mean from LSM books ... and from some weird -- really out there -- extra-Biblical, "blended" bunch. (If'n ya search the KJV, from top to bottom, there's no occurance of the word "blended" anywhere.)

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Who needs the Bible when you have the oracle, that speaks straight from the horses mouth ... er, ah, I mean from LSM books ... and from some weird -- really out there -- extra-Biblical, "blended" bunch. (If'n ya search the KJV, from top to bottom, there's no occurance of the word "blended" anywhere.)

http://www.concernedbrothers.com/Shi...%20Shields.pdf

David Shields, in 2006, writing on the idea of a "blended" group. Where was its origin, he asked. Howabout maybe in a despotic culture.

So WL the oracle of God said that he was the latest in the and long line, who give the the "sheep" the straight skinny right from the throne. But the oracle also said that he was the last, that he looked and there was none qualified to follow in his giant footsteps.

Who needs the Bible if you have God's oracle? If the oracle says it, well that's it.

[OBW]

Zeek,

In at least one point in your reply, you ask where it was ai thought you had said what I was talking about.

Everything about my posts are not specific to the person they are responding to. Where I directly quote you and then I am probably speaking directly about what you said for as long as I am talking directly to that point.

But points beget points. And ideas sometimes require more discussion than a three sentence reply. Once the discussion goes farther, we are often prone to speaking of "we" or "you" in generic terms, not meaning "you" specifically, but anyone who might read. If I say "if you thing about [idea] . . ." that is a call for whoever is reading to consider it. It does not mean that something they said is the source of the idea that I am now making.

This is a little like a recent comment I got when I said something about "we" and someone seemed to take exception to being swept into some generic "we."

Now, in that post, you said "Doesn't righteous just mean right? If so you are saying that every time a child tells the truth it is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD. If so then, exhibiting THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD is an ordinary every occurrence. If not, then it is possible to be righteous and it is not HIM. Which is it?"

(Before anyone comments on the section below, read the whole thing. If you chop my post into fortune cookies, you can make all kinds of interesting things out of it. But as a whole, it says something more cohesive. You may or may not agree with it, but it is not a collection of one-liners for scrutiny. If you find the whole to be faulty, then show me where it falls apart. But if you just start at the top and comment on each sentence or two without reference to the rest, you are not commenting on what I actually said. Just to some of the words that joined with others to say much more.)

This, like another post I just read, is a matter of context. In a generic way, "righteousness" can be simplified to "right."

But in the Biblical context, it is really more than that. Righteousness is not just the outcome, but the source from which it arises. It is also an attribute of the one who is said to be righteous. In the realm of attributes, there are many who are, at least for the most part, righteous. There are people in this world (without regard to whether Christian or not) who display outward evidence that they operate in human interactions in a manner that would be characterized as righteous. At least in major ways.

But the other aspect of righteousness when understood in the Biblical sense is the source from which righteousness arises. Is it just an adherence to a code of conduct? Or is it something that is being enhanced, or spurred into action by something other than our own will? Surely, in some aspect what I suggested is to adhere to a code of conduct. I specified that we have been commanded to behave righteously and therefore should seek to do that whether we feel like it or can identify how it is that God is doing it in us and it is not just a matter of obedience to the code we have signed on to.

And we have learned from certain people (Nee and Lee, for starters) that righteousness should come from within, not from without. But where does it say that? Where does it say that we will simply start being righteous if we have the right stuff within us? It actually does not. Instead it says that we are to obey. And obedience is something that Jesus commanded the disciples to teach. Must not be so automatic.

Yet, for those who have "signed on" to salvation through faith, we do have a power within us to do what we might not have been able to do without that power. But nowhere does it say that this power is going to simply make it start happening. We have to actually do it. Whether we feel like it or not. Whether we understand how it is that we have the power to do it or not.

I will confess here and now that I am not fully obedient in all things. But I can also confess that I know that there is something in me that gives me the way to do what I could not do on my own.

Yes, there are still things that I could do before and I will continue to be able to do. That does not deny the power of Christ, or make that righteousness different. The source inside me has been changed. I still do those things, but I do them as a child of God.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Who needs the Bible if you have God's oracle? If the oracle says it, well that's it.

There's a danger in declaring you are the oracle.

“Now when this people or the prophet or a priest asks you saying, ‘What is the oracle of the Lord?’ then you shall say to them, ‘What oracle?’ The Lord declares, ‘I will abandon you.’ Then as for the prophet or the priest or the people who say, ‘The oracle of the Lord,’ I will bring punishment upon that man and his household. Thus will each of you say to his neighbor and to his brother, ‘What has the Lord answered?’ or, ‘What has the Lord spoken?’ For you will no longer remember the oracle of the Lord, because every man’s own word will become the oracle, and you have perverted the words of the living God, the Lord of hosts, our God. Thus you will say to that prophet, ‘What has the Lord answered you?’ and, ‘What has the Lord spoken?’ For if you say, ‘The oracle of the Lord!’ surely thus says the Lord, ‘Because you said this word, “The oracle of the Lord!” I have also sent to you, saying, “You shall not say, ‘The oracle of the Lord!’”’ Jeremiah 23:33-38

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

http://www.concernedbrothers.com/Shi...%20Shields.pdf

David Shields, in 2006, writing on the idea of a "blended" group. Where was its origin, he asked. Howabout maybe in a despotic culture.

So WL the oracle of God said that he was the latest in the and long line, who give the the "sheep" the straight skinny right from the throne. But the oracle also said that he was the last, that he looked and there was none qualified to follow in his giant footsteps.

Who needs the Bible if you have God's oracle? If the oracle says it, well that's it.

But God has blended the body together, giving more abundant honor to the member that lacked, That there would be no division in the body, but that the members would have the same care for one another. (1 Cor. 12:23-25)

Is that it? is that their only support for the Blended Brothers? And people, local churchers, are buying it? One verse is all it takes? With some convolution going on with what the KJV translates as "tempered?" Boy, they'll buy anything.

I'm using eSword, and have like 29 translations (some of them in just Greek - but a lot of translations) and not one of them translates "συνεκέρασε" as blended.

Strongs:
to commingle, i.e. (figuratively) to combine or assimilate

Maybe Lee should have used "assimilate." As in the Borg. The Assimilated Brothers - (The ASBs). "Resistance is futile."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

There's a danger in declaring you are the oracle.

“Now when this people or the prophet or a priest asks you saying, ‘What is the oracle of the Lord?’ then you shall say to them, ‘What oracle?’ The Lord declares, ‘I will abandon you.’ Then as for the prophet or the priest or the people who say, ‘The oracle of the Lord,’ I will bring punishment upon that man and his household. Thus will each of you say to his neighbor and to his brother, ‘What has the Lord answered?’ or, ‘What has the Lord spoken?’ For you will no longer remember the oracle of the Lord, because every man’s own word will become the oracle, and you have perverted the words of the living God, the Lord of hosts, our God. Thus you will say to that prophet, ‘What has the Lord answered you?’ and, ‘What has the Lord spoken?’ For if you say, ‘The oracle of the Lord!’ surely thus says the Lord, ‘Because you said this word, “The oracle of the Lord!” I have also sent to you, saying, “You shall not say, ‘The oracle of the Lord!’”’ Jeremiah 23:33-38

Great verses!

Frameable quotes for the next training!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Is that it? is that their only support for the Blended Brothers? And people, local churchers, are buying it? One verse is all it takes? With some convolution going on with what the KJV translates as "tempered?" Boy, they'll buy anything."

For many of them, that is more than they needed to buy a bunch of Lee's other hooey.

"Who needs verses when you have the oracle; the Minister of the Age."

Or more appropriately, "Verses!?! We don't need no verses! . . . ."

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

But God has blended the body together, giving more abundant honor to the member that lacked, That there would be no division in the body, but that the members would have the same care for one another. (1 Cor. 12:23-25)

Is that it? is that their only support for the Blended Brothers? And people, local churchers, are buying it? One verse is all it takes? With some convolution going on with what the KJV translates as "tempered?" Boy, they'll buy anything.

A single word, taken from an agreeable translation, can become "the central lane of God's eternal economy", if you have the right vision.

Think about what happens when the culture provides the vision. Then the Bible can become malleable, to fit its cultural constraints.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Zeek,

In at least one point in your reply, you ask where it was ai thought you had said what I was talking about.

Everything about my posts are not specific to the person they are responding to.

Where I directly quote you and then I am probably speaking directly about what you said for as long as I am talking directly to that point.

I find the first three sentences of your reply unintelligible. I have no idea what the first one means. There seems to be more than a typo there. The second one is confusing. Who is responding to what? Why respond to someone with something not specific to him? The third is not even a complete sentence. Then you go on and ask me not to look at the logic of your sentences but rather to respond to your long posts as a whole. If your premises are false or self-contradictory, ambiguous or vague, the truth value of your conclusions can't be determined no matter how long you make your posts.

I won't bother to analyze any more of your statements since you explicitly asked me not to. Suffice it to say the rest of your post is just so much equivocation. Righteousness is inward then it's outward, it's a source then it's obedience to a code, you have the "power" but you are not fully obedient anyway. I will be charitable and assume that you are not intentionally trying to obfuscate the issue. Nevertheless, your argument is too diffuse to be persuasive. It might help if you kept your posts short and to the point. Piling on words doesn't necessarily make an argument clear or coherent.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

"Who needs verses when you have the oracle; the Minister of the Age."

Or more appropriately, "Verses!?! We don't need no verses! . . . ."

We Christians believe that the Bible reveals Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ reveals the Father.

Lee, on the other hand, said that his ministry revealed Jesus Christ and therefore the Father. And Lee's ministry also taught that much scripture doesn't reveal Jesus. (if you want, go through the Psalms and count how much he either ignored or said was "fallen" and "natural concepts".) So he effectively was telling us, "Who are you going to believe, my teaching, or the Bible?"

I notice as well that when he used the Bible to support his arguments he called it the "pure word", and when it wasn't so convenient to his teachings he had less kind things to call it.

So what kind of idea are we seeing manifested here in "God's oracle", and "the last apostle": one according to scripture, or one derived from human nature, and expressing its parent human culture?

[aron]

There seem to be two key aspects to the arrangement of Witness Lee's Local Church hierarchy, and I'll capitalize them to avoid writing "supposed" or "so-called" before each use of the word. The first idea is of the Apostle. Today's Apostle is ostensibly the one most closely following the path of the original apostles, a la Acts 2:42: "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers." So we have Lee continuing steadfastly behind Nee, who also closely followed (largely through literature) Mackintosh, Panton, Govett, Pember, Darby, Penn-Lewis, etc. Plus Nee had fellowship with notables such as at the Keswick Convention, of Andrew Murray, Hudson Taylor, T. Austin-Sparks, etc. So Lee was the Apostle, after Nee, who was after Somebody; we assumed a lineage stretching back.

The second idea is of the Oracle. Without the Oracle to guide you, the uninterpreted Word is missing something. The Oracle gives you the vision to see the intrinsic light and truth contained in the Word. Without the Oracle's speaking, the Bible is just a book. Look at Christianity, for example: they have the Bible but little truth or light. The Oracle could even show us where the Bible had natural human concepts: where the Bible and the Oracle's teaching came into conflict, the Oracle's revelation always won. Where Bible and Oracle agreed, the Bible was indeed revelatory, but when they disagreed, the Bible was actually the concepts of fallen men. So the Oracle had determined where the Bible was to be spirit and life to us, and where it was merely dead letters, to be be ignored.

The Oracle even revealed that eventually there's no Oracle! He'd looked high and low, and there were none of ability, so now the Oracle said that "one Apostle per age" was changing into "the age of small potatoes". There were to be no more spiritual giants. And we didn't need a Bible verse, chapter or book for this because it was from the Oracle. It seems as if our orientation, and vision, wasn't to the common Christian faith, nor even the "ground of the church". It was now to the Oracle, the Apostle, who was (surprise, surprise) the same person. The Apostle had invested the Oracle with authority, and the Oracle showed that the Apostle was God's man of the hour.

Combined in the person of the Maximum Leader, the roles of Oracle and Apostle created an identity and orientation for the Party, the Collective, the State, the Church, the Body, or whatever you'd call it. This collective orientation is probably just the instinctive social aspect of our species, seen here in a rather pronounced form, and an Eastern-tinged variety at that! Remember what they told us: "Be absolute". Our Maximum Leader, who the Oracle assured us was just a humble servant of all, had become the orientation point of group identity and culture. So when the Apostle asked us, "Who among you have I controlled?", we immediately replied in unison, "Maximum Brother, you have controlled no one!" We were for the Party, the Collective, the State, the Church, not for the Maximum Brother! But the Party/State/Church/Collective needed the guiding hand of Oracle and Apostle: without this firm hand at the wheel, the whole thing would fall apart! We told ourselves, "Even when he's wrong he's right"; if we kept that firmly in mind, everything would be fine. Just obey the Maximum Leader without question. It seems now, looking back, that the Local Church movement was a ruse to get our humble servant installed as the Maximum Leader. And if you don't see it, maybe you're still wearing culturally-tinted eyeglasses which were installed free of charge, back at your neighborhood Local Church.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

But God has blended the body together, giving more abundant honor to the member that lacked, That there would be no division in the body, but that the members would have the same care for one another. (1 Cor. 12:23-25)

Is that it? is that their only support for the Blended Brothers?

It's easy to say blended while neglecting "That there would be no division in the body, or, but that the members would have the same care for one another.

Contrary, division is promoted is you take an "Us versus Them" stand in regard to the ministry LSM publishes. Contrary if you are on fire for the ministry, you will get a level of care more than those who are lukewarm or apathetic towards the ministry.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

It's easy to say blended while neglecting "That there would be no division in the body, or, but that the members would have the same care for one another.

Contrary, division is promoted is you take an "Us versus Them" stand in regard to the ministry LSM publishes. Contrary if you are on fire for the ministry, you will get a level of care more than those who are lukewarm or apathetic towards the ministry.

Yeah. It's funny how parts of the Bible they catch in their hand, and other parts, the true and critical parts, of love & caring, slip right thru their fingers.

[aron]

From the thread "in the divisions He sought us", which probably should have been appended to this thread.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Supposedly Nee, who had read every book known to man, passed down an accurate record of church history to Lee. Actually, Nee's limited account was thru the prism of Western culture, that which was passed down via the British missionaries..

History is partly parochial. It is like the vanity of limited man trying to see limitless God. Our histories' limitations should be acknowledged. But Nee's history was supposed to be all-encompassing, and thus we Westerners swallowed it as if it were not an Asian reaction to Western imperialism, but as if it were an account of reality itself.

And then we had to deal with the consequences of what we uncritically had received. "What you eat, that you eventually become."

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

History is partly parochial. Our limitations should be acknowledged. But Nee's history was supposed to be all-encompassing, and thus we Westerners swallowed it as if it were not an Asian reaction to Western imperialism, but as if it were an account of objective reality itself.

I think that the reason that many of us took the "recovery" history and theology hook, line and sinker is because it seemed more complex and nuanced than what we'd been used to. Nobody ever talked in my Baptist church about the 1,000 year kingdom in Revelations 20:1-6. But there it was... six verses in a row kept repeating it: 1,000 years! So even in my suspicious mind, I had to admit that Lee and the Local Churchers had something I hadn't seen. In my Fundamentalist church I don't remember anyone talking about the distinction between Babylonian captivity and Egyptian captivity, and between the wilderness and the good land of Canaan. Etc etc.

Probably, what had happened was that, over centuries, the religious narratives had become "boiled down", and reduced, so whether it was the RCC/Eastern Orthodox liturgical cycle or the Fundamentalist Protestant "justification" dogmas, the story repeated in every Sunday morning service had become small and simple. Not much was needed to prop it up. The Bible we were familiar with was a small set of familiar tropes (the 4 gospels, a few epistles, some OT history types) and that was good enough, so we were told. "Believe and you will be saved", I heard over and over.

Along came Lee with his Brethren background and we were snowed under with verses. Believe me, other than vague references to "tribulation", they never talked about the book of Revelation in my community church! Who wants to read about plagues of fire and boiling heat and vapors and smoke? We knew it was there, but nobody wanted to look at it. So a lot of the Bible was basically off-limits. Same with history. Everything that didn't fit into our parochial views was basically put in a closet and marked "do not open."

Then Lee came along and seemingly blew everything up. In reality he just gave us a bigger box. But it was still a box. It still had edges, with an injunction "do not go beyond this point." It was actually still parochial. But we were told it was all-encompassing. No culture here; no self, no reaction to previous cultural modes. Just pure God. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

That's why Lee & Co were able to keep the sheep in their fold: they convinced us that everything outside their box was "fallen human culture" and everything inside it was pure recovered truth. And even when it started to taste bland like cardboard, we just had to keep saying, "Yum, yum."

Now, it's dawned on me that my own writings may reveal me as merely a "bitter ex-member", trying to tear down God's building. Maybe it is my wild, individualistic American culture reasserting itself. Maybe I'm merely reacting to what I see as Oriental cultural imperialism. But even if so, my Western cultural upbringing surfacing through my writings doesn't mean that Nee's Eastern culture didn't surface through his, right? I argue it's the opposite: that when we look at the world, including our religious world (ideas, behaviors, groups), we'll evaluate what is "normal" and "abnormal" based on culturally-derived norms. We'll filter our experiences for meaning based on culturally-instilled values. That proposition shouldn't be too shocking -- why do we think that Nee and Lee were somehow immune from this?

We got tricked by a "confidence game", and it was effective because the one gaming us, our new Prophet, was more assertive than we were, and waved more Bible verses in the air than we were used to seeing. So we thought that we were submitting to God, but were actually submitting to the thought-world of our Prophet; but which world, we were constantly reassured, had no vestiges of fallen human culture! And when that fallen human culture did eventually and undeniably reveal itself, it was too late. We were in: we'd fervently declared that we were "wrecked" for Lee's Local Church, and felt that there was no longer any way out.

Again, this view is a arguably a culturally-derived one. "The group is all and in all" is very Asian; the idea that the individual only has value in the group, by the group, and for the group. But if you don't recognize the source of that idea it will hold you and never let you go.

[Eph]

Originally Posted by aron

(Opening Post) I'm not sure where to post these thoughts, so I'll put them here. Admin can move them if needed. This largely is in response to amrkelly's point about Asian subterfuge (relating to Dana Roberts going to the PRC to investigate WN), how the Chinese will nod and smile and feed you a load of baloney...

It is a very complex issue because it involves both historical and cultural aspects. I will never forget once in a brother Lee's meeting I prayed to God that let me be like brother Lee so that all my problems will be gone. It is my eastern mind telling me that, not brother Lee nor others. I don't believe brother Lee intentionally teaches that everyone should be like him. But somehow I came up with that idea--to look to an authority, a deputy, someone tangible, like a quanyin goddess. So it came, don't defy, don't question, just follow.

"The Eastern Mind" might explain the prosperity of the local church in Taiwan and China, but not in America (other than Chinese Americans). Did you weep over one of American presidents' death? I bet not. Did I and the majority of Chinese and Taiwanese weep over Mao's and Chiang's death? I bet we did. Why so stupid? Don't know. I somehow wept when I heard brother Lee passed away in 1997, so did many of Chinese believers in the local church. (Maybe not Western minds, please correct me.)

Chinese were oppressed by Western powers and Taiwanese were colonized by Western powers and Japan in the past. You might see that long term effects on the people. Then, the Lord came to rescue us and deliver us. The gospel was good and the church life was sweet, then, some things went south. When I became the weak one, when I can't fly in sync, when I can't swim accordingly, I left on my own. I don't blame them. I prayed that I will stay alive, not hit by a car or die instantly, to take care of my family. It is quite a sad story.

[awareness]

Great to hear from you Eph ...

Originally Posted by Eph

I will never forget once in a brother Lee's meeting I prayed to God that let me be like brother Lee so that all my problems will be gone. It is my eastern mind telling me that, not brother Lee nor others. I don't believe brother Lee intentionally teaches that everyone should be like him.

Just yesterday another brother and I were laughing at the idea of being a mini-mota, or a wannabe mini-mota.

Originally Posted by Eph

But somehow I came up with that idea--to look to an authority, a deputy, someone tangible, like a quanyin goddess. So it came, don't defy, don't question, just follow.

Do you think this is where Nee came up with Deputy/Delegated Authority? Was it a cultural source/cause?

Originally Posted by Eph

I somehow wept when I heard brother Lee passed away in 1997, so did many of Chinese believers in the local church. (Maybe not Western minds, please correct me.)

WITNESS LEE, CHRISTIAN TEACHER - not scholar, not theologian ... just teacher ... got that:
http://www.lcinfo.org/?page=writings/media/obituary

[aron]

Originally Posted by Eph

It is quite a sad story.

Don't buy the lie.

The LSM loves all the "sad stories" of those who perish outside their flock. They want you to go down, because that lifts them and their gospel up. Don't believe the lie.

This system is built on the concept of "other" which is actually a biological phenomenon but has been well-honed in Asian society. The system requires a "sad story" periodically to make it work. To do this someone needs to be designated as the "other"; it could be Max Rappoport, Jane Anderson, John Ingalls, or yourself. Or Titus Chu, Dong Yu Lan, Steve Isitt, Bill Mallon, John So, The Bible Answer Man... can I stop now? Can we see the pattern?

Then the bad sheep, the newly-discovered and announced "scapegoats", are publicly "flogged and executed", to keep the other sheep inside the pen. So their narrative needs you to #1 be pushed out, and #2 to come to a bad end. They don't want you to be saved. Their institutionally-biased narrative forgets the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary, and so they tell one another, "It is necessary for one man(or woman) to perish, that the group is saved." So they pick on yet another scapegoat. Their system of "social harmony" needs it.

That's the opposite of Jesus' way. In the Jesus system, the Shepherd leaves the 99 and goes to find the lost sheep. Then the other 99 celebrate when their brother is returned to them. But in the LSM system, occasionally one sheep has to be publicly whipped (metaphorically speaking) and turned into a "the other" to keep the remaining 99 well-behaved and compliant. So their narrative structure, of "Us" versus "Them", wants you as the "other" to suffer and eventually to be destroyed. Don't buy into the lie. Don't offer yourself on their altar.

Actually, if you want to look at it that way, everybody has a sad story: you, me, and Witness Lee. All of us, I cannot overstress this, all of us, were bad sheep who went astray. Only Jesus made it back to the Father. Christ is the victor. There is only one name by which we may be saved. Keep your eyes on Jesus, and keep your heart fully engaged in pursuing Him. Don't be distracted by anything or anyone else. Everything else is a trap. Jesus presents you with the way home to our Father in heaven. This earth is not your home. "In My Father's house are many, many mansions". There is one waiting for you. That is why you wrote your comments. That is why you are going on. Because you believe it. As Jesus said, "Where I am going, you know the way." This is the gospel story.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Eph

I will never forget once in a brother Lee's meeting I prayed to God that let me be like brother Lee so that all my problems will be gone. It is my eastern mind telling me that, not brother Lee nor others. I don't believe brother Lee intentionally teaches that everyone should be like him..

In my meetings, we were told to be "Brother Lee tape machines" and repeat what we heard. And the trainings, even the Local Churches, were called "Witness Lee duplication centers". I don't know how much these ideas and phrases originated with him, but I suppose that they came from his inner ring of "cheerleaders" and he heard this kind of talk.

Originally Posted by Eph

"The Eastern Mind" might explain the prosperity of the local church in Taiwan and China, but not in America (other than Chinese Americans). Did you weep over one of American presidents' death? I bet not. Did I and the majority of Chinese and Taiwanese weep over Mao's and Chiang's death? I bet we did. Why so stupid? Don't know. I somehow wept when I heard brother Lee passed away in 1997, so did many of Chinese believers in the local church.

In America, we took the "Normal Christian Church" idea of Nee as from God, not as a product of the "Eastern Mind". So even though "Submission" seemed strange to our culture, we tried to copy it because we thought it was from heaven.

But I noticed certain warning signs that Nee's "Normal Church" life was merely human culture.

1. The exaltation of one person. I was at the Anaheim meeting hall and saw Chinese visitors posing next to Witness Lee's leather chair. Like it was a shrine.

2. Despising the poor. Of course the poor are despised everywhere but at least we in the West pretend to care. Jesus certainly cared. The Local Church way was, "Too bad for you." This, to me, is very Asian.

3. The Group triumphs fully over the Individual. Again, this has inroads everywhere but in the West we have the idea of individual human rights, even though we can't always follow it.

4. Order over freedom. Very similar to number 3, except this is in behavior. In the Lord's Recovery, you have complete freedom, as long as everything that you do is for the building up of the Group. And the Maximum Brother has told us what is for the building up of the Group.

5. Constant fighting, with "us" versus "them". This is a basic principle of much social organization. Without a "them" there is no "us". And the two are usually antagonistic. This is clearly fallen, and not exclusive to Asian culture, but in the Lord's Recovery it was filtered through Asian social expression.

Originally Posted by Eph

Chinese were oppressed by Western powers and Taiwanese were colonized by Western powers and Japan in the past. You might see that long term effects on the people. Then, the Lord came to rescue us and deliver us. The gospel was good and the church life was sweet, then, some things went south.

I understand the idea of foreign oppression, and tried to address this in my posts. Western colonialism and imperialism gave fertile ground for the "native" church movement of the early 20th century. But once Watchman Nee got a flock of thousands, he tried to control it. Nee went from being the "oppressed" to the "oppressor"... now his "vision" was no longer "local" but "the Jerusalem principle", the consolidation of power. So Nee showed that he was merely a human being. Likewise the Asian culture is not a stranger to imperialism, political, economic, or cultural. Asian culture knows how to be both "dominant" and "submissive"; in the 19th century the West dominated, and in the early- to mid- 20th century the pendulum of power began to swing back. The rise of the Little Flock, and its export to the U.S. in the Lord's Recovery, is an example of that.

My main point of starting the thread was that a lot of what we thought was a biblically- and scripturally-based "Normal Church Life" was really filtered through a human culture. But we didn't see it, so we took it as if it came from heaven. Yet all of the "storms" and "turmoils" and "rebellions" show us otherwise. "By its fruit a tree is fully manifested."

For example, the idea of "losing face" was clearly and repeatedly manifested. When Max Rappoport found Philip Lee misbehaving, Witness Lee couldn't be allowed to lose face. That would undermine the whole social order. Likewise Titus Chu could not lose face to Benson Philips. So yet another "storm" would break out. So a "natural" force is really controlling what we are told is the "divine order".

[Eph]

Originally Posted by aron

2. Despising the poor. Of course the poor are despised everywhere but at least we in the West pretend to care. Jesus certainly cared. The Local Church way was, "Too bad for you." This, to me, is very Asian.

My observation is that the West is acculturated with the Christian values so you geniunely care for the poor. Then, you have the Gates Foundation with Buffet's full support to help the poor around the world. In the East, people usually leave their wealth to the heirs, not the charity. However, some charity groups such as Tzu Chi, a buddism in nature charity organiation, did a great job in helping the poor and needed. It really turns me off when the local church christians despised Tzu Chi and said that it is not a work of Christ.

4. Order over freedom. Very similar to number 3, except this is in behavior. In the Lord's Recovery, you have complete freedom, as long as everything that you do is for the building up of the Group. And the Maximum Brother has told us what is for the building up of the Group.

Gradually, I tell myself that if I work for a company I have to obey the rules and follow orders. When I can't handle it anymore, I quit. Is it a common practice both in the West and the East?

Originally Posted by awareness

And "The lower level is [not] subordinate to the higher level"

And like the CPC, in the LRC your are OUTTA THERE ... ELIMINATED.

[Eph]

Originally Posted by aron

My main point of starting the thread was that a lot of what we thought was a biblically- and scripturally-based "Normal Church Life" was really filtered through a human culture. But we didn't see it, so we took it as if it came from heaven. Yet all of the "storms" and "turmoils" and "rebellions" show us otherwise. "By its fruit a tree is fully manifested."

It took years for me to learn that not every doctrine nor practice of the local church is biblical. Why do the West follow the East? Now I get a better picture from your insight. The filters attract some of the WASP who then become poster boys to us during 1986 migration to Taipei. You have no idea how encouraging it was how you guys came to Taipei under brother Lee's calling. Then, things started falling apart, rumors and gossips, etc. After 28 years, cultural factor still plays a part in the movement. In the predominating East culture, no matter which country you are in, the local church movement is prospering, way ahead of that in the West.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Eph

Gradually, I tell myself that if I work for a company I have to obey the rules and follow orders. When I can't handle it anymore, I quit. Is it a common practice both in the West and the East?

Yes it is a common practice. And the Boss tells the Workers what to do and how to do it. Obeying rules and following orders is in a hierarchical structure. But in the kingdom of the Father, Jesus told us, "These things should not be so."

Matt 10:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 "It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant,…"

See also

1 Peter 5:2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.

The social order of the Local Church is a human order, with an Asian flavor. But we were told it was a divine flavor so we ate it as if it were manna from heaven.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Eph

My observation is that the West is acculturated with the Christian values so you genuinely care for the poor. Then, you have the Gates Foundation with Buffet's full support to help the poor around the world. In the East, people usually leave their wealth to the heirs, not the charity. However, some charity groups such as Tzu Chi, a Buddhism in nature charity organization, did a great job in helping the poor and needy. It really turns me off when the local church Christians despised Tzu Chi and said that it is not a work of Christ.

Thank you for your observation. This is the first time I've seen a report like this from Asia.

As I wrote earlier, Western culture is not necessarily better, or superior, to Eastern. But the Lord's Recovery's disregard for the poor clearly displays its Asian cultural origins, and thereby subordinates both its Christian heritage and the words of scripture, to its organization-building scheme.

"Don't waste your time" on the poor, was what we were told in the FTTA.

[Eph]

Originally Posted by awareness

Great to hear from you Eph ...
Do you think this is where Nee came up with Deputy/Delegated Authority? Was it a cultural source/cause?

I am not familiar with Nee's work. I received teachings that Nee is a very spiritual man, full of God's life and presence. God listens to his prayers and I wish I can be like Nee. And I am not supposed to read his writings "Spiritual Man?" because it is too deep that I as a young believer will get confused. I am out of his league. So I never did. I read the Normal Christian Life though, but forgot what it is about.

Maybe Aron can answer this question for us?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Eph

And I am not supposed to read his writings "Spiritual Man?" because it is too deep that I as a young believer will get confused. I am out of his league.

That's a good one. Long ago, prolly before you were born, I was told not to read The Spiritual Man because it could cause me to become demon possessed.

I read it anyway. Actually, I ran to it faster than Eve ran to the forbidden tree. And yes, there's a serpent in that paradise.

I feel I should tell you. Watchman Nee was a man, a human, just like you & me. And yes, he was deified in Shanghai. Like Lee was deified here in America.

Why we have to deify men is beyond me. I guess we don't like who we are, so we hope that if other men can be deified, so can we.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Eph

It took years for me to learn that not every doctrine nor practice of the local church is biblical. Why do the West follow the East? Now I get a better picture from your insight. The filters attract some of the WASP who then become poster boys to us during 1986 migration to Taipei. You have no idea how encouraging it was how you guys came to Taipei under brother Lee's calling.

When I was in the group, the focus of the "Lord's move", and the prime directive, was to get Caucasian males. Now it clearly seems to be the college freshman. But in the 1980s Lee used to talk a lot about Mid-Western males who grew up on beef and corn and were big and strong. Like that was his doppelganger, his “id”, his ideational “other” who needed to be harnessed and/or conquered. Suddenly, “Authority and Submission” had arrived in the U.S.A., the erstwhile "land of the free and home of the brave."

Maybe there was an inward, subconscious desire to show up the West, who had oppressed the East during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The ancient cultures wanted to demonstrate their validity, if not superiority, and Nee et al were supposedly the chosen vessels. Naturally Nee & Lee would never say this, but like I said look how quickly the Little Flock morphed from an indigenous, “local” movement, to one which was consolidated, centralized, and exported abroad. The imperialist, or "dominant" pendulum began to swing from the West back to the East.

Originally Posted by Eph

After 28 years, cultural factor still plays a part in the movement. In the predominating East culture, no matter which country you are in, the local church movement is prospering, way ahead of that in the West..

No matter how they disguise it, the “alien” factor of the Lord's Recovery is still pretty strong in the West. I spent some time in the churches in the S. California area, and the Chinese seemed to have a “caste” system. The educated ones led, and the uneducated ones unobtrusively mowed the grass and wiped the windows. In the West, you have truck drivers and plumbers and college professors all mixed together (of course I am generalizing, and there are always exceptions).

James 2:2-4 For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, "You sit here in a good place," and you say to the poor man, "You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool," have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives?

This may explain why the Little Flock movement and organizational/social structure has resonated more strongly within Eastern societies than in the West. Because to Western culture it is peculiar and unfamiliar, and to the Eastern mind it is comfortable, and familiar.

Number One, don't waste your time on those who have no means to repay you. Ignore them; forget about them. Number Two, focus on those who are "good building material", who will make our society (i.e. the Lord's Recovery) prosperous and strong. Number Three, obey without question; this is essential to effective and harmonious social functioning. These kinds of ideas echo their source, or parent, Asian social/cultural systems.

[Eph]

Originally Posted by awareness

I read it anyway. Actually, I ran to it faster than Eve ran to the forbidden tree.

This is a good one.

[Eph]

Originally Posted by aron

James 2:2-4 For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, "You sit here in a good place," and you say to the poor man, "You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool," have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives?

Number One, don't waste your time on those who have no means to repay you. Ignore them; forget about them. Number Two, focus on those who are "good building material", who will make our society (i.e. the Lord's Recovery) prosperous and strong. Number Three, obey without question; this is essential to effective and harmonious social functioning. These kinds of ideas echo their source, or parent, Asian social/cultural systems.

Some of the local churches bypass our Lord's major mission on saving the poor and the sick, ignore James's teaching on equality. I can't generaize, but I had experiences in one or two local churches. (Aron, your posts speak my heart.) We should start a new thread about "money" and "power" on the local church movement to well document their influence.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Eph

This is a good one.

Actually the good one, as to Nee's book, The Spiritual Man, was the remark that, yes, there's a serpent in that paradise.

The serpent in that book is/was Jessie Penn-Lewis. There's claims that he, Nee, pretty much got the book from Lewis, claims of plagiarism even.

Jessie taught that Christians can be possessed of demons. That's why, I suppose, I was told that some brothers had become demon possessed from reading TSM.

If you ask me, and I have good off topic reasons for thinking this, Jessie Penn-Lewis was the demon, the serpent, in Nee's TSM paradise.

At this point, 1920s, we're at the West coming to the East, and bringing it to Nee and Lee. This was actually the point when syncretizing between East and West began, and a new Christian hybrid was born, that deformed both Watchman Nee and Witness Lee into Chinese Minister's of the Age.

Every paradise has a serpent.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Maybe there was an inward, subconscious desire to show up the West, who had oppressed the East during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The ancient cultures wanted to demonstrate their validity, if not superiority, and Nee et al were supposedly the chosen vessels...

I spent some time in the S. Cal. meetings, when the declared focus was to get Caucasian males. Every time someone brought in a young Charlton Heston or Gregory Peck or Kirk Douglas, all the Chinese would crane their necks to see them "Submit" to the "Authority". Was there something cultural behind that? I suspect.

Now, this may seem like pretty flaky conjecture, but I still find it more satisfying than Tomes' work, which merely demonstrates stuff like Lee's plagiarizing, and his crude and amateurish etymology, but never addresses the elephant in the room: why did so many of us completely give our lives over to this man's ideas, and allow our consciousnesses to be totally subsumed by his? What is behind that?

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

If you ask me, and I have good off topic reasons for thinking this, Jessie Penn-Lewis was the demon, the serpent, in Nee's TSM paradise.

At this point, 1920s, we're at the West coming to the East, and bringing it to Nee and Lee. This was actually the point when syncretizing between East and West began, and a new Christian hybrid was born, that deformed both Watchman Nee and Witness Lee into Chinese Minister's of the Age.

I've read European writers, who seem to know something, who present Penn-Lewis as a terrible, corrupting influence in the revivals of the early 20th century there. Certainly she seems to have been overtaken by the idea of subjectivism, that whatever she was "feeling" at any moment came straight from God and therefore she could A) ignore the plain words of the Bible, and B) interfere with the lives of others, sometimes disastrously so, for the "the move of God" or "God's will" as she saw it.

So did an Asian-flavored variant of this make its way, via Lee, into the USA & S. Cali in the early- and mid-60's and create a kind of mass hysteria, subjectivist "primal scream therapy" charismatic phenomenon? I don't know; I wasn't there, but some of its effects I still felt 10 years later when I arrived. The sort of 'elevated sensations' phenomena was very prevalent, and pronounced, and you'd become susceptible to whatever was shouted from the podium or the seats. You were expected to chant or scream the latest slogan, and let it flood your consciousness.

The second thing about Penn-Lewis that I find interesting is the "Jezebel" idea. It seems to be a topic that no one wants to touch, at least in a balanced way: the ability (i.e. weakness?) of women to be channels or vectors of instability.

I say this here, particularly, because as I have noted, Nee & Lee made a big deal out of being influenced by several women's ministries, yet no woman could so much as speak (i.e. teach) in Lee's meetings! The only "functioning" women that I'm aware of were Jane Anderson & Sandee Rappoport & a few others, who merely had the temerity to try to privately counsel people, and help them. You know, shepherding, etc. Care. This was termed a "sisters' rebellion." Yet in addition to Penn-Lewis, others like Margaret Barber, Peace Wang, Dora Yu, Ruth Lee, were publicly waved as "early pillars" in the historical rise of the Little Flock.

So there is clearly some tension there in the narrative, and some glaring unresolved contradictions, but since this is a "lightning rod" issue it's hard to approach. And to do so through the "Asian cultural lens" that I present on this thread makes it even more challenging. I don't have any ideas here, and won't even try my "flaky hypotheses", which may insult everybody involved, to no benefit. But it's an obvious issue in the Lord's Recovery discussion.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

The serpent in that book is/was Jessie Penn-Lewis. There's claims that he, Nee, pretty much got the book from Lewis, claims of plagiarism even.

"In 1926, when he was suffering from tuberculosis, Ni began his first major book, The Spiritual Man, which sought to explain spiritual formation in terms of biblical psychology, especially the radical distinction between “soul” (self-consciousness) and “spirit” (God-consciousness). Published in 1928, the three-volume work has been called basically a translation of Penn-Lewis’s Soul and Spirit, published ten years earlier, though Ni did not make that clear. These early efforts laid the theological foundation for his future teaching ministry."

From the "Biographical dictionary of Chinese Christianity" web site.

So Nee had an "extensive literature ministry", according to this site, in which he "did not make clear" all his sources... sound familiar?

http://www.bdcconline.net/en/stories/n/ni-tuosheng.php

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Yet in addition to Penn-Lewis, others like Margaret Barber, Peace Wang, Dora Yu, Ruth Lee, were publicly waved as "early pillars" in the historical rise of the Little Flock.

So there is clearly some tension there in the narrative, and some glaring unresolved contradictions, but since this is a "lightning rod" issue it's hard to approach. And to do so through the "Asian cultural lens" that I present on this thread makes it even more challenging. I don't have any ideas here, and won't even try my "flaky hypotheses", which may insult everybody involved, to no benefit. But it's an obvious issue in the Lord's Recovery discussion.

And on a related subject which I have addressed on other occasions, the primary modus operandi for "perfecting" the brothers inside the so-called Recovery, was public censure and humiliations passed down from the British missionary, a sister no less, M. E. Barber to Watchman Née. Every subsequent leaders' meeting for the next century was open hunting season for the maximum leader to hone his fine talents in the wild.

To "shoot at" the maximum leader would bring condemnation and excommunication, but for the maximum leader to take aim was to be expected by all. To take a direct hit was simply the means to "take the cross" and be perfected. To refuse was the ultimate failure, with all your friends abandoning you for looking back after you have put your shoulder to the plow.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

why did so many of us completely give our lives over to this man's ideas, and allow our consciousnesses to be totally subsumed by his? What is behind that?

I plead that I was young and dumb ... and seeking God. Then I came to a local church, went to a Lee conference ... and got the "vision." Not realizing that the vision was an artificial replacement for God, and that it was a mirage.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

So did an Asian-flavored variant of this make its way, via Lee, into the USA & S. Cali in the early- and mid-60's and create a kind of mass hysteria, subjectivist "primal scream therapy" charismatic phenomenon?

Yes.

Originally Posted by aron

I say this here, particularly, because as I have noted, Nee & Lee made a big deal out of being influenced by several women's ministries, . . .
. . . in addition to Penn-Lewis, others like Margaret Barber, Peace Wang, Dora Yu, Ruth Lee, were publicly waved as "early pillars" in the historical rise of the Little Flock.

I'm working up a post for the Tomes thread that will address this. Stay tuned.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

To "shoot at" the maximum leader would bring condemnation and excommunication, but for the maximum leader to take aim was to be expected by all. To take a direct hit was simply the means to "take the cross" and be perfected. To refuse was the ultimate failure, with all your friends abandoning you for looking back after you have put your shoulder to the plow.

There lies the double standard.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

...public censure and humiliations passed down from the British missionary, a sister no less, M. E. Barber to Watchman Née. Every subsequent leaders' meeting for the next century was open hunting season for the maximum leader to hone his fine talents in the wild.

To "shoot at" the maximum leader would bring condemnation and excommunication, but for the maximum leader to take aim was to be expected by all...

This is arguably a cultural red flag waving high for all to see, and which was disguised and then received under spiritual guise, under the rubric of "maintaining good order in the church".

It was indeed impressive, coming in from the outside, and seeing a well-oiled machine in which everyone is rabidly shouting agreement with the latest directive from headquarters. But then you'd hear someone mentioning a "rebellion" or a "storm", and when you'd ask what that was they'd look at the floor and say, "We don't talk about it."

This kind of "perfecting" and its obvious side-effects went against the scripture, against common sense, and most importantly against our own consciences, yet we took it, and came back for more. If this is not fallen human culture successfully masquerading as the way of eternal life, what is? Amazing, in retrospect, that so many people got so deeply taken in by this. If I wasn't there I might say they were without discernment, etc. But I was there, and that seems like an awful lot of people lacking discernment, and ignoring their consciences.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

This kind of "perfecting" and its obvious side-effects went against the scripture, against common sense, and most importantly against our own consciences, yet we took it, and came back for more. If this is not fallen human culture successfully masquerading as the way of eternal life, what is? Amazing, in retrospect, that so many people got so deeply taken in by this. If I wasn't there I might say they were without discernment, etc. But I was there, and that seems like an awful lot of people lacking discernment, and ignoring their consciences.

Young people ... By definition ... Are discernment deficient.

That defined me. And perhaps you. It also had nothing to do with our innate intelligence.

And this is why I place nearly all the responsibility on leaders like Lee and Chu and the Blendeds.

They all knew better. We did not because we were young. They actually were wrongly calibrating our consciences.

Young believers really need leaders who will help them to properly calibrate their consciences in the ways of life and righteousness. This is the healthy pattern we see in the scriptures.

And this is why I am so thankful for leaders like John Ingalls. They spoke up against all odds. They were willing to risk it all to be faithful to their conscience.

[Eph]

Originally Posted by aron

I spent some time in the S. Cal. meetings, when the declared focus was to get Caucasian males. Every time someone brought in a young Charlton Heston or Gregory Peck or Kirk Douglas, all the Chinese would crane their necks to see them "Submit" to the "Authority". Was there something cultural behind that? I suspect.

Now, this may seem like pretty flaky conjecture, but I still find it more satisfying than Tomes' work, which merely demonstrates stuff like Lee's plagiarizing, and his crude and amateurish etymology, but never addresses the elephant in the room: why did so many of us completely give our lives over to this man's ideas, and allow our consciousnesses to be totally subsumed by his? What is behind that?

I'd say yes on my own account. During 1986 migration I was in Taipei and helped "CH or GP or KD" settle down. I felt reinforced when I saw caucasians brothers and sisters sitting in the meetings listening to brother Lee. It's a prevailing cultural phenomenon among Asians to worship foreign things and fawn on foreign powers. Then, came you guys doing the opposite, what does that imply?

So I'd like to ask western minds the same question as Aron did above. Why? Furthermore, if not cultural, then? If we can answer it, we might help christian believers who are not suited to stay in the local church to live a healthier and happier life.

[Eph]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It also had nothing to do with our innate intelligence.

And this is why I place nearly all the responsibility on leaders like Lee and Chu and the Blendeds.

They all knew better. We did not because we were young. They actually were wrongly calibrating our consciences.

Young believers really need leaders who will help them to properly calibrate their consciences in the ways of life and righteousness. This is the healthy pattern we see in the scriptures.

I can't agree with you more, Ohio. I was young , miserable, and maybe gullible, seeking the meaning of life. The leaders fed me with sugar coated truth about God and His plan on me. It is no longer easy for me to have God's presence. We need the healthy pattern in the scriptures.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Young people ... By definition ... Are discernment deficient.

That defined me. And perhaps you. It also had nothing to do with our innate intelligence..

Excellent point. And young people like something new. They typically don't say, "gimme that old time religion". They want new and fresh and exciting. So Lee's repackaged Brethren exclusivity, with its idea of being "God's best", combined with the charismatic shouting of a revival and the subjectivity of the inner life, placed an unbalanced pathway before us. And yes, those who lack discernment will pick up the bait. Is it any wonder they focus today exclusively on college freshman? Those are the only ones left for the LSM recruiters. Everyone else sees through their illusion... as awareness said, everyone else can smell the rat.

Originally Posted by Ohio

They actually were wrongly calibrating our consciences.

We wrongly calibrated our own consciences, with the help of our new masters. We accepted the path; we chose it. Yes, we were ignorant. But we still made a choice, and had to live with it.

I understand your point as well, and Jesus also referenced this, but the only way to get off the path is to accept responsibility. I sat in the meetings while ritualized public shaming was going on. I didn't recognize the Asian "losing face" and "saving face" phenomenon for what it was, but my conscience was indeed bothered. Yet I stayed.

And that goes for the rest: ignoring the poor and weak, elevating a man above the flock, etc. etc. We accepted a fallen human culture as our own, because it was new, and different, and we'd been convinced it was scriptural and divine. Even when our consciences were troubled we kept telling ourselves it was the normal church, and was heavenly.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Young believers really need leaders who will help them to properly calibrate their consciences in the ways of life and righteousness. This is the healthy pattern we see in the scriptures.

And this is why I am so thankful for leaders like John Ingalls. They spoke up against all odds. They were willing to risk it all to be faithful to their conscience.

And I definitely agree with you regarding the healthy pattern in the scriptures. The supposedly high peak theology was actually re-packaged 19th century Sunday School lessons for the most part (thx Nigel Tomes for noting this), but we largely missed the healthy patterns. Instead, LSM teachings took NT advice like "subject yourselves to one another" to an unhealthy place. And that goes for the rest of it. We got the letter of Paul, as viewed through Nee and Lee's Asian-colored lens, while the Spirit of Christ receded further into the background.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And this is why I place nearly all the responsibility on leaders like Lee and Chu and the Blendeds.

They all knew better. We did not because we were young. They actually were wrongly calibrating our consciences.

Young believers really need leaders who will help them to properly calibrate their consciences in the ways of life and righteousness. This is the healthy pattern we see in the scriptures.

It has been rightly said that our God-given conscience teaches us "to do the right thing" rather than "to do what is right." In other words, young people can be trained to do evil things, and their conscience will reinforce these actions.

Christian leaders, more than any other on earth, must take a stand for God's righteousness and holiness, in order to properly shepherd the children of God. This was the biggest failure of LC leaders.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Eph

... It is no longer easy for me to have God's presence. We need the healthy pattern in the scriptures.

God is sovereign. We all go through what we go through for His kingdom. I am older now, and hopefully not quite so naive. So I offer my experience, in beginning to apprehend what is not healthy:

Beware of someone who teaches you that everyone else is wrong except them. Once you accept a ministry based on the judgment and condemnation of others, and this ministry begins to abuse you, then where can you go? If accepting a ministry means burning all your bridges with everyone and everything else, beware.

Beware of a ministry that elevates one person above everyone else, and that elevated person is not named Jesus Christ. Only Jesus Christ has passed through death and been given glory. Everyone else is waiting for the Bema, the Judgment Seat of Christ. Don't assume that someone among you is already fully transformed, and beyond error or reproof. Beware of a ministry that pretends everything they do is divine, and that there is no trace of fallen humanity or fallen human culture in their activities.

Beware of a ministry that requires absolute obedience and subjection, and calls any hesitations, considerations or questions as being independent, divisive, and rebellious.

Beware of a ministry that incessantly argues with others, and delights in pointing out the faults of everyone but them. They epitomize the parable of the splinter and the beam.

Beware of a ministry that either adds to God's word, like the Book of Mormon, or disparages God's word, like LSM does with the Psalms and the epistle of James (among others).

Beware of a ministry that is so subjective that it can tell you what is God's move and what is not. "Then God raised up Watchman Nee..." How do you know God didn't also raise up Joel Osteen, or Billy Graham? How is it that everything you do is God's move on the earth today, and everything else is the vain works of fallen men?

Beware of someone who merchandises the gospel, and makes buying books, CDs, DVDs, conference tickets, magazines, pamphlets, and posters equivalent to partaking of and accessing the divine reality. How much money did Jesus make for his teachings? And when Paul collected money it was for the poor saints, not for his ministry.

Beware of a ministry that puts pressure on you to accept them and their ideas. Who did Jesus pressure to be his disciple? No one. If you give in to such pressure, thinking that they will be pleased, later they will pressure you to renounce your family, attend the full-time training, relocate to Sweden, serve full-time, donate for the latest building project, etc. Proverbs 30:15 says, "The leech has two daughters. 'Give! Give!' they cry." You think if you give in to them, they will be satisfied? They will never be satisfied.

Beware of a ministry that gives you a skewed version of history. Beware of a ministry that says that we were all in darkness until Brother X or Sister Y came along and brought us to God's revival, restoration, recovery, etc. Beware of a ministry that says nobody could intrinsically understand the Bible until Brother X or Sister Y got revelations and now it is all so clear to us. Beware.

[Ohio]

Beware of a ministry that grows by proclaiming a return to the pure word of God, only to later warn us of the dangers of returning to the pure word of God without his own interpreted version.

Beware of a ministry that must slander all the prophets God sends to them in order to maintain their own pristine image.

Beware of a ministry that sells grave sites in the "Garden of Transformation" so that members can spend their future next to their leader.

Beware of a ministry ... To be cont

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Beware of a ministry ... To be cont

Don't trust your spiritual care to someone who places someone or something as equivalent to Jesus Christ. There is one God, and Father of all, and there is one Lord of all, Jesus Christ. There is only one way to the Father, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no equivalent to Jesus Christ: the Church is not the way. The ministry of the age is not the way. God's current move is not the way. The ground of oneness is not the way. The Body of Christ is not the way. Jesus Christ is the way.

If you go to a meeting and the focus of the meeting isn't Jesus Christ but rather it is "discipling of the nations" or "the building of the Body" or "the consummation of the age" or "the current speaking of God for His intensified move" or "the intrinsic nature of the Body of Christ", beware.

When the the meeting begins to introspectively focus on itself, rather than on its Savior, Shepherd, Teacher and Friend, then it has clearly been distracted away from the heavenlies where Christ is, away from its Head, and has lost the way. Jesus Christ is the way.

[aron]

Don't trust someone who tells you that the "group" is the only way to be saved. This is to repeat the RCC's failure. Haven't we learned anything? Didn't we already pass through the Protestant Reformation? I thought we were beyond this.

"Nobody who's left the Lord's Recovery has ever amounted to anything." Thank you for informing us of this, O omniscient one.

[aron]

Beware of unhealthy ministry, con't:

Watch out for someone whose ministry regards their flock, their readers, hearers, and disciples, as "mooing cows" and other less-than-salubrious terms.

Once I felt that the Lord communicated something to me, rather pointedly, and told me that the distance between myself and the dullest laggard, in terms of intelligence, wit, and capability, was much less than the distance between myself and God. If I desire God's mercy, shouldn't I also be merciful to those around me? What profit is there in categorizing other people so uncharitably? Don't we see the vast gap between ourselves and God? Then why presume some vast gap between us and our fellow heirs of faith, those who abide here in the flesh with us?

Lee let us know on no uncertain terms, and repeatedly, that we were dull, and unwitting, and failing take advantage of his vision, insight, teaching, and gifts. Why, if we'd just do exactly as he'd told us, a revival would sweep over the globe and the Lord would soon return! But no, unfortunately we were too poor and miserable to grasp what he'd placed front of us. I think Jesus referred to such ministers as shepherds who beat the flock. Be wary -- this minister's assessment of ones who don't match their standard is perilously close to the person who says to others, "Raca", or "You fool!".

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Young people ... By definition ... Are discernment deficient.

That defined me. And perhaps you. It also had nothing to do with our innate intelligence.

And this is why I place nearly all the responsibility on leaders like Lee and Chu and the Blendeds.

They all knew better. We did not because we were young. They actually were wrongly calibrating our consciences.

I can't speak for Chu, but most of the ones who are now the blendeds were either college students or only shortly out of college, so they were actually just as "discernment deficient" in their early days. (Speaking mostly of the Texas contingent, but that is a rather significant portion of the leadership now.) The thing is that they never saw anything different. Just got absorbed into the LRC Borg and now they dish out the mantras.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

God is sovereign. We all go through what we go through for His kingdom.

Two statements. Both true. But I'm not sure we are clear what it means to be sovereign or to go through things "for the kingdom."

Does the fact that God is sovereign mean that everything is designed and willed? Or rather that God has the ability to control when he wills?

Does the fact that everything we go through has an impact on our lives in the kingdom mean that we were ordained to go through those due to His sovereignty? Or does it mean that God will use whatever is provided to shape us? I note that the "work together for good" is tied to "to those who love God." Does this mean that God ordains the "things" or that he works in and through the things for good?

And it says all things work together, not all things are ordained by the sovereign hand of God to work out for our good.

I do not have a problem with God for allowing bad things to happen to good people simply because he does not simply ordain everything. I do not diminish God if I am not on board with every declaration that the thing that just happened (won the lottery or lost a child in a horrible way) is declared to be God's will. I think we are too busy trying to make God out to be in charge of everything. If that is the case, then free will doesn't exist and the existence of evil is truly His doing. And I do not believe either of those. He is sovereign. But he is operating with restraint in this world during this time. Life happens. For those who love Him, who are called according to his purpose, he will work in all of the circumstances for our good (whether or not we understand how).

I do not know the answer, but it creates for me a question about God willing any of us to become part of something as corrupt as the LRC just so we would have these experiences. I am beginning to think that God may not necessarily will that we did it, but is going to work with it since that is what he has been given to work with.

In other words, I am not sure that I can find a positive reason for having become part of the LRC. Not sure that it is what God really wanted. Only evidence of how God worked with and on me during that time and afterwards as I have come to grips with the havoc it generated in my life and the lives around me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

In other words, I am not sure that I can find a positive reason for having become part of the LRC.

So that you could hone your writing skills on this forum!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Watch out for someone whose ministry regards their flock, their readers, hearers, and disciples, as "mooing cows" and other less-than-salubrious terms.

Once I felt that the Lord communicated something to me, rather pointedly, and told me that the distance between myself and the dullest laggard, in terms of intelligence, wit, and capability, was much less than the distance between myself and God. If I desire God's mercy, shouldn't I also be merciful to those around me? What profit is there in categorizing other people so uncharitably? Don't we see the vast gap between ourselves and God? Then why presume some vast gap between us and our fellow heirs of faith, those who abide here in the flesh with us?

Lee let us know on no uncertain terms, and repeatedly, that we were dull, and unwitting, and failing take advantage of his vision, insight, teaching, and gifts. Why, if we'd just do exactly as he'd told us, a revival would sweep over the globe and the Lord would soon return! But no, unfortunately we were too poor and miserable to grasp what he'd placed front of us. I think Jesus referred to such ministers as shepherds who beat the flock. Be wary -- this minister's assessment of ones who don't match their standard is perilously close to the person who says to others, "Raca", or "You fool!".

The more Lee took control of the movement, the worse it got.

So he then condemned us all for all our deficiencies in carrying out all of his failed programs.

Does that not define hypocrisy? Or was that insanity?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So that you could hone your writing skills on this forum!

Not really a good reason. I would much rather be discussing the Evangelical errors of focus on the "decision." The Great Reversal. The thought that our witness is about evangelizing rather than living righteously. About what we say rather than who we are. That service for God is about doing religious work.

That extemporaneous prayers are better than those provided through thoughtful consideration (Psalms and other written prayers). That may be ought to have a portion of our "worship service" in which we confess together. Maybe, just maybe the more liturgical groups have the content or worship down somewhat better than the evangelicals. (Maybe even the RCC to some extent.)

We have turned salvation into the only thing required to then go out and preach the gospel. And we think that preaching the gospel is the only thing we are "sent" to do. So we despise ourselves for not feeling the calling to go to Kazakhstan. We don't have any appreciation for our calling to be Christ's hands and feet in everything we do. With or without religious/spiritual words being spoken.

That would be much more appealing to me.

This is a little bit of a mission to me. And maybe has become an addiction. I keep thinking I won't return, but I always do. But I get interested in less and less of what is going on. Not complaining about where the forum is heading. It just may not always be for me.

I am a little beyond 9 years in these forums now. For my personal tastes and desire, the best has come and somewhat gone. I keep wondering whether I will just continually dabble in it, catching onto some particular thread on occasion, or just fade away.

[HERn]

OBW, before you fade into the ether, would you please recommend some readings along the lines you mentioned in your last post?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not really a good reason.

Maybe you'll make "featured post" one day!

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I do not know the answer, but it creates for me a question about God willing any of us to become part of something as corrupt as the LRC just so we would have these experiences. I am beginning to think that God may not necessarily will that we did it, but is going to work with it since that is what he has been given to work with.

In other words, I am not sure that I can find a positive reason for having become part of the LRC.

I look at it this way. I am glad that I was once in third grade. I am also glad that I am no longer in third grade!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by HERn

OBW, before you fade into the ether, would you please recommend some readings along the lines you mentioned in your last post?

I've read things that I think have serous problems, but that still ask valid questions. And some good stuff from some good sources.

Brian McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy comes to mind. A lot of good issues bubbling forth from someone who would lead us to water everything down if given the chance. One of the primary theologians of the Emergent movement. (Not the Emerging, but the Emergent movement. If you don't know the difference, don't worry about it.)

Mere Churchianity by Michael Spencer. Available on either Amazon or Barnes and Noble (or both) as an ebook. He is prone to hyperbole and paints a darker picture than is probably warranted, but worthy of consideration.

Two books by David Fitch. He is a professor of theology at Northern Seminary (Chicago area). He is quite prone to writing like it is for study within the scholastic theological world, so sometimes uses a lot of excessively expensive words. But once you get through the words you don't understand, very thought provoking. I like that he speaks of the problems within Evangelicalism yet from the standpoint of someone that considers himself to be part of it rather than as a sniper from the outside.

#1 (which I read most of several years ago) The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies. Actually got a lot of thoughts on worship from this one although it is about a lot of things, including expositional preaching (the staple of most Evangelical preachers).

#2 (which I am almost done with right now) The End of Evangelicalism? Discerning a New Faithfulness for Mission. This one picks on the "decision" pretty strongly. Also the "inerrant Bible" and the "Christian nation."

I used to study the Emerging/Emergent movements, but that has fallen to the wayside as the biggest speakers on the radical side (the Emergents) sort of shot themselves in the foot in recent years. That would be Brian McLaren and Rob Bell. Bell with his Love Wins and McLaren when he finally took a stand, I think in A New Kind of Christianity. I have read neither and probably do not intend to even think about it.

I follow blogs by Scot McKnight (Jesus Creed), Chaplain Mike (Internet Monk. Oddly this was the blog of Michael Spencer until he died three or so years ago. It is now written by two or three regulars, mostly a guy who is a hospital chaplain.), Kevin DeYoung (at The Gospel Coalition — very "Reformed" and sometimes dogmatic about it). There are a couple of others that I visit occasionally for interest, but that I have some issues with generally. I also follow a blog by a guy sort of in charge of worship direction for a Baptist organization in the Midwest (not sure if it is SBC or some other Baptist group). Can't remember much about it to lookup right now, but it is not really in the area of the controversies.

Despite my tendency for the logical arguments, I think that the value in apologetics is way overrated. Just too much thinking about stuff and checking off things on an "I believe that" list. Not enough rubber-hits-the-road emphasis on moving beyond that decision (i.e., to sanctification). Besides, I'm not sure how much you believe if you don't actually act like a believer. And people who don't obey aren't acting like it. (And that was pointed at me as well.)

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by aron

So Nee had an "extensive literature ministry", according to this site, in which he "did not make clear" all his sources... sound familiar?

http://www.bdcconline.net/en/stories/n/ni-tuosheng.php

Very interesting link, aron. Is anyone familiar with this site, or with Wright Doyle, the author of this WN bio? Apparently he is a professor at a seminary in Taipei. I wonder if he has more than a passing familiarity w/the history of the LRC in China...

http://www.bdcconline.net/en/about/p...l/wrightdoyle/

[rayliotta]

This thread reminds me of something I posted a few years back. Igzy and a couple others, as I recall, found it interesting. I'm sure many of you have seen it. It's a Nat'l Geographic documentary about N Korea, filmed a few years before Kim Jung-Il's death. 45 mins and well worth the watch. There were a couple of scenes in particular that gave me goosebumps. If I get the time maybe I'll track down the particular minute mark to look for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxLBywKrTf4

[aron]

Interesting post by Dave that I read elsewhere about Oriental spiritual development. "He who overcomes" in Asian cultural reading...

Originally Posted by Dave

The LC was certainly in some upheaval in the late 70s but I think it started with the Revelation training which I attended. Basically because of the notion of the overcomers and unless you were in the top echelon you were short of achieving this superior state. You needed to do more and more to arrive at some spiritual pinnacle. Otherwise you would end up in some kind of purgatory. Kind of like reaching for perfection that the Buddhists try to achieve to get out of the six cycles of ghosts, semi-gods etc.

Also,

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Very interesting link, aron. Is anyone familiar with this site, or with Wright Doyle, the author of this WN bio? Apparently he is a professor at a seminary in Taipei. I wonder if he has more than a passing familiarity w/the history of the LRC in China...

Here is an assessment of the Christian character of Chinese Nationalist leader Chian Kai-Shek, also by Wright Doyle, on the web site. Doyle seems to be familiar with the intersection of politics, society, philosophy, religion, and culture.

"[Chiang Kai-Shek's] lifelong commitment to Confucianism makes some wonder whether his fundamental faith was more a matter of traditional Chinese ethics than Christian belief. Did his extraordinary self-control in public stem from dependence upon God, or upon the inner strength he had long learned to cultivate?

In defense, many have argued that Chiang’s autocratic leadership style is simply the norm for Chinese, and can be found in some of the most outstanding Chinese church leaders even today; that he was surrounded by mortal enemies and spies, and could really trust no one; that his murderous purge of communists in Shanghai was undertaken only after his enemies had formed a rival government, committed atrocities and put a price on his head; that war compels one to make decisions that will cost many lives, in order to save more people; that he matured in his Christian character as he grew older; and that a Christian’s true heart can be known only to God.

If his private diaries, public pronouncements, consistent support of Christian churches and foreign missionaries, and active involvement in the production of Christian literature which we have noted above mean anything, then we may perhaps say that Chiang Kai-shek’s Christian career represents the halting, stumbling, but steady pilgrimage towards the Celestial City of a sinner saved by grace."

Again, I stress that we use culture as part of shared meaning and understanding. It is part of who we are. But Lee sold us a story that he and Watchman Nee were somehow transformed beyond human culture, and the religious society they founded was guided solely by the "pure word" and the Holy Spirit's revelation.

Somehow Lee got beyond all that fallen human culture, and was leading us there as well. That is wishful thinking at best, and when continually pushed in the face of mounting evidence it becomes delusional.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

http://www.concernedbrothers.com/Shi...%20Shields.pdf

David Shields, in 2006, writing on the idea of a "blended" group. Where was its origin, he asked. Howabout maybe in a despotic culture.

So WL the oracle of God said that he was the latest in the and long line, who give the the "sheep" the straight skinny right from the throne. But the oracle also said that he was the last, that he looked and there was none qualified to follow in his giant footsteps.

I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will not welcome us. So when I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us. Not satisfied with that, he even refuses to welcome other believers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.
3 John 9-10

This pattern of Diotrephes seems to be the LSM way.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

But Lee sold us a story that he and Watchman Nee were somehow transformed beyond human culture, and the religious society they founded was guided solely by the "pure word" and the Holy Spirit's revelation.

Somehow Lee got beyond all that fallen human culture, and was leading us there as well. That is wishful thinking at best, and when continually pushed in the face of mounting evidence it becomes delusional.

I'll never forget this conference in Cleveland in the late 80's about CULTURE. what a waste of time that was. All those who braved to share a testimony were shot down as missing the point. A few older brothers mumbled this "bro Lee sees something we don't" kind of nonsense. Actually the whole weekend was an exercise in futility. No one received any help, but we all thought the problem lie with us. All of us were moo cows, and only "Lee could see."

Actually, when I look back, the real situation was hidden from us. Lee had just smeared the reputations of all those who attempted to fellowship with him about the direction of the Recovery. Ingalls et. al. in Anaheim were branded rebellious conspiratorial lepers when all they were doing was speaking their conscience as prophets of The Lord. Lee, on the other hand, had lost the anointing, and put the blame on all of us. He happened to use the topic of culture.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

One of the primary theologians of the Emergent movement.

Some say divergent movement. I don't know but some might say I'm of the subvergent movement.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Some say divergent movement. I don't know but some might say I'm of the subvergent movement.

More like a submergent movement. It's so submerged it's practically invisible or perhaps non-existent. You have a way into the forest of uncertainty, but do you have a way out? Or through? You know, whether Lee was conscious of it or not, there were Taoistic aspects to his thought. Publicly he dismissed Taoism and Buddhism as nonsense. But, his whole professed unwillingness to give advise and the passivity that he professed toward everything as it came to him by the guidance of the spirit was very Taoist. More religious Taoism than philosophical. The whole practice of ridding your house of demonic items by burning cherished items was very feng shui. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feng_shui

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

You know, whether Lee was conscious of it or not, there were Taoistic aspects to his thought. Publicly he dismissed Taoism and Buddhism as nonsense. But, his whole professed unwillingness to give advise and the passivity that he professed toward everything as it came to him by the guidance of the spirit was very Taoist. More religious Taoism than philosophical.

When John's Logos is translated for the Chinese version it's translated as the Tao. As a result, in the Chinese mind they picture the Logos as the Tao. So the Chinese syncretize their religious symbols right off the bat when reading the gospel of John. It's cultural. It can't be helped.

I'm just tossing out some thoughts here.

It can't be said that Lee was a Taoist. He was a Taoist like I'm a Southern Baptist. It's instilled in us, unconsciously, so to speak, or subconsciously, prolly, from birth.

To say that we can just uninstall it, like it's a computer program or something, is a fallacy. The culture we're raised in becomes part of our being. It becomes us, and we become it. And we don't see it any more than we can see our eyeballs when looking thru them. We look thru our culture like that.

I'd believe Lee's claim to be free from culture if he could have gotten free from his broken Chinese English. He didn't, and couldn't.

So cuz he couldn't help it, Lee was a Taoist in Christian clothing.

I wish I knew that back then. I should have. I was a fan of C.S. Lewis, who in his book "The Abolition of Man," speaks of the Tao:

"The Chinese also speak of a great thing (the greatest thing) called the Tao. It is the reality beyond all predicates, the abyss that was before the Creator Himself. It is Nature, it is the Way, the Road. It is the Way in which the universe goes on, the Way in which things everlastingly emerge, stilly and tranquilly, into space and time. It is also the Way which every man should tread in imitation of that cosmic and supercosmic progression, conforming all activities to that great exemplar."

And:

"I myself do not enjoy the society of small children: because I speak from within the Tao I recognize this as a defect in myself—just as a man may have to recognize that he is tone deaf or colour blind."

But cuz I was so busy in the local church life I never got around to reading Abolition of Man.

At least C.S. Lewis admitted openly his association with the Tao. Unlike Lee. Who snuck it in on us, importing it from China, into our soul in a hidden subconscious way, subliminally, if you will, culturally. Lee was a closeted Taoist.

To bad. As it turns out, like C.S. Lewis, I love the Tao. And I believe that reading >The Tao De Ching< can improve the Christian walk. Did I get this love for the Tao subliminally, perchance, from listening to Lee for a decade?

Maybe I should be careful. Being raised in a culture of the Tao didn't seem to do much for Lees' Christian walk. So maybe it's not all that.

You decide. Taste and see that the Tao is good. Ha.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

You decide. Taste and see that the Tao is good. Ha.

I have contemplated the Tao every day this year. Philosophical Taoism is central to such meager spiritual practice as I have these days. I believe the practice is compatible with the negative theology of the Western Christian mystics, a claim I can support with evidence if necessary. But I have no need to discuss Taoism here except as it pertains to the OP topic of this thread since, after all its origin is Chinese and it has had an enduring influence on Chinese culture.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I have contemplated the Tao every day this year. Philosophical Taoism is central to such meager spiritual practice as I have these days. I believe the practice is compatible with the negative theology of the Western Christian mystics, a claim I can support with evidence if necessary. But I have no need to discuss Taoism here except as it pertains to the OP topic of this thread since, after all its origin is Chinese and it has had an enduring influence on Chinese culture.

See. Lee subliminally infected you with the Tao. Prolly aron too. And all the rest out here. Some. however, may be resisting that flow.

Don't take sides bro Zeek.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

See. Lee subliminally infected you with the Tao. Prolly aron too. And all the rest out here. Some. however, may be resisting that flow.

Don't take sides bro Zeek.

You believe in subliminal infecting and worming. There's a simpler, better supported explanation. I was already aware of Taoism before I joined the Local Church otherwise I wouldn't have observed the similarities between Lee and Taoism when I was there. And, even then, when Lee denied the influence of Chinese culture on his thinking, it occurred to me that he was probably simply not conscious of what seemed so evident to many others. I remember one brother who observed that the Eastern influence of the "Ministry" was what gave it its unique flavor as opposed to Christianity. Even though I wanted to disagree with him, I couldn't see how to refute it in view of the evidence.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I was already aware of Taoism before I joined the Local Church

Well you never told me about it. You left me in the dark.

But then again, I probably appeared too fanatical for the recovery, for you to bring it up. I was, in fact, fanatical. Or maybe we failed to have enough alone fellowship time together, for you to find opportunity to confide in me. Did you share it with Dave?

Hey, Dave, were you aware of Lee's Taoistic cultural influence, back in Detroit days?

Back to Zeek:

"The Tao," I would have prolly responded, "Why go back to the Tao, when we're on the spearhead of God's Recovery," I'd likely say to dismiss your sharing of spotting Taoism in Witness Lee. (But like Eve to the tree, I would have run to the library (no internet back then, or even personal computers) to look into Taoism).

What an idiot I was back then. And all the while, as you recognized, the Tao was being slipped into my subconscious, by a crazy little Chinaman.

LSM doesn't even realize, to this day -- it has slipped past even Kangas' sharp mind -- that they're subliminally pushing Taoism by publishing Lee's books. But it's there.

I should be appreciative. I'm very glad the Lord eventually led me to the Tao De Ching; where I can get the unadulterated Tao (if there is such a thing), a purity not coming out of Lee.

And one more thing about the Tao. The Tao, and the Tao religion, are two different things. The Tao religion can take many shapes ; even, perchance, the shape of a Christian Recovery.

[zeek]

Well, while Lee's teaching may have been influenced by Taoism, he, of course, didn't endorse it. Quite the contrary what he said about it was usually either merely factual or derogatory. For example:

Taoism is even more difficult to understand. Taoism speaks about the wind, saying that the wind is like a breath and comparing human life to the wind or a breath. Thus, Taoism does not talk about God either. Therefore, neither Confucianism nor Buddhism nor Taoism talks about God.

Speaking for God by Witness Lee

Strange that he did not see the parallel to Christian doctrine of spirit.

Although Antichrist will exalt himself above God, actually he will be used by God to destroy two religions—Judaism and Catholicism.

This is similar to the destruction of religion under communism in China. Although the communists oppose God, they do not realize that they have been used by God to demolish so many different religions, such as Buddhism and Taoism.

Life-Study of Revelation by Witness Lee.

What about Taoism and the teachings of Confucius? Developed by thoughtful Chinese, Taoism teaches vanity; it has nothing solid. Not only does Taoism have no God; it has nothing substantial. Hence, it is not a religion. Likewise, the teachings of Confucius should not be regarded as a religion, because Confucius did not teach people to worship God. Confucius did mention God a few times in his writings, calling Him the King of the heavens, or even the heavens. Even though Confucius mentioned God, his teachings are ethical, not religious. Therefore, Buddhism is nonsensical, Taoism is vain, and the teachings of Confucius are ethical.

Basic Training by Witness Lee

Taoism teaches how a person can reach a state of perfect peace and become immortal, but it is not related to worshipping God.

The Exercise of the Spirit and the Building of God by Witness Lee. His statement here is true with regard to Religious Taoism but not philosophical Taoism

But, he does sound more positive about Taoism here:

We told the people that life in the world usurps them. Some of the philosophers taught the same thing. For example, Taoism teaches simplicity and selflessness. We also told people that the enjoyment of this world is actually a form of death. Some philosophers taught this also.

Life-Study of Exodus by Witness Lee.

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

While Lee's teaching may have been influenced by Taoism, he, of course, didn't endorse it. Quite the contrary what he said about it was usually either merely factual or derogatory.

Actually Lee was derogatory toward everything and everyone. So he's being pretty mild with Taoism, actually.

I once noted the gospel's similarities with the religions of the east, while reading a book on spirituality by Ralph Waldo Emerson, who was influenced by Oriental philosophy and did much to import it to the American continent in the early 19th century. Emerson was a Harvard Divinity School graduate who more or less renounced formal religion, and embraced the cosmos. I found his writings to be quite good, but none of it either nullified Christ, nor replaced it, but just sort of presented it in a fresh way. But of course Emerson's orientally-tinged cosmos missed the death and resurrection of Christ. In that it was certainly not Christian.

I've several times here boiled down the philosophy of Christ to "do unto others as you would have God do to you" or some variant. That "what you do is what you get" philosophy is rather oriental, actually, and it Christian as well. Much hay has been made of the connection between Plato's philosophy and that of the NT, and I wonder why less is made of the similarities between Buddhism and Christianity. They both seem to me to say, "What you do is what you get."

Of course the crucial difference in Christianity is that we believe that Christ fulfilled the Divine Mandate, not only for God but for us the fallen. Christ is the One whose death redeemed mankind, we who fell from grace. Now it is faith that begins the process of restoration.

Yet, marching right behind that faith, is the irrevocable philosophy of, "What you do is what you get." Believe, yes; but believe and obey. Don't be a hearer of the word but a doer as well. Faith without works is dead. If you do not forgive you will not be forgiven. Etc.

The main advantage of Christianity to Buddhism as I see it is twofold. First of course we have Christ to lead the way. Jesus the Nazarene is the irreplaceable Shepherd, Guide, and Friend, Teacher, Master, and Captain of the army of the Lord. Second, as Paul said, "I die daily"; we don't need to wait for the end of this life to see if we'll become a frog or a bat or a rajah. We can die today, and move "to the next level" so to speak. I find this preferable.

[aron]

Culture is the currency with which we interact. It forms the shared meanings that we use to make sense of the world and share this sense with each other.

In the NT we see Greek philosophy/mythology in several places. The gates of Hades were supposedly the portal to the realm of the dead. They were made of adamantine, the hardest substance known, and once the dead went past them they never returned.

Jesus said that these adamantine gates could not withstand his ekklesia. If two or more of us agree on earth, the gates are broken and the dead are released. Very suggestive. And I believe that the hearers of Jesus would have this understanding when He spoke of the gates of Hades.

The reference to Tartarus by Peter is similar. It is a word picture, with an already established meaning, which Peter knows that his readers will have. So what if it traces roots to Greek mythology? The point is that Peter has something to say and he uses the currency of the day. It is just like if I say "cool" and if it is the year 1950 that means temperature and in the year 1975 if means an exclamation of praise. Meaning is a culturally-derived process. It is shared.

So there is nothing wrong per se with an American-flavored church group or a Chinese-flavored Christian philosophy. But let's call it what it is. Lee sold it as something else, and therein lies the problem. We spent an undue amount of time and energy in the Local Church/Lord's recovery pretending it was something that it's not.

(Now, having said that, the influence of the British Christianity on the young Nee and Lee is of course enormous. But again let's face it and not just say something stupid like "Then God raised up Watchman Nee to restore the vision of the proper church" or some other dreck.)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well, while Lee's teaching may have been influenced by Taoism, he, of course, didn't endorse it.

So Lee was a self-hating, self-loathing, Taoist/Buddhist.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Actually Lee was derogatory toward everything and everyone.

Correction then : Lee was a everybody-hating, everybody loathing, Taoist/Buddhist, pretending to be a Christian above all others.

"Wise men say, only fools rush in . . ."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

(Now, having said that, the influence of the British Christianity on the young Nee and Lee is of course enormous. But again let's face it and not just say something stupid like "Then God raised up Watchman Nee to restore the vision of the proper church" or some other dreck.)

I have stated before that both Nee and Lee, in both teaching and practice, began as Open Brethren and finished as Exclusive Brethren. Both began with the emphasis on local congregations being served by a multitude of ministries, and both ended with all the local churches existing only to build up their own unique ministry.

Not sure if this is a Chinese or British cultural phenomenon.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not sure if this is a Chinese or British cultural phenomenon.

It's a blending, oddly enough.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

Actually Lee was derogatory toward everything and everyone. So he's being pretty mild with Taoism, actually.

That may be. It's a relative quantitative claim that would require comprehensive longitudinal documentation of everything Lee ever said about everything and everyone. I doubt that anyone has all that info but God. I'll withhold judgment until God weighs in on the matter and then informs me. I'm not expecting that to happen any time soon. You?

I once noted the gospel's similarities with the religions of the east, while reading a book on spirituality by Ralph Waldo Emerson, who was influenced by Oriental philosophy and did much to import it to the American continent in the early 19th century. Emerson was a Harvard Divinity School graduate who more or less renounced formal religion, and embraced the cosmos. I found his writings to be quite good, but none of it either nullified Christ, nor replaced it, but just sort of presented it in a fresh way. But of course Emerson's orientally-tinged cosmos missed the death and resurrection of Christ. In that it was certainly not Christian.

Thank you for reminding me to embrace the cosmos. Kind of like those "Have you hugged your kids today" bumper stickers. The Tao Te Ching teaches that is a good thing. Sometimes the Cosmos hugs back.

I've several times here boiled down the philosophy of Christ to "do unto others as you would have God do to you" or some variant. That "what you do is what you get" philosophy is rather oriental, actually, and it Christian as well. Much hay has been made of the connection between Plato's philosophy and that of the NT, and I wonder why less is made of the similarities between Buddhism and Christianity. They both seem to me to say, "What you do is what you get."

Actually much has been made of the similarities between Christianity and Buddhism. I have several books making that proposition if you are interested. But here is evidence against it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...d_Christianity

Of course the crucial difference in Christianity is that we believe that Christ fulfilled the Divine Mandate, not only for God but for us the fallen. Christ is the One whose death redeemed mankind, we who fell from grace. Now it is faith that begins the process of restoration.

That's a principle of The Faith. I can scarcely believe it. If I am judged by what I think about that proposition any given minute, then i'm standing on shaky ground. Only if God accepts the unacceptable do I have a prayer in hell.

Yet, marching right behind that faith, is the irrevocable philosophy of, "What you do is what you get." Believe, yes; but believe and obey. Don't be a hearer of the word but a doer as well. Faith without works is dead. If you do not forgive you will not be forgiven. Etc.

You mean like karma? That may be an instance of gambler's fallacy. I tend get angry and then let it go quickly. But, I don't want to be tested on it. There's some bad stuff going on out there.

The main advantage of Christianity to Buddhism as I see it is twofold. First of course we have Christ to lead the way. Jesus the Nazarene is the irreplaceable Shepherd, Guide, and Friend, Teacher, Master, and Captain of the army of the Lord. Second, as Paul said, "I die daily"; we don't need to wait for the end of this life to see if we'll become a frog or a bat or a rajah. We can die today, and move "to the next level" so to speak. I find this preferable.

Buddhists have Buddha to lead the way. He's all those things too. Buddhists die daily too. Figuratively and actually, just like Christians. Your depiction of a Buddhist afterlife is inaccurate. The early Buddhist texts make it clear that there is no permanent consciousness that moves from life to life. Gautama Buddha taught that that there is no irreducible self tying these lives together and that all compounded things are subject to dissolution, including all the components of the human person and personality.

[rayliotta]

I remember, as a kid, being told about a conference in which Witness Lee had admonished everyone that culture is a bad thing, culture separates us from God, etc. Apparently, the next day, after everyone had spent the evening feeling bad about their natural selves w/their natural culture, WL then advised that actually, we do need our culture. And that culture "keeps" us and God uses it.

Perhaps the same conf, Ohio?

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'll never forget this conference in Cleveland in the late 80's about CULTURE. what a waste of time that was. All those who braved to share a testimony were shot down as missing the point. A few older brothers mumbled this "bro Lee sees something we don't" kind of nonsense. Actually the whole weekend was an exercise in futility. No one received any help, but we all thought the problem lie with us. All of us were moo cows, and only "Lee could see."

Actually, when I look back, the real situation was hidden from us. Lee had just smeared the reputations of all those who attempted to fellowship with him about the direction of the Recovery. Ingalls et. al. in Anaheim were branded rebellious conspiratorial lepers when all they were doing was speaking their conscience as prophets of The Lord. Lee, on the other hand, had lost the anointing, and put the blame on all of us. He happened to use the topic of culture.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

You believe in subliminal infecting and worming.

And what do you think, zeek? If not "subliminal infecting and worming", what do you believe re the power of ideas, esp subtle ones, instilled in a person's mind over a period of years/decades?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I remember, as a kid, being told about a conference in which Witness Lee had admonished everyone that culture is a bad thing, culture separates us from God, etc. Apparently, the next day, after everyone had spent the evening feeling bad about their natural selves w/their natural culture, WL then advised that actually, we do need our culture. And that culture "keeps" us and God uses it.

Perhaps the same conf, Ohio?

Perhaps? Ever been to Cleveland? Or perhaps Lee went city to city with the same bad teachings.

I do remember feeling pretty bad before I felt better. I somewhat remember culture functioning like the law as a "child conductor."

After this time Lee found his stride with the "high peak theology."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

And what do you think, zeek? If not "subliminal infecting and worming", what do you believe re the power of ideas, esp subtle ones, instilled in a person's mind over a period of years/decades?

Children are inculcated into their culture of origin from the time of conception. Their brains are very plastic and malleable and they have not learned to think critically. Critical thinking is rarely taught to anyone prior to college and even then it is usually only an optional elective course. So parents and teachers are prominent players in the indoctrination process. Now, Witness Lee stood against critical thinking in doctrine and practice even for adults. He demanded rote memorization of his words through a process of repetition and chanting which we called prayer reading.

So I don't deny that subliminal learning may take place. Nor do I deny the power of suggestion or even the effect of memes. The greater problem is that people accept propositions that are unsupportable by evidence or rational argument. I favor critical thinking, a skill that many adults are deficient in. Critical thinking should be taught to everyone in high school. But, it would be inconvenient because critical thinkers do not make docile consumers of whatever the dominant authority is putting out like we were in the local churches.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

. . . Witness Lee stood against critical thinking in doctrine and practice even for adults.
. . . So I don't deny that subliminal learning . . .

Witness Lee stood against critical thinking, methinks, because subliminal forces worked better.

But looking back, because a Full-Duplex transmission was going on -- it is confusing to put it together -- the problem could have been me, or Lee. Or both.

I wasn't seeking critical thinking back then. I was seeking God and His eternal purpose. And I thought I could get there by jumping into the subliminal waters that pervaded the milieu in the local church.

Praying was a subliminal activity, especially group prayer. Pray-reading was subliminal, especially group pray-reading. Pray-reading was chock-full of subliminal messaging. Calling on the Lord was subliminal activity, especially group calling. Meetings were full of subliminal messaging.

And I dove right in. Thinking it, diving into the subliminal waters, were working me into God and His purpose.

What a delusion! And yes, I thought my way out of it.

That's why I'm a critical thinker today. It's a defense mechanism against falling for anything like the local church.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Witness Lee stood against critical thinking, methinks, because subliminal forces worked better.

But looking back, because a Full-Duplex transmission was going on -- it is confusing to put it together -- the problem could have been me, or Lee. Or both.

I wasn't seeking critical thinking back then. I was seeking God and His eternal purpose. And I thought I could get there by jumping into the subliminal waters that pervaded the milieu in the local church.

Praying was a subliminal activity, especially group prayer. Pray-reading was subliminal, especially group pray-reading. Pray-reading was chock-full of subliminal messaging. Calling on the Lord was subliminal activity, especially group calling. Meetings were full of subliminal messaging.

And I dove right in. Thinking it, diving into the subliminal waters, were working me into God and His purpose.

What a delusion! And yes, I thought my way out of it.

That's why I'm a critical thinker today. It's a defense mechanism against falling for anything like the local church.

I think sub-rational would be a better term for most of Lee's indoctrination techniques. I mean I haven't seen any evidence that he was injecting his ideas in backwards English on the music tapes LSM was putting out. Subliminal means the information is disseminated by sensory stimuli below an individual's threshold for conscious perception. The techniques Lee used were things like promoting chanting to suspend the use of logical thought processes that might detect the fallacies in his propositions and denigrating anyone who would not conform. That's not subliminal. You're misusing the term.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think sub-rational would be a better term for most of Lee's indoctrination techniques. I mean I haven't seen any evidence that he was injecting his ideas in backwards English on the music tapes LSM was putting out. Subliminal means the information is disseminated by sensory stimuli below an individual's threshold for conscious perception. The techniques Lee used were things like promoting chanting to suspend the use of logical thought processes that might detect the fallacies in his propositions and denigrating anyone who would not conform. That's not subliminal. You're misusing the term.

Tomāto Tomäto ... okay sub-rational ... if you so prefer. 'Cept subliminal carries more juju juice. And don't tell me there weren't juju in the LC.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Tomāto Tomäto ... okay sub-rational ... if you so prefer. 'Cept subliminal carries more juju juice. And don't tell me there weren't juju in the LC.

I was being facetious with "sub-rational" but Lee et al used a variety of techniques to appeal to people psychologically rather than to appeal to reason. These techniques included “milieu control,” “loading the language,” “demand for purity,” “confession,”“mystical manipulation,” “doctrine over person,” “sacred science” and “dispensing of existence” as described by Lifton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jay_Lifton

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I was being facetious with "sub-rational"

Maybe irrational. But that doesn't convey the spook factor, working in the LC system.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

I was being facetious with "sub-rational" but Lee et al used a variety of techniques to appeal to people psychologically rather than to appeal to reason. These techniques included “milieu control,” “loading the language,” “demand for purity,” “confession,”“mystical manipulation,” “doctrine over person,” “sacred science” and “dispensing of existence” as described by Lifton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jay_Lifton

There are surely people who have attended one or two LC meetings, in various places over the years, and left saying that the meeting made them uncomfortable, or that there was something strange about it that they just couldn't put their finger on. Folks who have this reaction from the get-go usually don't come back, methinks.

Maybe this is the kind of thing zeek and awareness are trying to find an adequate term for? It's hard to put our finger on how to describe something that's hard to put our finger on, eh?

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

That may be. It's a relative quantitative claim that would require comprehensive longitudinal documentation of everything Lee ever said about everything and everyone.

I have an easier proposition. If someone can show Lee giving props (respect, acknowledgment, recognition) to anyone except his MOTAs then my statement fails.

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

Buddhists have Buddha to lead the way. He's all those things too.

By way of analogy, suppose you fall madly in love. Then your friends come by, offering diversions and amusements. Suddenly, you are no longer interested. Your friends are still the fine people you once enjoyed, but now your orientation is altered.

Buddhists may have Buddha to guide. That may be real. But the Christian has chosen Jesus. Had I been born elsewhere, I may have chosen differently; I understand. But I chose Jesus.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

There are surely people who have attended one or two LC meetings, in various places over the years, and left saying that the meeting made them uncomfortable, or that there was something strange about it that they just couldn't put their finger on. Folks who have this reaction from the get-go usually don't come back, methinks.

Maybe this is the kind of thing zeek and awareness are trying to find an adequate term for? It's hard to put our finger on how to describe something that's hard to put our finger on, eh?

Lifton hits on the subliminal juju spook factor with his:

Mystical Manipulation. The manipulation of experiences that appears spontaneous but is, in fact, planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority, spiritual advancement, or some exceptional talent or insight that sets the leader and/or group apart from humanity, and that allows reinterpretation of historical events, scripture, and other experiences. Coincidences and happenstance oddities are interpreted as omens or prophecies.

And in his book "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China," he speaks to this thread:

"Lifton also interviewed 15 Chinese who had fled their homeland after having been subjected to indoctrination in Chinese universities. From these interviews, which in some cases occurred regularly for over a year, Lifton identified the tactics used by Chinese communists to cause drastic shifts in one's opinions and personality and "brainwash" American soldiers into making demonstrably false assertions."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

I have an easier proposition. If someone can show Lee giving props (respect, acknowledgment, recognition) to anyone except his MOTAs then my statement fails.

Right. He praised J. N. Darby, for example, as in Three Aspects of the Church: Book 2, The Course of the Church. He probably considered him the MOTA. I suppose that in Lee's mind the earlier MOTA's were his only peers.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right. He praised J. N. Darby, for example, as in Three Aspects of the Church: Book 2, The Course of the Church. He probably considered him the MOTA. I suppose that in Lee's mind the earlier MOTA's were his only peers.

Didn't he call Luther the minister of his age, and others after him, up to Watchman Nee?

In reading a little about the history of Christianity in China, seems the Chinese have a real weakness for prophesies concerning the end times, and have been swept up in Christian movements time and again that traffic in them. (Why?)

Well Nee and Lee must have taken notice. All Lee's MOTA's were to do with the Lord's Recovery: the final stage of the end times.

And we had a weakness for it too. Ha!

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Lifton in his book "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China," he speaks to this:

"Lifton also interviewed 15 Chinese who had fled their homeland after having been subjected to indoctrination in Chinese universities. From these interviews, which in some cases occurred regularly for over a year, Lifton identified the tactics used by Chinese communists to cause drastic shifts in one's opinions and personality and "brainwash" American soldiers into making demonstrably false assertions."

Think of the young Lily Hsu: she had Mao's Red Army on the one side, and Nee's Little Flock on the other; both claiming absolute mastery of not only her body but her heart, mind and soul as well.

[zeek]

A process of theosis or divinization like that of Witness Lee or the Eastern Orthodox Church is central to the religious Taoism of the Chinese.

"Unlike Chuang Tzu's way of indifference toward life and death, the Classic of Great Peace declared that between heaven and earth longevity is of the most value and it is possible for everyone to reach immortality. It argued that among slaves and servant girls the wiser can become good people, among good people those who like to study can become virtuous people, among virtuous people those who study ceaselessly can become sages, and among sages those who study ceaselessly can recognize the door of the way of heaven. If after entering the way they still study ceaselessly they become immortals; if they continue they reach the truth;if they continue further they become gods; and if they continue still further, they become the same shape as the Emperor of Heaven. [Our Religions. Edited by Arvind Sharma. Copyright 1993 by Harper Collins Publishers., Chapter 4 Taoism by Liu Xiaogan, Ph.D. visiting scholar in the Department of Religion at Princeton University, page 256]

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Didn't he call Luther the minister of his age, and others after him, up to Watchman Nee?

In reading a little about the history of Christianity in China, seems the Chinese have a real weakness for prophesies concerning the end times, and have been swept up in Christian movements time and again that traffic in them. (Why?)

Well Nee and Lee must have taken notice. All Lee's MOTA's were to do with the Lord's Recovery: the final stage of the end times.

And we had a weakness for it too. Ha!

I don't find an explicit statement that Martin Luther was a MOTA from Witness Lee. One might infer that since Lee does recognize him as an instrument of the Lord's Recovery in his day. Coincidentally, Lee cites a Taoist proverb when speaking of Martin Luther :

The Chinese have a famous proverb that says, “As soon as a thing reaches its extremity, it reverses its course.” In other words, when the darkest hour comes, daybreak is at hand. The corrupted, dark situation stirred up a number of people who had a pure heart for the Lord. For example, Martin Luther was provoked by the Roman Catholic Church before he began to seek the truth. Martin Luther was a central figure in the Reformation... [Three Aspects of the Church: Book 2, The Course of the Church]

Lee's acknowledgment that the Taoist "principle of return" is true contradicts his statements elsewhere that Taoism is nonsense.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Didn't he call Luther the minister of his age, and others after him, up to Watchman Nee?

In reading a little about the history of Christianity in China, seems the Chinese have a real weakness for prophesies concerning the end times, and have been swept up in Christian movements time and again that traffic in them. (Why?)

Well Nee and Lee must have taken notice. All Lee's MOTA's were to do with the Lord's Recovery: the final stage of the end times.

And we had a weakness for it too. Ha!

The Plymouth Brethren also began in the late 1820's out of an intense interest in the prophecies.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Plymouth Brethren also began in the late 1820's out of an intense interest in the prophecies.

And while they were busy in Ireland, William Miller was busy with prophecies here in the states, creating The Great Disappointment.

The end of times prophecies have been used to deceive and fleece the sheep for a couple thousand years.

Basically, life sucks, so we hope in something better after the end of time. And that's probably why those in China are an easy market for believing in the end of time prophecies.

The latest, Harold Camping, now gone to not be with the Lord (just kidding), made over $90 million ... and he knew to reach out to the Asian mind to get it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Basically, life sucks,

Compared to what?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And while they were busy in Ireland, William Miller was busy with prophecies here in the states, creating The Great Disappointment.

The end of times prophecies have been used to deceive and fleece the sheep for a couple thousand years.

Basically, life sucks, so we hope in something better after the end of time. And that's probably why those in China are an easy market for believing in the end of time prophecies.

The latest, Harold Camping, now gone to not be with the Lord (just kidding), made over $90 million ... and he knew to reach out to the Asian mind to get it.

It wasn't Miller, but Edward Irving who introduced the early Brethren leaders to end time prophecies.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right. He praised J. N. Darby, for example, as in Three Aspects of the Church: Book 2, The Course of the Church. He probably considered him the MOTA. I suppose that in Lee's mind the earlier MOTA's were his only peers.

I grew up learning this lineage, roughly speaking, as follows --

Martin Luther
Count Zinzendorf
Father Fenelon
Madame Guyon
John Nelson Darby
Watchman Nee
Witness Lee

Nee and Lee, of course, were the heirs to the line of the Recovery. What I remember from childhood was laid out by Watchman Nee as far back as 1934 at a conference in Shanghai -- remember this booklet? --

What are We?

(Of course, Watchman Nee and Witness Lee had not yet been added to the lineage by 1934.)

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't find an explicit statement that Martin Luther was a MOTA from Witness Lee. One might infer that since Lee does recognize him as an instrument of the Lord's Recovery in his day.

From what I grew up learning, Luther was paramount to the history of "the Lord's Recovery". He kicked it off after so many centuries of "loss" (the antithesis of "recovery"). As references, see the following links. This is what I remember hearing so many times --

http://www.ministrysamples.org/excer...-THE-AGES.HTML
http://www.local-church-gods-revelat...hes/index.html

Nee and Lee's claim to fame within the present-day "Lord's Recovery" movement is that they are the successors to this lineage. Plain and simple.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by awareness

"Lifton also interviewed 15 Chinese who had fled their homeland after having been subjected to indoctrination in Chinese universities. From these interviews, which in some cases occurred regularly for over a year, Lifton identified the tactics used by Chinese communists to cause drastic shifts in one's opinions and personality and "brainwash" American soldiers into making demonstrably false assertions."

Interesting. Care to include what these "tactics" were?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Interesting. Care to include what these "tactics" were?

That would require more reading ... Ha.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

From what I grew up learning, Luther was paramount to the history of "the Lord's Recovery".

Nee and Lee's claim to fame within the present-day "Lord's Recovery" movement is that they are the successors to this lineage. Plain and simple.

I think it goes without question in the minds of the LC faithful that Martin Luther was the first pioneer MOTA.

[awareness]

Because we're discussing the Asian mind and the Western mind, I think it might be helpful to compare Jesus to how they consider Buddha in China:

According to the Fo-pen-hing, when Buddha was about to descend from heaven, to be born into the world, the angels in heaven, calling to the inhabitants of the earth, said: “Ye mortals! adorn your earth! for Bôdhisatwa, the great Mahâsatwa, not long hence shall descend from Tusita to be born amongst you! make ready and prepare! Buddha is about to descend and be born!”

The womb that bears a Buddha is like a casket in which a relic is placed; no other being can be conceived in the same receptacle; the usual secretions are not formed; and from the time of conception, Maha-maya [the virgin Mary motif - pre Mary] was free from passion, and lived in the strictest continence.

M. l’Abbé Huc, a French Missionary, in speaking of Buddha, says: “In the eyes of the Buddhists, this personage is sometimes a man and sometimes a god, or rather both one and the other, a divine incarnation, a man-god; who came into the world to enlighten men, to redeem them, and to indicate to them the way of safety.

“The miraculous birth of Buddha, his life and instructions, contain a great number of the moral and dogmatic truths professed in Christianity.” This Angel-Messiah was regarded as the divinely chosen and incarnate messenger, the vicar of God. He is addressed as “God of Gods,” “Father of the World,” “Almighty and All-knowing Ruler,” and “Redeemer of All.” He is called also “The Holy One,” “The Author of Happiness,” “The Lord,” “The Possessor of All,” “He who is Omnipotent and Everlastingly to be Contemplated,” “The Supreme Being, the Eternal One,” “The Divinity worthy to be Adored by the most praiseworthy of Mankind.” He is addressed by Amora—one of his followers—thus: “Reverence be unto thee in the form of Buddha! Reverence be unto thee, the Lord of the Earth! Reverence be unto thee, an incarnation of the Deity! Of the Eternal One! Reverence be unto thee, O God, in the form of the God of Mercy; the dispeller of pain and trouble, the Lord of all things, the deity, the guardian of the universe, the emblem of mercy.” The incarnation of Gautama Buddha is recorded to have been brought about by the descent of the divine power called The “Holy Ghost” upon the Virgin Maya. This Holy Ghost, or Spirit, descended in the form of a white elephant [a big white critter. Unlike the little white critter, a Dove]. The Tikas explain this as indicating power and wisdom. The incarnation of the angel destined to become Buddha took place in a spiritual manner. The Elephant is the symbol of power and wisdom; and Buddha was considered the organ of divine power and wisdom, as he is called in the Tikas. For these reasons Buddha is described by Buddhistic legends as having descended from heaven in the form of an Elephant to the place where the Virgin Maya was. But according to Chinese Buddhistic writings, it was the Holy Ghost, or Shing-Shin, who descended on the Virgin Maya.

When Buddha avatar descended from the regions of the souls, and entered the body of the Virgin Maya, her womb suddenly assumed the appearance of clear, transparent crystal, in which Buddha appeared, beautiful as a flower, kneeling and reclining on his hands. Buddha’s representative on earth is the Dalai Lama, or Grand Lama, the High Priest of the Tartars. He is regarded as the vicegerent of God, with power to dispense divine blessings on whomsoever he will, and is considered among the Buddhists to be a sort of divine being. He is the Pope of Buddhism.


Doane, T. W. (2011-12-14). Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions - Annotated and Illustrated (Kindle Locations 4935-4939). . Kindle Edition.
Book available upon request.

Note: There's not much difference between our present Dalai Lama and our present Catholic Pope.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I grew up learning this lineage, roughly speaking, as follows --

Martin Luther
Count Zinzendorf
Father Fenelon
Madame Guyon
John Nelson Darby
Watchman Nee
Witness Lee

Nee and Lee, of course, were the heirs to the line of the Recovery. What I remember from childhood was laid out by Watchman Nee as far back as 1934 at a conference in Shanghai -- remember this booklet? --

What are We?

(Of course, Watchman Nee and Witness Lee had not yet been added to the lineage by 1934.)

Amen brother. That is what I was taught during my time with the local churches as well.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

From what I grew up learning, Luther was paramount to the history of "the Lord's Recovery". He kicked it off after so many centuries of "loss" (the antithesis of "recovery"). As references, see the following links. This is what I remember hearing so many times --

http://www.ministrysamples.org/excer...-THE-AGES.HTML
http://www.local-church-gods-revelat...hes/index.html

Nee and Lee's claim to fame within the present-day "Lord's Recovery" movement is that they are the successors to this lineage. Plain and simple.

Again, Lee taught me the same thing. However, on a cursory search of the LSM website, I did not find an actual instance where Witness Lee calls Luther or the others on your list "minister of the age".

[HERn]

I found this.

"Watchman Nee: In the Old Testament both Solomon and David represented the Lord. The two persons represented the one ministry in two separate ways. In the Old Testament there were many ministries. After Moses, the judges were raised up. After that, there was Solomon, the kings, and the prophets. After the Israelites were taken into captivity, the vessels for the recovery were raised up. The Old Testament is filled with different kinds of ministries. In every age there is the ministry of that age. These ministries of the ages are different from the local ministers. Luther was a minister of his age. Darby was also a minister of his age. In every age the Lord has special things that He wants to accomplish. He has His own recoveries and His own works to do. The particular recovery and work that He does in one age is the ministry of that age."

(Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 3) Vol. 57: The Resumption of Watchman Nee's Ministry, Chapter 27, Section 1)

[HERn]

And this.

"In the Old Testament both Solomon and David represented the Lord. The two persons represented the one ministry in two separate ways. In the Old Testament there were many ministries. After Moses, the judges were raised up. After that, there was Solomon, the kings, and the prophets. After the Israelites were taken into captivity, the vessels for the recovery were raised up. The Old Testament is filled with different kinds of ministries. In every age there is the ministry of that age. These ministries of the ages are different from the local ministers. Luther was a minister of his age. Darby was also a minister of his age. In every age the Lord has special things that He wants to accomplish. He has His own recoveries and His own works to do. The particular recovery and work that He does in one age is the ministry of that age."

(Remaining in the Unique New Testament Ministry of God's Economy under the Proper Leadership in His Move, Chapter 1, Section 13)

[zeek]

Originally Posted by HERn

And this.

"In the Old Testament both Solomon and David represented the Lord. The two persons represented the one ministry in two separate ways. In the Old Testament there were many ministries. After Moses, the judges were raised up. After that, there was Solomon, the kings, and the prophets. After the Israelites were taken into captivity, the vessels for the recovery were raised up. The Old Testament is filled with different kinds of ministries. In every age there is the ministry of that age. These ministries of the ages are different from the local ministers. Luther was a minister of his age. Darby was also a minister of his age. In every age the Lord has special things that He wants to accomplish. He has His own recoveries and His own works to do. The particular recovery and work that He does in one age is the ministry of that age."

(Remaining in the Unique New Testament Ministry of God's Economy under the Proper Leadership in His Move, Chapter 1, Section 13)

Thank you. I didn't look for a reference to the MOTA in Nee's writings. Lee continued the same teaching according to my recollection of my LC days. If one accepts this teaching, the question then becomes: How do we identify the MOTA in our age? Another question is why isn't there a MOTA in our age? The MOTA idea seems to be designed to replace the idea of Apostolic Succession which is most clearly seen in the RCC and the EOC. Is it plausible that God had a MOTA in every age but coincidentally discontinued the practice after Witness Lee?

[Timotheist]

Perhaps it's a sign of end times:

"For all the MOTAs prophesied until Lee."

[awareness]

Okay rayliotta and HERn has nailed it. Nee and Lee taught the succession of MOTA's down thru history.

The question I have is : Is this what God has been doing down thru history? Or is it just something made up in the minds of Nee and Lee?

Bottom-line: Is THE RECOVERY real? Is it really going on?

If so, looks to me like God is failing.

Just look now. What do we have? We have no MOTA. We have the Blended Brothers.

Does the recovery move down thru the MOTAs in history, and culminate, finally, in the last days, not in a MOTA, but in the Blended Brothers?

Where's scriptural or historic backing for the Blendeds, in God's supposed recovery? Moreover, where's scriptural backing for the notion of a MOTA? If it is God's method, in the final days, why wasn't clearly developed and spelled out in the NT?

Seems to me the this recovery notion has more to do with Nee and Lee being legends in their own mind, or MOTAs in their own mind, than anything God is doing.

When in truth, at best, they were just Bible teachers ... among many.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thank you. I didn't look for a reference to the MOTA in Nee's writings. Lee continued the same teaching according to my recollection of my LC days. If one accepts this teaching, the question then becomes: How do we identify the MOTA in our age? Another question is why isn't there a MOTA in our age? The MOTA idea seems to be designed to replace the idea of Apostolic Succession which is most clearly seen in the RCC and the EOC. Is it plausible that God had a MOTA in every age but coincidentally discontinued the practice after Witness Lee?

I still remember clearly when I asked this one time in college. It went something like this:

I said, "Witness Lee taught the Biblical principal of the 'line of life' extending through the Old Testament, through the New Testament, and straight through Martin Luther, Darby, right up to Nee and himself. So how can we now be so sure that 'the age of spiritual giants is over'?"

The response? A few full-timers and college students laughing out loud, rolling their eyes, and saying that I (me, rayliotta!) wanted to be the next MOTA. Apparently, the only reason why anyone would dare to ask, "Gee, how can we be sure which age is over and when?", is if they wanted to set the stage for their own ascension to spiritual giant-ness.

So my response was something to the effect of, "What are you talking about? I'm just a 19-yr old college kid who doesn't even come to many meetings anymore! How could I possibly think I'm going to be the next MOTA?" To which they just rolled their eyes and laughed even more. I guess I was making their point -- he's a college kid, and a lousy brother at that -- yet he's still pining for MOTA -- wow!

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by awareness

That would require more reading ... Ha.

Nah, I usually utilize the Vulcan mind-meld technique. Puts a lot of fingerprints and smudges on my laptop monitor, but it does allow me to absorb a lot of material quickly.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Perhaps it's a sign of end times:

"For all the MOTAs prophesied until Lee."

Of course. "The end times are nigh" mentality opens the door to all sorts of cool stuff. The Spaniards used it to justify subjugation of the Mayans, Aztecs and Incas some 500 yrs ago, for example.

Could the Recovery ever have really gotten off the ground -- in the US, at least -- w/o this popular belief in impending Apocalypse?

[aron]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

... the only reason why anyone would dare to ask, "Gee, how can we be sure which age is over and when?", is if they wanted to set the stage for their own ascension to spiritual giant-ness.

So my response was something to the effect of, "What are you talking about? I'm just a 19-yr old college kid who doesn't even come to many meetings anymore! How could I possibly think I'm going to be the next MOTA?" To which they just rolled their eyes and laughed even more. I guess I was making their point -- he's a college kid, and a lousy brother at that -- yet he's still pining for MOTA -- wow!

You set the stage for this response by asking a question. You attempted to use your God-given intellect. Shame on you. Haven't you learned anything?

This showed, to the LC faithful, that your old man was not subdued, and was straining to emerge within the Hive. Which, of course, can never happen. So the answer is simply that the MOTA says he's the MOTA, which must be true because he's the MOTA. Get it? And if the MOTA says, "No more MOTA -- I am the last of the line" then that also is true, because he's the MOTA. Get it?

Appealing to scriptures, or to your fallen human logic, will not work, because the MOTA has spoken. And asking questions, to the LC-indoctrinated, is the "fox tail" of your humanity emerging, and will only lead to ridicule and eventual expulsion from the Hive.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

I found this.

"Watchman Nee: In the Old Testament both Solomon and David represented the Lord...Etc"

(Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 3) Vol. 57: The Resumption of Watchman Nee's Ministry, Chapter 27, Section 1)

Originally Posted by HERn

And this.

"Witness Lee: In the Old Testament both Solomon and David represented the Lord...Etc"

(Remaining in the Unique New Testament Ministry of God's Economy under the Proper Leadership in His Move, Chapter 1, Section 13)

If Lee copies Nee's writing verbatim, and sells it again under a different cover, that is not plagiarism, but rather "closely following the teaching and fellowship of the apostle", per Acts 2:42 and Titus 1:9. It is a sign of filial respect. And not coincidentally, the Merchandiser of the Age (MOTA) gets to sell the same product twice, to his captive audience.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay rayliotta and HERn has nailed it. Nee and Lee taught the succession of MOTA's down thru history.

The question I have is : Is this what God has been doing down thru history? Or is it just something made up in the minds of Nee and Lee?

Bottom-line: Is THE RECOVERY real? Is it really going on?

If so, looks to me like God is failing.

Just look now. What do we have? We have no MOTA. We have the Blended Brothers.

Does the recovery move down thru the MOTAs in history, and culminate, finally, in the last days, not in a MOTA, but in the Blended Brothers?

Where's scriptural or historic backing for the Blendeds, in God's supposed recovery? Moreover, where's scriptural backing for the notion of a MOTA? If it is God's method, in the final days, why wasn't clearly developed and spelled out in the NT?

Seems to me the this recovery notion has more to do with Nee and Lee being legends in their own mind, or MOTAs in their own mind, than anything God is doing.

When in truth, at best, they were just Bible teachers ... among many.

I heard that after Lee passed away, saints were clamoring around the Asian world, "Née-Lee-Chu, Née-Lee-Chu."

So there you have it folks! God had given us a MOTA. God had answered our cries for a king.

But some rejected God's plan, and that's why today we have no MOTA. We had our chance, but quarantined him instead.

It was Ron Kangas who was instrumental in terminating our lineage of MOTAs.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

If Lee copies Nee's writing verbatim, and sells it again under a different cover, that is not plagiarism, but rather "closely following the teaching and fellowship of the apostle", per Acts 2:42 and Titus 1:9. It is a sign of filial respect. And not coincidentally, the Merchandiser of the Age (MOTA) gets to sell the same product twice, to his captive audience.

Great insight. You have become the forum Seer of the Age.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You have become the forum Seer of the Age.

It's a sign of filial respect.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great insight. You have become the forum Seer of the Age.

Not fair. I'm tired of going around blind. I want to be a seer too. Give me filial or give me dinner.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

I want to be a seer too. Give me filial or give me dinner.

One thing about the filial obsequiousness thing; isn't this an Asian trait? The Good Son is the one who copies the Father? When you see Lee pushing Nee into the religious stratosphere "the Seer of the divine revelation" he, Lee, is setting himself up to be the next Seer of the age. Lee as Chief Cheerleader of Nee simultaneously set himself up as Heir Apparent. So his filial respect toward his spiritual forebear was concretion of a system in which he, similarly, would be held up by his own spiritual "children". I remember reading about where someone was struggling with the latest crazy directive out of Anaheim, and the LC True Believer response to them was, "Lee is our spiritual father. We owe him our lives."

Now, this is not restricted to the Asians; I think Jesse Jackson basically made his career by being MLK's chief flunky. Etc etc. But the oriental society has really integrated this deeply, and don't think about it or question it; it is just what they do. Again, I repeat that Asian culture is not inferior to the West. But it is not divine.

Now, here's where it gets interesting: we have Jesus, who was actually the True Son, who glorified His Father God in heaven. And we are to follow Jesus. But it is not through human intermediaries like "the apostle of the age" or any other fallen, fleshly person. Not Luther nor Nee, nor whomever. Jesus is the one we follow. And yes we do have elder, more mature ones (thank God!!), but we don't make them the focal point of our journey. We don't deify them. We only imitate them as much as we perceive them imitating Christ, and no more. Because they also, truthfully, are at least partial failures, and prone to err.

Lee's system nearly made Nee "Christ" to us. Supposedly Nee was so transformed as to be without failure, and we held that Lee as his Top Lieutenant was also similarly transformed. So the position which they created and occupied, that of Deified Father, is only for God, and now shared with His glorified Son. As an aside, I have previously pointed out that Chu and Dong were really the True Heirs of Lee, in that they elevated him as he'd done to Nee, while simultaneously positioning themselves in similar religious systems. I see it as quite oriental; feudal even. It is a kingdom, but the wrong one.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't find an explicit statement that Martin Luther was a MOTA from Witness Lee. One might infer that since Lee does recognize him as an instrument of the Lord's Recovery in his day. Coincidentally, Lee cites a Taoist proverb when speaking of Martin Luther :


Lee's acknowledgment that the Taoist "principle of return" is true contradicts his statements elsewhere that Taoism is nonsense.

Bro Zeek, would you please reference where the Tao speaks of this "principle of return?"

I'm having doubts that Lee ever read the Tao De Ching, but who knows?

The Tao, Buddhism, & Confucianism are all part of Chinese culture, going way back before Jesus. I suppose Jesus as the Logos could have something to do with them. They've worked for the Chinese for millennia. But who could know such a thing?

Lee calls it a Chinese proverb, so he could have picked up the principle of return by just growing up in China ... or from a fortune cookie. Ha!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Not fair. I'm tired of going around blind. I want to be a seer too. Give me filial or give me dinner.

Are you ready to eat hypocrisy for an entree?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are you ready to eat hypocrisy for an entree?

Maybe as a dessert ... like Devil's food cake ... Ha!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

One thing about the filial obsequiousness thing; isn't this an Asian trait? The Good Son is the one who copies the Father? When you see Lee pushing Nee into the religious stratosphere "the Seer of the divine revelation" he, Lee, is setting himself up to be the next Seer of the age. Lee as Chief Cheerleader of Nee simultaneously set himself up as Heir Apparent. So his filial respect toward his spiritual forebear was concretion of a system in which he, similarly, would be held up by his own spiritual "children". I remember reading about where someone was struggling with the latest crazy directive out of Anaheim, and the LC True Believer response to them was, "Lee is our spiritual father. We owe him our lives."

I remember Titus Chu making this comment to John Ingalls after he flip-flopped his position about Philip Lee's indiscretions. It is recorded in Ingalls' STTIL book. I'm sure it came as a shock to Ingalls at the time, seeing what Lee's supporters were willing to overlook in order to "pay filial respect." Ingalls rightly viewed Jesus Christ as the only man who deserved our lives.

History shows us that all of Lee's "filial respect" for Nee had self-serving interests in view. While others, like the elders in the church in Shanghai, had the Lord's throne of righteousness in view, Lee sought a "bigger" prize -- being the next, and perhaps the last, MOTA.

Originally Posted by aron

Now, this is not restricted to the Asians; I think Jesse Jackson basically made his career by being MLK's chief flunky. Etc etc.

My comments about the Reverend Jesse are not suitable for a family forum. But it does surprise me that one who leans "liberal" would even think such a thought.

[HERn]

More on WL saying WN was an important person for that age.

"When I was saved over sixty years ago, there were Christians all around me; yet I had no knowledge of God's move on the earth. I thank God that He gave me a heart that loves the Bible. I read it continually and even collected many reference books. Afterward, I became very clear that as a human being, I must be a Christian, and as a Christian, I must be in God's move. Therefore, I dropped everything and dove into the Lord's recovery. At that time, although I could not speak the message that I am giving this morning, the vision within me was very clear. I saw that there was the Lord's commission upon Brother Nee, which is the ministry. I also knew that Brother Nee was the one chosen, commissioned by the Lord in this age to bring in His recovery. I therefore recognized him as the leader in this work. (Words of Training for the New Way, Volume One, pp. 21-24, Witness Lee)"

(Remaining in the Unique New Testament Ministry of God's Economy under the Proper Leadership in His Move, Chapter 1, Section 13)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by HERn of Lee

I also knew that Brother Nee was the one chosen, commissioned by the Lord in this age to bring in His recovery. I therefore recognized him as the leader in this work.

Again I have to ask : Is The Recovery a real divinely orchestrated phenomenon or not?

And:

How did Lee know Nee was chosen?
In the Baptist churches I grew up in all that was needed was a claim of "a calling," usually the pastors son, I spotted even when young.

How did Lee know Nee was commissioned of the Lord in this age?
Lee couldn't have known everyone in this age. How did he know if there weren't others commissioned of the Lord ... on the other side of the globe, in the west? Lee even couldn't have known if the Lord commissioned others just in the east.

Looking back now, The Recovery looks to be made up, whole cloth, in the heads of Nee and Lee.

And their idea that, the Lord started the recovery with Luther, and worked His way up to Witness Lee is ludicrous to me now.

Even more, this is where the eastern mind may show to have a proclivity for MOTAs: that China has a long history, going back into the bronze age -- pretty much the same timeline as Judaism -- of lifting men up to be gods and vicegerents of God.

Now I know, looking back on history, and at primitive human tribes, there's plenty of evidence that all human primates have such a proclivity. But we're trying to explain why Nee and Lee were MOTA inclined, and obsessed; why they were weak for megalomania?

They didn't grow up in the west. So they didn't come up with the silly MOTA doctrine from there/here.

[Eph]

Originally Posted by aron

One thing about the filial obsequiousness thing; isn't this an Asian trait? The Good Son is the one who copies the Father? When you see Lee pushing Nee into the religious stratosphere "the Seer of the divine revelation" he, Lee, is setting himself up to be the next Seer of the age. Lee as Chief Cheerleader of Nee simultaneously set himself up as Heir Apparent. So his filial respect toward his spiritual forebear was concretion of a system in which he, similarly, would be held up by his own spiritual "children". I remember reading about where someone was struggling with the latest crazy directive out of Anaheim, and the LC True Believer response to them was, "Lee is our spiritual father. We owe him our lives."

Now, this is not restricted to the Asians; I think Jesse Jackson basically made his career by being MLK's chief flunky. Etc etc. But the oriental society has really integrated this deeply, and don't think about it or question it; it is just what they do. Again, I repeat that Asian culture is not inferior to the West. But it is not divine.

Now, here's where it gets interesting: we have Jesus, who was actually the True Son, who glorified His Father God in heaven. And we are to follow Jesus. But it is not through human intermediaries like "the apostle of the age" or any other fallen, fleshly person. Not Luther nor Nee, nor whomever. Jesus is the one we follow. And yes we do have elder, more mature ones (thank God!!), but we don't make them the focal point of our journey. We don't deify them. We only imitate them as much as we perceive them imitating Christ, and no more. Because they also, truthfully, are at least partial failures, and prone to err.

Lee's system nearly made Nee "Christ" to us. Supposedly Nee was so transformed as to be without failure, and we held that Lee as his Top Lieutenant was also similarly transformed. So the position which they created and occupied, that of Deified Father, is only for God, and now shared with His glorified Son. As an aside, I have previously pointed out that Chu and Dong were really the True Heirs of Lee, in that they elevated him as he'd done to Nee, while simultaneously positioning themselves in similar religious systems. I see it as quite oriental; feudal even. It is a kingdom, but the wrong one.

What is your relationship with your physical father? In my Asian culture, we never hug. Good parents provide "passive" necessity such as food and money. So when the "spiritual fathers" show up, our emotion needs are met. That cultural factor might explain why the local church is prospering in Taiwan and China now.

"Filial" 孝順 is not a western concept, it is completely a Chinese one. It has 5000 years of meaning in it. So when I heard the new term "spiritual father", it caught my attention deeply. It gave you this feeling mixed of solemn, owe, fear, gratefullness, foreign, mysterial, etc. My heart was captured by the teachings of the "spiritual fathers." They are of Christ.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Zeek, would you please reference where the Tao speaks of this "principle of return?"

I'm having doubts that Lee ever read the Tao De Ching, but who knows?

The Tao, Buddhism, & Confucianism are all part of Chinese culture, going way back before Jesus. I suppose Jesus as the Logos could have something to do with them. They've worked for the Chinese for millennia. But who could know such a thing?

Lee calls it a Chinese proverb, so he could have picked up the principle of return by just growing up in China ... or from a fortune cookie. Ha!

This should answer you questions:

"Among the laws that govern the changes of things, the most fundamental is that 'when a thing reaches one extreme, it reverts from it.' These are not the actual words of Lao Tsu, but a common Chinese saying which no doubt comes from Lao Tsu. Lao Tsu's actual words are 'Reversing is the movement of the Tao' [Ch. 40.], and 'to go further and further means to revert again' [Ch. 25.] The idea is that if anything develops certain extreme qualities, those qualities invariably revert to become their opposites." http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-...ds=fung+yu-lan, pg. 97

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Eph

What is your relationship with your physical father? In my Asian culture, we never hug. Good parents provide "passive" necessity such as food and money. So when the "spiritual fathers" show up, our emotion needs are met. That cultural factor might explain why the local church is prospering in Taiwan and China now.

"Filial" 孝順 is not a western concept, it is completely a Chinese one. It has 5000 years of meaning in it. So when I heard the new term "spiritual father", it caught my attention deeply. It gave you this feeling mixed of solemn, owe, fear, gratefullness, foreign, mysterial, etc. My heart was captured by the teachings of the "spiritual fathers." They are of Christ.

Here is Witness Lee on the "spiritual fathers"

'The children of Israel were numbered by the families and their leaders, that is, by the source of life and under its leadership (authority). The families refer to the source of life. In our spiritual history, there should be a source of life. Even in the church life today, we must have a family. Who brought you to Christ? Who begot you in Christ? In other words, who is your spiritual father? In this matter, the Bible is balanced. Of course, God is our divine Father. Nevertheless, Paul told the Corinthian believers that they might have had "ten thousand guides in Christ, yet not many fathers," for in Christ Jesus he had begotten them through the gospel (1 Cor. 4:15), imparting the divine life into them so that they became children of God and members of Christ. Thus, those believers belonged to Paul's "family." They did not hear the gospel, repent, and believe apart from him as their spiritual father, their source. As believers in Christ, we all have three kinds of fathers: a fleshly father, a spiritual father, and the divine Father. Today's numbering depends on the source of life." [ Life-Study of Numbers]

Here is Lee on Watchman Nee as his spiritual father:

"Let me tell you a story concerning my own experience. For a period of six years, from 1942 to 1948, Brother Watchman Nee was out of his ministry. Because of the work of the Devil in China, there was a spiritual storm that kept Watchman from ministering. He and I were separated during the war. After the war, in 1946, I was invited to come from the north to the capital city in the south. When some of the co-workers who were involved in that storm against Brother Nee and who also knew me very well came from afar to meet with me, they said, "Brother Lee, can you say that Brother Nee has ever been wrong?" I replied, "Brothers, whether he is wrong or right is not my business. You must admit one thing—that we all owe very much to Brother Nee. We all must admit that he was just like a father to us all. If he was not a father to you, I must testify strongly that, in the Lord's economy, he certainly was a father to me. Before I met with Brother Nee, I knew nothing of the Lord's economy. He is my spiritual father, and my spiritual being came out of him." Then I told the brothers the story of Noah. I said, "Brothers, look at Noah's case. Was Noah wrong? Certainly he was wrong. But, it is not a matter of whether Noah was right or wrong; it is all a matter of from where we have received our being. Was Noah not our father? If he was your neighbor and not your father, it would be another story. But remember that you derived your being from him. He is your father. Whatever you are and whatever you obtained has come out of him. This involves you with the divine government. Brothers, I didn't see the thing for which people condemn Brother Nee. Even if I did see that he was wrong, I have no position to say anything about his wrongdoing, because he is my spiritual father and my spiritual being came out of him. I could never say anything against him. I am under God's government. Brothers, you must consider that it is not a small thing to be against our spiritual father. When you were not against Brother Nee, what was your inner feeling?" They all admitted that they felt so much life. When I asked, "How about now?" they responded, "We have to admit that we are just dead. We have no anointing or watering within. We are dried up." Then I said, "Brothers, you should listen to this real sensation. Don't care for your mental analysis. According to your mental analysis, Brother Nee is condemned, but as long as you condemn him, you are dead. The more you condemn him, the more dead you are." Immediately, the brothers turned and were saved from their dead situation." [Life-Study of Genesis]

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I remember Titus Chu making this comment ("Lee is our spiritual father. We owe him our lives") to John Ingalls after he flip-flopped his position about Philip Lee's indiscretions... I'm sure it came as a shock to Ingalls at the time, seeing what Lee's supporters were willing to overlook in order to "pay filial respect." ...History shows us that all of Lee's "filial respect" for Nee had self-serving interests in view...

Lee did have other interests, including self-grandiosity, control, and mercantilism, but behind all that is an unquestioned and unexamined Asian mindset. See the next quote by Eph:

Originally Posted by Eph

"Filial" 孝順 is not a western concept, it is completely a Chinese one. It has 5000 years of meaning in it. So when I heard the new term "spiritual father", it caught my attention deeply. It gave you this feeling mixed of solemn, owe, fear, gratefullness, foreign, mysterial, etc. My heart was captured by the teachings of the "spiritual fathers." They are of Christ.

This is an important point because I think it could only truly be made by someone who was born into this. It is very ingrained in this culture, and as I said it really isn't examined. It is rooted in literally thousands of years of social, cultural, behavioral practice. So when push came to shove the spiritual veneer was peeled back and this idea of filial piety revealed itself.

1. TC held WL as his "spiritual father".
2. TC did not hold RK & BP as his "spiritual fathers".
3. Therefore GLA split off from the LSM.
4. See also the Dong split in Brazil. Same dynamic. It wasn't about religion, but about cultural practice.

The problem is that the "spiritual fathers" referred to by Eph are indeed of Christ. But they are not Christ. Watchman Nee is not Christ. Yet look at the Shouters movement in China today, some of whom actually hold Lee as "Lord Changshou", which isn't too far from how Lee held Nee in front of us. If Lee said Nee walked on water, we would yell, "Amen!".

Here is a quote from ICA, on another thread:

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Eastern Lightning/the Shouters follow in the wake of Witness Lee. The new cult was modified, nevertheless it takes its origin from WN, WL, their doctrines and practices. That's why in China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, the shouters join the LC without trouble and even take over some halls. The louder they shout, the more spiritual it sounds for LRC members.

This whole thing is shot through with Asian practices, beliefs, mores, values, yet we never examined it, because we were so impressed with its "orthodox" heritage (Reformation, Bretheren, etc) and Lee's analytical skills (pretty thin, upon further review), and because in the '60s we were looking for something new, with the Vietnam fiasco, women's rights, the environmental crisis, and the civil rights movement. In the West we were at a crisis point (remember the campus sit-ins and take-overs, the assassinations of RFK and MLK, the Weathermen, the SLA, Black Panthers etc) and Lee insinuated himself into this social instability: he was very charismatic in public, humble in private, and would give you enough Bible verses to make your head spin... plus you got to scream and shout! Home, home in the church; once you bought into his scheme you never questioned it, no matter how weird it became.

[OBW]

"When I was saved over sixty years ago, there were Christians all around me; yet I had no knowledge of God's move on the earth. . . ."

Get introduced to Nee . . . become the MOTA for a small exclusivist sect with yet another remnant theology . . . have everyone falling all over themsleves to hear your every word . . . and guess what?

He still had no knowledge of God's move on the earth.

Just the claims that his little sect was God's move on the earth.

And if you are talking about the "acting god," then you might be right. He did tend to act like a god. And he did know his sect's movements on the earth because they did exactly what he told them to do.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

In the West we were at a crisis point (remember the campus sit-ins and take-overs, the assassinations of RFK and MLK, the Weathermen, the SLA, Black Panthers etc) and Lee insinuated himself into this social instability: he was very charismatic in public, humble in private, and would give you enough Bible verses to make your head spin... plus you got to scream and shout! Home, home in the church; once you bought into his scheme you never questioned it, no matter how weird it became.

American social unrest, such as aron highlighted above, opened the door for a real move of the Spirit of God -- labeled my many as the Jesus Movement.

In an amazing sleight of hand trickery, Lee spun history to convince all of his Recovery faithful that he himself alone coming to the US was the reason for God's abundant blessing during this time.

It's kind of like a surfer riding out a great wave, only to come to shore and convince us that he actually was the cause of that great wave.

Yes! The Jesus movement caught me! A kid on drugs who got saved! Read a booklet called the "Street People" where a guy in a beard was passing out newspapers was on front.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great insight. You have become the forum Seer of the Age.

Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Forum?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Again I have to ask : Is The Recovery a real divinely orchestrated phenomenon or not?

It's an important question for understanding what the "Recovery" might be. At the very least, the Recovery was a theoretical reading of history by Watchman Nee in which he was front and center in what God was doing in the world. As he said in Messages Given During the Resumption of Watchman Nee's Ministry (2 volume set):

Today, the responsibility of the recovery is on our shoulders. All the questions related to the recovery have to do with us.

How did Lee know Nee was chosen?

According to Watchman Nee—A Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age it was a gradual realization. Although Lee claims that God Himself called him into the ministry when he was saved, he didn't jump right into the ministry. Neither was he persuaded when he became aware of Nee's ministry. Instead he chose to teach college for eight years.

On a number of occasions when Lee had personal problems, he went to Watchman Nee for help. In one story Nee and Lee both blame themselves because Lee's wife thought she was going to die following an operation for which she was hospitalized. The moment Lee repented for his "inadequate consecration and in my love for the world", the enemy left his wife, and "the Lord gave her peace. " It's an odd story especially if one steps back from Lee's supernaturalist assumptions. Apparently, Lee's wife was delusional and was not actually going to die. Nee and Lee both thinking that they have sinned and caused the delusion. In the parlance of our time it was "all about them." In a more mundane reading of the facts, one might suppose that there was some kind of marital problem between Mr. and Mrs. Lee. Perhaps when he expressed his contrite feelings, she felt better. Of course, that would relegate the story to a domestic problem between to ordinary people in China. However, as we learn from Witness Lee, it was far more momentous than that. It was an episode that had cosmic historical consequences in the eternal purpose of the God in the universe.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Of course, that would relegate the story to a domestic problem between to ordinary people in China. However, as we learn from Witness Lee, it was far more momentous than that. It was an episode that had cosmic historical consequences in the eternal purpose of the God in the universe.

Witness Lee, a legend in his own mind.

That last sentence is phenomenal Zeek. A real keeper.

I know Christians now, today, that think ordinary -- what I would consider synchronicity's -- experiences have divinely orchestrated cosmic historical consequences. Two that I'm talking to these days are of the Pentecostal persuasion.

One is a preacher. I've know him since kids. He's always been a narcissist ; always the life and center of the party.

And he still is narcissistic. Only now he's the center of what God is doing. God is using HIM HIM HIM.

Since I'm an old friend I leveled with him. I told him he's full of sh#t.

So was Lee. And Nee. I'm telling ya, they made up The Recovery in their own heads. And then concocted a historical secession that led up to them ... them becoming the very center and heart of what God is/was doing.

God was using THEM THEM THEM ....

Me Me Me God ... make it all about me.

[awareness]

Zeek and I have discovered that LSM websites are shifty. That is, you can post a link, and it might work at first, but then something changes and the link no longer works.

So here goes a test:
Zeek mentions : According to Watchman Nee—A Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age.
Here's the link : http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.c...=CMLPO9414R4IP

Let's see how long it works.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Zeek and I have discovered that LSM websites are shifty. That is, you can post a link, and it might work at first, but then something changes and the link no longer works.

So here goes a test:
Zeek mentions : According to Watchman Nee—A Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age.
Here's the link : http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.c...=CMLPO9414R4IP

Let's see how long it works.

Now you get Lee's short introduction to the book. Nothing about him personally being called to ministry and waiting around teaching school for a few years.

I think the thing is that the LSM web site is designed to provide an entire book as if a single page. I note that if I start scanning through page ofer page, then hit the browser's "back" button, you are back at the LSM online books front page. Or the index of books to read. Each page within a book is provided as some kind of shifting content for a single web page. As far as the browser is concerned, you are just continually refreshing the same page.

[zeek]

Here are both of the stories I referred to as told by Witness Lee in Watchman Nee—A Seer of the Divine Revelation in the Present Age:

In 1928, when I was about to leave the university, I considered serving the Lord full-time. I did not want to be a preacher on salary, but I did not know how to live by faith, so I went to Watchman Nee for fellowship. At that time he was quite lonely and greatly in need of co-workers who would be of the same mind. When I raised this matter, he did not encourage me in a careless manner to serve the Lord. He was neither influenced by his need for co-workers nor by the personal relationship between us. He simply told me not to wait until the Jordan waters opened, but to step into the water by faith—then the way would open before me. He knew that I lacked this kind of faith. I was waiting for the outward circumstances to change before beginning to serve the Lord. (Fifty years ago in China it was difficult to find anyone serving the Lord by faith like Watchman Nee.) Hence, I laid aside the thought of serving the Lord full-time and taught college for eight years.

On a number of occasions when I had personal problems, I went to Watchman Nee for help. Not one time was I rebuked. He would simply ask, "What have you learned from the Lord?" He helped me realize that all things occur under God's hand and are working together for good to conform me to the image of His Son (Rom. 8:28-29).

On one occasion my wife entered the hospital for an operation. Following the operation, the enemy attacked her with accusations and caused her to think that she was about to die. This news was reported to Watchman Nee, and he and my sister went to visit her. He realized that she was under the accusation of the enemy and ministered to her from Revelation 12:11: "And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they loved not their soul-life even unto death." Then he telephoned me and confessed that his failure to help keep me in the Lord's fellowship had given the enemy ground to attack my wife. For this failure he asked my forgiveness. He fully realized that the warfare was not simply a matter for my wife alone, but that the warfare also required her husband and the church. This is why he asked me to forgive him. He realized that in order to fight against the enemy I needed the church and that there had been neglect on his part in being one with me. I told him, however, that it was not his fault; the fault lay in my inadequate consecration and in my love for the world. That is what gave the enemy the ground. Immediately I repented to the Lord. The moment I repented, the enemy left my wife, and the Lord gave her peace. The next morning when Watchman Nee's mother came to pray with her, she was able to sing praises to the Lord and enjoy the Lord's sweet anointing. This incident shows that Watchman Nee knew the ways of God. Through his spiritual discernment, my family was helped and was brought back to a complete union with Christ in our daily living.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Now you get Lee's short introduction to the book. Nothing about him personally being called to ministry and waiting around teaching school for a few years.

I think the thing is that the LSM web site is designed to provide an entire book as if a single page. I note that if I start scanning through page ofer page, then hit the browser's "back" button, you are back at the LSM online books front page. Or the index of books to read. Each page within a book is provided as some kind of shifting content for a single web page. As far as the browser is concerned, you are just continually refreshing the same page.

The link is still working.

I just love this at the bottom:

Downloading this material, even for personal use, is prohibited.
Your IP address is ********* [11:56:57 AM (GMT -08:00), September 4, 2014].

I guess they're looking to sue, sue, sue. SOTA - Suer's Of The Age.

Is suing an Eastern thing? It's certainly not a Christian thing, or a Biblical thing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

On a number of occasions when Lee had personal problems, he went to Watchman Nee for help. In one story Nee and Lee both blame themselves because Lee's wife thought she was going to die following an operation for which she was hospitalized. The moment Lee repented for his "inadequate consecration and in my love for the world", the enemy left his wife, and "the Lord gave her peace. " It's an odd story especially if one steps back from Lee's supernaturalist assumptions. Apparently, Lee's wife was delusional and was not actually going to die. Nee and Lee both thinking that they have sinned and caused the delusion. In the parlance of our time it was "all about them." In a more mundane reading of the facts, one might suppose that there was some kind of marital problem between Mr. and Mrs. Lee. Perhaps when he expressed his contrite feelings, she felt better. Of course, that would relegate the story to a domestic problem between to ordinary people in China. However, as we learn from Witness Lee, it was far more momentous than that.

Does any one have information about the death of Lee's first wife?

It has long been my suspicion, that the leverage which Lee's sons Timothy and Phillip held over their father, was related to the passing of their mother.

[Ohio]

But to write a biography of a certain person is not an easy and simple matter. Could what is written about that person be a genuine picture of him? Is the motive for writing proper? Is the writing accurate? What will the influence be? What will the issue be? After much consideration, my solution to all these points is this: Since I have been under Brother Nee's teaching, edifying, and perfecting, and since he was a brother I respected, observed, and weighed for a quarter of a century, the accuracy of my writing about him should be guaranteed. As to the motive, the heart-searching God is the Judge! As to the influence and issue, the merciful Lord is the blessing. Much endeavor has been exercised to avoid flattery, exaggerations, and the exaltation of men, and the Holy Spirit has been the Guide and Controller of this writing. Thus, I desire to see this writing accomplished unto the good pleasure of the Triune God for His rich blessing.

In light of recent comments concerning Chinese "filial respect," this paragraph from the above link really stands out. In the eyes of the Recovery "faithful elect," here Lee challenges the motives of every other potential Née biographer, even calling on the Almighty Judge to guarantee the absolute veracity of his book Seer .... His aggrandizing claims about himself and Née are almost sickening to read.

Note that this book was released in 1991, just after squashing the so-called conspiratorial rebellion by Ingalls & Company, who demanded ministry accountability from Lee in the aftermath of numerous Phillip Lee scandals. Just as easily as he condemns the motives of those prophets sent by God to correct him, Lee claims heavenly endorsements for his new book.

Since the biography was written 14 years earlier in 1997, Lee goes further to cite in another place how this action linked him with the Apostle Paul, who also waited 14 years before unveiling that he had been carried away to the Third Heavens. (2 Cor 12.1-6)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In light of recent comments concerning Chinese "filial respect," this paragraph from the above link really stands out. In the eyes of the Recovery "faithful elect," here Lee challenges the motives of every other potential Née biographer, even calling on the Almighty Judge to guarantee the absolute veracity of his book Seer .... His aggrandizing claims about himself and Née are almost sickening to read.

Note that this book was released in 1991, just after squashing the so-called conspiratorial rebellion by Ingalls & Company, who demanded ministry accountability from Lee in the aftermath of numerous Phillip Lee scandals. Just as easily as he condemns the motives of those prophets sent by God to correct him, Lee claims heavenly endorsements for his new book.

Since the biography was written 14 years earlier in 1997, Lee goes further to cite in another place how this action linked him with the Apostle Paul, who also waited 14 years before unveiling that he had been carried away to the Third Heavens. (2 Cor 12.1-6)

Ya have ta give Lee credit. He sure was gifted at making things up.

That was for entertainment and fun, we could say, if it weren't for the fact that the stories all lead to Lee being God's not to be questioned authority on the earth.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In light of recent comments concerning Chinese "filial respect," this paragraph from the above link really stands out. In the eyes of the Recovery "faithful elect," here Lee challenges the motives of every other potential Née biographer, even calling on the Almighty Judge to guarantee the absolute veracity of his book Seer .... His aggrandizing claims about himself and Née are almost sickening to read.

Note that this book was released in 1991, just after squashing the so-called conspiratorial rebellion by Ingalls & Company, who demanded ministry accountability from Lee in the aftermath of numerous Phillip Lee scandals. Just as easily as he condemns the motives of those prophets sent by God to correct him, Lee claims heavenly endorsements for his new book.

Since the biography was written 14 years earlier in 1997, Lee goes further to cite in another place how this action linked him with the Apostle Paul, who also waited 14 years before unveiling that he had been carried away to the Third Heavens. (2 Cor 12.1-6)

During my time in the local churches from 1973 to 1986, brothers in authority discouraged me from reading Watchman Nee's book. The argument was usually that Witness Lee's writings represented the up-to-date flow of what God is doing on earth today. When I read Nee's books surreptitiously in private I often felt as if I was doing something a little naughty. But, I read them anyway because I found them better written and more interesting than Lee's. Lee's lengthy endorsement of everything Nee came after my time and may have represented a change in attitude on his part regarding Nee.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Lee's lengthy endorsement of everything Nee came after my time and may have represented a change in attitude on his part regarding Nee.

I note that your time in the LRC parallels mine almost exactly. I did leave a year later.

Funny that Lee would endorse Nee later than 86 when it would appear that while he continued to issue his version of everything Nee ever wrote, he sort of seemed to suggest that it was better to just read his own books. Once Lee got enough link to Nee, he seemed to push him aside, resurrecting him in the abstract where necessary to reassert his lineage, but seldom referring to any of Nee's material. Even though the ground of the church lived on, Lee had written enough about it to no longer need to refer to Nee's writings as support. Lee was now established in his own mind as a standalone MOTA.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

Even though the ground of the church lived on, Lee had written enough about it to no longer need to refer to Nee's writings as support. Lee was now established in his own mind as a standalone MOTA.

By the time I "came into the church" (circa late 1975) Watchman Nee was only mentioned as the revered (yet long, long departed) founder of the LC movement.

Of course, much later, I realized the abject hypocrisy of Lee's claims that he was "following brother Nee because he was the one who brought the recovery to all of us blind, mooing cows". Much (and by much, I mean MOST) of the teachings and practices in the Local Church today were invented out of whole cloth by Witness Lee. You will not find "calling on the Lord (oh Lord Jesus), or anything approaching "pray-reading", or calling other believers all sorts of derogatory epithets (blind, mooing cows, dead, etc, etc) in the writings of Nee. I'm not saying that some of the seeds of these unbiblical teachings and practices were planted by Nee, only that Witness took the errors of Nee and magnified them many times.

[Eph]

Originally Posted by OBW

And if you are talking about the "acting god," then you might be right. He did tend to act like a god. And he did know his sect's movements on the earth because they did exactly what he told them to do.

"Lau Ba Ba" (Old Pa Pa), among a small circle, we called brother Lee that. That was when I was young and befriended his youngest son Mun-Su. Mun-Su was very nice to me. I met brother Lee a couple of times. For me, it'd never occur to me that I would find this forum my sanctury.

Aron started this thread for a reason and I hope that we will look into it further. Many practices might truly be derived from cultrual and ethnic upgrowings. Is it the "emperoric" mindset of ruling over his people but he is not aware of? In modern Japan, Japanese is worshiping their emperor as a god. The concept of mixing "emperor" and "god" together is prevailing in Japan.

"Hand Pick" and "Father to Son" practice is no doubt an Asian one. Why did brother Lee pick the "blended brothers"? Who are these brothers and their background? Did he pick them to balance among their cultural backgrounds? Does financial play a part during the process? Why is it his sencond oldest son in charge of the LSM, not the others?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Eph

"Lau Ba Ba" (Old Pa Pa), among a small circle, we called brother Lee that. That was when I was young and befriended his youngest son Mun-Su. Mun-Su was very nice to me. I met brother Lee a couple of times. For me, it'd never occur to me that I would find this forum my sanctury.

Aron started this thread for a reason and I hope that we will look into it further. Many practices might truly be derived from cultrual and ethnic upgrowings. Is it the "emperoric" mindset of ruling over his people but he is not aware of? In modern Japan, Japanese is worshiping their emperor as a god. The concept of mixing "emperor" and "god" together is prevailing in Japan.

"Hand Pick" and "Father to Son" practice is no doubt an Asian one. Why did brother Lee pick the "blended brothers"? Who are these brothers and their background? Did he pick them to balance among their cultural backgrounds? Does financial play a part during the process? Why is it his sencond oldest son in charge of the LSM, not the others?

In order to be blended together, we need to confess the sin of individualism and individuality. Our individualism is a kind of principle, a kind of policy, with us. Every one of us has his own policy, his own human logic. Our individualism becomes our logic. The educational system in America educates the young people to be individuals. The logic of being an individual, or the logic of individualism, is a sin in the eyes of God. We need to condemn individualism and individuality. In our church life we may be full of individuality. We may not care for others but may care only for ourselves. Even though we may love others, we may not care for others. In loving others we may still care for ourselves. This is individuality. We need to confess this sin. As long as such germs remain within us, we cannot be one and we cannot be blended. [Fellowship Concerning the Urgent Need of the Vital Groups by Witness Lee]

I emboldened several phrases to show that Witness Lee condemned not only individualism which is a kind of philosophy but individuality. Actually, his definition of individuality is mistaken. Individuality is more basic that caring for yourself. Individuality is synonymous with selfhood. It is the state or quality of being a separate person with a particular point of view. I don't believe the Bible ever characterizes individuality as a sin. In fact, the Bible teaches that God created us as individuals. So where does Lee's notion that individuality is a sin come from? Are there precedents for such condemnation in the "Asian mind"?

Yes, it turns out there are. As Joseph Campbell points out in Oriental Mythology, in the Orient the ideal...

"...is the quenching, not development, of ego. That is the formula turned this way and that, up and down the line, throughout the literature : a systematic, steady, continually drumming devaluation of the "I" principle, the reality function— which has remained, consequently, undeveloped, and so, wide open to the seizures of completely uncritical mythic identifications." [Joseph Campbell. Oriental Mythology (Kindle Locations 385-387). Joseph Campbell Foundation.]

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Eph

"Lau Ba Ba" (Old Pa Pa), among a small circle, we called brother Lee that. That was when I was young and befriended his youngest son Mun-Su. Mun-Su was very nice to me. I met brother Lee a couple of times. For me, it'd never occur to me that I would find this forum my sanctury.

Aron started this thread for a reason and I hope that we will look into it further. Many practices might truly be derived from cultrual and ethnic upgrowings. Is it the "emperoric" mindset of ruling over his people but he is not aware of? In modern Japan, Japanese is worshiping their emperor as a god. The concept of mixing "emperor" and "god" together is prevailing in Japan.

"Hand Pick" and "Father to Son" practice is no doubt an Asian one. Why did brother Lee pick the "blended brothers"? Who are these brothers and their background? Did he pick them to balance among their cultural backgrounds? Does financial play a part during the process? Why is it his sencond oldest son in charge of the LSM, not the others?

Eph, while I agree with what you're saying, I have often wondered how much the ideas of revering one's father, and "handpicking" as you say, are specific to Asian culture. What I mean to say is that surely there are other cultures in which these attributes are very strong? This is a topic I would find very interesting to explore.

I would use, as an example, the culture of loyalty and filial respect as portrayed in The Godfather movies. (I don't use this example lightly -- I learned a lot about the culture of the Lord's Recovery from these movies. No kidding.) Think of Vito Corleone handpicking Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall's character) as consigliere.

I remember being told as a kid that Andrew Yu was Witness Lee's "right-hand man".

[Eph]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Eph, while I agree with what you're saying, I have often wondered how much the ideas of revering one's father, and "handpicking" as you say, are specific to Asian culture. What I mean to say is that surely there are other cultures in which these attributes are very strong? This is a topic I would find very interesting to explore.

I would use, as an example, the culture of loyalty and filial respect as portrayed in The Godfather movies. (I don't use this example lightly -- I learned a lot about the culture of the Lord's Recovery from these movies. No kidding.) Think of Vito Corleone handpicking Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall's character) as consigliere.

I remember being told as a kid that Andrew Yu was Witness Lee's "right-hand man".

Rayliotta, I concur that it also exits among other cultures. I think it might be the degree of its practice. (Also, that Italian's culture greatly resembles that of Chinese--family value and that.) When I was a little younger, I always thought brothers John Ingalls and Gene Gruhler will be picked for their maturity.
BTW, I just love the Godfather movies.

[Ohio]

This quote is a real eye-opener, even for me, one who was active in the LC's for 30 years and studied them at a distance for another 10.

In order to be blended together, we need to confess the sin of individualism and individuality. Our individualism is a kind of principle, a kind of policy, with us. Every one of us has his own policy, his own human logic. Our individualism becomes our logic. The educational system in America educates the young people to be individuals. The logic of being an individual, or the logic of individualism, is a sin in the eyes of God. We need to condemn individualism and individuality. In our church life we may be full of individuality. We may not care for others but may care only for ourselves. Even though we may love others, we may not care for others. In loving others we may still care for ourselves. This is individuality. We need to confess this sin. As long as such germs remain within us, we cannot be one and we cannot be blended. [Fellowship Concerning the Urgent Need of the Vital Groups by Witness Lee]

Here Lee creates another "deadly sin" where the Bible has none: INDIVIDUALITY. To a typical member of the Recovery, it seems that here Lee sees something that the rest of us cannot see. Thus members are convinced that this is once again proof that Lee is the Oracle of God.

Actually not. No one else "sees" it because it is not in the Bible. God never condemns individuality because He created us that way. Then why would Lee create such a new sin? Because then he can secure his power and control over others. Since he alone can "see" who is an INDIVIDUAL and who is not, he alone can determine who should be esteemed in his version of the body of Christ. This simple measure alone completely insulates his sphere of influence from all interference.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This quote is a real eye-opener, even for me, one who was active in the LC's for 30 years and studied them at a distance for another 10.

Here Lee creates another "deadly sin" where the Bible has none: INDIVIDUALITY. To a typical member of the Recovery, it seems that here Lee sees something that the rest of us cannot see. Thus members are convinced that this is once again proof that Lee is the Oracle of God.

Actually not. No one else "sees" it because it is not in the Bible. God never condemns individuality because He created us that way. Then why would Lee create such a new sin? Because then he can secure his power and control over others. Since he alone can "see" who is an INDIVIDUAL and who is not, he alone can determine who should be esteemed in his version of the body of Christ. This simple measure alone completely insulates his sphere of influence from all interference.

Good point. We weren't seeing the teaching in the Bible because it wasn't there. Meanwhile, Mr. Lee's individuality was intact and on display in videos in meeting after meeting and he was forging a comfortable life for himself and his family here in America the home of individualism. What a hypocrite! If individuality was a sin he was the chief of sinners in the church of his own creation.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This quote is a real eye-opener, even for me, one who was active in the LC's for 30 years and studied them at a distance for another 10.

Here Lee creates another "deadly sin" where the Bible has none: INDIVIDUALITY. To a typical member of the Recovery, it seems that here Lee sees something that the rest of us cannot see. Thus members are convinced that this is once again proof that Lee is the Oracle of God.

Actually not. No one else "sees" it because it is not in the Bible. God never condemns individuality because He created us that way. Then why would Lee create such a new sin? Because then he can secure his power and control over others. Since he alone can "see" who is an INDIVIDUAL and who is not, he alone can determine who should be esteemed in his version of the body of Christ. This simple measure alone completely insulates his sphere of influence from all interference.

One time I visited a church that happened to have an 80-90% Chinese and Korean membership. I don't know the history, but apparently there had been, in the past, many more "white American" folks in this particular locality.

I remember the guy I was staying with (who's Chinese) making a comment, something to the effect of, that there was something wrong w/the American saints. I guess that's how people who stay deal w/the fact that so many people are leaving -- to assume that there must be something wrong w/those leaving. Couldn't possibly be that there are troubles within the group that are causing the exodus. Couldn't be.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

Good point. We weren't seeing the teaching in the Bible because it wasn't there. Meanwhile, Mr. Lee's individuality was intact and on display in videos in meeting after meeting and he was forging a comfortable life for himself and his family here in America the home of individualism. What a hypocrite! If individuality was a sin he was the chief of sinners in the church of his own creation.

Oh, dear zeek, we have a rich ministry in the local churches, and this ministry has revealed to us that Witness Lee is the minister of the age!

You do know that, don't you?

You do know that, don't you?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

I emboldened several phrases to show that Witness Lee condemned not only individualism which is a kind of philosophy but individuality. Actually, his definition of individuality is mistaken. Individuality is more basic that caring for yourself. Individuality is synonymous with selfhood. It is the state or quality of being a separate person with a particular point of view. I don't believe the Bible ever characterizes individuality as a sin. In fact, the Bible teaches that God created us as individuals. So where does Lee's notion that individuality is a sin come from? Are there precedents for such condemnation in the "Asian mind"?

For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.
Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. 1 Corinthians 12:12,27

The Bible doesn't deemphasize individuality, but points out as individual members, we make up the Body.

Whether it's philosophy or something else, there's a teaching the individuality must be suppressed for the good of the collective. Better description is a group-think culture in the recovery if you don't submit to peer pressure, you're being individualistic and doing your own thing. If you don't submit to "fellowship" given by the blended brothers, you're being individualistic and doing your own thing. In the blended brother's imaginative reality, you are trying to gain a following of your own.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Oh, dear zeek, we have a rich ministry in the local churches, and this ministry has revealed to us that Witness Lee is the minister of the age!

You do know that, don't you?

You do know that, don't you?

That is what Witness Lee claimed for himself. To question that proposition was rebellion. Therefore, even to ask what evidence Lee based his claim marked the inquirer as a disobedient rebel by the definition of Nee and Lee. Faithful saints did not question and strove to shed their individuality.

I was a true believer who tried to rid myself of individuality for years before I gave up on it. I am thankful now that I failed. If God created everything that is then God created me the individual that I am. A good God does not create bad stuff. If you believe that God is good then you can believe that you are essentially good too.

Based on Biblical principles, I am using my God-given ability to reason and my individuality to express who I am. Nee and Lee were wrong about these matters. Their teaching was psychologically damaging to me and many others because it was untrue and contrary to life. I stand against these aspects of their teaching.

I don't consider myself a rebel. I consider Nee and Lee to be in error on these matters and I submit the people that they have hurt over the years as evidence. The conception of humanity which is embodied in documents like the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address represents an advance which Nee and Lee did not appreciate or understand. It's a higher conception of humanity than theirs.

We gave up our western heritage too easily for the ministry of Lee/Lee. Their conception, contrary to the claim that it was a "recovered item", was actually a step backwards into something barbaric. We were foolish to abandon our human rights for the Nee/Lee system. When I saw that the church authorities including Lee did not live by the standards that they required of the rest of us, I left. I should have left after reading the Jack Sparks' observation in The Mind Benders that Local Churchers were required to give up the normal use of our minds because it was true as a review of Nee and Lee's published works verifies.

[Freedom]

This issue of "individuality" has also been a struggle for me. Before I had any realization of what was really going on in the LC, I was convinced that I needed to rid myself of all individuality.

The more I tried to do this, the more frustrated I got. What I realized is that while some in the LC may have the appearance of not having their own individuality, it is all a pretense, an act that they put on.

Once someone's time is completely occupied by the LC, individuality doesn't mean much because they don't have time to be themselves. That's what I think this teaching is really about. They don't want people having hobbies or activities that are going to "distract" someone from being 100% dedicated to LC activities.

Of the Christians I know outside the LC, I haven't met any that are expected to spend as much time doing church activities as in the LC. In the LC it is highly looked down upon to have other interests outside the LC.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This issue of "individuality" has also been a struggle for me. Before I had any realization of what was really going on in the LC, I was convinced that I needed to rid myself of all individuality.

The more I tried to do this, the more frustrated I got. What I realized is that while some in the LC may have the appearance of not having their own individuality, it is all a pretense, an act that they put on.

Once someone's time is completely occupied by the LC, individuality doesn't mean much because they don't have time to be themselves. That's what I think this teaching is really about. They don't want people having hobbies or activities that are going to "distract" someone from being 100% dedicated to LC activities.

Of the Christians I know outside the LC, I haven't met any that are expected to spend as much time doing church activities as in the LC. In the LC it is highly looked down upon to have other interests outside the LC.

Thanks for sharing. Your experience seems to have been much like mine. And yes the ministry discouraged us from pursuing interests and activities outside of the Local Church.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This issue of "individuality" has also been a struggle for me. Before I had any realization of what was really going on in the LC, I was convinced that I needed to rid myself of all individuality.

When push came to shove, so to speak, I think what ultimately saved me from the cult under Mel Porter was the fact the my family came out of what was known as "Land Betwixt the Rivers," now Land Between the Lakes, Kentucky. Where everyone, being cut off from outside support, had to be stoutly self sufficient and independent. That was passed down to me from my family. As well as disdain and distrust for the Tennessee Valley Authority, who chased my family off their land like they were driving Native Americans on The Trail of Tears.

Truth is, I had no problem being part of the LC hive, as long as I believed I was in Gods' hive. It was when I discovered I was actually in a man made hive that my independence could no longer be held in check.

Since leaving the LRC I've made it a point to be an individual, & independent. A fact that disturbs even our loving host UntoHim.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

That is what Witness Lee claimed for himself. To question that proposition was rebellion. Therefore, even to ask what evidence Lee based his claim marked the inquirer as a disobedient rebel by the definition of Nee and Lee. Faithful saints did not question and strove to shed their individuality.

I saw this Star Wars picture on a t-shirt today. The caption read, "Empire Photo Booth."

http://ep.yimg.com/ay/stylinonline/s...-t-shirt-7.jpg

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Eph

Rayliotta, I concur that it also exits among other cultures. I think it might be the degree of its practice. (Also, that Italian's culture greatly resembles that of Chinese--family value and that.) When I was a little younger, I always thought brothers John Ingalls and Gene Gruhler will be picked for their maturity.
BTW, I just love the Godfather movies.

Eph, your observation re similarities between the Chinese and Italian cultures is very interesting to me. Care to say more?

Is it too much of a stretch to suggest that the present culture of the Lord's Recovery is in many ways a "hybridization" of Chinese culture and Italian culture?

[Eph]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Eph, your observation re similarities between the Chinese and Italian cultures is very interesting to me. Care to say more?

Is it too much of a stretch to suggest that the present culture of the Lord's Recovery is in many ways a "hybridization" of Chinese culture and Italian culture?

Rayliotta, my stereotype opinion draws from movies, news, and some students of mine who happened to be Italian offsprings. I wish English is my first language so that I can say more. Others see your question might say more? Since you brought up the Godfather movies, I watched them years ago I had worries if the LSM has gone to that path. Money and power play some roles in Catholic and LSM while both hold similar cultures.

[awareness]

Unlike God we can't see into hearts ... or minds. But Asians and Westerners look differently on the outside, that we can see, so why not on the inside too, where we can't see?

That dismissing a common human moral core, of course, if such a thing exists. (I think it does.)

Personally, I love the Asian mind. And Asian women (I married one - a Lee).

Zeek recently quoted from Joseph Campbell, "Masks of God - Oriental."

Long back I read the Masks of God "Primitive," "Occidental," and "Creative." I skipped "Oriental" cuz I knew it would be Campbell's best in the series, and was saving and savoring it.

Well years passed. Many years actually. Then, a couple of yrs ago I got the itch for it again. I have the paper bound book, but wanted it for Kindle. I went searching for it at Amazon, only to find no such format existed. I'm a member of the Joseph Campbell Foundation so I emailed them about the series coming out in ebook format. Was told they were working on it but only had Oriental ready. Long, short, of it, they sent me a free copy. Long, short, of that, Zeek quoted from it.

I say all that because Oriental mythology goes back before Abraham ; before the Bible was a thought in the mind of God, prolly, if that's possible ; before, definitely, the thought of a Messiah entered into the mind of man (improbable prolly, cuz man has always needed a savior - we're born needing a savior - our mother), but you know what I mean.

As a result the Asian culture, history, mythology, and mind, is/are complex.

It's been mentioned that Nee and Lee's theology, specially as to their Delegated/Deputy Authority, was primed by their Asian background.

But actually, it was Christianity that was primed by the Asian background. Oriental mythology is replete with human gods, with virgin births, and much of the same symbols, found in Christianity.

And that makes it all the more difficult to figure out how much the Asian mindset influenced what became know as the local church movement ... also headed by gods ... coincidentally. How do you like that?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I saw this Star Wars picture on a t-shirt today. The caption read, "Empire Photo Booth."

http://ep.yimg.com/ay/stylinonline/s...-t-shirt-7.jpg

Gotta get me one of those so I can look hip down in Sheol.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Gotta get me one of those so I can look hip down in Sheol.

Sheol = Hades. Just stay out of Tartarus, the "deep, gloomy part of Hades, used as a dungeon of torment and suffering."

[aron]

Here is and article by someone at the Sorbonne in Paris, delineating differences in thought patterns, behaviors, and groups, in Asia versus the West.

http://www.ceibs.edu/ase/Documents/E...orum/faure.htm

I liked the idea that the language shapes thought processes, and the presentation of thought processes in language. Western thought, post-Descartes, developed in a more linear fashion. Oriental thought is holistic.

So Lee's "This proves that", may be easily rejected with a few linear refutations. I can show causality elsewhere. But perhaps there was a larger theme that Lee's linear forays were aimed at building. So to dismiss his thinking simply because one shows inconsistencies in his thought may be writing him off too quickly. Perhaps there are larger themes ("the ministry"?) which consistently emerge within "God's economy" and "God becoming man to make man God" and "the processed Triune God", etc.

Also interesting to me was the idea of the value of relationships. In Chinese society, strangers are less trusted and family is more trusted. So I shouldn't be shocked if the "family" of the local church, no matter how it is touted, is pretty weak. If Philip and Timothy Lee was allowed to crash the "church life" party, we shouldn't be too shocked. Also if we see social ties remaining at arms length, even after years of close association.

In contrast, Western relationships become intense, quickly. Westerners will become emotionally vulnerable, and accessible, to each other much more easily. Think of all the young idealists that flooded the local church scene circa 1965-75. Witness Lee welcomed them all. And he dumped them just as quickly. Because he had bigger fish to fry. We shouldn't be too shocked if the "love" moved elsewhere. Different values were at play.

[aron]

Chinese culture is commonly described as the complex product of three systems of thought: Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism. A Chinese may reflect all three and more at the same time while not caring too much about any of them (Hsu, 1963). History brought later additional figures in the global picture such as the Chinese patrimonial bureaucrat (Weber, 1964) followed in recent times by his Maoist version (Lieberthal & Oksenberg,1986).

In China, what can be observed are behaviors. Behind the behaviors, deeper in human personality, are anchored the values. Values elicit behaviors, explain them. Before surveying the set of values that makes the Chinese so specific to Westerners, we have to touch upon something even less visible: Chinese perception and thinking. Intellectual processes refer to highly contrasting models between China and the West.

Westerners have developed an analytical approach to problems by segmenting issues and dealing with them as and when required. The Chinese do not operate this way. They develop a global perception, what is usually labeled as a holistic approach. As pointed out by Chen (1999), "there is no doubt that Chinese people see the world differently from Westerners for two obvious reasons: the radically different nature of the Chinese language, and the isolation in which Chinese civilization developed".

Holism distinguishes itself from Western concepts of formal logic and causal relationship or from analytical approaches such as the Cartesian method by considering the object as deeply embedded in a context, thus assessing the entire situation in order to capture and accommodate the many forces involved (Redding, 1990). "When you will have understood the whole, then you will understand the parts" as the Chinese saying goes (Faure, 1999). A typical application of the holistic approach is found in Chinese medical practice. Instead of dealing with the problem or its symptoms, the Chinese physician "considers the relationship of the different parts of the body and then adjusts the relationship through the use of multifunctional herbal remedies" (Chen,1999).

The Chinese discourse itself demonstrates what Kaplan (1966) calls the "oriental argument development". Analyzing the Anglo-Saxon way of reasoning, concludes that it develops linearly, following either an inductive process from facts to conclusion, or a deductive approach starting from a general principle that will be applied to particular cases. As opposed, the oriental way of reasoning has a "beating around the bush" structure, including a lot of digressions and slowly moves by concentric circles to the core of the subject.

This approach is consistent with the language and the writing. In Chinese, there is no alphabet. To understand the meaning of a character, one has to circle and capture the whole ideogram. One different stroke within 10 or 20 that make the character, and this character has a totally different meaning.

The Chinese approach problems the way they write an envelope, they go from the global to the specific: country first, then city, street, number, family, person itself. The structure is similar with a business card: family name comes first, then the given name. The date also expresses the same basic rationale: the year comes first, then the month, then the day.

Western culture has developed concepts in order to separate ideas from the object. To conceptualize is a way to intellectually distance oneself, to dominate reality. As underlined by Nakamura (1964), the Chinese way of thinking puts the emphasis on the perception of the concrete, leading to the non-development of abstract thought. Chinese thinking as a concrete thinking is highly consistent with the language because ideograms come from pictograms, which are simplified representations of reality.

This absence of concern for abstraction should not be interpreted as evidence of simplicity in Chinese thinking but rather be viewed as an art of "synthetic cognition" providing the Chinese with the ability to grasp the "big picture" (Lang, 1998). Thus, in negotiations, Chinese use concrete reasoning, metaphors, proverbs, stories, and traditional sayings. Metaphors are concrete expressions drawn from real life that integrate complexity by keeping a sense of the whole with its ambiguities and contradictions.

Western thinking aims at being objective, at separating facts and judgment. Chinese thinking does not operate so. It expresses a need to evaluate, judge, and take side in any situation. Every one is good or bad; behavior is correct or wrong. There is no neutral position. Chinese thinking is basically normative (Granet, 1950) and fulfils a social function which is to orient attitudes in any situation. The behavior of any foreigner working with Chinese is thus constantly evaluated. This explains the connotations that are traditionally associated to foreigners, be they critical or laudatory such as "Barbarians", "Foreign Devils" or "Foreign Guests". In the same fashion, asking someone his name does not simply consist of saying "what is your name?" but at least "what is your precious name?". The person concerned in turn will answer using a matching formula such as "the insignificant person that I am is called... ".

Western logic is based on the "non contradiction" principle. A fact is true or untrue. In China, the binary logic does not work. Things are not black or white, but black and white, yin and yang at the same time. This explains the concept of "socialist market economy" which sounds so strange in the ears of many Westerners, but does not disturb a single Chinese, as far as consistency is concerned.

In the past, the Chinese ideal was to behave as a Confucian and think as a Taoist (Chen, 1999). Yin and yang, basic component of all things composing the universe should not be viewed as opposites but as complementary. "Balance is the great schema of the cosmos" (Bond & Hwang,1995). Thus, it gives birth to a very specific rationale labeled as "associative thinking" (Faure, 1999). When Mao Zedong writes that the "law of the unity of the contraries is the basic law of nature and society" (Mao, 1965) it is not so much a principle of the Leninist-Marxist theory that is expressed by this words but the Chinese culture in deepest and most traditional aspect. Integrating contradictions allows reversibility and thus opens a wide range of possible actions under the heading of pragmatism.

These ways of framing reality have behavioral consequences in the relations among Chinese but also on the way Chinese interact with Foreigners. These behaviors refer to underlying values showing what is desirable by contrast with what is considered as negative. Among the most prominent basic values characterizing Chinese society are the following: face, indirect action, trust, and centrality.

"Integrating contradictions allows reversibility and thus opens a wide range of possible actions under the heading of pragmatism." Suddenly Witness Lee's behavior, and the apparent discrepancy between teaching and behavior, makes more sense.

Face saving, face restoration, and face giving are crucial values. The Chinese live in the eyes of the others and have a quasi-pathological preoccupation with reputation. Social judgment as a personal asset and as a family asset is considered as vital. The worst thing that can happen to the Chinese is to lose face, to feel humiliated. In this regard, the 19th century with events like the Nanjing and the Tianjin treaties and the sack of the Summer palace, explain a lot of what happened during the 19th century in terms of humiliation, national bitterness and restoration of reputation. The fact that one of the current best sellers in China is titled "China can say no" deeply expresses such a concern for the recovery of face.

"Every person has a face as every tree has a bark" as a Chinese saying tells. To lose one's credit, respectability, deference is equivalent to "losing one's eyes, nose, and mouth" (Hofstede & Bond, 1988: 8). This explains a number of situations that make the Westerners in China somehow puzzled. For instance, not showing ignorance is more important than telling the truth. Maintaining face has priority over the accuracy of the answer. In relations between foreign and Chinese enterprises, face concerns lead to references to "technical cooperation" instead of "technical assistance". A foreign businessperson has to realize that one does not sell to China, but it is China that buys.

The regulating mechanism of social behavior is the feeling of shame instilled in the mind of every Chinese. Face may not only be enhanced or lost but also "traded" by giving face to the counterpart who in turn has to reciprocate. This very specific skill has been raised to its most extreme refinements in the Chinese tradition of "face-work". By shaping a "powerful and attractive image when dealing with others" (Bond & Hwang, 1995: 225), the allocator strengthens the interaction and connection, thus increasing the probability of reciprocation from the receiver. Thus, face-work operates as a "social lubricant" (Redding & Wang, 1995: 286).

Face has also a negative value because it serves as an "invisible knife" (Fang, 1999: 150) to kill genuine feelings. Without a sharp sense of shame, China with its lose legal framework and weak sense of discipline would have been a disorganized society deprived of social cohesion. In this sense, face is a founder value of social order.

Indirect action is a tribute to Confucius, a way to preserve harmony. The whole society should be the replication of a large family. Social harmony is achieved through moral conduct, controlling emotions, avoiding conflict, even competition. Thus, in relationships things are suggested, not told straight away. In traditional China only devils move on a straight line (Faure, 1999: 202). Suggestiveness is expressed in traditional arts such as painting, poetry as well as in philosophy. Even Chinese medicine bans excessive expressions of emotions. The restriction of externalized feelings can be observed in daily activities. For instance, when people meet or leave each other, they never kiss. As the Chinese saying goes "people have emotions like trees have worms". Thus, the Confucian gentleman keeps a perfect control over himself whatever the circumstances may be. Saying "no", being negative would be perceived as a clear lack of good manners.

As most of what is conveyed is implicit, Westerners when dealing with Chinese people must develop a real talent for decoding needs and wants of the counterpart. Otherwise, they could be totally misled by polysemic signals such as the Chinese smile, which as an objective fact, may lead to opposite interpretations. A Chinese smile can be perceived as a mask of politeness, an opaque wall behind which one observes the other. It can express cooperation, or denial, joy or anger, certainty or total ignorance, trust or distrust, pleasure or embarrassment (Faure, 1999: 204).

Westerners in China tend sometimes to think that what their Chinese counterparts practice the best is the art of dodging. This is not to be seen as a trick to deceive foreigners but an immediate product of the doctrine of harmony and the face consciousness. The point is to prevent a polarization of positions that could result in a conflicting situation. Consequently divergences in interests are not openly stated, leaving a rather opaque situation in which the foreign counterparts exhaust themselves while trying to understand what is really going on. The Westerner may thus realize that the Chinese discourse is meaningful for what it does not tell.

Understanding "face", to me, is essential to understanding Chinese ideas of social harmony. It is not about right and wrong, but about going on together. Therefore TC had to bow and scrape before WL, but he won't do it before the Blendeds. The first preserved the principle of face, but the second violates it. I think the Dong situation is probably similar. WL was Dong's "father", but not the current Blendeds.

Also TC's treatment of underlings, and his expectation that they would carry that treatment back to their "localities". It is culturally sensible.

In the tough, reckless, merciless global Chinese society, there is no room for trust. Suspicious is the norm. Trust is a requirement for doing business that has to be built. Thus, any business starts with establishing a relationship. This will hopefully thwart dirty tricks and hidden agendas of all sorts. One must develop a "protective sphere" made of friends, relatives with whom business can be carried out at minimal risk. This explains the eagerness of the Chinese to develop personal networks or rely on the family, meeting thus a basic Confucian value.

The legal framework is still a weak and fuzzy framework, not always as helpful as it could be. In a way, signing a contract is a tangible proof of lack of trust. It demonstrates that the conditions for cooperation are not completely fulfilled. In China the very essence of a transaction is not legal but relational. Laws are currently viewed as made to be circumvented. This explains the car drivers' behavior in the cities, who as soon as they can, break themselves of abiding by the most basic traffic rules (Faure, 1995). This very special relation to law at least partly explains the Chinese habit of copying, counterfeiting products. In the Chinese culture, cleverness and shrewdness are viewed as superior to strength and law and understood as means to serve the revenge of the smartest on the strongest.

Another reason lies in the methods of education traditionally based on the repetition of the model offered by the masters' works. A third cause draws its source in the Chinese sense of fairness, a major driving force in Chinese behavior. For instance, in the case of famous brands, consumers view the price as too high but long for maintaining their social status. Thus, the most obvious solution is for them to buy counterfeits..

This article centered around the idea of doing business. But when you think of family, and it's focus of relations, and basis of mercantilism (doing business) it makes sense. If one's network is family, even extended family (cousins and uncles), versus purely mercantile relations, this may explain the orientation toward "trust" and "cheating" that we find inexplicable. "Us" and "them" are framed differently from the social groupings of the West, which are often less traditionally structured. Phillip and Timothy Lee were family, and Max Rappoport was not. "Glorious church life" be damned.

At the time of Qing dynasty, the world map drawn up by Matteo Ricci was regarded as absolutely unacceptable because China was not shown as the center of the world (Wong, 1963). Nowadays China is still the Middle Kingdom. The Chinese operate from concentric circles: China, center of the world; Beijing, center of China (with the whole country at Beijing time); Zhong Nan Hai (the new forbidden city where political power stays) is the heart of Beijing. The geographical and political structures completely overlap.

Centrality applies as well to cultural issues. Everything is assessed from a sino-centric point of view. The reference is China, Chinese views, Chinese needs, Chinese values, Chinese tastes, and Chinese food. While negotiating with Chinese leaders, Kissinger had to permanently deal with what he conceptualized as the "Middle Kingdom Syndrome".

Fang (1999: 26) considers that "a strong sense of cultural superiority is ingrained in the Chinese mind". The "xenophobic" Chinese view is for him obvious and starts already with "the name "China", the character of which literally translates as the "Middle Kingdom", because the Chinese always held themselves culturally in high esteem, viewing their culture and nation as lying in the center of human civilization".

The Imperial Records used to register any foreign mission to China as a tributary delegation. Nothing would escape from such a civilizing appropriation. The raw Barbarian starts to be cooked when getting close to the Chinese fireplace, source of all civilization. Thus the past strongly permeates the present and the foreigner aiming at the Chinese market is often viewed as a predator and, with the technology he brings along, as a modern tributary..

"The raw Barbarian starts to be cooked when getting close to the Chinese fireplace, source of all civilization."

So WL could tell SB "You just lost your virginity". Clash of the cultures. I won't say, "Suddenly it all makes sense to me", but really the importation of different values and expectations explains a lot.

[TLFisher]

Thanks Aron. "Covering Noah" is applied as a Biblical phrase for "saving face".

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

"Covering Noah" is applied as a Biblical phrase for "saving face".

As long as a Bible phrase or section could be found, cultural influence could be hidden. But other Bible phrases could be found to support other values, and actions, like "shout it from the rooftops".

And I'd like to expand that further. Just as Americans didn't understand Chinese cultural values which Lee brought over, so Nee & Lee in 1930s-40s China didn't understand the Near Eastern cultural values of the first century, which underlay so much of the text, which understandings had vanished with a combination of time and social upheaval. Every church rupture (the Great Schism, the Protestant Reformation) moved the collective discussion further from the original dialogue, and left readers reliant on what was seen there in the bare text.

And, Post-Protestant, we saw what we wanted to see, what our cultural values primed us to see. Nee's "normal church" sprang out from the text like Athena from the forehead of Zeus. And "covering Noah" came along with it. To Nee & Lee, it was normal, proper and good. Like Lee suddenly changing course, that was just being pragmatic. Anything else would be foolish, because it would clash with his value systems.

[aron]

For an example of the cultural divide, look at attitudes toward family. Jesus taught to "hate your mother and father and sister and brother" for the sake of the kingdom. But the Chinese value of respect for elders trumped that. The Caucasians, without a cultural lens to receive it, took it literally.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

For an example of the cultural divide, look at attitudes toward family. Jesus taught to "hate your mother and father and sister and brother" for the sake of the kingdom. But the Chinese value of respect for elders trumped that. The Caucasians, without a cultural lens to receive it, took it literally.

And I recognize the truth in what you said.

But "hate your mother and father and sister and brother" was not the only thing Jesus said on the subject. And it was probably a form of hyperbole for the purpose of putting things into proper perspective. God and his kingdom comes first. Not mother, father, sister, and brother are at the bottom or are not even in consideration.

There is something that we do not like about the Chinese culture. And there are things that we should see where our own culture is not God's culture. I believe that Nee and Lee were foolishly believing that Chinese culture somehow was the answer to being Christ-like. They probably didn't even recognize it is such. How much do we do the same (meaning we, generally, as Americans). We believe that capitalism is the Christian method of economics. We think that being independent and doing things for yourself is a Christian virtue. And thinking that my thoughts are better and therefore right (every man does what is right in his own eyes).

There is much that is wrong with the LCM and with the substitution of Chinese worship of elders, family, etc., for the life that Christ calls us to live. That makes so much of the LCM a spiritual sham. But to the extent that we simply substitute American values for "Christian" living, we are no better.

I start singing "Substitute" by the Who when I consider all the "this is simply that" stuff that Lee pushed on us. And the one that mostly comes through is "Substitute your lies for fact."

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I believe that Nee and Lee were foolishly believing that Chinese culture somehow was the answer to being Christ-like. They probably didn't even recognize it is such. How much do we do the same (meaning we, generally, as Americans). We believe that capitalism is the Christian method of economics. We think that being independent and doing things for yourself is a Christian virtue. And thinking that my thoughts are better and therefore right (every man does what is right in his own eyes).

I know the discerning reader will take my previous remarks (post #279) and say that they know of Americans who were devoted to their non-LC parents, and Asians who were indifferent to non-LC family. True, but the generalization stands, as does Lee's remark that corn-fed Midwestern boys were larger than their Asian counterparts. There is always the small Iowan boy and the large boy from Shandong province in China. But on average if you make remarks about size within different populations, people will understand. Generalizations exist because there are observations behind them.

I believe that we all read things with a subjective cultural lens. We behave individually, but in so doing we at least partly act out values that we absorbed from our parent culture. Watchman Nee found a vision of the "normal church" in the text of the NT, and to some degree it was arguably truer, scripturally, than the European/American model that had been imported on Chinese soil. But he also read into it his ideas of what was normal. And "everyone line up with the person in front of you", for example, was probably a value derived from his societal heritage. In America he'd have been laughed out of the room, but in China it was taken as from God.

And I think that Witness Lee abandoning John Ingalls, his "closest co-worker" for his profligate son Philip is neither shocking nor incongruous if you remember the ingrained values he brought with him into the "glorious local church". Family was family and church was church. With the Caucasians, the local church would easier over-ride family ties. Even though he encouraged us to call one another "brother and sister", Lee clearly valued his son Philip more than his "brothers" Max Rappoport or John So or Bill Mallon. And the rest of us essentially lived in a personality cult, as we had to take his values (Philip Lee over John Ingalls and Bill Mallon) as our own.

To OBW's post, the fact that Nee and Lee didn't see the Asian-ism of their interpretive position becomes a big problem. With Nee and Lee, the Maximum Brother (them) must be right at all times, else the whole collective enterprise will be in peril. An alternative, I believe, is not to become racist or xenophobic and decry the Chinaman Lee while asserting my own American-isms as the (superior) solution, but to realize that we all have bias. We all have interpretive predispositions. The person who thinks that (s)he alone is "cutting straight the word of the truth" will be the most deviant. Lee insisted on being that designated "straight cutter" -- so he and his followers went right into the ditch.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I believe that we all read things with a subjective cultural lens. We behave individually, but in so doing we at least partly act out values that we absorbed from our parent culture. Watchman Nee found a vision of the "normal church" in the text of the NT, and to some degree it was arguably truer, scripturally, than the European/American model that had been imported on Chinese soil. But he also read into it his ideas of what was normal. And "everyone line up with the person in front of you", for example, was probably a value derived from his societal heritage. In America he'd have been laughed out of the room, but in China it was taken as from God.

In his book Authority and Submission, Nee taught that we as believers, when we walk into a room with other Christians, should immediately think about who we should submit to. Western believers under his influence somehow thought this was spiritual, since we never heard this before in America, or the Bible for that matter.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

And I think that Witness Lee abandoning John Ingalls, his "closest co-worker" for his profligate son Philip is neither shocking nor incongruous if you remember the ingrained values he brought with him into the "glorious local church". Family was family and church was church. With the Caucasians, the local church would easier over-ride family ties. Even though he encouraged us to call one another "brother and sister", Lee clearly valued his son Philip more than his "brothers" Max Rappoport or John So or Bill Mallon. And the rest of us essentially lived in a personality cult, as we had to take his values (Philip Lee over John Ingalls and Bill Mallon) as our own.

I found this to be the absolute pinnacle of hypocrisy, yet to W. Lee and his merry band of Blendeds, this made absolutely perfect sense. For Max Rapoport to confront Philip Lee about his adultery and molesting the female volunteer staff at the LSM offices was akin to the unforgiveable sin. How dare Max R. for thinking that Witness would place righteousness above the Lee blood ties -- for his "sin," Max could not be washed in the blood of the Lamb. Rather, Lee would make Max into Azazel, the proverbial scapegoat to protect his own darling son. Then Lee branded Max as a rebellious leper, who needed to go outside the camp proclaiming, "unclean, unclean, unclean."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

To OBW's post, the fact that Nee and Lee didn't see the Asian-ism of their interpretive position becomes a big problem. With Nee and Lee, the Maximum Brother (them) must be right at all times, else the whole collective enterprise will be in peril. An alternative, I believe, is not to become racist or xenophobic and decry the Chinaman Lee while asserting my own American-isms as the (superior) solution, but to realize that we all have bias. We all have interpretive predispositions. The person who thinks that (s)he alone is "cutting straight the word of the truth" will be the most deviant. Lee insisted on being that designated "straight cutter" -- so he and his followers went right into the ditch.

This makes so much sense in light of Chinese history: some 5,000 years of dynasties, reinforced and validated by their wise and beloved philosopher Confucius.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by aron

Here is and article by someone at the Sorbonne in Paris, delineating differences in thought patterns, behaviors, and groups, in Asia versus the West.

http://www.ceibs.edu/ase/Documents/E...orum/faure.htm

Thanks for the link, aron. The article touches on relevant topics. It may be difficult to overstate how much of a role these cross-cultural misunderstandings and blind spots play/ed into the recovery dynamic, at least in North America.

[aron]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

It may be difficult to overstate how much of a role these cross-cultural misunderstandings and blind spots play/ed into the recovery dynamic, at least in North America.

The LC apologist might say, so what? So WN and WL were Chinese, and the current expression in North America bears a somewhat Asian stamp. So what? Martin Luther was German, and this perhaps "colored" his ministry, and the Protestant Reformation, arguably a Northern European reaction to the Roman church. So what if Lutheran or Calvinistic thought then had Germanic tinges? John Wesley's Methodism was arguably colored by his English-ness. Jonathan Edwards was a New England Puritan colonist, and his thinking reflected his upbringing. Dwight Moody was a typical Midwesterner - open, expansive, energetic, and optimistic. So what? So what if there are Asian aspects to LC culture?

My reply is this: we don't realize how many blind spots we have. Nee's "normal church" was read through a cultural lens. Period. If you don't see this, you don't see it. But Nee's so-called normal church was his normal church, not the normal church for everyone at every time. Doesn't mean that the European/North American church model, imported onto Chinese soil, which Nee reacted to, wasn't corrupted. It was. But the Nee model was also corrupted. We all are. That's just the way it is. The one who thinks he sees most clearly is the most blind of all.

So the blind spot in the LCs is big as a house, big as a bucket loader running over everyone and everything. Big as a tank in your living room. And then one wonders why the furniture is always crushed. So, blame it on the "storms" and "turmoils" and "rebellions" inherent in humanity, in life itself. And therefore one is unable to learn, to grow, to change. Always remaining true to the "vision", or lack thereof.

[aron]

The "recovery" narrative held that Christianity had by fits and starts improved itself, essentially starting with the Protestant Reformation of Martin Luther. Then, on "fresh soil", God raised up WN, who was able to do a syncretistic (combining) work and take the best of Darby, Luther, Murray, Govett, Penn-Lewis et al and get a "vison for the age". Now, why can't you or I come along, take a piece of WN and a piece of Billy Graham and a piece of Robert Schuller and a piece of Rick Warren (or whomever) and do our own syncretistic work? Why was WN's "normal church" vision supposed to be the culmination of all visions, only to be supplemented by his "closest co-worker" WL, and after that to be supplemented by nothing at all? Ultimately this narrative reveals itself as not being based on the Bible. Pray tell us, what scriptural revelation shows us one spiritual giant per age, eventually terminating in the age of "small potatoes"? What scripture supports the idea that "everyone must get in line" behind the Maximum Leader (ML)? Etc, etc, etc? No, I argue that this kind of narrative arises from, and (importantly) takes root and grows upon, the shifting and untrustworthy sands of human culture. Therefore we said, "Amen, amen", even when the narrative drifted further and further from scripture, because our LC culture dictated that we be "one" with the ML, even if the ML deviated significantly from scripture, morality, and common sense.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The "recovery" narrative held that Christianity had by fits and starts improved itself, essentially starting with the Protestant Reformation of Martin Luther.

I have numerous complaints about the so-called Recovery narrative as told ad infinitum by Nee, Lee, and the Blendeds.

Why choose Luther? Not taking anything away from his service to God, but he readily admitted he was a "Hussite." According to my study of church history, the Czech Jan Hus should have been the first "Recovery" minister. According to Nee's prophetic commentary of the 7 churches in Revelation, Luther should have represented Pergamos since he was so attached or "married" to the world, drawing his strength from the German nobility, most of which cared only to be loosed from Rome.

Then why was China the "virgin soil?" Why not Czech, Germany, or Bohemia? Why not India? I'm still purging my memory of Lee's tall tales of revisionist church history.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then why was China the "virgin soil?" Why not Czech, Germany, or Bohemia? Why not India? I'm still purging my memory of Lee's tall tales of revisionist church history.

Because the Middle Kingdom is in the middle of the Chinese map. Just as North America is at the top of the North American map. "Ethnocentrism," I believe the textbooks call it -- and we can fill in the blank for whatever ethnos it happens to be, wherever it happens to be.

Just the way of the world, I guess. Not such a bad thing -- so long as we're able and willing to acknowledge it for what it is.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Human culture possibly explains a lot here.

First off, the emergence of the Little Flock was a culturally-driven reaction to economic, cultural, and political imperialism by the west.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Christianity had a brief biography of Watchman Nee (Ni) by G. Wright Doyle.

Here are a few excerpts ...

For a variety of reasons, including the anti-Western movement of the 1920s, many Chinese Christian leaders were seeking ways to form indigenous churches that would be free from Western missionary control. Having moved to the International Settlement in Shanghai in 1926, Ni constituted in 1932 a group of “apostolic” co-workers that would lead what became the Little Flock Movement: Wang Peizhen (Peace Wang) and Li Yuanru (Ruth Lee), with Ni himself as supreme. They soon grew from a small household gathering to a network of local churches.

Here is another quote, from a 2005 article in the magazine Church History. The author is Joseph Tse-Hei Lee, who teaches history at Pace University.

Originally Posted by aron

Calling for a return to the early forms of Christian fellowship as shown in the Book of Acts, Watchman Nee encouraged Christians to break away from the well-established denominational churches. He believed that the denominations had lost their faith in the biblical truth and become corrupted by their hierarchical structure. Apart from converting non-Christians, he "reconverted" regular churchgoers, members of denominational churches, and graduates of prestigious Christian mission schools. Many Chinese Christians left their denominations to join the Little Flock, to the extent that the Protestant missionaries in Fuzhou often accused the Little Flock of "stealing sheep." It was indeed very common for Christians of other denominations to "convert" to the Little Flock throughout the 1920s and 1930s. As Watchman Nee wrote on December 4,1932, "For three years now, more than ten places in Tsao Ning (Zaoning), of Kiangsu (Jiangsu), belonging to the [American] Presbyterians, more than ten places in T'ai Shuen (Taishun), of Chekiang (Zhejiang), belonging to the [China] Inland Mission, a number of places in Fukien (Fujian) of other sects, agreeing in doctrine, have already been amalgamated, have done away with their original name, changed the rules of pastors and leaders, and attached themselves to the Little Flock." Given his emphasis on the independence of local churches, many Chinese Christians found it irresistible to affiliate with the Little Flock. Thus, the theme of xenophobia and Western imperialism was a strong element in these conversions..

In Chinese culture, it's not the Western, egalitarian, "We hold these rights to be self-evident, that all men are born equal" idea that forms the basis of social cohesion, but rather it's the idea that people are valued only so much as they add value to the system, or network, of human relations. So once Nee and Company threw off the yoke of foreign domination, and then the "local" and "autonomous" part of the Little Flock could be done away with. Then it was the centralizing "Jerusalem Principle", because centralization also added value to the network. Centralization made the network more valuable.

It also explains why 30 years later Lee put his admittedly ne'er-do-well on Philip in charge of the Living Stream Ministry: because Philip was in the network of family. To have not given him some of the spoils of the flock would have been an unforgivable sin, for Lee's culture. Ditto for son Timothy and Daystar. A father couldn't abandon his children, no matter how scurrilous, reprobate, or unspiritual they may be. They're in the network. You have to honor the network, and give them something. Culture triumphs.

And Lee himself was the Top Dog, publishing all those books, so his ministry added the most value to the network. So the idea of his "ministry" became the stand-in for Jesus Christ. Those like EM, RG, BP who incessantly promoted the ministry added value to the network, and rose to become the Blendeds. Those who valued their conscience more than the network were disposable. It's all about the network: without the network you are nothing.

It also makes perfect sense that they constantly promoted the recruiting of "good building materials" and ignored the divine mandate to give to those who couldn't repay you in this age. Because it's all about adding value to the network. People who don't repay you in this age add nothing to the network: forget about them.

It also explains why the Party and the People remain unchallenged in China decades after its main Western analog, the Russian Soviet Federation, collapsed. The Chinese culture values the system, not the individual. The individual only has value as much as he or she is related into the system. Put "church" instead of "Party", and suddenly you have the Lord's Recovery and you have the same thing. Instead of Chairman Mao adding to value to the system it is the Apostle of the age, God's humble bondslave Witness Lee.

It also explains how the "Lord Changshou" sect of the Shouters broke off. Elevate Lee to Godhood, and you as the chief value-adder (promoting Lee to God status) get elevated, also. Just like BP and RK and EM: elevate Lee, and elevate yourself. Lee added value, so you promote Lee's ministry, then you add value to the network. And it's just what Lee himself did by calling Nee the Seer of the Divine Revelation. Lee elevated Nee as the top value adder, then he (Lee) as Nee's chief promoter got to be next in line. Pretty simple math, really. Add value to the system, and your value goes up, also. Your value is proportional to the value that you add to the system.

There's nothing wrong with that system, per se, and it's certainly not inferior to the Western model - it works, after all - but it is still "the way of the Gentiles".

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

If you can imagine a flock of birds flying together, and each bird has to watch out for the one in front and on the side. Each bird instinctively processes all that to keep in the space allotted, even though that space is changing, because the flock is moving. Or think of a school of fish swimming together; you get my point, I hope. At that time I really saw something of the Asian preference for "order". If everybody is free to move about in an unconstrained way, then they will bump into each other.

This is completely different from my upbringing. I grew up in the Western U.S. where there are wide open spaces and everybody has to be independent. You have to figure it out, and do it. You are not flying in a flock, but solo. The rugged individual is sort of the cultural model.

So Nee's model, and Lee's model, is a kind of Asian-leaning model, "that we would all have the same mind, and speak the same thing." The proper, orderly, harmonized church life is the conceptual vehicle that guides everything. So "Witness Lee is always right, even when he's wrong" is not so much a self-aggrandizement (though he bought into it, to some degree) but rather a central organizing principle for an orderly functioning religious body. The Big Boss speaks and we all say "Amen". So if WL says that Solomon with all his foreign wives is a type of Christ and his bride, we say "Amen". Then, if in the next breath WL says that David is not a type of Christ because he was a sinner (he numbered Israel in his pride, he dallied with Bathsheba, had Uriah the Hittite killed, he -"gasp"- threw a stone at Goliath instead of forgiving him!) we still say "Amen". Because good order in the church requires us to say "Amen" whenever WL speaks. So all of this is perfectly reasonable, even essential, in the Asian-created mind. So the "truth", or reality, of "good order in the church" is greater than the requirement for consistency when interpreting the Bible, for example.

I wanted to come back to the point of my first post here on this thread. Imagine a flock of birds or a school of fish moving together through space, and suddenly they all shift direction. It is impressive, even mesmerizing. How do they do it?

Now look at Watchman Nee: first he sold the idea of "autonomy" and "independence" in the local church, then called the Little Flock. In the 1920s and 1930s whole congregations moved away from the Western-affiliated model and to Nee's model. The Methodists had done the hard work of conversion and now Nee's model was, they complained, "stealing the sheep". But in fact the sheep were voting with their feet. No more foreign church affiliation, but the true, 'normal' church of the Bible.

Then Nee reversed course, dramatically. Suddenly he discovered the 'Jerusalem Principle', in which one church was the HQ and everybody had to line up. 'Handing Over' followed suit. Not just the local, autonomous, independent church but the Mother Church became the focus. Also Church Leadership. Who's the Big Boss?

And they all followed suit. How could all these people reverse course so dramatically? I can understand Nee's motives, but what of the thousands, even tens of thousands, who immediately followed suit? I believe they were hard-wired with a cultural imperative which made building up the Collective a prime directive. Both the original "autonomous" directive, which expelled foreign affiliation/domination, and the "Jerusalem" directive, which consolidated power, direction, and coordination, were seen as building up the Network/Hive/Collective. So in both cases they would be followed en masse. There is no contradiction.

The only problem was when the Little Flock Hive ran into a bigger Hive. The Commie Hive. Then, the 'People' and the 'Party' won over, and the Little Flock was seen as a counter-revolutionary movement which needed to be expunged. Just as WN brooked no deviance to his Authority Model, so neither did the Communists. And they had the guns, so the fall of the house of Nee was great.

Later, Witness Lee resurrected the same model in the USA, with interestingly similar patterns. First, throw off the yoke of Religion. We answer only to Jesus. Then, spread to all the cities of the earth. All local and autonomous. Then, consolidation began - we all have to be One. See the classic RecV footnotes in Revelations 2 and 3. All churches have to be absolutely identical.

Ideas like Blending, Fellowship, Coordination were now the new norm. We must have the Practicality of the Body of Christ. In other words, just as Nee said 50 years earlier, Find out who is in front of you, and get in line. So culture triumphs, in the end.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

I wanted to come back to the point of my first post here on this thread. Imagine a flock of birds or a school of fish moving together through space, and suddenly they all shift direction. It is impressive, even mesmerizing. How do they do it?

Now look at Watchman Nee: first he sold the idea of "autonomy" and "independence" in the local church, then called the Little Flock. In the 1920s and 1930s whole congregations moved away from the Western-affiliated model and to Nee's model. The Methodists had done the hard work of conversion and now Nee's model was, they complained, "stealing the sheep". But in fact the sheep were voting with their feet. No more foreign church affiliation, but the true, 'normal' church of the Bible.

Then Nee reversed course, dramatically. Suddenly he discovered the 'Jerusalem Principle', in which one church was the HQ and everybody had to line up. 'Handing Over' followed suit. Not just the local, autonomous, independent church but the Mother Church became the focus. Also Church Leadership. Who's the Big Boss?

And they all followed suit. How could all these people reverse course so dramatically? I can understand Nee's motives, but what of the thousands, even tens of thousands, who immediately followed suit? I believe they were hard-wired with a cultural imperative which made building up the Collective a prime directive. Both the original "autonomous" directive, which expelled foreign affiliation/domination, and the "Jerusalem" directive, which consolidated power, direction, and coordination, were seen as building up the Network/Hive/Collective. So in both cases they would be followed en masse. There is no contradiction.

The only problem was when the Little Flock Hive ran into a bigger Hive. The Commie Hive. Then, the 'People' and the 'Party' won over, and the Little Flock was seen as a counter-revolutionary movement which needed to be expunged. Just as WN brooked no deviance to his Authority Model, so neither did the Communists. And they had the guns, so the fall of the house of Nee was great.

Later, Witness Lee resurrected the same model in the USA, with interestingly similar patterns. First, throw off the yoke of Religion. We answer only to Jesus. Then, spread to all the cities of the earth. All local and autonomous. Then, consolidation began - we all have to be One. See the classic RecV footnotes in Revelations 2 and 3. All churches have to be absolutely identical.

Ideas like Blending, Fellowship, Coordination were now the new norm. We must have the Practicality of the Body of Christ. In other words, just as Nee said 50 years earlier, Find out who is in front of you, and get in line. So culture triumphs, in the end.

Culture is as human as sex, and just as sex can be used illicitly so can culture. (Note to Awareness: I'm not saying sex is bad, I personally am in favor of it!)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

I wanted to come back to the point of my first post here on this thread. Imagine a flock of birds or a school of fish moving together through space, and suddenly they all shift direction. It is impressive, even mesmerizing. How do they do it?

Now look at Watchman Nee: first he sold the idea of "autonomy" and "independence" in the local church, then called the Little Flock. In the 1920s and 1930s whole congregations moved away from the Western-affiliated model and to Nee's model. The Methodists had done the hard work of conversion and now Nee's model was, they complained, "stealing the sheep". But in fact the sheep were voting with their feet. No more foreign church affiliation, but the true, 'normal' church of the Bible.

Then Nee reversed course, dramatically. Suddenly he discovered the 'Jerusalem Principle', in which one church was the HQ and everybody had to line up. 'Handing Over' followed suit. Not just the local, autonomous, independent church but the Mother Church became the focus. Also Church Leadership. Who's the Big Boss?

And they all followed suit. How could all these people reverse course so dramatically? I can understand Nee's motives, but what of the thousands, even tens of thousands, who immediately followed suit? I believe they were hard-wired with a cultural imperative which made building up the Collective a prime directive. Both the original "autonomous" directive, which expelled foreign affiliation/domination, and the "Jerusalem" directive, which consolidated power, direction, and coordination, were seen as building up the Network/Hive/Collective. So in both cases they would be followed en masse. There is no contradiction.

The only problem was when the Little Flock Hive ran into a bigger Hive. The Commie Hive. Then, the 'People' and the 'Party' won over, and the Little Flock was seen as a counter-revolutionary movement which needed to be expunged. Just as WN brooked no deviance to his Authority Model, so neither did the Communists. And they had the guns, so the fall of the house of Nee was great.

Later, Witness Lee resurrected the same model in the USA, with interestingly similar patterns. First, throw off the yoke of Religion. We answer only to Jesus. Then, spread to all the cities of the earth. All local and autonomous. Then, consolidation began - we all have to be One. See the classic RecV footnotes in Revelations 2 and 3. All churches have to be absolutely identical.

Ideas like Blending, Fellowship, Coordination were now the new norm. We must have the Practicality of the Body of Christ. In other words, just as Nee said 50 years earlier, Find out who is in front of you, and get in line. So culture triumphs, in the end.

So Lee used the body of Christ and "ye are the branches I am the vine" to export Chinese hive culture to America.

Makes sense to me. The New Testament can be very communistic. And Lee used it that way.

It amazes me that Americans fell for it. But how could they not? Lee used the Bible.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

So Lee used the body of Christ and "ye are the branches I am the vine" to export Chinese hive culture to America.

Makes sense to me. The New Testament can be very communistic. And Lee used it that way.

It amazes me that Americans fell for it. But how could they not? Lee used the Bible.

I think you've summarized my argument in a nutshell. I would merely add that we're social creatures, prone to hives and flocks and schools and churches and whatever we want to call ourselves collectively. But Witness Lee packaged and sold a Chinese variant, pure and simple.

So the idea common in the Occidental West, since at least the Enlightenment Era of Jefferson and Madison and Locke, of give-and-take, with checks and balances, had no place with the Apostle of the Age. The "Authority and Submission" stuff had a veneer of Biblicality but it was culture-driven, sure 'nuff. And stuff like "We must all be absolutely identical, with no differences" and "Everybody should know who is in front of them and get in line" are pure Orientalisms. No Bible involved. Pure, raw human culture. Not even a pretense of spirituality. But we were mesmerized and followed along, anyway. It is amazing, what a con job. And we fell for it.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Later, Witness Lee resurrected the same model in the USA, with interestingly similar patterns. First, throw off the yoke of Religion. We answer only to Jesus. Then, spread to all the cities of the earth. All local and autonomous. Then, consolidation began - we all have to be One. See the classic RecV footnotes in Revelations 2 and 3. All churches have to be absolutely identical.

This is not unity, but uniformity.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

I think you've summarized my argument in a nutshell. I would merely add that we're social creatures, prone to hives and flocks and schools and churches and whatever we want to call ourselves collectively. But Witness Lee packaged and sold a Chinese variant, pure and simple.

So the idea common in the Occidental West, since at least the Enlightenment Era of Jefferson and Madison and Locke, of give-and-take, with checks and balances, had no place with the Apostle of the Age. The "Authority and Submission" stuff had a veneer of Biblicality but it was culture-driven, sure 'nuff. And stuff like "We must all be absolutely identical, with no differences" and "Everybody should know who is in front of them and get in line" are pure Orientalisms. No Bible involved. Pure, raw human culture. Not even a pretense of spirituality. But we were mesmerized and followed along, anyway. It is amazing, what a con job. And we fell for it.

I fell so hard for the Oriental that I married one in the LC. That pretty much lasted until we left the LC.

But I remain spellbound by it. For example, I read Joseph Campbell's Masks of God series. It's a four book series:

1. Primitive Mythology
2. Oriental Mythology
3. Occidental Mythology
4. Creative Mythology

I read all of them but Oriental. I saved that last because I knew it would be his best work. I left that hanging for over a decade. Then around 3 yrs ago I decided to finally read it. By that time I had a Kindle reader (thanks to the sister that helped me marry in the LC long long ago).

But Masks of God wasn't offered in digital format. So I sent an email to the Joseph Campbell Foundation about it. I'm a member. I was told they were working on it, and lo and behold they had Oriental Mythology finished. And a digital copy was sent to me.

I spent days binge reading it. It's a great book. I'm still spellbound by the Orientals. But I see it thru Occidental eyes, or thru Campbell's Creative Mythology, the culmination of Western thought.

And that's why I'm amazed that us westerners fell for Lee's Oriental mythology.

I think the reason for that is because it's so framed by the Bible that Lee's Oriental mythology is not easily recognized. The Bible masks it.

In short, the Occident took the Bible to the Orient, Nee and Lee picked up on it, and Lee brought the Oriental version of the Bible to the Occident.

And we westerners found the Oriental version of the Bible new and attractive ... and ... AND ... fell for Lee's Oriental hive culture and mentality.

It's like Lee slipped us a mickey -- a date raped drug, so to speak -- in his Bible Kool-Aid, took our virginity, and screwed us ... like his son did to the married sisters in LSM, metaphorically speaking.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

And that's why I'm amazed that us westerners fell for Lee's Oriental mythology.

I think the reason for that is because it's so framed by the Bible that Lee's Oriental mythology is not easily recognized. The Bible masks it.

You don't get to see the "real Lee" until you are waaaaay into the forest. That's the problem. It all seems so Bible-based, because it's carefully presented to hide the "rest of the story". Then at some point they tell you something that is totally at variance with the Bible, and by then you have a hook in your mouth.

Even the stuff that's directly from the Bible is way unbalanced. It's like they obsess on 10% of the text, use 20 or 30% to prop up their obsession, distort another 20 or 30% to pretend to complete the picture, and ignore the rest. If you quote them a verse that's not covered by "the ministry", they just stare blankly at you as if you're speaking Swedish.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

In Chinese culture, it's not the Western, egalitarian, "We hold these rights to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" idea that forms the basis of the social contract, but rather that people are valued only so much as they add value to the system, or network, of human relations.

In Asian society, I see a great emphasis on belonging to a social web of reciprocal relations.

Here is Teresa Zimmerman-Liu:

Originally Posted by Nigel Tomes

T. Zimmerman-Liu’s other paper seeks to “describe in detail how an indigenous Chinese Protestant group—the Local Churches—reconstituted guanxi during the twentieth century. It will show how in the process of redefining guanxi to make its members committed Christians, the Local Churches also Sinicized Christianity.” (Teresa Zimmerman-Liu, “From ‘Children of the Devil’ to ‘Sons of God’: The Reconfiguration of Guanxi in a 20th Century Indigenous Chinese Protestant Group,” p. 1, Department of Sociology, University of California, San Diego, Working Paper) She also asserts that, “The Local Church founders further sought to emphasize the elements of scriptural and historical Christianity that would most appeal to their audience of Republican-era (1911-1949) Chinese people.” [T. Zimmerman-Liu, “From ‘Children of the Devil’ to ‘Sons of God’...” p. 2 (emphasis added)] Again she says, “The Local Churches reconstituted guanxi relationships among their members, and they also Sinicized their version of Christianity.” (T. Zimmerman-Liu, “From ‘Children of the Devil’ to ‘Sons of God’...” p. 3 )

Now, the Bible also presents us with parables of one-talented, two-talented, and five-talented servants. And Paul said that as star differs from star in glory so do the believers. Some shine more brightly than others. (1 Cor 15:41)

But the Asian model needs a "Spritual Giant" (LSM term), a "super apostle" (Paul's term) to give it social cohesion. And the rest of the Body, the People or Party or Church or whatever they call it, are defined in how they prop up the Maximum Brother. So in the PRC you had Chairman Mao. How could you not support Chairman Mao? Even today, 40 years after his death, you cannot criticize Mao. Social cohesion demands that we uplift the center and head. So a person becomes the stand-in for the State.

And the LSM variant was that "the ministry" should be supported. They called it "the practicality of oneness". How could you say that you are one, if you don't support the ministry? So a fallen, fleshly man becomes the stand-in for the kingdom of heaven. To me it's a completely culturally-derived model. It's "normal" for Nee and Lee, because that's their culture. And they did an impressive job of selling it to the naiive Westerners. Some of us even held on through all the "storms" and "rebellions" and "turmoils" that such a model engendered.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

In Asian society, I see a great emphasis on belonging to a social web of reciprocal relations.

Here is Teresa Zimmerman-Liu:

And the LSM variant was that "the ministry" should be supported. They called it "the practicality of oneness". How could you say that you are one, if you don't support the ministry? So a fallen, fleshly man becomes the stand-in for the kingdom of heaven. To me it's a completely culturally-derived model. It's "normal" for Nee and Lee, because that's their culture. And they did an impressive job of selling it to the naiive Westerners. Some of us even held on through all the "storms" and "rebellions" and "turmoils" that such a model engendered.

I think you drive home good and valid points. And are finally getting down to the nut of Nee and Lee's ministry; that it's modeled after the Chinese communistic model.

By the way,

From “Children of the Devil” to “Sons of God”: The Reconfiguration of Guanxi in a 20th Century Indigenous Chinese Protestant Group
By Teresa Zimmerman-Liu

can be found at: http://sociology.ucsd.edu/graduate/d...oSonsofGod.pdf

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

We.. are finally getting down to the nut of Nee and Lee's ministry; that it's modeled after the Chinese communistic model.

It's eerily similar, with "Great Leap Forward" - style master plans pushed at whim by the Jefe Maximus, with no input from flunkies other than, "Great idea, Chief!!" Only yes-men allowed. All others will be summarily executed.

And Witness Lee openly envied the Red Guards of Mao; all he had to work with were the stupid "mooing cows" of the LC.

But Witness Lee didn't model himself after the Commies, but rather both the Commies and Lee's LC had to conform to standard Asian cultural social contracts to thrive. As do all human collective enterprises, to some degree - they have to account for cultural norms, expectations, and tastes. The peril was that we weren't supposed to have anything but heavenly culture in the LC, so when we got repeatedly trampled by the elephants which didn't exist, we just had to dust ourselves off and pretend nothing was wrong. And so it got wronger, and wronger, and wronger.

The "flavor" of the LC is definitely Chinese. But you aren't supposed to admit that.

[aron]

From Teresa Zimmerman-Liu's paper:

For Kipnis (1997:8) what is actualized in guanxi rituals is the network of relationships that “in fact constitute one’s self” and the “families, villages, and perhaps any other social group one could name.” Thus, guanxi
practices and relationships form the warp and weft of Chinese societies, and foreign institutions, such as capitalism or Christianity must negotiate their form with respect to guanxi rituals, when they enter a Chinese society.

I think that if you never get this stuff you'll never understand the LC. Conversely, once you get it, all that 'weird' stuff makes perfect sense; suddenly you have a coherent narrative. The self is identified in conjunction with its larger social structure. So meaning and value are derived from that larger form.

The problem is, Jesus upended the conventional values of the social model. Jesus taught that the great "Spiritual Giant" on earth is really the least in the kingdom. And the littlest "Small Potato" is the greatest. So the LC model works on earth, but it violates the basic spiritual principles of heaven that it was supposed to build towards. Just another human-oriented, Babylonian Tower. And this one got pretty high, because we didn't see it for what it was, and we turned over everything - what was it the Age Turners pledged? Their lives, their income, jobs, relationships, families, etc. Stacking bricks toward heaven.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

But the Asian model needs a "Spritual Giant" (LSM term), a "super apostle" (Paul's term) to give it social cohesion. And the rest of the Body, the People or Party or Church or whatever they call it, are defined in how they prop up the Maximum Brother. So in the PRC you had Chairman Mao. How could you not support Chairman Mao? Even today, 40 years after his death, you cannot criticize Mao. Social cohesion demands that we uplift the center and head. So a person becomes the stand-in for the State.

And the LSM variant was that "the ministry" should be supported. They called it "the practicality of oneness". How could you say that you are one, if you don't support the ministry? So a fallen, fleshly man becomes the stand-in for the kingdom of heaven. To me it's a completely culturally-derived model. It's "normal" for Nee and Lee, because that's their culture. And they did an impressive job of selling it to the naiive Westerners. Some of us even held on through all the "storms" and "rebellions" and "turmoils" that such a model engendered.

Since we saw very similar dynamics with James/Jerusalem, pope/Rome, Darby/London, Nee/Shanghai, and Lee/Anaheim, how much was actually Chinese culture, and how much was fallen man, lusting for power, and mis-using Biblical principles like oneness for selfish gain?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

From Teresa Zimmerman-Liu's paper:

For Kipnis (1997:8) what is actualized in guanxi rituals is the network of relationships that “in fact constitute one’s self” and the “families, villages, and perhaps any other social group one could name.” Thus, guanxi
practices and relationships form the warp and weft of Chinese societies, and foreign institutions, such as capitalism or Christianity must negotiate their form with respect to guanxi rituals, when they enter a Chinese society.

Originally Posted by aron

I think that if you never get this stuff you'll never understand the LC.

Ya got that right. Just understanding the Chinese words "quanxi" and "Ganqing" opens a deeper understanding of Lee's system, or a deeper ganqing."

Originally Posted by from Wiki

"The term gǎnqíng is often used in comments by the government of the People's Republic of China, and is sometimes mistranslated[citation needed] when used in this context. Often one will see a statement that an action "hurts the feelings of the Chinese people."[1] This statement is better translated as an action that "offends the Chinese people."[citation needed] When used in this context the statement is actually implicitly threatening that should the action continue, cooperation would not be forthcoming in the future.

"hurts the feelings of the Chinese people" sounds a whole like "hurts the feelings of body" bantered about by LC leadership.

The body metaphor in the New Testament may be communistic, but it's head is Christ, that's obvious in the metaphor (we aren't actually the physical body of Christ).

'Offends the Chinese people' and 'offends the body' would be abstracts that would easily mingle in Lee's mind. It would come as natural as walking and breathing to Lee. In essence, Lee couldn't help but bring the Chinese model to the west. It constituted him. He picked it up in his cult-ure. He saw it with deep gǎnqíng.

I've always thought the LC's exemplar model was the Rome Catholic Church. That just proves I think in western terms.

But now I see the exemplar model was really the Chinese system. "Authority and Submission" by Nee, is exactly that system.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

how much was actually Chinese culture, and how much was fallen man

Authoritarian models are not unique to the Orient. But notice how well this one ran, while other models came apart at the seams. Because this variant had a large, pliable membership base in "the virgin soil of China", while the man-lording and man-elevating aspects were carefully hidden behind rhetoric and argumentation to fool the foriegners. It is only when you see the statements like "everybody get in line with the person in front of you" and "every church must be exactly identical" to you really see it for what it is. Oriental despotism, pure and simple.

Comparing this model to the RCC, the RCC looks almost benign. Would Desiderius Erasmus have survived in the Lee church? No chance.

And Nee & Lee sold it so well to us, because they believed it. It was in their blood, in the air they breathed. So they really sold it well. You have to give them credit for that.

Lastly, look how Lee told us to overlook his "messy kitchen" while he built the perfect church life to consummate the New Jerusalem. But nobody else's kitchen got a free pass. Because it wasn't his. So you can see how subjective it was - he could see everyone else's fallen culture but not his own.

"Who can discern his own errors?" Psalm 19:12

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Lastly, look how Lee told us to overlook his "messy kitchen" while he built the perfect church life to consummate the New Jerusalem. But nobody else's kitchen got a free pass. Because it wasn't his. So you can see how subjective it was - he could see everyone else's fallen culture but not his own.

"Who can discern his own errors?" Psalm 19:12

Just look the other way, give a free pass and "cover the brothers". Focus on the "meat" and not on the "bones".

Come to think of it, it's dangerous to ignore the bones. Especially when eating fish, it you don't "take heed" of bones, you might choke on it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

Just look the other way, give a free pass and "cover the brothers".

That now sounds so Asian mind to me now.

We should have told Lee that we preferred indigenous Christianity. ...And driven that Eastern Imperialist back to China.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

That now sounds so Asian mind to me now.

We should have told Lee that we preferred indigenous Christianity. ...And driven that Eastern Imperialist back to China.

We're all biased, you know. I've met with a Foursquare Gospel Church for some years now, and I'm well aware of the craziness of Aimee Semple McPherson, how she rode a motorcycle into church, disappeared into the desert and pretended that she was kidnapped. Etc etc. I just went in there one day; I was feeling adrift and went in and sat down. Was it the Lord's spirit, or fate or chance or luck (good or bad)? I dunno. I just went in and sat down. And there I am today. It's my indigenous Christianity, and it's arguably "poor, pathetic, fallen, dark, etc etc".

We all have bias. We use filters to sift through the mass of experiences streaming in. Many of these filters are culturally-derived, maybe almost all. What's pernicious about Lee's filters, in particular, is that he couldn't see them, wouldn't admit that he had any, and convinced a bunch of us likewise. We endured beating after beating (sometimes literally - see bro Ohio's testimony of the GLA experience), all the while convinced that it was pure and heavenly. "Glorious church life, feasting on such a rich store" - remember that song? Our portion in the LC was supposed to be rich, high peak, glorious, and pure and without mixture, while everyone else's experience was poor. But that, my friends, is a culturally-derived view, and model. It was an effective glue for the LC 'social contract', but still was human culture. Many of us got damaged or even spiritually destroyed, in the various storms and turmoils, but the model lived on.

But it's important to see it for what it really is. Yes, there's a lot of non-LC, non-Asian despotism out there, elevating of persons and lording over others. This particular brand, however was Asian, and its unfamiliarity helped mask it for what it was. Then, when things went south, we still didn't know what it was, and what was beating us so badly, so we toughed it out, convinced it was 'of the Lord', when really it was 'of men'.

'Covering the brothers'. That preserves the network. Leadership survives, network survives. Look what happened to the Mars Hill church group without Mark Driscoll. It imploded. 20,000 members to nada.

'Positive for the ministry'. The ministry is the life-blood of the network. No ministry, no network. So we must continually prop up and promote the ministry. Even when it feeds us crap, we must smile and say, "Yummy."

'Our leader is(or was) a spiritual giant'. Promote the leader, promote the group.

'Even when he's wrong, he's right'. Never question leadership. That is Asian culture.

'Get in line, and follow the person in front of you'. Asian practice. Watchman Nee's organizational scheme in the Little Flock.

'Everyone must be absolutely identical'. Conformity is good because it doesn't threaten group cohesion. We can't have individuals here. That leads to disharmony. Individuality might lead to chaos. We must, at all costs, preserve the network. Conscience, truth, justice - forget about it. Preserve the network.

'Don't waste your time' with the poor, weak, sick, and aged. They can't be used to build the network. Instead, get the useful 'good building materials'. Don't waste precious resources on those who can't pay you back in this age. This is Asian culture, without pretense of biblicality.

And so on. If I tried I could probably think of a dozen or twenty more LC-isms. And in many of them there's a strong Asian flavor. Sometimes it's pretty overt, with no Biblical covering. Usually, though, it's carefully reasoned out in scripture. But they came to scriptures with a cultural bias, or lens, or filter, and reasoned out a system based on that bias, and then exported it. Yes it is imperialism. Cultures are good at that. The Chinese aren't the first. But certainly that seems to be what happened here.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

... they came into scripture with a cultural bias, or lens, or filter, reasoned out a system based on that cultural disposition...

A good example is the "God's economy" hermeneutic. This was the crown jewel of the ministry. But in order for the interpetive scheme to retain cohesion, it occasionally had to present the Bible as lacking cohesion. Occasionally, and fairly frequently if you really look, the Bible is presented by the ministry as being 'low', or 'fallen' or 'natural', or 'men's concepts'.

The ministry must be preserved at all costs, even if the Bible is diminished in the process, because the ministry is essential to build the network. The Bible, however, is expendable; occasionally useful, occasionally not useful.

Rather, I believe that the Bible coherently presents us with a picture of Jesus Christ. And the more we see it, the more opportunity we have to enter in, ourselves. Instead, the LC ministry gave us a culturally-derived interpretive model, which ultimately distracted us from the Bible and the Christ of God revealed therein.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Watchman Nee first he sold the idea of "autonomy" and "independence" in the local church, then called the Little Flock. In the 1920s and 1930s whole congregations moved away from the Western-affiliated model and to Nee's model.

Then Nee reversed course, dramatically. Suddenly he discovered the 'Jerusalem Principle', in which one church was the HQ and everybody had to line up. 'Handing Over' followed suit. Not just the local, autonomous, independent church but the Mother Church became the focus. Also Church Leadership. Who's the Big Boss?

And they all followed suit. How could all these people reverse course so dramatically? I can understand Nee's motives, but what of the thousands, even tens of thousands, who immediately cooperated? I believe they were hard-wired with a cultural imperative which made building up the Collective a prime directive. Both the original "autonomous" directive, which expelled foreign affiliation/domination, and the "Jerusalem" directive, which consolidated power, direction, and coordination, were seen as building up the Network/Hive/Collective. So in both cases they would be followed en masse. There's no contradiction..

Here is a quote on Wikipedia about the Empire of Japan:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

After two centuries, the seclusion policy, or Sakoku, under the shoguns of the Edo period came to an end when the country was forced open to trade by the Convention of Kanagawa in 1854.

The following years saw increased foreign trade and interaction; commercial treaties between the Tokugawa Shogunate and Western countries were signed. In large part due to the humiliating terms of these Unequal Treaties, the Shogunate soon faced internal hostility, which materialized into a radical, xenophobic movement, the sonnō jōi (literally "Revere the Emperor, expel the barbarians").

In March 1863, the "Order to expel barbarians" was issued. Although the Shogunate had no intention of enforcing the order, it nevertheless inspired attacks against the Shogunate itself and against foreigners in Japan.
..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan

The reaction to Western technological and cultural hegemony, and unfair trade practices, was summed in "Revere the Emperor, expel the barbarians". Likewise, Watchman Nee's indigenous alternative to Western spiritual imperialism found a ready audience in the Chinese Christian community, where xenophobic (anti-foreigner) sentiments were widespread.

Now here's where I find two striking parallels: first is that just as the Japanese saw no contradiction between "expelling the barbarians" and themselves becoming the invaders in Manchuria, China and WWII (because both actions furthered the interests of Greater Japan), so also did the quite different philosophies of "local autonomy" and "centralization" make sense in Nee's conceptual world. Both autonomy (from the foreigners) as an initial step, and centralization and handing over as a later step, were to further the interests of Nee's church organization.

Secondly, both the Japanese Empire and Witness Lee's Local Church, like Mao's China or Nee's Little Flock, had no room for democracy, and no time to entertain the opinions of the people. Discourse among peers to collectively solve problems was/is discouraged: in Nee's words you must "figure out who's in charge and get in line". Obey without question. As the Japanese put it so succinctly: revere the Emperor. Reverence to central authority was the social glue that gave everything shared meaning, purpose, and cohesion.

I remember Lee saying that the LC is an army, not a democracy. But if he'd read American history he'd know that George Washington's Continental army had a consensual, democratic aspect: when Washington wanted to figure out what to do next, he'd often call his generals into a tent and they'd hash it out in front of him. This is how they decided to continue the advance, after the brilliant surprise victory at Trenton, and press the attack against the British at Princeton. The Continentals were bloody, weak, and cold: what to do - forward, or go back to safety? Washington was a true leader (in the Western mold) in that he didn't worry about strong, opinionated, vocal underlings. In the Asian model, allowing such open debate would be seen as weakness, loss of control, and the precursor of social collapse.

Western civilization isn't inherently superior to Eastern; obviously Asian armies and navies have had much success over the years, as have their governments, cultures and societies. Look at Singapore! A very successful society on many levels. But the Nee/Lee church set-up is an Asian one, and was created from and disseminated through fallen human culture just as surely as were the Methodists who brought Christianity to China. Once you see the influence of human culture, values, thinking and practices in the LC operation it becomes more understandable. Like seeing Watchman Nee's complete 180 degree reversal from the 1920s to the 1940s; what was once contradictory and baffling to my eyes suddenly became sensible. I don't have to agree, or follow, but can start to understand what happened.

[aron]

"As a perceived foreign menace the Christian community became the target of the bloody rampage by famished North China peasants known as the Boxers. Before the revolt was quelled by the expedition forces, it had visited death on more than 200 Westerners and untold thousands of native converts.

As the culmination of nineteenth-century anti-foreign and anti-Christian agitation, the Boxer Uprising drove home the point to Chinese Christians that, in the popular mind, their profession of the foreign faith and their membership in churches dominated by the Westerners had turned them into disciples of the 'foreign devils' and collaborators in a Western assault on Chinese tradition. In the decades that followed, a chief test of Chinese Christian leadership would be the ability to shake off the foreignness of their religion, to take control of the churches, and to fashion a viable indigenous Christianity that would respond to the needs of the country and its people."
"The Search for Chinese Christianity in the Republican Period", by Lian Xi. Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Oct 2004), pp. 851-898.

If I remember, Lee's family suffered in the persecutions of the Boxer Rebellion. So Nee's proposal of a biblically-based "normal" Christian church was obviously appealing to many, many Chinese Christians, Lee included. But it was a solution from the Bible being read through the lens of human culture and meeting immediate human need, i.e. expediency. To sell it as the solution for all Christian people at all times is short-sighted, to put it mildly.

[aron]

An excerpt from Life Study of Genesis, chapter 114:

"After the Boxer Rebellion, many saints in England prayed desperately for the vast country of China. The Lord answered their prayers by coming in and doing a marvelous work in the colleges throughout the country. Thousands of students, including a good number of brilliant ones, were captured by the Lord, and many of them saw a vision. I was one of these students, and I was very familiar with the situation. Brother Nee was not the only one to see something concerning the church. Many others did also. However, they were afraid to speak of their dream concerning the church. These students were afraid of the missionaries, whose goal was to advance their mission work, their mission church. They were fearful that if they spoke something different from what the missionaries were doing, they would get into trouble. Because of his bold speaking, Brother Nee was betrayed. In the middle 1920s he published twenty issues of a paper called The Christian. In the articles in this paper Brother Nee spoke according to his dream. As a result, people laughed at him, and he got into trouble. The missionaries, teachers, and theologians, all of whom were older than he, disregarded him and opposed him. Brother Nee had seen a vision of local churches in every city throughout China. A quarter century later, his dream was fulfilled. By 1948 there were about five hundred local churches in the provinces of China.

Before Brother Nee's dream was fulfilled, however, he suffered a great deal, not only from outsiders, but even from turmoil stirred up by insiders. Due to this turmoil, his ministry was set aside for a number of years. Brother Nee once told a certain brother that there was no possibility to ever resume his ministry. This is an indication of the severity of Brother Nee's sufferings. He suffered so intensely that he felt that it was impossible for him ever to resume his ministry. But, much to his surprise, the Lord did something in 1948 to restore his ministry. In the forthcoming biography of Brother Nee now in preparation all this will be made clear. As a result of the restoration of Brother Nee's ministry, hundreds of churches were raised up in the cities of China. This was due to Brother Nee's speaking, to his sounding of the trumpet, and to that of a few co-workers who were faithful to him."

Elsewhere, Lee talks about the 'persecution' of Christians in China causing the local churches to come forth. But Lee doesn't mention that this persecution is due to foreign affiliation. The incentive for the native Chinese to dissociate with European churches was very strong. They probably followed Nee not because he was right, but like Constantine before him, he offered a way for the widespread suffering to cease. And once you see everybody else is going, you go too. It's like a hit movie - eventually it gets its own momentum and people go see it because it is popular, not because it's any good.

What follows is an excerpt from The Meaning of the Church, Book 1. pp. 94,95:

"In 1900 thousands of Christians were killed in the Boxer Rebellion. From the human perspective, the church suffered a great deal. But from God's perspective, the church in China was able to travel a long distance in a glorious way. The Boxer Rebellion can be compared to a large camel that was unclean in the eyes of God, yet it functioned as a means of transportation for the church... The reason the churches in China are in their present condition is due to the persecution of Christians in the Boxer Rebellion. Since that time there has been the continual increase of the Lord's testimony in China."

None of the Chinese xenophobia as a backdrop to the rise of the Little Flock (i.e. 'the Lord's testimony') is mentioned by Lee. It isn't helpful to the story of Nee. Plus, the glaring disconnect of an indigenous, nativist movement arising as a reaction to foreign cultural imperialism, but later becoming an imperialist movement itself, and being exported and imposed on people in other lands, might at some point become too big not to notice.

[awareness]

Nee? No great leader is great until the mythmakers are finished ; in this case Lee.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Probably the biggest challenge facing the Chinese Christian church in the early decades of the 20th century was not sin, or God, or faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; it was affiliation with the Western barbarians.

Remember that the Boxer Rebellion was put down by a European/American multinational coalition. Think about it: if Chinese troops were marching through your town, shooting people, how popular would a religious group be, that was overtly affiliated with those occupiers? Not very. It would be problematic to recruit new members, and to promote the religious ideology. Watchman Nee found a solution to this problem, and a way out, in the "localism" of Brethren teachings, and he used it to remove himself and many others from under the thumb of Western Christianity, both Protestant and Catholic, and present an unfettered Christian church to the Chinese people.

Ultimately, however, his teachings were revealed to contain new fetters. I think his subsequent centralization "Jerusalem" program made that quite clear: "get in line" and "hand everything over" and "obey without question" became the new watchwords. Asian Church Organization 101.

Meet the new boss...

[aron]

I wanted to re-visit Terry's post of his experience in Bellevue, where the elder said, "This isn't a democracy - the church life is an army". Specifically, it is an Asian army. As I said, if you read the history books you will see the American Army having an allowance for discussion, for back-and-forth. Earlier I gave George Washington and his generals as a classic case, but it was by no means the last. Conversely, in the Asian army it's expected that no commentary or public deliberation will be raised. At all. Ever.

In the American Army, if the commander gives an illegal order, the troops not only have the right to resist, but will be held accountable if they comply. Lt. Calley and the men of My Lai in Vietnam (shooting unarmed civilians in a ditch) found this out: you're expected to know the rules, and an order by a superior can't countermand them. But in the Asian army, any command from above is the rule, in and of itself. "Even when he's wrong he's right" is a classic orientalism.

I remember my LC "junior elder" telling me that whatever the "senior elder" said, he would do without question or hesitation, however wrong or ridiculous. At the time I thought it strange, as much of the Asian-steeped world of the LC was. But I went along anyway. (I found it preferable to the even stranger world I'd come from.)

Lastly, the Asian army doesn't value individual human life very much. If you're left behind, or plowed under, too bad for you. The "lost sheep" doesn't count for much - the army must go on. No Gettysburg Address for the fallen. The Individual is continually sacrificed for the Mother Ship. From the banzai charges of the WWII Japanese to the human wave assaults of the Chinese and Koreans in the next war, the tactics of sacrificing pawns for the greater good was considered to be sound, even de rigueur. Using such tactics, the North Vietnamese eventually triumphed over the U.S. a decade later - they suffered exponentially greater losses, but had the stomach to absorb the suffering while the U.S. didn't.

So when WL paid lip service to his fallen comrades, and Steve Isitt went out to find them, he found out how much WL really cared. Not at all, in fact. Because the lost sheep had stories to tell, and the Mother Ship couldn't absorb the tales. Fact-finders and truth-tellers, in spite of rhetoric to the contrary, were shunned like the plague. In the Asian-flavored LC, if the individual couldn't be utilized to service the collective, they had no value. As in zero - the lost sheep don't exist. The collective must go on, and acknowledging lost individuals threatens the group-centric church life. Instead, we get the faceless, drab, grey, sea of proletariat small potatoes. There aren't any individuals - Mother Ship is all. It's Maoism with a religious face.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

In the Asian-flavored LC... we get the faceless grey sea of proletariat small potatoes. There aren't any individuals... Maoism with a religious face.

It's a trope of story-telling to put two cultures in apposition, and record the mirth that follows. The hayseed that goes to the city, or the city slicker stuck on the farm. Or the Yankee in Paris or Tokyo or the Chinese person in Des Moines. In every case, there is incomprehension, and amusement, as different worlds collide.

So it's not really too much to expect, that a Chinese man leading a church in the USA would have some of these issues. WL's apologists say that his word selection is misunderstood, because English is not his native tongue. He just seems to be non-orthodox in his presentation of the trinity, for example. But it's merely awkwardness in language.

And so forth. My castigation of LC "Maoism" may have be too strong, because there's another culture at work here, and not from heaven but earth, with its behavioral customs and social expectations. So I don't want to be judging an ethnicity or a culture or history, as if mine were somehow better. If my posts seemed venomous (and surely some were, at some point), then mea culpa. I apologize.

Certainly we can make the generalization of the individual vis-a-vis the collective in Asian versus Western thought, and how it played out in the care for the proverbial lost sheep, and the have-nots, and the ability for the individual member to take initiative in their spiritual life versus waiting for a command from HQ. And so forth.

But if my tone has been unpleasant I apologize.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

In the Asian-flavored LC, if the individual couldn't be utilized to service the collective, they had no value. As in zero - the lost sheep don't exist. The collective must go on, and acknowledging lost individuals threatens the group-centric church life. Instead, we get the faceless, drab, grey, sea of proletariat small potatoes. There aren't any individuals - Mother Ship is all. It's Maoism with a religious face.

There aren't any individuals....Those partial to science fiction think of the Borg from Star Trek The Next Generation. Individuals are assimilated into the collective
Seriously though in the local churches individualism is de-emphasized. The end justifies the means even if the result is utilizing brothers and sisters as pawns for LSM's bottom line.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

There aren't any individuals....Those partial to science fiction think of the Borg from Star Trek The Next Generation. Individuals are assimilated into the collective
Seriously though in the local churches individualism is de-emphasized. The end justifies the means even if the result is utilizing brothers and sisters as pawns for LSM's bottom line.

Or discarded as dross, and reported to be holding the church back -- good riddance -- so the church can go on with more purity of loyalty to the leader(s).

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Certainly we can make the generalization of the individual vis-a-vis the collective in Asian versus Western thought, and how it played out in the care for the proverbial lost sheep, and the have-nots, and the ability for the individual member to take initiative in their spiritual life versus waiting for a command from HQ. And so forth.

It is fair to make these generalizations because there is an obvious cultural disconnect. For starters, we don't have to look any further than the ethnic makeup of any LC to see what groups best identify with the LC. It is not "average Americans". Do we attribute this to culture, or do we swallow the narrative LC leaders tell us, that it's all because of "the opposition" that Americans are afraid of the LC?

I don't make any claim that the LC is obligated to fit American culture. The only issue I take is when they make the claim that culture is nonexistent or irrelevant in the LC. More than anything else, LC leadership is delusion in thinking that they can increase their relevancy in the U.S. without making significant changes. Case and point, if Lee's "New Way" projections were true, the LC in the U.S. would have been to the moon and back already in terms of membership increases.

The fact of the matter is, whatever aspects of American culture are incompatible with the inherent Asian culture of the LC, those are things that will keep Americans from joining. Maybe the biggest generalization that can be made is the individual vs the collective. Americans value their individuality above all (even to a fault), so any group that attacks individuality is something most people want nothing to do with.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The fact of the matter is, whatever aspects of American culture are incompatible with the inherent Asian culture of the LC, those are things that will keep Americans from joining. Maybe the biggest generalization that can be made is the individual vs the collective. Americans value their individuality above all (even to a fault), so any group that attacks individuality is something most people want nothing to do with.

One aspect that could be a considerable factor is how cultures respond to unrighteousness. The events of the late 80's could have affected many Caucasian saints meeting in Orange county localities to cease fellowship with the local churches. All I knew in Anaheim are no longer meeting in the local churches.
Ones raised in the American culture are not prone to look the other way as those from the Chinese culture in regard to unrighteous matters.
I'll sum up by saying how the late 80's turmoil was mishandled caused many Caucasian families to leave which could partly explain for the current LC demographics.

[TLFisher]

A consideration I had this morning with regard to children raised in the local churches, that the Asian influence results in repression. Especially when young people reach the ages of 17-19 years old the effects of repression becomes manifest.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

A consideration I had this morning with regard to children raised in the local churches, that the Asian influence results in repression. Especially when young people reach the ages of 17-19 years old the effects of repression becomes manifest.

Repression of human nature can result in undesirable instincts and behaviors that wouldn't occur otherwise.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

An interesting thing about the LC experience is that it began as a reaction to Western imperialism, which came to Asia alongside the gospel imperative. Eventually, WN and the indigenous Chinese church threw off the yoke of the running dogs of the West, i.e. the denominations.

I'm wary of hijacking Indiana's thread, and wanted to continue my discussion here.

If you think my writings are flowery hyperbole and unrelated to reality as it occurred on the ground, I googled some words in the quote above, and the first link was a discussion with Xi Lian, professor of world religion at Duke University, who got a Christianity Today book award in 2011 for his book "Redeemed by Fire" on modern Christianity in China.

https://www.faithandleadership.com/q...op-its-own-way

For decades after Protestant Christianity was first brought to China, it was resented and rejected by many people as a foreign religion, as part of this Western imperialistic expansion into China.

[In] the early 18th century, Christianity was banned, and missionaries were not allowed into China. It was only after the Opium War of 1839 that China was forcibly opened to the outside world. As China opened to Western trade and Western missions, Christianity spread into the interior of China, so it came as part of the Western expansion.

Unlike in the 16th and 17th centuries, when the Jesuits and other Catholic missionaries came to China with no gunboats backing them, in the 19th century you have gunboats backing these Christians working in China, and that’s why the Chinese resisted and resented Christianity.

(Indigenous Christianity) is behind the current flourishing of Christianity in China. The roots can be traced to the early 20th century, when independent groups emerged outside of the missions, in some cases very antagonistic to Western missions.

Those indigenous movements were able to respond to the spiritual, emotional and other needs of the Chinese population during a period of much chaos -- of warlords, of foreign aggression, of so much suffering. Their message met the Chinese people’s needs in various ways. In terms of the nationalistic sentiment, they separated themselves from missions, so they could say, “No, we are not the running dogs of Western imperialists. God directly speaks to us. We have a revelation from God.”

They also developed a form of Christianity that resonated with elements in the Chinese culture -- a kind of charismatic, Pentecostal worship with speaking in tongues, visions and trances. It was intelligible particularly to Christians at the grassroots level, and it was that kind of Christianity that survived the Communist persecution through the 1950s and into the chaos and the ravages of the Cultural Revolution and emerged after Mao died in 1976.

It emerged from all of this chaos and the persecution of the Cultural Revolution in a way that has really surprised people.

My point was that in the 19th century Western economic, military, political and cultural expansion forced China to open itself to the (European) gospel, and that eventually Witness Lee returned the favor, and exported Asian cultural imperialism to the USA in 1960, subsequently to Europe, in the form of Watchman Nee's "Normal Christian Church" model, and with his own "high peak theology", contrasted to the "low", "dark", "fallen", and "degraded" condition of non-LC (read: Western) teachings and practices.

Once you start to connect the dots, the cultural connections and forces become so glaringly obvious that you really have to be willfully obtuse not to see them. Everyone please repeat after me, "I'm proud to be an ostrich with my head stuck in the sand!"

[TLFisher]

Thinking about the Asian mind in relation to the western mind, how much of a cultural influence was in effect when Witness Lee tolerated his son's running roughshod over brothers, sisters, churches, etc?
To what extent in the Asian mind does the end justifies the means? (Consequentialism)

A number of saints in my district went to Bro. Benjamin Chen's memorial service. When they returned and testified, it was so Chinese. For instance, I heard them say "golden opportunity" at least 4 times. Nothing wrong with being Chinese, but why do they say all other Christian groups are deformed and degraded? It doesn't make sense. Who are they to say this?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

A number of saints in my district went to Bro. Benjamin Chen's memorial service. When they returned and testified, it was so Chinese. For instance, I heard them say "golden opportunity" at least 4 times. Nothing wrong with being Chinese, but why do they say all other Christian groups are deformed and degraded? It doesn't make sense. Who are they to say this?

It's not a Chinese or English speaking thing. Must be the trendy thing to do. I've met with localities in Washington and California. They've spoken similar things. I call it cheap heat when one uses the LC prophesying meeting to put down fellow saints who meet in non-LC assemblies. I'm sure most brothers and sisters echo an amen without giving much thought nor considering what they're saying amen to.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Witness Lee

"Let me tell you a story concerning my own experience. For a period of six years, from 1942 to 1948, Brother Watchman Nee was out of his ministry. Because of the work of the Devil in China, there was a spiritual storm that kept Watchman from ministering. He and I were separated during the war. After the war, in 1946, I was invited to come from the north to the capital city in the south. When some of the co-workers who were involved in that storm against Brother Nee and who also knew me very well came from afar to meet with me, they said, "Brother Lee, can you say that Brother Nee has ever been wrong?" I replied, "Brothers, whether he is wrong or right is not my business. You must admit one thing—that we all owe very much to Brother Nee. We all must admit that he was just like a father to us all. If he was not a father to you, I must testify strongly that, in the Lord's economy, he certainly was a father to me. Before I met with Brother Nee, I knew nothing of the Lord's economy. He is my spiritual father, and my spiritual being came out of him." Then I told the brothers the story of Noah. I said, "Brothers, look at Noah's case. Was Noah wrong? Certainly he was wrong. But, it is not a matter of whether Noah was right or wrong; it is all a matter of from where we have received our being. Was Noah not our father? If he was your neighbor and not your father, it would be another story. But remember that you derived your being from him. He is your father. Whatever you are and whatever you obtained has come out of him. This involves you with the divine government.

Brothers, I didn't see the thing for which people condemn Brother Nee. Even if I did see that he was wrong, I have no position to say anything about his wrongdoing, because he is my spiritual father and my spiritual being came out of him. I could never say anything against him. I am under God's government. Brothers, you must consider that it is not a small thing to be against our spiritual father. When you were not against Brother Nee, what was your inner feeling?" They all admitted that they felt so much life. When I asked, "How about now?" they responded, "We have to admit that we are just dead. We have no anointing or watering within. We are dried up." Then I said, "Brothers, you should listen to this real sensation. Don't care for your mental analysis. According to your mental analysis, Brother Nee is condemned, but as long as you condemn him, you are dead. The more you condemn him, the more dead you are." Immediately, the brothers turned and were saved from their dead situation." [Life-Study of Genesis]

Witness Lee didn't actually see the thing for which Nee was condemned; therefore he could ignore it? Is that the way Jesus put it?

So, "Tell it to the church" is irrelevant? And Paul only heard about the impropriety in Corinth, therefore he should have ignored it?

And Lee's 'spiritual being' came out of Nee? I had always thought God was the source of our personhood, our being, our very lives.

Isn't this just human culture that we're seeing here, superimposed upon scripture?

[Ohio]

Let's look at the progression of Lee's argument with the Shanghai elders:

1. Whether he is wrong or right is not my business.
2. We all owe very much to Brother Nee.
3. We all must admit that he was just like a father to us all.
4. My spiritual being came out of him.
5. It is not a matter of whether Noah was right or wrong;
6. It is all a matter of from where we have received our being
7. He is your father.
8. Whatever you are and whatever you obtained has come out of him.
9. I have no position to say anything about his wrongdoing
10. Because he is my spiritual father
11. My spiritual being came out of him.
12. I could never say anything against him.
13. I am under God's government.

Firstly, what is personal to Lee becomes mandatory for the elders.

Secondly, the story of Noah proves right or wrong is insignificant when you consider your "source."

Thirdly, it went from "like a father," to "my spiritual being came out of him," to "he is your father," to "whatever you are came out from him," to "whatever you obtained has come out of him."

Looking carefully at each of these three progressions, woven into a single conversation, the reader is taken from a Paul/Timothy relationship to a Father God/son of God relationship. How subtle! If you swallow this persuasion, then W. Nee is God Himself to you, since you can only say of God Himself that "whatever you are came out from Him," and "whatever you have obtained has come out of Him."

Is anyone besides God Himself really above the laws of right and wrong? Has there ever been any man of God who was absolutely above all accountability?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Looking carefully at these progressions. . the reader is taken from a Paul/Timothy relationship to a Father God/son of God relationship.

If you swallow this persuasion, then W. Nee is God Himself to you, since you can only say of God Himself that "whatever you are came out from Him," and "whatever you have obtained has come out of Him."

Is anyone besides God Himself really above the laws of right and wrong? Has there ever been any man of God who was absolutely above all accountability?

Originally Posted by aron

For example, this culture apparently requires strong central leadership, or society ostensibly will dissolve into primordial chaos..

Apparently relationships based on abject personal adherence are required for the LSM-led church to function harmoniously. Otherwise, as I said, chaos reigns - who's in charge here? Nobody knows! Anxiety, confusion, uncertainty, instability, and social dissolution ensue . . . terrible! This mustn't happen.

But the cost of this mindset in their pursuit of social coherence and stability is seen in the periodic upheavals, the inevitable "storms", "turmoils", "rebellions", and "quarantines", along with the attendant lawsuits, divisions, rancor, etc, all of which are supposedly the cost of doing business. Such evaluations, writ large and formalized in the LC social contract, are culturally biased, I believe; what things one tends to accept as unfortunate but necessary, and what things one rejects as unthinkable.

And the Bible becomes a bit player in the drama, a prop, used as necessary and ignored where unhelpful.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Many/most current members of the LC are in a completely different demographic from most of the people here (spiritually, culturally, ethnically, socioeconomically, geographically, etc., etc). I say this as a fairly recent leaver; I believe there's a disconnect.

I know that many in my set (2nd-generation, SoCal, Asian, FTTA, etc.) have a lot of doubts and questions about the LC. However--they would also be deeply suspicious of someone like you and of the organization of this board, even if they would allow themselves to lurk here. . .

These points are probably worthy of a thread; I copied this from the "are natural things bad" thread, where it's also relevant, because culture is arguably a "natural thing"; but in any event, how to constructively look at the culture of a second generation SoCal Asian "church kid"? Possibly many of them sense, slightly or even deeply, that there's disconnect between what the Bible says and what they see and live out daily. How normal is the Nee/Lee church life, really? Where's the Holy Spirit - in shouting at each other? Is that what the disciples did? What happened, here - how did we get to this point and how do we go on?

I was in the SoCal LCM, but like Bob Seger's "Midwestern boy on his own", I didn't have the expectations that young Asians get pounded into them from their third or fourth breath. Middle-American Anglo expectations were completely different. Our culture is founded on independence, even rebellion - our forefathers threw off the yoke of centuries of kings and created a 'polis', a democratic government, a government of laws, of the people, of ideas. Not based on centuries of hierarchy or social strata. Questioning, challenging, finding new ways, leveling the playing field - these are ingrained in our cultural DNA. The Asians, from what I could see, were trained from Day One not to bring shame on the family. Many of us Anglos didn't have family - we lost it somewhere around the age of 12 or 15 when we hit the streets. That was simply how it was. It was natural for our culture. So I was a "stranger in a strange land" in SoCal LCM, but had been for some time; no biggie.

Getting to the comment of Koinonia, that the cohort now struggling to live in the Lee Museum, dedicated by their parents to preserve a perfect world that never existed, may not have an emotional capacity to critically challenge its features the way many here have done - i.e. to challenge the expectations of the current status quo and still hope to walk out alive. We did - we grew up challenging everything - it was expected of us, culturally - but this demographic cohort has a different experiential basis, shared value set, and common assumptions.

I brought it over here to the "Asian mind" thread, for one reason: it's important to examine cultural pre-suppositions, because if you don't deal with them, pretending that the "natural man" was buried under the Jordan River and doesn't exist here anymore, you're fooling yourself. Satan now has his invisibility cloak working in full force. So I try to bring this stuff into the open. Examine everything - especially the unexamined stuff.

Now to Koinonia's idea: how to do it in a way that's respectful, with empathy, and invites others to come forward? In a way that's open, therapeutic, transformative? I may have failed miserably with this thread - I like sarcasm and often overstate and overgeneralize and overdramatize my points, and people get (rightly) turned off and wouldn't participate if offered 2 Grand. So, how to look at culture without insulting people, and turning them away?

I don't know the answer to Koinonia's post but wanted to hold it out for consideration. If the challenge was taken up, respectfully and thoughtfully, it might bring this forum to the next level. Or it might point to a different kind of forum, that addressed issues this forum simply can't. Some kind of format that currently doesn't exist. In any event, there's a need, and I don't pretend to have the answer.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thirdly, it went from "like a father," to "my spiritual being came out of him," to "he is your father," to "whatever you are came out from him," to "whatever you obtained has come out of him."

Originally Posted by John Ingalls

I was surprised when nearly four months later I had received a letter from Titus, co-authored by James Reetzke (an elder in Chicago long known to me), dated February 12, 1989, in which Titus reproved me among other things for not taking his fellowship to see Brother Lee. The letter was full of rebuking and censuring concerning the conduct of the elders in Anaheim and contained this statement: "Is it not a fact that you brothers and the church in Anaheim owe him {Brother Lee} your existence?" I am grateful to Brother Lee for his love and service to the saints (including myself) in past years, and I thank the Lord for what we have received through his ministry, but we surely do not owe our existence to him – that is absurd. The source of whatever we are and have, physically or spiritually, is God and no one else.

WL is on the record attempting to instill a sense of guilt into co-workers who had concerns about Nee, implying that they should either feel indebted to Nee, or even feel that their existence as Christians would be nullified without Nee. Many years later, some of WL's coworkers attempted to use the same tactic in a letter to John Ingalls.

It's really disturbing to see how far off the deep end the LC has gone with regards to appreciating certain people. There's nothing wrong with looking up to someone as a "spiritual father"/mentor, but if the appreciation cannot remain objective, then there will be problems.

I also think that another factor at play is the cultural notion of reciprocity. This has been discussed before. Many of the blendeds who were personally mentored by Lee likely were made to feel 'indebted' to Lee. Philip Lin is on the record saying that according to his culture he must remain loyal to Lee. Beyond just an excessive appreciation of Lee, because many of these men were given special attention and positions by Lee, their reaction was to reciprocate with loyalty.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I also think that another factor at play is the cultural notion of reciprocity. This has been discussed before. Many of the blendeds who were personally mentored by Lee likely were made to feel 'indebted' to Lee. Philip Lin is on the record saying that according to his culture he must remain loyal to Lee. Beyond just an excessive appreciation of Lee, because many of these men were given special attention and positions by Lee, their reaction was to reciprocate with loyalty.

The other side of the coin, if you're not loyal, you can't be counted on to be trusted. Always seems in the LC culture loyalty and trust is more weighty than love (which as I've touched on this forum is merely conditional.)

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

The other side of the coin, if you're not loyal, you can't be counted on to be trusted. Always seems in the LC culture loyalty and trust is more weighty than love (which as I've touched on this forum is merely conditional.)

On another thread I mentioned the testimony of a Brasil co-worker who dared question the finances of the Estancia Arvore da Vida (evidently, Dong's son ran the place). The moment he publicly raised the issue of their accounting practices, and their lack of transparency, and the perceptions that such arrangements engendered, then he was "out". And with this cultural mindset when you're out that's it - doesn't matter your position, your sacrifices, anything. The big wheel turns and you're ground to dust. Do not, under any circumstances, examine the Oracle. If you do, then you can't be trusted and you're effectively through.

[aron]

"Let me tell you a story concerning my own experience. For a period of six years, from 1942 to 1948, Brother Watchman Nee was out of his ministry. Because of the work of the Devil in China, there was a spiritual storm that kept Watchman from ministering. He and I were separated during the war. After the war, in 1946, I was invited to come from the north to the capital city in the south. When some of the co-workers who were involved in that storm against Brother Nee and who also knew me very well came from afar to meet with me, they said, 'Brother Lee, can you say that Brother Nee has ever been wrong?' I replied, 'Brothers, whether he is wrong or right is not my business. You must admit one thing—that we all owe very much to Brother Nee. We all must admit that he was just like a father to us all. If he was not a father to you, I must testify strongly that, in the Lord's economy, he certainly was a father to me. Before I met with Brother Nee, I knew nothing of the Lord's economy. He is my spiritual father, and my spiritual being came out of him.' Then I told the brothers the story of Noah. I said, 'Brothers, look at Noah's case. Was Noah wrong? Certainly he was wrong. But, it is not a matter of whether Noah was right or wrong; it is all a matter of from where we have received our being. Was Noah not our father? If he was your neighbor and not your father, it would be another story. But remember that you derived your being from him. He is your father. Whatever you are and whatever you obtained has come out of him. This involves you with the divine government.

Brothers, I didn't see the thing for which people condemn Brother Nee. Even if I did see that he was wrong, I have no position to say anything about his wrongdoing, because he is my spiritual father and my spiritual being came out of him. I could never say anything against him. I am under God's government. Brothers, you must consider that it is not a small thing to be against our spiritual father. When you were not against Brother Nee, what was your inner feeling?' They all admitted that they felt so much life. When I asked, 'How about now?' they responded, 'We have to admit that we are just dead. We have no anointing or watering within. We are dried up.' Then I said, 'Brothers, you should listen to this real sensation. Don't care for your mental analysis. According to your mental analysis, Brother Nee is condemned, but as long as you condemn him, you are dead. The more you condemn him, the more dead you are.' Immediately, the brothers turned and were saved from their dead situation." [Life-Study of Genesis]

Witness Lee told the Shanghai elders, "It is a matter of receiving your being", and "You derived your being from him", meaning Watchman Nee. What 'being' is this they derived? Human or divine? Clearly human, i.e. status and position. Watchman Nee here is not "Our Father who art in heaven", but instead an earthly analog. Fallen and sinful, but clearly necessary for the Little Flock to go on.

Yet the NT tradition had clearly departed from the 'respecter of persons' method. "Call no man your father, for you have one Father in Heaven: that is God." The 'ekklesia' brooked no fallen human culture promoting hierarchies of control, respect, and obedience. That is the way of the gentiles, but it should not be the way with you (Matt 10:5). Yet here in China, clearly established NT precedent is contravened because it isn't useful for the survival of Nee's and Lee's religious offices.

Then, Lee said that he didn't see the things for which Nee was condemned. Remember this is 1946, before the Communist show trial, with the pictures and confession. So the context here in 1946 is, "tell it to the church"; Lee says, "I didn't see it, therefore it doesn't exist." Again, this is clearly human culture trumping scripture. The clear word of Jesus in the gospels is simply ignored as if it didn't exist, and cultural imperatives steamroll God's word into oblivion. "Brothers, these things should not be so."

Philip Lin said, "I know in my conscience you brothers are right according to the truth, but in my culture I must be loyal to Brother Lee." This statement by Lin repeated a pattern set by Witness Lee, regarding Watchman Nee, a pattern which eventually preserved Lee's organizational leadership as well. Human culture was the incubator of the Little Flock of Nee, as well as the Local Church of Witness Lee, and also was their conduit to full flower and fruit-bearing.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Witness Lee told the Shanghai elders, "It is a matter of receiving your being", and "You derived your being from him", meaning Watchman Nee. What 'being' is this they derived? Human or divine? Clearly human, i.e. status and position. Watchman Nee here is not "Our Father who art in heaven", but instead an earthly analog. Fallen and sinful, but clearly necessary for the Little Flock to go on.

When I think about it, it seems WL was playing upon the elders’ gratitude towards Nee. Obviously, they appreciated him, but they were also willing to cease their dealings with him. WL basically instilled a sense of guilt in to each one of them, and succeeded in getting them to once again line up behind Nee. He did it very deceptively.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When I think about it, it seems WL was playing upon the elders’ gratitude towards Nee. Obviously, they appreciated him, but they were also willing to cease their dealings with him. WL basically instilled a sense of guilt in to each one of them, and succeeded in getting them to once again line up behind Nee. He did it very deceptively.

Lee's only scriptural appeal here was to the "drunken Noah" case in Genesis (not sure where did Jesus or Paul reference "drunken Noah" as superseding NT righteousness?), to the elders' "debt" and to the elders "feeling" and "real sensation". Their culturally-based feeling of shame as the Top Dog fell, was allowed to over-ride clear dictates of NT scripture. And the pentacostal, sensual-based church experience - "How did you feel" - suborning the plain words of scripture abets the socially-driven imperative.

[Ohio]

"Let me tell you a story concerning my own experience. For a period of six years, from 1942 to 1948, Brother Watchman Nee was out of his ministry. Because of the work of the Devil in China, there was a spiritual storm that kept Watchman from ministering. He and I were separated during the war. After the war, in 1946, I was invited to come from the north to the capital city in the south. When some of the co-workers who were involved in that storm against Brother Nee and who also knew me very well came from afar to meet with me, they said, 'Brother Lee, can you say that Brother Nee has ever been wrong?' I replied, 'Brothers, whether he is wrong or right is not my business. You must admit one thing—that we all owe very much to Brother Nee. We all must admit that he was just like a father to us all. If he was not a father to you, I must testify strongly that, in the Lord's economy, he certainly was a father to me. Before I met with Brother Nee, I knew nothing of the Lord's economy. He is my spiritual father, and my spiritual being came out of him.' Then I told the brothers the story of Noah. I said, 'Brothers, look at Noah's case. Was Noah wrong? Certainly he was wrong. But, it is not a matter of whether Noah was right or wrong; it is all a matter of from where we have received our being. Was Noah not our father? If he was your neighbor and not your father, it would be another story. But remember that you derived your being from him. He is your father. Whatever you are and whatever you obtained has come out of him. This involves you with the divine government.

Brothers, I didn't see the thing for which people condemn Brother Nee. Even if I did see that he was wrong, I have no position to say anything about his wrongdoing, because he is my spiritual father and my spiritual being came out of him. I could never say anything against him. I am under God's government. Brothers, you must consider that it is not a small thing to be against our spiritual father. When you were not against Brother Nee, what was your inner feeling?' They all admitted that they felt so much life. When I asked, 'How about now?' they responded, 'We have to admit that we are just dead. We have no anointing or watering within. We are dried up.' Then I said, 'Brothers, you should listen to this real sensation. Don't care for your mental analysis. According to your mental analysis, Brother Nee is condemned, but as long as you condemn him, you are dead. The more you condemn him, the more dead you are.' Immediately, the brothers turned and were saved from their dead situation." [Life-Study of Genesis]

Under Titus Chu, we heard this often concerning Lee, "he is my spiritual father, his mistakes are none of my business." Actually, as shepherds of the church of God, they are your business. God is our real Father, remember? "Call no man father." On the one hand, we in the LC's regularly condemned the Catholics for calling the priest their "Father," and then our leaders instruct us to do the same.

The question remains, are our responsibilities greater to our spiritual "father" or to our heavenly Father and His children under our care? If loyalty to one's superior trumps all, then we are an army, not a church. We are not talking about meany complaints here, like whether our spiritual "father" drives a Chevy or a Cadillac. We are referring firstly to God's righteousness, and secondly to stumbling God's children.

Those in the Recovery who have spoken out in the past concerning the sins of their leaders were willing to suffer for righteousness sake, and they did. Those who spoke out concerning the stumbling of God's children were not hirelings but real shepherds.

This next statement that "my spiritual being came out of him," robs God of His glory. Our spiritual being came out from Him. The New Jerusalem of God's people may be our mother, working together with God, but never our source.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Lee's only scriptural appeal here was to the "drunken Noah" case in Genesis (not sure where did Jesus or Paul reference "drunken Noah" as superseding NT righteousness?), to the elders' "debt" and to the elders "feeling" and "real sensation". Their culturally-based feeling of shame as the Top Dog fell, was allowed to over-ride clear dictates of NT scripture. And the pentacostal, sensual-based church experience - "How did you feel" - suborning the plain words of scripture abets the socially-driven imperative.

It's funny how WL could teach that we shouldn't trust in our feelings, yet when certain situations happened, he took the opposite stance. WL asking people about their "inner feeling" is completely absurd. It goes without saying that after these elders had felt 'betrayed' by Nee, so they would have felt worse off than before. So of course they felt things weren't going so well. Basically, WL used a type of false attribution to keep these elders from criticizing Nee.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's funny how WL could teach that we shouldn't trust in our feelings, yet when certain situations happened, he took the opposite stance.

Same can be said of LSM leadership today. Feeling bears more weight than facts. All reason and objectivity is tossed aside.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Caveman

Once you see this dichotomy clearly, I believe you'll recognize that nearly every gripe from disgruntled ex-members or frustrated current members has its roots in Asian cultural values that got institutionalized so deeply into the practices of the Local Churches that they create an atmosphere of expectations so rigid they are just as effective at enforcing conformity as posting a bouncer at the door, or a requiring a profession of doctrinal faith that one must sign in order to be fully received into the circle of fellowship. Some of the Asian cultural elements relate to standards of conduct that are pushed as if essential to the Christian life. Others elements are Eastern cultural values that make their way into doctrinal stances on minor truths, and then get stressed like major ones. The manifestations are numerous, but the root is the same. We (they) failed to distinguish between Lee's culture and his portion of Christ.

On the one hand, I believe this is the glaringly obvious "elephant in the room" that even the current leaders in the Recovery acknowledge has been wreaking havoc and hemorrhaging the life-blood of what, by all rights, should be a thriving organism. Whether they see the elephant for what it truly is or not is not for me to say, but I've been encouraged just to hear they acknowledge the problems it causes for them. And that encouragement is not rooted in cynicism toward them..

The elephant in the room of the LC is Asian culture. This can be seen in Guanxi Networks, which are mutual webs of reciprocal obligations, often tied strongly to family. Lee put his admittedly "unspiritual" son Philip in charge of the LC business office, not because he was qualified, but because he was related to Lee. Of course this isn't exclusive of the Asians: if someone wants to get into Yale it helps that Grand-Dad was Vice-Provost. But in Asian culture I daresay it's especially pronounced. Ergo, Timothy got Daystar and Philip became "The Office".

The point I want to make is that we never saw this cultural influence, believing the Lee narrative that somehow China was (somehow) "virgin soil" for God to raise up something apart from fallen human culture. So when fallen human culture began trampling us to death, we couldn't see it. Even though we got crushed by it. It's amazing, really.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by aron

The elephant in the room of the LC is Asian culture. This can be seen in Guanxi Networks, which are mutual webs of reciprocal obligations, often tied strongly to family. Lee put his admittedly "unspiritual" son Philip in charge of the LC business office, not because he was qualified, but because he was related to Lee. Of course this isn't exclusive of the Asians: if someone wants to get into Yale it helps that Grand-Dad was Vice-Provost. But in Asian culture I daresay it's especially pronounced. Ergo, Timothy got Daystar and Philip became "The Office".

The point I want to make is that we never saw this cultural influence, believing the Lee narrative that somehow China was (somehow) "virgin soil" for God to raise up something apart from fallen human culture. So when fallen human culture began trampling us to death, we couldn't see it. Even though we got crushed by it. It's amazing, really.

As someone with an "Asian-American mind" (if I may), I would venture that this aspect of things was less obvious when the LC (in the USA) was made up mostly of White Americans.

However, with every passing day, the LC is become more and more particular in its demographic: more Asian, more rich, more urban, and more elitist (in terms of education). Visit the FTTA today, and you will find that 70-90% of the population is either Asian-American or actually from Asia, and that the great majority of those come from wealthy families. LC young people are under constant pressure to attend elite universities on the East and West Coasts. The whole phenomenon is resulting in a cultural shift in the LC that is making it more and more unrecognizable to the original "baby boomer" generation that was captivated by Witness Lee in the 1960s and 1970s. It also means that the up-and-coming demographic of LCers feel more and more disconnected with anything that might be considered more traditionally American.

LC leaders know this, and it's the reason why there is so much emphasis on fixing the "racial ratio" and "gaining 'typical' Americans." But it's a lost cause if you ask me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The elephant in the room of the LC is Asian culture. This can be seen in Guanxi Networks, which are mutual webs of reciprocal obligations, often tied strongly to family. Lee put his admittedly "unspiritual" son Philip in charge of the LC business office, not because he was qualified, but because he was related to Lee. Of course this isn't exclusive of the Asians: if someone wants to get into Yale it helps that Grand-Dad was Vice-Provost. But in Asian culture I daresay it's especially pronounced. Ergo, Timothy got Daystar and Philip became "The Office".

The point I want to make is that we never saw this cultural influence, believing the Lee narrative that somehow China was (somehow) "virgin soil" for God to raise up something apart from fallen human culture. So when fallen human culture began trampling us to death, we couldn't see it. Even though we got crushed by it. It's amazing, really.

Since it looked so different than our own, and no one around us said anything to the contrary, we were led to believe it was not fallen culture, but a "spiritual" culture.

It took WL himself, back-stabbing dear brother John Ingalls for protecting vulnerable sisters from the profligate Phillip, to open my eyes to the corruption of fallen human culture within LSM.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

... with every passing day, the LC is become more and more particular in its demographic: more Asian, more rich, more urban, and more elitist (in terms of education). Visit the FTTA today, and you will find that 70-90% of the population is either Asian-American or actually from Asia, and that the great majority of those come from wealthy families. LC young people are under constant pressure to attend elite universities on the East and West Coasts. The whole phenomenon is resulting in a cultural shift in the LC that is making it more and more unrecognizable to the original "baby boomer" generation that was captivated by Witness Lee in the 1960s and 1970s. It also means that the up-and-coming demographic of LCers feel more and more disconnected with anything that might be considered more traditionally American.

LC leaders know this, and it's the reason why there is so much emphasis on fixing the "racial ratio" and "gaining 'typical' Americans." But it's a lost cause if you ask me.

This comment deserved bringing forward. No one knows the future, at least the details. (Matt 24:36) But it's interesting, learning about ourselves, as we struggle against the past. The LCs are trying to grapple with a true demographic shift over the past 35 years, as their constituents keep growing less reflective of the "local" populations they've supposedly been representing.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

This comment deserved bringing forward. No one knows the future, at least the details. (Matt 24:36) But it's interesting, learning about ourselves, as we struggle against the past. The LCs are trying to grapple with a true demographic shift over the past 35 years, as their constituents keep growing less reflective of the "local" populations they've supposedly been representing.

Demographics of the local churches from my youth in 1970's into mid 1980's doesn't even resemble the current state. Something happened along the way to cause an exodus of the Caucasian brothers and sisters. I believe the late 80's turmoil was just that event causing the exodus.
Growth I've seen in the local church I visit is among Asian and Hispanic brothers and sisters.For the Caucasian brothers and sisters, they only get older without any new ones gained.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

Something happened along the way to cause an exodus of the Caucasian brothers and sisters. I believe the late 80's turmoil was just that event causing the exodus.

I had read a quote Brent Barber posted years ago on another website. His quote describing the late 80's was "white flight". I wonder if that's what he meant be demographics being changed due to many Caucasians leaving the local churches? Certainly in Anaheim that certainly was the case and could have been in other localities as well.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Terry

Demographics of the local churches from my youth in 1970's into mid 1980's doesn't even resemble the current state. Something happened along the way to cause an exodus of the Caucasian brothers and sisters. I believe the late 80's turmoil was just that event causing the exodus.
Growth I've seen in the local church I visit is among Asian and Hispanic brothers and sisters.For the Caucasian brothers and sisters, they only get older without any new ones gained.

Interesting observation considering the majority of college students (where the LSM churches primarily evangelize) are still White (56%).

https://postsecondary.gatesfoundatio...lege-students/

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Blendeds have the attitude that if they abuse and mistreat you, then you will become more compliant. WL got away with that, but the Blendeds could not.

I saw the way WL and TC interacted in public and believe this is true. It is Asian culture, manifesting itself in human relations. Nothing wrong with that per se, except it was fraudulently sold to us as divine.

Originally Posted by aron

The Full Time Training says that the biblical truth is, Women Can't Teach. Yet this position ignores that the movement itself was founded by Margaret Barber teaching Watchman Nee. She had no "head covering". . . not to mention Madame Guyon, Jessie Penn-Lewis, Peace Wang, Dora Yu, Ruth Lee, Mary MacDonald, and so forth - "close co-workers" and "fellow builders" all. This ministry of the Kingdom of Self teaches out of both sides of its mouth, and we're supposed to ignore these glaring discrepancies?

There's an interesting story about Watchman Nee and a Miss Elizabeth Fischbacher. She was promoting Pentacostal and Charismatic behaviours and Nee went to see her. Later they traveled together to the Keswick Convention in England, and she transcribed some of Nee's talks. Some were published by CFP.

Question: if women can't teach with authority, then why did Nee traffic with them?

Answer: they were useful on the path to power - temporal, earthly, human power. They were used and then discarded. Today in the LC there are no women as senior or "blended co-workers" when Nee's own initial church experience had many.

The only "truth" this Church is founded on is that of personal expediency. Look at the whole Jerusalem Principle thing. First it was all about localism, because that was the way to be shed of the Western control. Then suddenly Nee "recovered" the idea of centralized control. A blatant reversal.

Same with Witness Lee. There's even a thread on this forum titled Early Lee vs Later Lee. The only constant was the pursuit, acquisition, and maintenance of personal power at others' expense. Why would anyone want to be enrolled in a Training Programme run by this group? It's manipulation and mind control, and entirely for someone else's benefit, not yours.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

It is Asian culture, manifesting itself in human relations.

Aron,

Cite a credible source for your outrageous statement about Asian culture.

Drake.

[aron]

Although some scholars have discussed the concept of the “interaction ritual”, the question of how interaction rituals operate within differential closeness levels of guanxi in China has not yet been thoroughly explored. This study aims to fill this gap. It draws its data from two ethnographic studies of school place allocation in two Chinese cities during 2012 and 2013, and additional post-fieldwork in 2014. The research finds that the use of interaction rituals in la guanxi could be a profitable social investment, and that the interaction ritual chain is usually more powerful than a single instance of ritual. Instrumental li is the shared value behind this type of ritual practice, which has the function of exaggerating the actors’ moral obligation and emotional attachment, and masking rational calculation, in order to justify the practice. Expressive ritual is less valued, and occurs less frequently, with distance. Instrumental ritual is more workable and occurs more frequently in moderate guanxi (a relationship neither close nor distant) than in close and distant guanxi, thus following a “weak-strong-weak” pattern. These findings suggest that instrumental ritual plays a more important role than expressive ritual in building strong social capital, due to “the strength of weak ties”.

The phenomenon of using guanxi is pervasive, embedded in every aspect of Chinese social life, and reported on by domestic and international media. Guanxi refers to personal relationships, connections or networks based on Chinese culture, which can be utilised to acquire resources in informal and interpersonal forms (Jacobs, 1979 Jacobs, J. B. (1979). A preliminary model of particularistic ties in Chinese political alliances: KanCh’ing and kuanhsi in a rural Taiwanese township. China Quarterly, 78, 237–273.
King, 1991 King, A. Y.-C. (1991). Kuan-hsi and network building: A sociological interpretation. Daedalus, 120(2), 63–84.; Kipnis, 1997 Kipnis, A. (1997). Producing guanxi: Sentiment, self, and subculture in a north China village. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; Yang, 1994 Yang, M. M. (1994). Gifts, favors, and banquets: The art of social relationships in China. New York: Cornell University Press). Guanxi practice is the use, development and maintenance of guanxi relationships, defined by Kipnis as the “practice of guanxi production” (Kipnis, 1996 Kipnis, A. (1996). The language of gifts: Managing guanxi in a north China village. Modern China, 22(3), 285–31, pp. 6–7). La guanxi, or instrumental guanxi practice, refers to those guanxi practices that have a clear instrumental purpose, such as making exchanges, manufacturing indebtedness or accomplishing tasks (Guthrie, 1998 Guthrie, D. (1998). The declining significance of guanxi in China’s economic transition. The China Quarterly, 154, 254–282., p. 266). Some other guanxi practices, such as visiting siblings with gifts at weekends without any instrumental purpose, are not regarded as la guanxi but as expressive guanxi practice, although it has been noted that such guanxi relationships can also be used instrumentally.

Some argue that guanxi is a “special form”, or “variant form”, of social capital (Gold et al., 2002 Gold, T., Guthrie, D., & Wank, D. (Eds.). (2002). Social connections in China: Institutions, culture, and the changing nature of guanxi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., p. 7; Fan, 2002 Fan, Y. (2002). Questioning guanxi: Definition, classification and implications. International Business Review, 11, 543–561.
, p. 549; Qi, 2013 Qi, X. (2013). Guanxi, social capital theory and beyond: Toward a globalized social science. British Journal of Sociology, 64(2), 308–324., p. 308; Wu, 2013 Wu, X. (2013). The power of social capital in school choice in a Chinese city. Australian Journal of Education, 57(1), 48–59., p. 49). Social capital pertains to the ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or other social structures (Portes, 1998 Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24., p. 6), and has three components – social networks, norms (such as obligation and reciprocity) and sanctions (Halpern, 2005 Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Cambridge: Polity. pp. 9–11). Guanxi, as a network, therefore seems to be one of the components of social capital rather than social capital itself. If we were to describe social capital based on a guanxi network, we would need to adopt a new term – “guanxi capital”. Bian (2001 Bian, Y. J. (2001). Guanxi capital and social eating in Chinese cities. In N. Lin, K. S. Cook, & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 275–295). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
, p. 227) defines “guanxi capital” as the capacity to mobilise social resources from guanxi networks: for example, “having face means having guanxi capital” (Bian, 2001 Bian, Y. J. (2001). Guanxi capital and social eating in Chinese cities. In N. Lin, K. S. Cook, & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 275–295). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, p. 227).

In recent years, the Chinese media has frequently reported on the phenomenon of parents using guanxi to acquire school places for their children. In order to determine how and why people use guanxi in this context, two case studies of two small cities were carried out during 2012 and 2013, and additional post-fieldwork was conducted in 2014. Ethnographic case studies based on participant observation, interviews and documentation provided most of the data.

In the two researched cities (“A” and “B”), the local government had established key schools, which offered a relatively better quality of education than the average school. Parents need to use guanxi, violating many rules, to obtain a place in key schools, if their children fail the entrance exam or lottery allocation and are not qualified for admission to these schools. Those who cannot use guanxi have to accept a lower-quality education. Forty-nine people (27 in City A and 22 in City B) were interviewed, and some relevant organisations (schools, training centres, and “cigarette and wine shops” that buy back expensive gifts) and activities (entrance exams, lottery activities and school places, gift giving, banqueting) were observed. The sampling criteria for participants cover people who are involved in guanxi practice for school places and relevant observers. Consequently, I utilised different categories of people, and divided the interview guides into seven categories in both cities: parents, teachers, students, head teachers, officials, shopkeepers, and other insiders. Those with different roles in la guanxi, including gift givers, gift recipients and middle-men, were observed and interviewed. Some of these were involved in the same case, allowing the researcher to capture both sides of the story. The documents collected included educational policies, student recruitment information, and local news items. I have coded all names, cities, places and schools in order to protect the anonymity of informants, and pseudonyms are used throughout this paper.

Unlike Guthrie’s claim (1998 Guthrie, D. (1998). The declining significance of guanxi in China’s economic transition. The China Quarterly, 154, 254–282.) that the use of guanxi is declining, utilisation of guanxi to gain school places was found to be prevalent and on the increase in the two cities in this case study from 1998–2012. Due to Xi’s anti-corruption drive, which began in 2012, the use of guanxi to obtain places in key schools is restricted, but it still commonly occurs, with the emphasis shifting from key schools to key classes in regular schools where the rules are less strict. The use of guanxi in school selection has generally declined since 2012, but the use of guanxi to secure official positions, better treatment in hospital and other advantages is still prevalent.

A substantial body of research has shown that many people use ritual to influence others when engaging in la guanxi, such as gift giving, banqueting, embodying concern, face giving and ritual struggle (Jacobs, 1979 Jacobs, J. B. (1979). A preliminary model of particularistic ties in Chinese political alliances: KanCh’ing and kuanhsi in a rural Taiwanese township. China Quarterly, 78, 237–273.; King, 1991 King, A. Y.-C. (1991). Kuan-hsi and network building: A sociological interpretation. Daedalus, 120(2), 63–84.; Kipnis, 1997 Kipnis, A. (1997). Producing guanxi: Sentiment, self, and subculture in a north China village. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.; Yang, 1994 Yang, M. M. (1994). Gifts, favors, and banquets: The art of social relationships in China. New York: Cornell University Press.). The investment in ritual can have a profitable return, such as a place in an elite school, a job, a professional rank, or better services in hospital. The use of ritual improves one’s ability to acquire resources in one’s guanxi network, raising one’s level of guanxi capital.

In common parlance, a ritual is a formal ceremony, going through a set of stereotyped actions. Interaction rituals are both local and ubiquitous, operating in every daily interaction (Goffman, 1967 Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor.), and form the processes by which participants develop a mutual focus of attention and become engrained in each other’s bodily micro-rhythms and emotions (Collins, 2004 Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press., p. 67). Ritual produces a momentarily shared reality that generates solidarity and symbols of group membership (Collins, 2004 Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press., p. 27). Traditionally, the interaction rituals of philosophers have attempted to produce truth, which function as Durkheim’s ([1912] 1965 Durkheim, E. (1965 [1912]). The elementary forms of religious life. New York: Free Press.) sacred objects: that is, as collective symbols that appear to transcend individuals, constrain behaviour and demand respect. The particular truth represents the solidarity of the group and energises those who participate in its production. Following the work of Durkheim ([1912] 1965 Durkheim, E. (1965 [1912]). The elementary forms of religious life. New York: Free Press.) and Goffman (1967 Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
), Collins argues that rituals are constructed from a combination of ingredients that grow to differing levels of intensity, and result in the ritual outcomes of solidarity, symbolism and individual emotional energy (Collins, 2004 Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press., p. 67). According to Collins, what is significant about these interaction rituals is not the manifest subject, but the fact that the rituals serve as a focus for attention and emotional involvement. Through the practice of ritual, people can improve their “mutually focused emotion and attention” and “emotional energy” – also expressed by the Chinese concepts of ganqing and/or renqing (Collins, 2004 Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press., p. 67).

Ganqing is translated as “affection” or “emotional feeling”, and represents emotional commitment in longstanding and intimate bonds, which always comes with material obligation (Yang, 1994 Yang, M. M. (1994). Gifts, favors, and banquets: The art of social relationships in China. New York: Cornell University Press.; Kipnis, 1997 Kipnis, A. (1997). Producing guanxi: Sentiment, self, and subculture in a north China village. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.). Renqing is simply reciprocal obligation and indebtedness, making guanxi more than just the social embeddedness and social connections identified in Western societies (Qi, 2013 Qi, X. (2013). Guanxi, social capital theory and beyond: Toward a globalized social science. British Journal of Sociology, 64(2), 308–324.; Yan, 1996 Yan, Y. (1996). The flow of gifts: Reciprocity and social networks in a Chinese village. Stanford: Stanford University Press.; Yang, 1994 Yang, M. M. (1994). Gifts, favors, and banquets: The art of social relationships in China. New York: Cornell University Press.). In fact, the concept of renqing has at least four implications: 1) human feelings; 2) a resource as a gift or favour; 3) reciprocal obligation and indebtedness (known as renqing debt, or social debt); and 4) social norms in Chinese society, or the so-called renqing ethic (Gabrenya Jr. & Hwang, 1996 Gabrenya Jr., W. K., & Hwang, K. K. (1996). Chinese social interaction: Harmony and hierarchy on the good earth. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 309–321). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
; Hwang, 1987 Hwang, K. K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4), 944–974.; King, 1991 King, A. Y.-C. (1991). Kuan-hsi and network building: A sociological interpretation. Daedalus, 120(2), 63–84.; Li, 2001; Yan, 1996 Yan, Y. (1996). The flow of gifts: Reciprocity and social networks in a Chinese village. Stanford: Stanford University Press.; Yang, 1994 Yang, M. M. (1994). Gifts, favors, and banquets: The art of social relationships in China. New York: Cornell University Press.). Yan (1996 Yan, Y. (1996). The flow of gifts: Reciprocity and social networks in a Chinese village. Stanford: Stanford University Press) mostly takes renqing to mean social norms – the fourth implication listed above. Yan calls this the “renqing ethic”, and draws out three dimensions – rational calculation, moral obligation, and emotional attachment – as the principles of guanxi networks (Yan, 1996 Yan, Y. (1996). The flow of gifts: Reciprocity and social networks in a Chinese village. Stanford: Stanford University Press., p. 46).

Interaction rituals such as gift giving, banqueting and face giving are common in guanxi, and are in fact expressions and forms of renqing and face (Ruan, 2017a Ruan, J. (2017a). Guanxi, social capital and school choice in China: The rise of ritual capital. London: Palgrave Macmillan., pp. 121–134; Ruan, 2017b Ruan, J. (2017b). Ritual capital: A proposed concept from case studies of school selection in China. Asian Journal of Social Science, 45(3), 316–339., pp. 329–337). In the research discussed in this paper, all guanxi cases observed involve interaction rituals, and gift giving and banqueting are the two most popular methods of ritual practice. Gift exchanges in City A and City B form part of people’s daily practice, and people always bring gifts when they visit their friends or relatives. Some gift giving has a clearly rational intention. For instance, many people bring gifts to head teachers or officials when they ask for a place at a school. In my frequent visits to Xie and Lee, head teachers in City A, I noted that their apartments were full of guests and gifts during the summer – the time of year when parents seek to gain school places for their children.

It is noteworthy that the ritual of home visits with gifts to head teachers or officials is a ritual that tends to support traditional forms of social hierarchy and authority (Bell, 1997 Bell, C. (1997). Ritual: Perspectives and dimensions. New York: Oxford University Press.). Traditionally, rural society in China is characterised by “rule by ritual”, or “rule by li” (lizi), as opposed to societies that are ruled mainly by law (Fei, 2012 Fei, X. (2012). From the soil: The foundation of Chinese society. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press [in both Chinese and English, first published in Chinese in 1947. Trans. G. G. Hamilton & W. Zheng, 1992].
[1947]). Lee, a head teacher in City A, told me a story that supports this claim. A friend told him that during a meeting an official had said: “Lee is arrogant. In his eyes, there are no others”. The friend asked Lee if he had offended the official, which Lee denied. The friend then asked if Lee had ever visited the official’s home with gifts. Lee demurred, because the official was not directly in charge of his school; in response, the friend told Lee that although the official was not directly in charge of Lee’s school, he still had some influence over it. The official was therefore upset because Lee had not shown him respect. Lee’s friend advised him to visit the official’s home to show his respect. Lee subsequently visited the official, taking some gifts, and since then, the official has not criticised Lee – indeed, he has praised his character.

What the official was seeking from Lee was not only the material value of the gifts but also respect and personal loyalty. Rituals honour what is socially valued: so-called sacred objects. In modern societies, the foremost of these is the individual self, treated as if it were a little god in the minor presentational and avoidance rituals of everyday life (Goffman, 1967 Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
, p. 232). Many head teachers who participated in this research claimed that they needed to visit relevant officials with gifts regularly to maintain good guanxi, and similarly, many teachers visited their head teachers with gifts. The ritual of visiting with gifts is widely practised by those who work with officials, in order to show the official’s power on one hand and the personal loyalty of the subordinate on the other.

Banqueting is another popular form of la guanxi. Traditionally, banqueting has been a ritual for showing respect and appreciation for one’s guests, or to celebrate certain events. Nowadays, banqueting is one of the most important forms of la guanxi. It becomes very instrumental and can provide the means to ask for a favour, creating renqing (indebtedness). Parents in the two cities studied here often wine and dine head teachers or officials in order to acquire a school place, and after obtaining the place, they may entertain their benefactors again in order to thank them.

Banqueting is full of ritual – etiquette, politeness, propriety, and so on. Proper rituals are important during each stage of the process: for example, during the dinner, people lower down the hierarchy should serve others with food, soup and tea. If one practises ritual improperly at a banquet, one will get a bad reputation.

Along with gift giving and banqueting, people give face to others when they la guanxi. Face (mianzi or lian) is a combination of a sense of moral imperatives, social honour and self-respect (Yang, 1994 Yang, M. M. (1994). Gifts, favors, and banquets: The art of social relationships in China. New York: Cornell University Press., p. 141). Doing face work includes showing off one’s power, networks and resources to attract others, and giving face in order to maintain good relationships and receive favours (Yang, 1994 Yang, M. M. (1994). Gifts, favors, and banquets: The art of social relationships in China. New York: Cornell University Press. p. 141). As Hwang (1987 Hwang, K. K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4), 944–974., p. 962) writes, “Face work is also a method of manipulating the allocator’s choices of allocating resources to one’s benefit. Thus, doing face work is a power game frequently played by the Chinese people”. To practise ritual properly is important, since people may consider it as a way to gain face; and a failure to perform a ritual successfully may lead to a loss of face. It is vital to practise ritual properly in la guanxi, since “face work is about guanxi capital accumulation” (Bian, 2001 Bian, Y. J. (2001). Guanxi capital and social eating in Chinese cities. In N. Lin, K. S. Cook, & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 275–295). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
, p. 227).

People give face to others in many ways. They accept others’ requests for favours, agree with each other in meetings, give others support at work, avoid making others embarrassed, give “flattery gifts”, and so on. In some situations, even to entertain someone, to accept a dinner or party invitation, or to visit someone’s home can be a form of giving face. Mai, a teacher in City A, had to accept his colleague’s invitation to his father’s birthday party, even though Mai was extremely busy at the time. He considered that his attendance at the party gave face to his colleague, who would then support him at work and vote for him in Excellent Teacher selections. This ritual practice with face giving produces “mutually focused emotion and attention”, and results in the ritual outcomes of solidarity, symbolism and individual emotional energy (Collins, 2004 Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
, p. 67).

If one engages in improper ritual in la guanxi, one may fail to gain social resources, and acquire a bad relationship or reputation. For example, gift giving requires much ritual and etiquette, in terms of the content, packaging, and the number or value of gifts, which should be carefully prepared and carried out – otherwise the gift recipient might be offended. Liu, a head teacher in City A, told me that a teacher at his school visited his home with a flattery gift of six apples in order to show respect and maintain good guanxi. Liu was very unsatisfied with the gifts, saying, “Eight is a lucky number; why didn’t she just buy two more apples? Ridiculous!” We can see here the possible consequences of unsuccessful gift giving: Liu was unhappy and might not be willing to do the teacher a favour next time. Although the value of gifts also matters in la guanxi, the ritual aspects of the gift, such as the quality and quantity, the colour and the packaging, are vital.

The proper use of ritual largely improves the quality of guanxi and can be a productive social investment. The use of ritual to gain social resources seems to be one of the unique properties of la guanxi. Interestingly, when people use ritual to gain desired resources, they stress to their benefactors that their ritual practice is underpinned by Confucian ethical ideals, such as ren, yi and li; and they make every effort to show this moral and emotional intention when doing la guanxi.

Ren refers to the ethical ideal, and li to certain traditional norms that govern human conduct (Liang, 2010 Liang, J. R. (2010). Ren verses Li: Reinterpretation and re-evaluation of Confucianism. [Chinese text.] Beijing: Peking University Press., pp. 29–46; Shun, 2002 Shun, K.-L. (2002). Ren and li in the Analects. In B. W. Van Norden (Ed.), Confucius and the Analects: New essay (pp. 53–72). Oxford: Oxford University Press., pp. 53–59). The concept of “li” is the rule of proper conduct, including etiquette and religious and moral rules (Shun, 2002 Shun, K.-L. (2002). Ren and li in the Analects. In B. W. Van Norden (Ed.), Confucius and the Analects: New essay (pp. 53–72). Oxford: Oxford University Press., pp. 53–59). Ren refers to inner spiritual development, which is the innate character of li. Li is the outer expression of ren, the instrument in the cultivation of ren, and can even be the measurement of ren (Liang, 2010 Liang, J. R. (2010). Ren verses Li: Reinterpretation and re-evaluation of Confucianism. [Chinese text.] Beijing: Peking University Press., pp. 29–46; Shun, 2002 Shun, K.-L. (2002). Ren and li in the Analects. In B. W. Van Norden (Ed.), Confucius and the Analects: New essay (pp. 53–72). Oxford: Oxford University Press., pp. 53–59; Tu, 1985 Tu, W.-M. (1985). Confucian thought. Albany: State University of New York Press., pp. 67–78). In simple terms, if one acts with propriety and proper rituals in order to achieve ren, one’s behaviour can be li – for example, giving gifts to parents in order to achieve xiao (filial piety), entertaining a friend from far away to achieve yi (righteousness), or bowing to supervisors to show zhong (loyalty).

King (1991 King, A. Y.-C. (1991). Kuan-hsi and network building: A sociological interpretation. Daedalus, 120(2), 63–84., p. 74) explains that “renqing, in part, can be equated with the content of the Confucian li”. If a Chinese person is accused of “knowing no renqing”, this means that he/she is lacking li and is incapable of managing interpersonal relationships (King, 1991 King, A. Y.-C. (1991). Kuan-hsi and network building: A sociological interpretation. Daedalus, 120(2), 63–84., p. 74). La guanxi, as well as its norm – renqing ethic – is not true Confucian li because true li should come with the goal of achieving ren. With la guanxi, the so-called “Confucian li” is self-serving and not true li, since li should incorporate ren (Ruan, 2017b Ruan, J. (2017b). Ritual capital: A proposed concept from case studies of school selection in China. Asian Journal of Social Science, 45(3), 316–339., p. 318).

Although the practice of li is usually observed in daily interaction rituals, some of these rituals, such as gift giving or banqueting to influence others to gain resources, may be driven by self-interest; thus, these social rituals should not be regarded as true li but as “fake li “ or “instrumental li”. That is to say, when doing la guanxi, people simply copy the forms of li in their ritual practice without the motivation of achieving ren but with self-interest in mind: they claim to be acting with li to justify their practice (Ruan, 2017b Ruan, J. (2017b). Ritual capital: A proposed concept from case studies of school selection in China. Asian Journal of Social Science, 45(3), 316–339., p. 318).

Yan (1996 Yan, Y. (1996). The flow of gifts: Reciprocity and social networks in a Chinese village. Stanford: Stanford University Press.) has argued that renqing is the ethic or norm of guanxi, which combines moral obligation, emotional attachment and rational calculation. Instrumental li seems to exaggerate the actors’ moral obligation and emotional attachment, and to mask their rational calculation. For example, in the context of la guanxi for school places in the two cities observed for this paper, gift donors and recipients both claim that their gift giving is a ritual that follows Confucian li, and that they practise lishang wanglai (courtesy demands reciprocity). Using the excuse of Confucian li, parents give gifts to head teachers or officials to obtain school places, which is actually instrumental li, or fake li, designed to cover their rational calculation.

Ritual practice with instrumental li also frequently occurs when people give a payment to a friend or relative. Mai, a teacher, often gives extra tuition to his guanxis’ children, and his guanxis usually hide an envelope containing money in a bag of tea and give him tea as a gift. So, why do the guanxis not give money directly to Mai as payment for tuition? Fei (2012 Fei, X. (2012). From the soil: The foundation of Chinese society. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press [in both Chinese and English, first published in Chinese in 1947. Trans. G. G. Hamilton & W. Zheng, 1992].
[1947], p. 148) explains: Commerce cannot exist in an intimate consanguineous society. Although exchanges do take place in such a society, people exchange with renqing, by giving gifts to each other [showing the moral and emotional part of renqing].

If one does not practise these rituals properly, one may not only fail to achieve the desired outcome, but may also cause offence.
From the perspective of interaction ritual theory, ritual produces shared emotion and awareness, solidarity, symbolism, individual emotional energy and social trust (Collins, 2004 Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.; Durkheim, 1965 [1912] Durkheim, E. (1965 [1912]). The elementary forms of religious life. New York: Free Press.; Goffman, 1967 Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor.). It follows from this that the investment of ritual can produce social capital. That is why people invest in ritual for school places in the two cities studied for this paper.

Ritual is employed not only to get something done or acquire social resources, but also to improve ganqing, renqing and trust among actors, accumulating guanxi capital for further use. True guanxi cannot be established merely through one-off ritual practice or the one-time payment of a coarse bribe; the individuals must interact, exchange favours, and work over time to establish and maintain the relationship (Dunfee & Warren, 2001 Dunfee, T. W., & Warren, D. E. (2001). Is guanxi ethical? A normative analysis of doing business in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(3), 191–204., p. 192). In other words, a good guanxi relationship is built, not by independent rituals, but by “interaction ritual chains”, which represent the personal histories generated as individuals go through various ritual encounters within networks (Collins, 2004 Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.). Interaction rituals may reaffirm previous truths or create new ones – they always create a chain connecting previous interaction rituals to future ones (Collins, 1998 Collins, R. (1998). The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.). New collective truths require a knowledge of previous collective symbols and the relationships through which they were created and distributed. These interaction ritual chains represent the personal histories generated as individuals go through various ritual encounters within networks. Without the personal histories of encounters, a stranger will not be able to obtain a school place from a head teacher just by visiting their home with gifts or even money. People need to go through their rituals and rites of passage, and they acquire a repertoire of symbols that are loaded with emotional energy and membership significance (Collins, 2004 Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press., p. 67).

Network ties, including guanxi networks, are a particular kind of interaction ritual chain, in which similar symbols and emotions are recycled and sometimes augmented. Positions in networks are created and sustained on the micro-level by the degree of success of interaction rituals (Collins, 2004 Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press., pp. 185–188). In guanxi networks, renqing, ganqing and the quality of guanxi are not built by a single instance of ritual or by independent rituals, but by many instances of ritual, continuously connected. The case described below illustrates how an interaction ritual chain builds renqing, ganqing and trust between a teacher and an intermediary.

Mai, a teacher at a senior high school in City A, told me that he used guanxi to gain a place in a key primary school for his nephew in 2010. Mai’s wife told him that an official, Jin, was her former classmate, and a good friend of the head teacher of the key school. Mai’s wife had not seen Jin for 20 years; however, they had many friends in common. So Mai and his wife invited Jin to dinner with a few other former classmates, and Mai sat close to Jin and got to know him. They are both smokers and like French brandy, and these common rituals of drinking and smoking brought them closer. Mai and Jin next met at Jin’s office, and then at Jin’s home, with Mai and his wife bringing some gifts. The fourth time they met was at Jin’s home, with Mai again bringing gifts – this time, Mai asked Jin to use his influence with the head teacher of the key school, and implied that he would give the head teacher an envelope containing money. By this time, Jin knew that Mai was a person who “knows renqing”, so he phoned the head teacher. Later, Mai and Jin visited the head teacher’s home taking gifts; a few weeks later, at Jin’s advice, Mai took an envelope containing some money to Jin’s office to meet the head teacher. When the head teacher came in, Jin excused himself to go to the toilet, allowing Mai to give the envelope to the head teacher without anyone else in the room. In the end, Mai secured a school place for his nephew. Jin, like Mai, was interviewed for this research. Jin told me he had helped Mai with a school place, and seemed proud of his ability to do so. He revealed that he had observed Mai’s ritual practice to see if he followed the expected renqing ethic. By deciding to help Mai, Jin could gain renqing for future use, which enhances his social capital. If Mai had not followed the renqing ethic, Jin would not have gained social capital by doing Mai a favour: in that case, Mai might have upset both Jin and the head teacher, and worse, run the risk of bribery accusations against the head teacher. In this case, however, every time Mai met Jin, he improved his guanxi capital because the collective symbols they both value facilitated subsequent interaction rituals. The interaction ritual chain consists of the process of la guanxi and social capital development. Before asking for a favour, Mai had been interacting with Jin for a month; afterwards, he maintained a long-term relationship with Jin and the head teacher by visiting them regularly with gifts. Their guanxi relationship can be more effectively used in the future due to their history of interaction ritual chains.

Zhang, a teacher in City B, provided a further example:

One of my colleagues was thinking of asking me to pay more attention to one of the students in my class who is her friend’s child, so she tried to talk to me more frequently, then gave me some compliments, gave me some small gifts, did me some small favours and tried to get closer to me. After taking these steps, finally, she told me that her friend’s child was in my class and asked me to pay more attention to him.

Although Zhang clearly knows that the kindness demonstrated by her colleague is not pure, she feels indebted and is willing to do her colleague this favour: Zhang considers this a renqing exchange, and she may need her colleague to return the favour in the future. The rituals here make this exchange work, since they follow instrumental li and the renqing ethic, which both actors recognise and share. An interaction ritual used to ask for a favour will be more effective if previous rituals have been observed properly. In the cases reported above, both Mai and Zhang’s colleague clearly recognised that they did not have long-term guanxi with their expected benefactors before asking for the favour, so endeavoured to build interaction chains, thus preventing their practice from becoming a one-off transaction. Although a relationship may be cultivated with instrumental goals foremost in mind, the forms of renqing (mostly interaction ritual) must be followed if the goals are to be achieved, and the moral and emotional element of the relationship must be presented as primary with the exchanges treated as secondary. If it becomes apparent that the relationship involves only material interest, it may be characterised as bribery (Yang, 1989 Yang, M. M.-H. (1989). The gift economy and state power in China. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 31(1), 25–54., p. 48).

“The More Distant the Less Significant” – The Pattern of Expressive Ritual It is necessary to distinguish between expressive and instrumental ritual. Expressive ritual is usually observed to express one’s real emotion and concern without much rational calculation, while instrumental ritual is usually performed for instrumental purposes (la guanxi) (Ruan, 2017a Ruan, J. (2017a). Guanxi, social capital and school choice in China: The rise of ritual capital. London: Palgrave Macmillan., p. 130). Many informants in the two cities give gifts to their friends and relatives, or invite them to dinner, as part of everyday life and without instrumental intention. Moreover, attending a friend’s birthday party, wedding or even funeral is usually expressive ritual. This type of guanxi practice is different from parents practising guanxi to gain school places, where they give gifts and/or invite their benefactor to dinner with a very clear instrumental purpose.

This expressive ritual can also improve one’s ability to acquire resources. Sometimes an instrumental ritual used to ask a favour will become more effective if previous expressive rituals have been observed. Less instrumentally, people’s happiest and most rewarding hours are spent talking with neighbours, sharing meals with friends, participating in religious gatherings, attending celebration dinners for friends’ or relatives’ birthdays, weddings, or the birth of a new baby, or giving gifts and “good luck money” to friends and relatives on special occasions. In these activities, the practice of expressive ritual rather than instrumental ritual gradually improves the quality of guanxi.

Yan (1996 Yan, Y. (1996). The flow of gifts: Reciprocity and social networks in a Chinese village. Stanford: Stanford University Press.) examined both the dynamic process of cultivation of guanxi networks and their functions in everyday rural life. He states that “the closer to the centre in a given guanxi network, the more gift-giving relations are involved” (Yan, 1996 Yan, Y. (1996). The flow of gifts: Reciprocity and social networks in a Chinese village. Stanford: Stanford University Press., p. 101). Moreover, he argues that “all instrumental gift-giving relations go beyond the village boundary”, which means that the gift giving of “the closer the more involved” is mainly expressive gift giving (Yan, 1996 Yan, Y. (1996). The flow of gifts: Reciprocity and social networks in a Chinese village. Stanford: Stanford University Press., p. 102).

Many expressive rituals observed in this ethnographic study are consistent with Yan’s findings, and follow the pattern of “the more distant the less significant”. With the increase in social distance, people are less likely to be involved in, value and invest money and time on expressive ritual with their guanxi members. These expressive rituals include expressive gift giving, red packet giving, expressive banqueting, visiting a patient, and attending occasions such as weddings, childbirth celebrations and funerals. When Liu, a head teacher, was ill, all of his relatives visited him in hospital with red packets. He found that the closer the guanxi were, the more likely they were to visit him; and the closer the guanxi were, the more money they gave him. One parent, John, recalled his wedding and noted that closer guanxi gave more gifts and larger red packets. At the dinner celebrating the birth of John’s son, the closer guanxi were more likely to attend with red packets.

“The more distant the less significant” pattern of expressive ritual practice seems to be a principle of renqing ethic familiar to everyone in the two researched cities. This pattern corresponds to Fei’s (2012 Fei, X. (2012). From the soil: The foundation of Chinese society. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press [in both Chinese and English, first published in Chinese in 1947. Trans. G. G. Hamilton & W. Zheng, 1992]. [1947]) identification of chauxgeju – the differential mode of association. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between expressive and instrumental ritual, just as it is difficult to distinguish between expressive guanxi practice and la guanxi (Ruan, 2017a Ruan, J. (2017a). Guanxi, social capital and school choice in China: The rise of ritual capital. London: Palgrave Macmillan., p. 131). The motivation of people attending their supervisors’ weddings, birthday parties, or funerals for the supervisors’ parents could be expressive, or instrumental, or a combination of the two. Smart practitioners of guanxi are generally good at using expressive ritual activities, such as weddings and birthday parties, to develop ganqing (informants call this “ganqing investment”), so that they can ask for a favour in the future: this seems to be a more effective way of la guanxi. These rituals look like expressive rituals but are, in fact, instrumental ones. Nevertheless, whether expressive or instrumental, ritual practice can enhance one’s social capital if performed in the proper way.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...63?src=recsys&

[Ohio]

I was thinking that it might not be a good idea for Drake to challenge aron for "credible sources."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

Cite a credible source for your outrageous statement about Asian culture.

Drake.

The public interface between Titus Chu and Witness Lee was ritualistic. I saw it. One clearly 'lost face', prefacing his statement with the words, "I am ashamed. . . " Guess which one that was?

[aron]

The other thing to keep in mind is, once one breaks the guanxi network, the reciprocal web of mutual obligations, there is no going back. There is no "ministry of reconciliation" that can repair the breach of etiquette. Thus it's holding power.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The public interface between Titus Chu and Witness Lee was ritualistic. I saw it. One clearly 'lost face', prefacing his statement with the words, "I am ashamed. . . " Guess which one that was?

Kind of helps to explain Asian ancestry worship too.

Asian "guanxi" culture at LSM has expunged all leadership accountability in the LC's.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

The other thing to keep in mind is, once one breaks the guanxi network, the reciprocal web of mutual obligations, there is no going back. There is no "ministry of reconciliation" that can repair the breach of etiquette. Thus it's holding power.

aron,

In the encyclopedia Britannica wannabe of guanxi that you posted in this thread there is nothing that validates your claim. Yet, perhaps I missed it buried in all the text.

So, please provide the actual text that supports your claim.

Drake

[aron]

Taylor and Francis is not a credible source? Then what is? Is this LC-speak where "proper" means published or promoted by LSM? And what is so outrageous about my claim that Asian culture influences the LC? Is every religious group on earth tainted by fallen human culture except yours?

How is it that the leader of a group does something so obviously self-contradictory and yet membership doesn't make a peep? What else could be at work here, but fallen human culture?

Did or did not Watchman Nee visit Elizabeth Fishbacher to see what was what, spiritually speaking? And if so, and if they continued in spiritual fellowship beyond that point, are we not remiss if we don't ask why the supposed apostle of the age was seeking spiritual aid and counsel from a woman?

The answer in the LC is that the apostle of the age can make his own rules; today's Moses, as it were. Women can't teach, unless the 'apostle' wants to appropriate something, then Mary MacDonough recovers the three parts of man! How could a woman do that? Because it's advantageous to the selfish narrative. That, however, isn't biblical, but fallen human culture, and it lines up well with what we know of the oriental mindset vis-a-vis authority. And we western yokels thought it was spiritual. It was not.

Either women can teach, and the LC is spiritually bankrupt, or they can't teach, and the LC is spiritually bankrupt. Take your pick.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Taylor and Francis is not a credible source? Then what is? Is this LC-speak where "proper" means published or promoted by LSM? And what is so outrageous about my claim that Asian culture influences the LC? Is every religious group on earth tainted by fallen human culture except yours?

How is it that the leader of a group does something so obviously self-contradictory and yet membership doesn't make a peep? What else could be at work here, but fallen human culture?

Did or did not Watchman Nee visit Elizabeth Fishbacher to see what was what, spiritually speaking? And if so, and if they continued in spiritual fellowship beyond that point, are we not remiss if we don't ask why the supposed apostle of the age was seeking spiritual aid and counsel from a woman?

The answer in the LC is that the apostle of the age can make his own rules; today's Moses, as it were. Women can't teach, unless the 'apostle' wants to appropriate something, then Mary MacDonough recovers the three parts of man! How could a woman do that? Because it's advantageous to the selfish narrative. That, however, isn't biblical, but fallen human culture, and it lines up well with what we know of the oriental mindset vis-a-vis authority. And we western yokels thought it was spiritual. It was not.

Either women can teach, and the LC is spiritually bankrupt, or they can't teach, and the LC is spiritually bankrupt. Take your pick.

aron,

I did not say Taylor and Francis were not credible. What you posted by them did not support the assertion you made in post #16 in the first sentence.

Drake

[aron]

This thread was on Training- whether to attend, or not? My point has been, who would want to get trained by this group? Their teachings and practices are clearly contradictory. I mentioned the role of women as an example, not the only one by any means, but one of the more curious ones. Yet no one says a word. Why? Culture. And yes, this was strongly conditioned by the culture of origin. China was not "virgin soil" but had 5,000 years of social conditioning in their society.

I have named names - the women who were touted in the official organs of the group as lionesses of the recovery in its first few decades. Margaret Barber, a "Miss Groves", Peace Wang, Ruth Lee. . . well over a half dozen names of you include the influences coming in from abroad like Guyon, MacDonough and Penn-Lewis. By contrast, how many lionesses has the group advanced in the past 40 years? Zero.

One must be assidiously trained in non-thought to miss this kind of obvious discrepancy. Well-practiced in the art of mindless oblivion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

This thread was on Training- whether to attend, or not? My point has been, who would want to get trained by this group? Their teachings and practices are clearly contradictory. I mentioned the role of women as an example, not the only one by any means, but one of the more curious ones. Yet no one says a word. Why? Culture. And yes, this was strongly conditioned by the culture of origin. China was not "virgin soil" but had 5,000 years of social conditioning in their society.

I have named names - the women who were touted in the official organs of the group as lionesses of the recovery in its first few decades. Margaret Barber, a "Miss Groves", Peace Wang, Ruth Lee. . . well over a half dozen names of you include the influences coming in from abroad like Guyon, MacDonough and Penn-Lewis. By contrast, how many lionesses has the group advanced in the past 40 years? Zero.

One must be assidiously trained in non-thought to miss this kind of obvious discrepancy. Well-practiced in the art of mindless oblivion.

Besides Lee, they have no "lions" either, unless Philip is included.

Wasn't there a song, "Where have all the cowboys gone?" They got Quarantined!

Talk about contradictions. They teach inclusion, they practice exclusion.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

This thread was on Training- whether to attend, or not? My point has been, who would want to get trained by this group? Their teachings and practices are clearly contradictory. I mentioned the role of women as an example, not the only one by any means, but one of the more curious ones. Yet no one says a word. Why? Culture. And yes, this was strongly conditioned by the culture of origin. China was not "virgin soil" but had 5,000 years of social conditioning in their society.

I have named names - the women who were touted in the official organs of the group as lionesses of the recovery in its first few decades. Margaret Barber, a "Miss Groves", Peace Wang, Ruth Lee. . . well over a half dozen names of you include the influences coming in from abroad like Guyon, MacDonough and Penn-Lewis. By contrast, how many lionesses has the group advanced in the past 40 years? Zero.

One must be assidiously trained in non-thought to miss this kind of obvious discrepancy. Well-practiced in the art of mindless oblivion.

Aron,

I asked you for a specific response to a specific assertion you made in your first sentence in post #16. Now you’ve generalized your response into ever expanding circles of irrelevant mental meandering. Probably a defense mechanism has kicked in to facilitate your not answering the specific outrageous assertion.

So please, go back to your post #16, read the first sentence, clarify what you were specifically referring to there, and then provide a credible reference to validate that specific assertion.

Thanks
Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

I asked you for a specific response to a specific assertion you made in your first sentence in post #16. Now you’ve generalized your response into ever expanding circles of irrelevant mental meandering. Probably a defense mechanism has kicked in to facilitate your not answering the specific outrageous assertion.

So please, go back to your post #16, read the first sentence, clarify what you were specifically referring to there, and then provide a credible reference to validate that specific assertion.

Thanks
Drake

Mental meandering? I think that the teachings of the LC are contradictory. I pointed out the glaring issue with the status of Women in the LF/LC, 1925 v/v 2018. You never provided a response so I guess that you agree? Or are trying to ignore my point? Or are trying to bury my point by looking at other issues?

Ok, to Post #16. Titus Chu would bow and scrape (Kowtow) to Witness Lee. I was there, I saw it. But later, post 1997, he wouldn't bow and scrape to Blendeds Wee. I say that is Asian Culture. Same happened with Dong Yu Lan (though I don't have direct visual evidence). The Beta Dog (Chu, Dong) is willing to Lose Face to the Alpha Male (Lee), but not to the Gamma Males. In this case the social dynamics have a distinctive Chinese "flavor".

Not sure why such assertions are "outrageous". I think it's outrageous that a group could allow a teacher to pass such contradictory practices on to members, and force them into such a state of non-thought. Just ignore everything but the Bullet Points of this weeks HWMR.

But I apologize if my tone is caustic. As Paul said, "I wish I could change my tone". Gal 4:20. Like Paul with the Galatians, I suspect the flock has been seriously misled, and hope for positive change in the future. But there are serious structural issues with this church, many caused by the uncritical reception of fallen human culture. So I point out the culture.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Besides Lee, they have no "lions" either, unless Philip is included.

Wasn't there a song, "Where have all the cowboys gone?" They got Quarantined!

Talk about contradictions. They teach inclusion, they practice exclusion.

But my point about women is specific. I think they systematically suppress women because that automatically eliminates 50% of their potential rivals. Then they can focus on the brothers. . .

And yet they lionize the pioneers like Margaret Barber and Ruth Lee. Out of the other side of their mouths, of course.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

But my point about women is specific. I think they systematically suppress women because that automatically eliminates 50% of their potential rivals. Then they can focus on the brothers. . .

And yet they lionize the pioneers like Margaret Barber and Ruth Lee. Out of the other side of their mouths, of course.

They have a book, Vision of the Age, which identifies Jean Guyon as the 17 the century Minister of the Age. Supposedly believers from all around the world had to come to her in order to receive God's up-to-date speaking. A truly unbelievable and heretical claim of revisionist history.

Sister Barber supposedly "recovered" the lost art of perfecting the brothers via public rebukes and humiliations. Can I have a verse? This became the standard ingrained leadership practice of Nee, Lee, and Chu.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Ok, to Post #16. Titus Chu would bow and scrape (Kowtow) to Witness Lee. I was there, I saw it. But later, post 1997, he wouldn't bow and scrape to Blendeds Wee. I say that is Asian Culture. ..... In this case the social dynamics have a distinctive Chinese "flavor".

Finally.

Please provide a credible source that substantiates your above assertion that this behavior is Asian culture and a “Chinese” flavor.

Not looking for an encyclopedia, Aron.

Drake

[UntoHim]

Drake,

Sorry but aron himself IS A CREDIBLE SOURCE. He had been a devout member of the Local Church of Witness Lee for many years. He also has gained huge credibility on this forum for his measured, sensible and decidedly informative posts on this forum for about a decade now.

Now why wouldn't a religious group's "behavior" and culture be heavily influence by it's founder and the culture it was born in? The Calvary Chapel movement is heavily influenced by the person and work of Chuck Smith and the American Jesus Movement culture it was born in. Same goes for the Vineyard movement, except you can replace Smith with John Wimber. Same goes for any number of Christian movements/ministries around the world. So why would the Local Church be excluded from cultural influences? The vehement claims of Witness Lee and his followers notwithstanding, the Local Church/Recovery movement is most certainly not excluded nor immune from such influences.

Now let's return to the original quip that apparently got your feathers so ruffled:

Originally Posted by aron

It is Asian culture, manifesting itself in human relations. Nothing wrong with that per se, except it was fraudulently sold to us as divine.

Ta Da! I know that you are desperate to make an end run on this one. (trying to "duck" the real issue at hand, are we?) There is a reason why quite a number of Christian apologists and other keen observers have said many of the things that aron and others have said. The Local Church of Witness Lee screams out "We are of Lee!" "We are of and for this Chinese fellow and anything he says!" "We have one of strongest cultures you could imagine but we really don't have culture!" (just like we don't have permanent and official leadership!)
-

[Drake]

-1

UntoHim,

Aron is a credible resource anecdotally. For that matter so am I. So is everyone.

I have no objection to what you said. Of course culture is ingrained in us. Everybody has culture be it American, German, Chinese. etc. and sometimes it oozes out all over. My objection was that aron claimed that in Asian culture the more one is abused and mistreated the more complaint they become. He witnessed it. Well, its okay to witness and have an opinion about how to interpret what you witnessed but at the point he stated "it is Asian culture" then I ask for a credible source to validate that assertion. If he cannot provide one then the reader can decide whether it is a fact or just his opinion.

Anecdotally, I have worked with most of the Asian cultures professionally in person and onsite for decades..... PRC China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Vietnam, India, and the Philippines, I never saw any, not one, Asian become compliant when confronted, spoken to harshly or disrespectfully, face to face, in writing, or through an interpreter, To do so is the kiss of death as far as relationships are concerned. Furthermore, I have worked for Asian companies, on the payroll, and I also can testify that Asian managers, just like their American counterparts, do not achieve a compliant and productive workforce, orfrom subordinates, by abuse or mistreatment. Anymore, than as occurs in any other ethnic group.

I am not saying people do not have their own distinct culture and that it doesn't carry over into their work or ministry... I am saying that there is no evidence from a credible objective source, and I have studied this matter for professional reasons, that suggests Asians become complaint when they are abused and mistreated because it is a cultural thing with them. That is outrageous. If aron had said that as an employee of any multinational corporation he would be hauled into HR and have some serious splain'in to do. But, this isn't a multinational corporation, aron is not an employee, and he can say whatever he wants, he can makes things up, or he can play off of false racial stereotypes which he has done more than once in this forum. I'm not put off by that but I don't have to sit by and let false assertions go by unchallenged. Therefore, I asked him for a credible source to substantiate that specific assertion.

Drake

[UntoHim]

Drake, my friend, you are still dodging the crux of the matter.

You have called aron's claims "outrageous". What is outrageous is your dismissive and back-handed comment about him being a "credible resource anecdotally". "Anecdotally"? For years you have played the "bitter ex member" card again and again and again. It's your answer for every claim and challenge against Witness Lee and the religion he invented. (and no, you haven't used this exact term...yet...but your headed that way...you always do)

Look, I personally couldn't care less about quanxi or the quanxi network...it's TMI to me. (I'm not dissing aron...just starting from here to make a point) Most of us don't need any in-depth studies about Asian cultural norms to know for a fact that the Local Church of Witness Lee is steeped in Chinese/Asian culture and has been since the beginnings. Insiders know this. Many outsiders know this. Even you're buddy Hank Hanegraaff called the Local Church "a Chinese interpretation of Christianity" (paraphrase). I believe this is really all that aron is saying. Sure, he is embellishing, which is a totally legitimate argumentative tool as far as I'm concerned (after all, it's pretty much all that Witness Lee ever did!)

So you admit that Lee and the movement are affected by Asian culture. Good. So what's the problem?
-

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They have a book, Vision of the Age, which identifies Jean Guyon as the 17 the century Minister of the Age. Supposedly believers from all around the world had to come to her in order to receive God's up-to-date speaking. A truly unbelievable and heretical claim of revisionist history.

Sister Barber supposedly "recovered" the lost art of perfecting the brothers via public rebukes and humiliations. Can I have a verse? This became the standard ingrained leadership practice of Nee, Lee, and Chu.

But I thought women were not allowed to teach? Has any LC apologist ever tried to square the glaring discrepancy between what's officially pronounced, and what was and is actually followed?

And how can so many people so studiously ignore the yawning chasm between what's been pronounced versus what's actually done? What fallen human culture is involved, here?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Finally.

Please provide a credible source that substantiates your above assertion that this behavior is Asian culture and a “Chinese” flavor.

Not looking for an encyclopedia, Aron.

Drake

Have you ever heard of the Chinese concept of "face"? That's what I saw with Chu & Lee. It looked formal, ritualistic. That's what I saw. Chu would lose face before Lee but not the Blendeds. Seems quite Asian to me. Likewise, who would Lee lose face to? Nobody. Again, Asian culture at work. Doesn't matter if Philip molested the sisters or of Daystar goes belly up and everyone lost their shirt except Timothy Lee. Don't criticize Brother Witness Lee - if the Big Boss loses face, the stability of the group is threatened. Seems like fallen human (Asian) culture to me.

Asian culture is not inferior to any other. It has worked for thousands of years. But it is not divine. So, why would any Christian want to get trained by this group?

[aron]

I've been on this forum a while, and have interacted with many other posters. So I have some observational data to draw on.

I've repeatedly noted the discrepancy between the official LC "women can't teach in the Church" policy and Watchman Nee's actual experience. The founder of the group that won't let women teach got a major part of his teaching, experience and practice directly from women! And not merely one or two but nearly a bakers dozen over a couple decades.

Now, doesn't this strike anyone as odd? It does to me. I have given several active and opinionated posters ample opportunity to square this issue up. Not only do they not do so, but one seems to go to lengths not to pay attention to what I'm writing.

Now what gives? Did these women who Nee sourced get some special dispensation? Or, did Nee get a special dispensation to draw upon otherwise forbidden sources? Should we say, "Women can't teach unless they teach the apostle of the age?" My question here has been, Who would want to be trained by such a nutty group? Who would want any of their codes, up to and including their dress code?

Back to culture - let me contrast the LC experience with an American group, otherwise quite similar. The International Churches of Christ. Another aggressive, insular group. But the leader's daughter went atheist and they kicked out the leader, because Paul said the leader must have believing children. So, too bad.

Now, that's the way Americans treat their leaders. But not the Chinese, and not the Chinese-flavored Americans. If Ron Kangas ever critiqued Nee for receiving help from "spiritual sisters" the whole edifice would collapse. It's simply unthinkable to publicly criticize the Top Leader. So they invent non-Christian terms, like today's Moses and today's Paul . This tries to cover their fallen human culture.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Have you ever heard of the Chinese concept of "face"? That's what I saw with Chu & Lee. It looked formal, ritualistic. That's what I saw. Chu would lose face before Lee but not the Blendeds. Seems quite Asian to me. Likewise, who would Lee lose face to? Nobody. Again, Asian culture at work. ..................... if the Big Boss loses face, the stability of the group is threatened. Seems like fallen human (Asian) culture to me.

Yet, perceptions can be deceiving.

Of course, I am familiar with the whole "losing face" concept. I dealt with the stereotype firsthand throughout my career. In reality, it is no different in any culture. I cannot think of a single person in any culture that wants to "lose face". I can't think of any manager or leader that wants to be embarrassed over something. I can't think of any subordinate that wants to be wrong and "lose face". I can't think of any person in this forum that wants to "lose face". Its not an Asian thing. Americans do not want to "lose face". Europeans do not want to "lose face". Neither Africans nor South Americans. Irish and Scots will not "lose face". You are closer when you say it is a human thing.

Your original assertion that abuse and mistreatment will lead to compliance as an Asian thing is misguided at best. Plug in that false assertion to the "losing face" discussion above and the outcome is the same. It seems to me, that you are playing off stereotypes to build your anti-anything-local-church narrative. Its your MO, isn't it?

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Drake, my friend, you are still dodging the crux of the matter. ....
....So you admit that Lee and the movement are affected by Asian culture. Good. So what's the problem?

Ok. Here is the problem, UntoHim, since you asked.

aron has a free reign in this forum to leverage stereotypes about Asian culture because Brother Lee was Chinese by birth. He gets a free pass, he gets kudos, the crowd roars its approval. Good for him, he has his audience. This isn't his first rodeo act.

However, I am almost a 95% confident that if he were using, in a similar fashion, common stereotypes about African Americans or Latinos or Jews that you would exercise more guidance over him or anyone else who did that. It is not just negative stereotypes that impugn a persons character or motives. Any stereotype about Asians or otherwise can be used in a negative way. Aron is not lightheartedly talking about eating sea cucumbers. nor is he valuing diversity of cultures, and I'm not asking him to,, or you or anyone else to either ..... but in how he uses Asian and Chinese culture to make his points in this forum.. well, the subtlety is not lost.... at least on me

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Have you ever heard of the Chinese concept of "face"?

Remember how Lee dealt with Max, who had the audacity to confront Philip for molesting that sister at LSM's new Ball Road offices?

Instead of agreeing with Max, thanking him for standing for righteousness and protecting the sisters, because of "face" Lee could never allow that. Face trumped righteousness.

So how did Lee react? Prayer and fellowship? No! Hardly.

Instead, Lee shamed Max's wife Sandee. Old Chinese custom of dealing with an "opponent."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Instead of agreeing with Max, thanking him for standing for righteousness and protecting the sisters, because of "face" Lee could never allow that. Face trumped righteousness.

The issue of the GLA quarantines was at heart about "face". Chu would lose face to Lee but not the Blendeds. That was your point, and I agreed, to Drake's chagrin. And how many thousands got separated? Some, even families?

And I repeat for the umpteenth time, Chinese culture is not inferior to American or any other. But it is not divine.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by aron

But my point about women is specific. I think they systematically suppress women because that automatically eliminates 50% of their potential rivals. Then they can focus on the brothers. . .

And yet they lionize the pioneers like Margaret Barber and Ruth Lee. Out of the other side of their mouths, of course.

One time a while back I came across something in the ministry that mentioned deacons and deaconesses, in a positive sense. It occurred to me that although that is in the Bible and is even brought up in a few places in the ministry, the LC's, in practice, do not have deaconesses. Then I realized neither term, deacons nor deaconesses, are ever used in the LC's. However, "elder" is used, ostensibly because it is in the Bible. So why isn't "deacon/ess" used among the LC's? The terms are in the Bible, as elder is.

There are brothers functioning as deacons.....but they get called "leading brothers" or "responsible brothers" or "helping brothers" (among other similar phrases). But never the actual word which is in the Bible, deacons! Then I realized......if you use the word "deacon", then the next logical question is "and who are the deaconesses?", since both are Biblical. One way to avoid having women in any official, labeled, position of responsibility is by calling their male counterparts by a specialized name not found in the Bible. No "deacons", then no question about "deaconesses"!

I realized when at least half of the church in any given locality is female, how can their specific needs be met when no female can be in any position of responsibility and none of their words, feelings, or sense carries any weight in any matters concerning the church being fellowshipped?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

One time a while back I came across something in the ministry that mentioned deacons and deaconesses, in a positive sense. It occurred to me that although that is in the Bible and is even brought up in a few places in the ministry, the LC's, in practice, do not have deaconesses. Then I realized neither term, deacons nor deaconesses, are ever used in the LC's. However, "elder" is used, ostensibly because it is in the Bible. So why isn't "deacon/ess" used among the LC's? The terms are in the Bible, as elder is.

There are brothers functioning as deacons.....but they get called "leading brothers" or "responsible brothers" or "helping brothers" (among other similar phrases). But never the actual word which is in the Bible, deacons! Then I realized......if you use the word "deacon", then the next logical question is "and who are the deaconesses?", since both are Biblical. One way to avoid having women in any official, labeled, position of responsibility is by calling their male counterparts by a specialized name not found in the Bible. No "deacons", then no question about "deaconesses"!

I realized when at least half of the church in any given locality is female, how can their specific needs be met when no female can be in any position of responsibility and none of their words, feelings, or sense carries any weight in any matters concerning the church being fellowshipped?

Nnnnnnnnn... no.

Trapped, you seem to be thinking in clergy terms... title-ish.

I have heard the term deacons used but it really just refers to serving ones, the most used term. And serving ones also includes brothers or sisters. Elders is a term that is used to refer to... well elders... but even then not as a formal title..... not like “Hi, I’m Elder Buzz! Nice to meet you.” but like “there will be an elders meeting in Harold’s VW van this Saturday “. Anyway, serving one replaces deacons and deaconess and means the same thing.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Nnnnnnnnn... no.

Trapped, you seem to be thinking in clergy terms... title-ish.

I have heard the term deacons used but it really just refers to serving ones, the most used term. And serving ones also includes brothers or sisters. Elders is a term that is used to refer to... well elders... but even then not as a formal title..... not like “Hi, I’m Elder Buzz! Nice to meet you.” but like “there will be an elders meeting in Harold’s VW van this Saturday “. Anyway, serving one replaces deacons and deaconess and means the same thing.

Drake

The LCM has falsely created a bogey man called the "clergy-laity" system. They have convinced their people that all churches outside of theirs are evil, an furthermore the people actually believe that if we can Re-name all "responsible ones" then we can actually claim to be "new and improved." It's purely a marketing ploy.

It goes like this -- deacon bad, serving one good. But what's the difference between "an elders meeting in Harold’s VW van this Saturday," and ITERO (international training of elders and responsible ones), besides scope? Change the name and pretend we have a better mousetrap! Besides are not we in the "recovery?" We be good, they be bad.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The issue of the GLA quarantines was at heart about "face". Chu would lose face to Lee but not the Blendeds. That was your point, and I agreed, to Drake's chagrin. And how many thousands got separated? Some, even families?

Right, operatives from LSM fueled the fires of division and sowed discord in many families. My own included. It was not just churches they divided.

Regarding Chinese customs, there is a reason that Chinese dynasties went back 5 millennia. No other culture on earth has the ingredients which would allow this to happen. We could make a case for the "Nee dynasty" in China, and the "Lee dynasty" in Taiwan and the US. This whole MOTA characterization is both a guise and a proof of this.

TC often told us that the "mistakes of my spiritual father are none of my business." This sounds all good and even noble until one realizes just how far reaching these "mistakes" would go. Apparently for TC these "mistakes" also included corrupt business dealings, investment boondoggles, and crimes by Lee's sons Philip and Timothy. But who was TC responsible to? Was it not to the Lord and to the people under his care? Was he not responsible to warn us? Since when do loyalties like this extend exclusively to a MOTA? When Chinese culture demanded it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

aron has a free reign in this forum to leverage stereotypes about Asian culture because Brother Lee was Chinese by birth.

I'm not against Chinese culture, and apologize for occasionally being too caustic in my remarks. I'm rather trying to note the abject failure of taking Chinese (descriptive) culture and making it a universal (prescriptive) culture. If this culture gave a one-for-one analog of heaven that would be one thing, but it doesn't. . . it's a product of the fall, same as any other. And the issue, in the case of the LC, is tragically clear. Earlier I used the word "nutty" to describe what I see. I don't mean Chinese culture is nutty, but that universal imposition of Chinese cultural norms is nutty. The results speak for themselves.

Originally Posted by Trapped

I realized when at least half of the church in any given locality is female, how can their specific needs be met when no female can be in any position of responsibility and none of their words, feelings, or sense carries any weight in any matters concerning the church being fellowshipped?

For instance, how do they feel when reading about Ruth Lee in the LSM tome on Nee ("A Seer of the Divine Revelation"), that she exercised considerable editorial power in Nee's publication work for decades, while knowing that they'd be denied the same opportunity today simply because they're female? How do they feel about this glaring discrepancy with teaching and actual practice? Or have their feelings been conditioned or programmed away (i.e. 'training')? And what happens to your walk with the Lord when your conscience is so compromised?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Regarding Chinese customs, there is a reason that Chinese dynasties went back 5 millennia. No other culture on earth has the ingredients which would allow this to happen. We could make a case for the "Nee dynasty" in China, and the "Lee dynasty" in Taiwan and the US. This whole MOTA characterization is both a guise and a proof of this.

In the Nee dynasty, Ruth Lee could exercise strong editorial duties because her skill set served Nee's purpose. In the Lee dynasty, Ruth Lee (or any other woman) could never do this because "women can't teach - the Bible says so". And we all pretend not to notice the glaring discrepancy between Lee's teaching and Nee's experience. Same goes for Barber, Guyon, Penn-Lewis, MacDonough, Fischbacher, etc. . . my point has been, who would want to be conditioned or programmed (e.g., "Full-Time Training") by such a group?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

I'm not against Chinese culture, and apologize for occasionally being too caustic in my remarks. I'm rather trying to note the abject failure of taking Chinese (descriptive) culture and making it a universal (prescriptive) culture. If this culture gave a one-for-one analog of heaven that would be one thing, but it doesn't. . . it's a product of the fall, same as any other. And the issue, in the case of the LC, is tragically clear. Earlier I used the word "nutty" to describe what I see. I don't mean Chinese culture is nutty, but that universal imposition of Chinese cultural norms is nutty.

First, let’s get something out of the way....I’m not defending Chinese culture. Nor, do I disagree that culture presents problems in the churches. It does by replacing Christ and the experience of Christ. Culture also frustrates the testimony of the one new man. In the churches this issue goes back 2000 years. Though it may be traced back to the Edenic fall, it passes through the fall at Babel. Therefore, if your contention was culture is a problem in the churches and we must guard against it, lest it become a substitute for Christ, lest it damage the testimony that Christ is all and in all, then I would have agreed.

But, that is not what you are saying or implying.

What you said by way of example of Asian culture in the churches, something you “witnessed” firsthand between WL and TC, is that abuse and mistreatment by leaders results in compliance by subordinates. I said that was outrageous. There is no credible evidence that such a behavior is unique to Asian culture nor is it a practice or norm in the local churches. If you detected anything of deference between Brother Lee and Brother Titus it based on the latter regarding the former as a spiritual father. That is not Asian, that is New Testament (1 Corinthians 4:15). Neither is it abuse and mistreatment for a spiritual father to speak frankly to a spiritual son and shepherd him. My birth father said things to me that he never said to my friends. He also disciplined me out of love. That is neither abuse or mistreatment. In defense of your argument you cited, I suppose as proof that Asian culture has unique things in it, the “lose face” concept. Well, no one in any culture likes to lose face so that does not add any credibility to your argument. Every culture has certain characteristics, that is what makes them distinct, and those cultural things can be a frustration to the Lord. Being cognizant of them helps us to drop them in practice to be one with other members in the Body though they be of a different background and to take Christ in every situation.

Now, you suggested as a result of your constructs discussed above, now shown to be misguided and erroneous all, that the local churches are culturally Asian or Chinese. First, the ecclesiology of the local churches is not from China, it is from the New Testament. Second, the center is Christ and the mission is the building of the Body that Christ may be all and in all. That is not Asian. The practices are not Chinese either, they are lifted from the New Testament too. Imagine that. If you disagree with any of that then you could make your case from the Bible because that is their source. As you consider that, consider this as well. Are Protestant Christians following German culture because Luther was born German? Are the truths in the Bible revealed to the Brethren based on British culture? Is the practice of meeting in brotherly love Moravian? Throughout history God has moved through men and women with varied backgrounds and cultures to accomplish His purpose as He wills.

I would be glad to debate each and any of those with you. Instead you take the anecdotal path which goes something like this..... Asians abuse and mistreat others to gain their compliance, Brother Lee was Asian and was Brother Titus, Titus was compliant so he must have been abused and mistreated by Brother Lee. Brother Lee was born Chinese so as the leader in the Lords recovery he imposed his culture on the local churches, for proof see the Titus compliance example. What was really Chinese culture was presented as divine and so the local churches are really just Chinese culture masquerading as a Christian group. Oh, and just be clear, I also have nothing against Asians or Chinese.

Feel free to clarify if I missed something but that is what I hear you say.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

What you said by way of example of Asian culture in the churches, something you “witnessed” firsthand between WL and TC, is that abuse and mistreatment by leaders results in compliance by subordinates. I said that was outrageous. There is no credible evidence that such a behavior is unique to Asian culture nor is it a practice or norm in the local churches. If you detected anything of deference between Brother Lee and Brother Titus it based on the latter regarding the former as a spiritual father.

Ohio made a comment based on much observation of Chu vis-à-vis leaders in Anaheim, starting with Lee and continuing after. I said the pattern he witnessed (abuse, followed by either compliance or 'rebellion') was shaped by Asian culture. I had experienced watching Chu 'lose face' with Lee and surmised that what I had seen and what Ohio was testifying were similar. I had one independent data point, he had numerous.

Here is what I witnessed: in a meeting, the "senior brothers" sat in a section to Witness Lee's left. (probably some were on his right as well, but I remember my strong impression was that the more "august" members of Lee's cohort were on his left). Lee was holding forth on "the new way" how to gain and shepherd new ones, and suddenly he stopped, looked toward his left, and said sharply, "Brother Titus, is this how it's being done in Cleveland?"

Chu stood up solemnly, looked straight ahead, and said, "I am ashamed to admit that this is not how it's being done in Cleveland", then stiffly sat down. Lee turned back and continued his message.

To me that looked like public shaming and quasi-formal or ritualistic 'losing face'. Maybe your conclusions are different. You can couch it in as many spiritual platitudes as you want. "Building the Body" and "brotherly love" and "shepherding". I saw what I saw, and have my opinion. You have yours.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Nnnnnnnnn... no.

Trapped, you seem to be thinking in clergy terms... title-ish.

I have heard the term deacons used but it really just refers to serving ones, the most used term. And serving ones also includes brothers or sisters. Elders is a term that is used to refer to... well elders... but even then not as a formal title..... not like “Hi, I’m Elder Buzz! Nice to meet you.” but like “there will be an elders meeting in Harold’s VW van this Saturday “. Anyway, serving one replaces deacons and deaconess and means the same thing.

Drake

This post by our friend Drake exposes one of their program's most blatant hypocrisies.

For decades they have condemned the entire body of Christ for having "titles" thus creating so called "hierarchies." They claimed that only TLR is free from this dreaded disease of the "clergy-laity" system. "We are all brothers," they boldly proclaim, as they exalt the books and teachings of Nee and Lee.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In the LCM, the LSM and their paid staff all dwell on a higher plane than those merely associated with the LC's. Anyone from LSM HQs is above even church elders. Elders are constantly in fear lest they get reported back to HQ's as not being sufficiently supportive of their many programs, always called the "move of the Lord." How dare any LC eldership have an event which interferes with LSM's schedule.

Their PR message is duplicitous demagoguery. One day they claim to be "humble servants at a book publisher," and the next day they elevate themselves as Popes, the Vicar of Christ on earth, ruling their little kingdom as despots.

So Drake mocks the elders who gathered for prayer in "Harold's VW van" perhaps because of some domestic emergency in one of their families, but then he exalts their ITERO gathering at some luxurious resort like Whistler. How much better they are, sitting around condemning "poor, poor, Christianity!" And "thank God we are not like those pathetic elders huddling in a VW van for prayer and fellowship."

You have your reward.

[Drake]

-2 aron

Right. You are drawing a conclusion from a single personal data point as you say. All other data points are hearsay, not firsthand, at least from your perspective.

Shaming must be part of American culture too because I saw on more than one occasion managers challenge their subordinates in public whether they had accomplished their goals. That wasn’t hearsay either, I really saw it firsthand.

But wait, on another occasion I witnessed a manager criticize his employee publicly... they were Italian so shaming must be Italian...

Shaming must be part of German culture too because history shows.... etc, etc,

I saw a Brit once....

Well, you get the picture.

Drake

[Ohio]

So you justify Lee's bad behavior claiming that he is just like everybody else.

For good reasons like this, Truthseeker should not attend the FTT!

.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

There is no credible evidence that such a behavior is unique to Asian culture nor is it a practice or norm in the local churches. If you detected anything of deference between Brother Lee and Brother Titus it based on the latter regarding the former as a spiritual father. That is not Asian, that is New Testament (1 Corinthians 4:15). Neither is it abuse and mistreatment for a spiritual father to speak frankly to a spiritual son and shepherd him. My birth father said things to me that he never said to my friends. He also disciplined me out of love. That is neither abuse or mistreatment.

What kind of father, spiritual or biological, would use public shaming and humiliation to "discipline" his son?

That is not Asian, German, or American -- that is just wrong! Let's call it what it really is -- the Bully Pulpit.

Regardless of how Drake likes to spin this, LC leaders (from M.E. Barber to Nee to Lee to TC to whoever) regularly used public shaming for one reason -- to continually remind their followers who is in charge. It's goal, pure and simple, is the maintenance of power. That may be fine, even necessary, in the military, but has no place in the church, which is His body.

Jesus Himself, when He saw this behavior among His disciples, nipped it in the bud. He warned them that they should never "rule as the Gentiles do." (Matt 20.25; Mark 10.42; Luke 22.25) The LCM not only did not get this memo, they built it up into their definitive practice.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What kind of father, spiritual or biological, would use public shaming and humiliation to "discipline" his son?

That is not Asian, German, or American -- that is just wrong! Let's call it what it really is -- the Bully Pulpit.

Regardless of how Drake likes to spin this, LC leaders (from M.E. Barber to Nee to Lee to TC to whoever) regularly used public shaming for one reason -- to continually remind their followers who is in charge. It's goal, pure and simple, is the maintenance of power. That may be fine, even necessary, in the military, but has no place in the church, which is His body.

Jesus Himself, when He saw this behavior among His disciples, nipped it in the bud. He warned them that they should never "rule as the Gentiles do." (Matt 20.25; Mark 10.42; Luke 22.25) The LCM not only did not get this memo, they built it up into their definitive practice.

I too strongly question the use of public shaming. What is its intended purpose - to build up the person in love? If so, this is hard to see what are the loving results from using this method. Rather, it appears like a public trial, where the one admonishing pretty much becomes judge, jury and executioner.

During leadership training, we tell our business clients, "Praise in public; Discipline (these days we actually say "coach") in private." To do otherwise is a fear based tactic which will likely just produce short-term results. Disciplining in public does little more than build the ego at the expense of the other person - again, short term thinking. Definitely NOT the servant leadership model we see in Christ!

I was speaking with a brother over dinner last night about how Bill Freeman received the boot from the LC. I was told that in 1986 he was called to southern Cal and given a chair in the middle of the room, where he was ringed by a large group of elders. They proceeded to accuse him of various things. According to what I heard he didn't reply much. Right after that, he left the LC, and a few years later the Scottsdale church was formed.

I suppose in this instance it was not one person acting as judge, jury and executioner - but was WL actually orchestrating the whole thing?

(I'm not sure what the accusations were about, but I suppose they were around two main things: Bill's ministry being independent of LSM, and possibly also around his wife's "nonproductive" activities. I plan to ask about this tomorrow and will report - unless someone already knows the answer . . .)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I too strongly question the use of public shaming. What is its intended purpose - to build up the person in love? If so, this is hard to see what are the loving results from using this method. Rather, it appears like a public trial, where the one admonishing pretty much becomes judge, jury and executioner.

Read this story carefully by a long-time former elder and co-worker Don Rutledge, who posted as Hope. (Btw, John So was a gifted brother who migrated to Germany, which became very fruitful for TLR until they discovered corruption at LSM.) Notice the short-term "gain" and long-term "loss."

I have little doubt that [James Barber] would have supported the quarantine [of Titus Chu.] He was not bound by conscience to any of the brothers. For example, around 1978, he threw John So and I under the bus.

Here is the story. The LSM office had seemly come out of nowhere and began setting the direction for the individual local churches. This was raising some alarm bells. The booklet, "The Beliefs and Practices" was announced after a morning training session. John So and I had scheduled a lunch that day. We both had gotten a copy and were very troubled by several matters. Not the content, but the authorship, "The Co-Workers of the Lord's Recovery." Here was an entity and group of which we had never heard. To us, the Lord's recovery was a spiritual activity originated in the third heavens at the throne of God rather than some group or organization on earth. Also who are these seemingly self anointed emissaries? In addition, we were not happy that the brothers and sisters could just hand someone an official publication, as was promoted with the announcement of the booklet, rather than being ready to give an answer for the hope that is within them. In addition, how could you not say that we now had a head quarters which could speak for all the so called Local churches?

As we spoke and walked to the diner, other brothers began to join us, kind of like Luke chapter 24. Francis Ball, Ned Nossaman, and James Barber were with us. I am pretty sure that Dick Taylor was also there. They all agreed that they had a bothering. Francis as an elder in Anaheim prayed with WL before every meeting. He proposed that he set up a private fellowship with him after the evening session. We all agreed. James was in total agreement with John and me and expressed his desire to be in that meeting and to express his concerns to WL.

Right after the meeting James informed John So and I that WL was very upset. Francis had tipped off James. WL did not want to have a quiet private talk but chose to dress the two of us down in the hall for all to see. As soon as the meeting was over, we two were marched to the front. Chairs were rearranged. John and I set by ourselves facing WL and about 50 brothers including James Barber who set behind WL in support of him. Scores of the attendance milled around the little court room and became an audience. WL never asked us to open our concerns but immediately launched into a tirade against us and issued a general warning that if we continued to question what the office and the ministry was doing we would cause a lot of damage to the saints and we would damage ourselves. I can never forget the glare of despising we got from Ron Kangas as WL continued for about 10 minutes with the rebuke. Then he dismissed the meeting and we all went home. Was I ever in shock!!! So was John So. I was taking hospitality with Ned. On the ride home he laughed and laughed. He said this regularly happened to the elders in Orange County California.

James had that sheep eating dog look while WL defended the booklet, the LSM and warned John and I to keep silent. After that night, there were no more auras around the WL coordination for me. I determined I would never be bullied again. I still held to the vision of Christ as Life and the Oneness of the Body of Christ is a vital matter, but the personality cult was broken for me. I did backslide and allowed myself to get drawn into the lawsuit for a while. But I never jumped again when WL or one of his cadre yelled frog. I never again promoted the activities from Anaheim as something all the members in Dallas should plunge into. We begin to shepherd the church according to the need of the members. I decided to take what was helpful and leave alone what was some wild hare. Shortly after this I learned of the secret bank account of WL and LSM being run by Benson and an elder in Dallas. Yet it still took several years for my direction and loyalties to change. Whoa I am getting way ahead of myself.

But dj, I am pretty sure that James valued the favor of WL more that his relationship to John Ingalls and Bill Mallon and for sure Titus did not mean anything to him.

Hope

This story happened in the mid-to-late 70's. Anyone who reads that booklet knows it is all PR "spin."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I too strongly question the use of public shaming. What is its intended purpose - to build up the person in love? If so, this is hard to see what are the loving results from using this method. Rather, it appears like a public trial, where the one admonishing pretty much becomes judge, jury and executioner.

During leadership training, we tell our business clients, "Praise in public; Discipline (these days we actually say "coach") in private." To do otherwise is a fear based tactic which will likely just produce short-term results. Disciplining in public does little more than build the ego at the expense of the other person - again, short term thinking. Definitely NOT the servant leadership model we see in Christ!

StG,

Couple of points on the above.

First, were you ever in a meeting with Brother Lee? Training or conference or conversed with him around a table in a small group or spoke with the man one on one? If not, then do not believe everything you hear in this forum. There is another side. I have had those opportunities and the Witness Lee in this forum is not the Witness Lee I had the pleasure to know. If Brother Lee was anywhere near like the monster folks paint him as in this forum then no one would be there.

But, I want to challenge your idea about public confrontation. Not shaming but challenging. Not purposely embarrassing someone for the sake of embarrassment but that all may learn. I will use myself as an example. A most valuable lesson and teaching I learned was from a public question and answer.. in this case, it was an exchange between Brother Lee and yours truly. It was at least as direct as the incident mentioned between Brother Lee and Brother Titus. He asked a question in a meeting and I offered an answer..... the answer was the wrong one and I knew it as soon as it left my lips. Also, at that very moment the Light went on and I had the Lord's shining. There was a little more public exchange but here is what I will share with you. I have had many wonderful experiences of Christ in my christian life and most of them in the local churches....and some of them, that one in particular, came out from a direct and frank public exchange. I am certain others learned from it, but none as much as I. And I treasure the experience of Christ I gained from it.

Immediately following this I had a discussion of a personal nature with Brother Lee.... and I can testify that he was most gracious and caring and a offered sincere and heartfelt counsel.

Yet, what does the Bible show about this? Was the Lord direct with his disciples, with Peter when he called him Satan? Was Paul too confrontational with Peter when he separated himself from the Gentiles? Was Paul shaming others in his letters to the churches, calling out certain brothers for their divisive thinking, doctrine, or practice? I do not say Paul was uncivil, slanderous, or reviling. He was civil, frank, direct, even when he administered discipline to members of a local church. In fact, I think to be silent when we should speak is playing politics and it is not Christ.

Drake

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Nnnnnnnnn... no.

Trapped, you seem to be thinking in clergy terms... title-ish.

I have heard the term deacons used but it really just refers to serving ones, the most used term. And serving ones also includes brothers or sisters. Elders is a term that is used to refer to... well elders... but even then not as a formal title..... not like “Hi, I’m Elder Buzz! Nice to meet you.” but like “there will be an elders meeting in Harold’s VW van this Saturday “. Anyway, serving one replaces deacons and deaconess and means the same thing.

Drake

Drake,

Yyyyyyyyyeahh........I am not referring to official titles. I am not thinking and do not think in clergy terms. I am well aware there are no titles. I am talking about descriptive terms used to refer to people who carry out the functions of that word. Even as you said, "elder" is not a title. It is a description of that person's function (just like "church in..." is not the name or title, it is just the description).

However, Nee does say there are only two offices in the church – that of elder and that of deacon. And deacons are also appointed in the course of their natural manifestation. So while it is not an official title, deacons are actually “appointed” and therefore “officially” deacons. Not in official title, but in appointed function. (And in communication we do have to use words and terms for things and people, or else we are up a creek.)

So for a group who tries to do everything so tightly according to the Bible, it is odd that the term "deacon" is not generally used, especially when there is even a specific portion in the word describing the qualifications for one. We have “elders” because it is in the Bible, why not “deacon”? You mentioned “serving one” and said that it covers deacons and deaconesses. Personally I would disagree on the grounds that "serving one" is used too broadly and can include saints who do not hold the qualifications of a deacon as described in the Bible, and moreover are not necessarily appointed. At one point or another most saints can end up being a "serving one" in some capacity, whether briefly or longer term. Under the large umbrella of "serving one", however, some can be deacons in function. (In other words, not all serving ones are deacons, but all deacons are serving ones).

Yes, in some LCs there are females who serve in certain specific capacities and who therefore do perform the functions of a deaconess. Why then, if these functions exist among the saints, are the Biblical terms not used to describe them? One realization I had was that to use the term "deacon" would then support the use of the term "deaconess", and having any female termed, or, yes, “appointed”, anything special in the local churches is a no-no. (I do not mean "special" in the sense of being above anyone else. Deacons/esses serve the saints; they are not there to be "over" the saints in a negative way).

You said you have heard the term deacon used. I have never heard the term deacon used myself, but accept that there may be LC's where it is used, although I have to suspect that that is a rare occurrence.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Was Paul shaming others in his letters to the churches, calling out certain brothers for their divisive thinking, doctrine, or practice? I do not say Paul was uncivil, slanderous, or reviling. He was civil, frank, direct, even when he administered discipline to members of a local church. In fact, I think to be silent when we should speak is playing politics and it is not Christ.

I can see your view, and how this idea of the kind, older brother, shepherding the saints in love to perfect them for the building, has taken root in your mind. But it has no power in my mind and I'll tell you why.

Who got to be civil, frank and direct with Witness Lee when son Philip was caught repeatedly molesting the sisters at LSM offices? Who got to shepherd, perfect, or correct Lee when all the money invested by LC attendees into son Timothy's motor home business disappeared, and the church members were told to consider it a donation? Did Saul Benoit get to be frank with Lee? Did the elders in Anaheim? Did anyone? Who administered discipline to Witness Lee?

No, "fellowship" and "discipline" in the LC was a one-way street, a "normal Christian church life" only for those steeped in oriental cultural norms and expectations. News flash: Witness Lee was not Jesus, sinless and perfected forever; rather, he was a sinner like the rest, only placed in "untouchable" status by his cultural expectations. And the result was ruinous. Not building but dividing and collapse. Aka "turmoil, storms and rebellions" - I heard these terms coming into the LC, and now I've some idea from whence they derived.

Who would want to be indoctrinated into such a system?

Additionally, for all the "kind older brother" and "begetting father" stories from the LC, there are ones like Ned Nossaman and Bill Mallon who speak of the tyrannical outbursts. See, e.g., the testimony in post #55, below; note that such behaviours are seen as acceptable, necessary even, from a particular societal standpoint.

But it isn't a heavenly society but rather an earthly one. So everyone except Witness Lee had to be silent and play politics as you noted in your post. Only Lee got to be frank; everyone else had to be political.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Drake,

Yyyyyyyyyeahh........I am not referring to official titles. I am not thinking and do not think in clergy terms. I am well aware there are no titles. I am talking about descriptive terms used to refer to people who carry out the functions of that word. Even as you said, "elder" is not a title. It is a description of that person's function (just like "church in..." is not the name or title, it is just the description).

However, Nee does say there are only two offices in the church – that of elder and that of deacon. And deacons are also appointed in the course of their natural manifestation. So while it is not an official title, deacons are actually “appointed” and therefore “officially” deacons. Not in official title, but in appointed function. (And in communication we do have to use words and terms for things and people, or else we are up a creek.)

So for a group who tries to do everything so tightly according to the Bible, it is odd that the term "deacon" is not generally used, especially when there is even a specific portion in the word describing the qualifications for one. We have “elders” because it is in the Bible, why not “deacon”? You mentioned “serving one” and said that it covers deacons and deaconesses. Personally I would disagree on the grounds that "serving one" is used too broadly and can include saints who do not hold the qualifications of a deacon as described in the Bible, and moreover are not necessarily appointed. At one point or another most saints can end up being a "serving one" in some capacity, whether briefly or longer term. Under the large umbrella of "serving one", however, some can be deacons in function. (In other words, not all serving ones are deacons, but all deacons are serving ones).

Yes, in some LCs there are females who serve in certain specific capacities and who therefore do perform the functions of a deaconess. Why then, if these functions exist among the saints, are the Biblical terms not used to describe them? One realization I had was that to use the term "deacon" would then support the use of the term "deaconess", and having any female termed, or, yes, “appointed”, anything special in the local churches is a no-no. (I do not mean "special" in the sense of being above anyone else. Deacons/esses serve the saints; they are not there to be "over" the saints in a negative way).

You said you have heard the term deacon used. I have never heard the term deacon used myself, but accept that there may be LC's where it is used, although I have to suspect that that is a rare occurrence.

Ok. Fair enough. I see your point, Trapped.

But I think the reason may be simpler than you describe.

Assuming there is a conscious effort to not use the term “deacon” or “deaconess” it would more likely stem from the fact that the descriptor has been used and spoiled by institutional Christianity were it is a title, it is an official associated with the clergy class.... little deacon became big Deacon. That explanation would be consistent with the teachings and practices of the local churches and to avoid inadvertently creating classes in the local churches.

Yet, I have no proof that is why or how this low key use of the term deacon came about. I rather think it is because serving one is the meaning of the Greek diakonos. Just like we don’t use the term “called out assembly” but rather a vernacular expression ....”church”.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

I can see your view, and how this idea of the kind, older brother, shepherding the saints in love to perfect them for the building, has taken root in your mind. But it has no power in my mind and I'll tell you why.

Who got to be civil, frank and direct with Witness Lee when son Philip was caught repeatedly molesting the sisters at LSM offices? Who got to shepherd, perfect, or correct Lee when all the money invested by LC attendees into son Timothy's motor home business disappeared, and the church members were told to consider it a donation? Did Saul Benoit get to be frank with Lee? Did the elders in Anaheim? Did anyone? Who administered discipline to Witness Lee?

No, "fellowship" and "discipline" in the LC was a one-way street, a "normal Christian church life" only for those steeped in oriental cultural norms and expectations. News flash: Witness Lee was not Jesus, sinless and perfected forever; rather, he was a sinner like the rest, only placed in "untouchable" status by his cultural expectations. And the result was ruinous. Not building but dividing and collapse. Aka "turmoil, storms and rebellions" - I heard these terms coming into the LC, and now I've some idea from whence they derived.

Who would want to be indoctrinated into such a system?

Additionally, for all the "kind older brother" and "begetting father" stories from the LC, there are ones like Ned Nossaman and Bill Mallon who speak of the tyrannical outbursts. See, e.g., the testimony in post #55, below; note that such behaviours are seen as acceptable, necessary even, from a particular societal standpoint.

But it isn't a heavenly society but rather an earthly one. So everyone except Witness Lee had to be silent and play politics as you noted in your post. Only Lee got to be frank; everyone else had to be political.

Aron,

Part of your post above is a fair argument. But frankly, much of it is shallow talking points and those overshadow any reasonable point you might have made. I’m sure you know that so I wonder why you wallow your argument the mire as part of its presentation.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

Part of your post above is a fair argument. But frankly, much of it is shallow talking points and those overshadow any reasonable point you might have made. I’m sure you know that so I wonder why you wallow your argument the mire as part of its presentation.

Drake

Another trademark post by Drake -- so dismissive of the genuine concerns of the children of God.

The facts of history have destroyed your flawed attempts at justifying Lee's bully tactics, and spinning them to appear like anything that resembles the New Testament.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I too strongly question the use of public shaming. What is its intended purpose - to build up the person in love? If so, this is hard to see what are the loving results from using this method. Rather, it appears like a public trial, where the one admonishing pretty much becomes judge, jury and executioner..

A whle back on this forum we were discussing the trial of Watchman Nee in the PRC. A young woman had been in the court room, and heard Nee confess to the charges, get sentenced, and hauled off to prison. The young woman later emigrated and wrote a book about her experiences in the Nee church, including the trial and what she saw and heard.

https://www.amazon.com/My-Unforgetta...e+memories+hsu

The comments on this forum were mostly like, "See! He confessed! Guilty!" My reply was, "How many trials in the PRC in the 1950s did you see someone plead not guilty, mount a defense, and get exonerated and walk free? How many?" I couldn't find any. I did some searches on the PRC criminal system... there, it's like this: the "State" is right, you're a "criminal" and are wrong. End of story. You wouldn't be accused if you weren't guilty!

My point was, and remains, that in Chinese culture that's considered "due process"; those who fight the system get worse punishment, so why fight? It's how social order is maintained. Do we in the west agree? No, but it certainly is effective. So Witness Lee was acting according to type when he summarily 'executed' some of his LC members for 'crimes' real and imagined. Matthew 18:15-20 wasn't thought of - his family or business was at stake and suddenly he was acting like a typical Chinese businessman. That fit his "normal Christian church life" model (and yes I'm punning by quoting the title of Nee's book).

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I was speaking with a brother over dinner last night about how Bill Freeman received the boot from the LC. I was told that in 1986 he was called to southern Cal and given a chair in the middle of the room, where he was ringed by a large group of elders. They proceeded to accuse him of various things. According to what I heard he didn't reply much. . .

There are quite a bunch of stories like this. The one Ohio quoted in post #55. Jane Anderson's testimony. The Rappaports. John Ingalls. Then we see the pattern repeated with Titus Chu and his underlings, with Dong Yu Lan and his followers. There's a trend here, repeated over decades, and it has clear cultural components. To those who behave like this, it's considered normal. This is why the LC is becoming increasingly Chinese: it meets their cultural expectations.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Drake

StG,

Couple of points on the above.

First, were you ever in a meeting with Brother Lee? Training or conference or conversed with him around a table in a small group or spoke with the man one on one? If not, then do not believe everything you hear in this forum. There is another side. I have had those opportunities and the Witness Lee in this forum is not the Witness Lee I had the pleasure to know. If Brother Lee was anywhere near like the monster folks paint him as in this forum then no one would be there.

No. I never spoke with the brother. And I don't want to slander him in any way. My personal belief is he was on track and then somewhere along the line, he got off track. He appears to have been blind that things he believed and spoke earlier on, didn't fully align with things from him later.

I have received blessings from the Lord through this brother. But in the end, that's all he was - a brother. A brother with vision but also warts, just like the rest of us. The promise and hope in Christ, is that He is faithful to remove all those warts. We're all in process. But when one man gets elevated, church history shows over and over what happens. No difference here.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

No. I never spoke with the brother. And I don't want to slander him in any way. My personal belief is he was on track and then somewhere along the line, he got off track. He appears to have been blind that things he believed and spoke earlier on, didn't fully align with things later.

I have received blessings from the Lord through this brother. But in the end, that's all he was - a brother. A brother with vision but also warts, just like the rest of us. The promise and hope in Christ, is that He is faithful to remove all those warts. We're all in process. But when one man gets elevated, church history shows over and over what happens. No difference here.

Well I never sat around with brother Lee. My friend that goes by Hosepipe did, a couple times. Tried to talk to him but Lee treated him like he wasn't there. My friend said that Lee made the hair stand up on the back of his neck.

I did attend plenty of Lee's speakings, if that counts for anything.

But all that wouldn't turn me off to Lee. Lee was as human as the rest of us. What turned me off to Lee was when he started thinking of himself more than he ought.

When it came down from Anaheim that Lee was the one and only apostle on the earth, and the oracle of God and authority of God, then I knew that Lee had gone off the rails. Then Lee was claiming that he wasn't as human as the rest of us. He was better.

So maybe there are some slanderous scurrilous libel against Lee out here. Maybe not.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the record has Jesus saying something like, "those who exalt themselves will be humbled."

Lee exalted himself, and is now being humbled.

Get use to it bro Drake. You'll get over man worship sooner or later ... hopefully. I'll pray for you.

[Evangelical]

Too much Chinese can be a real problem. Some local churches they are trying hard to reduce the Chinese influence. Examples include banning Chinese from being spoken in the meetings and making the pot lucks western instead of Chinese. They also split the churches and West and East meet separately. Promoting Western not Chinese elders. Also giving the Chinese instructions in personal hygiene and good manners.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Get use to it bro Drake. You'll get over man worship sooner or later ... hopefully. I'll pray for you.

Bro Awareness,

I am used to it. And there is no man worship. I regard Brother Lee as a servant of the Lord. He put is pants on one leg at a time. He made mistakes. We all do. The Lord revealed much to me over the past 4 decades and Brother Lee's ministry was instrumental to those experiences of Christ.

And yet, a normal regard for Brother Lee seems like worship to those that loathe the very ground the man walked on and the air that he breathed.

I get that.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

My point was, and remains, that in Chinese culture that's considered "due process"; those who fight the system get worse punishment, so why fight? It's how social order is maintained. Do we in the west agree?

That is not Chinese, aron. That is Communism. You will find the same situation in Eastern bloc countries and Russia under under Stalin....Pol Pot in Cambodia.. etc.

Drake

[aron]

-1

Except Lee clearly wasn't interested in due process either, and he wasn't Communist by any measure. So much for that theory.

And guess who's the last major Communist hold-out today? Russia? Eastern bloc nations? No, it's China. Hey! What do you know? But there's no connection with that country's culture, right? Just a coincidence, I'm sure. Still, an interesting coincidence.

And notice that even decades after their deaths one may not point out either Mao's failures, nor those of Lee. Maybe a generic, "mistakes were made", but nothing specific. Don't correct the Big Guy! Don't make them lose face. But that's just coincidence, right? Nothing to do with shared Chinese culture.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

I am used to it. And there is no man worship. I regard Brother Lee as a servant of the Lord. He put is pants on one leg at a time. He made mistakes. We all do.

I think God has forgiven Lee and so people here are judging him for sins God has already forgiven.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Except Lee clearly wasn't interested in due process either, and he wasn't Communist by any measure. So much for that theory.

Aron,

China has been around for 4000 years. How long has Communism been around in China?

You are making correlations where there are none.

Your arguments start with your end point and you work backwards from there ending up with odd and unsubstantiated correlations that have no basis in fact.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

And there is no man worship. I regard Brother Lee as a servant of the Lord. He put is pants on one leg at a time. He made mistakes. We all do. The Lord revealed much to me over the past 4 decades and Brother Lee's ministry was instrumental to those experiences of Christ.

Hi Drake, how do you define a "mistake?" We seem to have different dictionaries here.

Secondly, if you don't like ex-members addressing the excessive exaltation which Lee received in the LC's, then why do you falsely claim that members "loathe the very ground the man walked on and the air that he breathed."

Please define for us what you would consider a "normal regard" for Brother Lee? I have a problem calling just about anything at LSM "normal."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Except Lee clearly wasn't interested in due process either, and he wasn't Communist by any measure. So much for that theory.

Instead of communism, it could be from the bible about forgiveness and covering sins.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think God has forgiven Lee and so people here are judging him for sins God has already forgiven.

But did not Witness Lee teach us that not even God could forgive sins without a repentance. (I John 1.9)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

China has been around for 4000 years. How long has Communism been around in China?

Chinese dynasties were communistic long before they were called communist.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Instead of communism, it could be from the bible about forgiveness and covering sins.

I wasn't the one who brought up communism. I was talking about a culture and it's effect on what we'd call due process. You know, innocent until proven guilty. In the Chinese courts its not like that. Neither in the LC. If Lee hauled you on the docket you were cooked. That had nothing to do with communism. But there was a shared cultural basis (social expectations and values) and I was noting that.

How come Lee didn't follow the Matthew 18 guidelines? Was he exempt? "Today's Moses" gets to write his own laws?

The only sins I can see Lee forgiving and covering up were those of his immediate family. Everyone else had a different set of rules. Apparently this discrepancy needs to be pointed out - some folks seem to be trying hard not to notice. So I'm just helping them out by breaking the fetters of blindness.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But did not Witness Lee teach us that not even God could forgive sins without a repentance. (I John 1.9)

And in China, if you break the shared expectations of the guanxi network you never get restored. Same with the LC. Mere coincidence? Or cultural influence at work? I suspect the latter.

Those who don't forgive don't get forgiven. God is willing to forgive. Are the Blinders willing to repent?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

I wasn't the one who brought up communism. I was talking about a culture and it's effect on what we'd call due process. You know, innocent until proven guilty. In the Chinese courts its not like that. Neither in the LC. If Lee hauled you on the docket you were cooked. That had nothing to do with communism. But there was a shared cultural basis (social expectations and values) and I was noting that.

How come Lee didn't follow the Matthew 18 guidelines? Was he exempt? "Today's Moses" gets to write his own laws?

The only sins I can see Lee forgiving and covering up were those of his immediate family. Everyone else had a different set of rules. Apparently this discrepancy needs to be pointed out - some folks seem to be trying hard not to notice. So I'm just helping them out by breaking the fetters of blindness.

You are talking about Confucianism.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Too much Chinese can be a real problem. Some local churches they are trying hard to reduce the Chinese influence. Examples include banning Chinese from being spoken in the meetings and making the pot lucks western instead of Chinese. They also split the churches and West and East meet separately. Promoting Western not Chinese elders. Also giving the Chinese instructions in personal hygiene and good manners.

Is this like LC affirmative action?

[least]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Too much Chinese can be a real problem. Some local churches they are trying hard to reduce the Chinese influence. Examples include banning Chinese from being spoken in the meetings and making the pot lucks western instead of Chinese. They also split the churches and West and East meet separately. Promoting Western not Chinese elders. Also giving the Chinese instructions in personal hygiene and good manners.

Really? That's hilarious.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by least

Really? That's hilarious.

I'm sayin'!

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok. Fair enough. I see your point, Trapped.

But I think the reason may be simpler than you describe.

Assuming there is a conscious effort to not use the term “deacon” or “deaconess” it would more likely stem from the fact that the descriptor has been used and spoiled by institutional Christianity were it is a title, it is an official associated with the clergy class.... little deacon became big Deacon. That explanation would be consistent with the teachings and practices of the local churches and to avoid inadvertently creating classes in the local churches.

Yet, I have no proof that is why or how this low key use of the term deacon came about. I rather think it is because serving one is the meaning of the Greek diakonos. Just like we don’t use the term “called out assembly” but rather a vernacular expression ....”church”.

Drake

Surely the Lord's recovery can "recover" the proper use of the word deacon

But this isn't an issue that keeps me up and night, and like you said, at the moment we have no proof with the information that is available to us about why it isn't used. Several explanations are plausible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Too much Chinese can be a real problem. Some local churches they are trying hard to reduce the Chinese influence. Examples include banning Chinese from being spoken in the meetings and making the pot lucks western instead of Chinese. They also split the churches and West and East meet separately. Promoting Western not Chinese elders. Also giving the Chinese instructions in personal hygiene and good manners.

Folks, we're looking a little too Chinese these days.

From now on we will have FTTT inspections before every meeting.

You will get citations if you smell, if you still got dinner between your teeth, and if your LSM tie is smudged.

This week we will practice shaking hands and saying "howdy" to the guests.


Evangelical, has it really come to this in the "local" church?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evangelical, has it really come to this in the "local" church?

That's very much exaggerated, I wrote none of that.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by least

Really? That's hilarious.

What's funny about it? I must have missed the joke. If this situation had occurred in the time of the early church, in Corinth for example, I'm sure Paul would have given them instructions about it, just as he gave them instructions about the problems they were facing like wearing head coverings etc.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's very much exaggerated, I wrote none of that.

Didn't you ever go to a FTT, and have some kid do an underwear drawer inspection while you were in a meeting?

It is worse than I described, Evan.

In the Asian culture, that's a way for LSM "trainers" to bring elders and deacons under their subjection. Mark my word.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What's funny about it? I must have missed the joke. If this situation had occurred in the time of the early church, in Corinth for example, I'm sure Paul would have given them instructions about it, just as he gave them instructions about the problems they were facing like wearing head coverings etc.

When you wrote your post (#50) I thought you were being facetious. If you were serious, then you completely missed the point of the thread, and I suspect deliberately. The issue here is not the Chinese-ness (for lack of a better term) of the newer members, but the Chinese-mess of the founders Nee and Lee, and how this is writ large over the LC, and the effect it has on both human relations and one's walk with God.

I understand, not all autocrats are Chinese. But these men built a Chinese-coloured system in which there was no mutuality or recoprocality. At one point you wrote, "You don't critique Jesus." But Watchman Nee was not Jesus.

When the leading brothers gathered and expressed real and deep shared concerns about the situation in the LC, during the Philip Lee drama, Witness Lee complained to them that they were "pouring ice water" on him. But he got to pour ice water on everyone else. He could not have built such a large organisation around such flawed(and non-biblical, I might add) premises without tacit agreement of shared cultural influences.

For example, when members said to one another about Lee, "Even when he's wrong he's right", they were unwittingly inculcating themselves with eastern values.

And you keep using Paul as a kind of spiritual sop, or cover. Paul did not have absolute authority in the church. John alone refutes this: John was there before Paul, and was there after, and was continually ministering, and nowhere do we see any indication of the slavish submission that the Nee/Lee model demanded.

This thread is a spin- off of an earlier discussion about attending the FTT; my response was, "Who would want to be trained (re-programmed) in such a system?"

I agree that the system of western denominations in China, circa 1925, was deeply flawed. One might even argue, hopelessly flawed. But Nee's solution as exported by Lee was worse. At least in the "denominations" (for lack of a better term) there were some safeguards against abuse. In the LC there were, and are, effectively none. Who'd want to give themselves to this kind of system? It invites abuse. We have here story after story, testimony after testimony.

[Evangelical]

If the thread is about the Chineseness of Lee/Nee then why are you and others talking about the LC in the present tense?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If the thread is about the Chineseness of Lee/Nee then why are you and others talking about the LC in the present tense?

Please read the first sentence again. I said, "this IS writ large over the LC". The LC continues to be an extension of the culturally- mediated personalities of its two most dominant members.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Please read the first sentence again. I said, "this IS writ large over the LC". The LC continues to be an extension of the culturally- mediated personalities of its two most dominant members.

What is your proof that this is the case today? Does it apply to ALL local churches around the world?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What is your proof that this is the case today? Does it apply to ALL local churches around the world?

The "yellow-ness" of the LC's in the US, which do not represent the locals.

One of the nasty side-effects of the Midwest Quarantines was to expedite the "yellowing" of the LCM in the US. The Midwest LC's were the last bastion of "native" Americans.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What is your proof that this is the case today? Does it apply to ALL local churches around the world?

If you read the footnotes to your RecV, Witness Lee wrote that ALL local churches have to be "exactly identical" with "no differences whatever". See e.g., Rev 1:20 footnote.

Or did you have printed messages from LSM giving other directives? Please share, and reconcile that with the footnote.

Unless we hear of sweeping changes in the LC, we are not remiss in assuming this is the case, yes in ALL the LC assemblies, today. Because that's the way it was set up and the current leadership makes such a deal of "closely following the apostles", i.e. Lee's written directives.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

If you read the footnotes to your RecV, Witness Lee wrote that ALL local churches have to be "exactly identical" with "no differences whatever". See e.g., Rev 1:20 footnote.

Or did you have printed messages from LSM giving other directives? Please share, and reconcile that with the footnote..

According to the footnote you referenced, in what way are the local churches identical?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

According to the footnote you referenced, in what way are the local churches identical?

Drake

According to Lee's own words, they should be identical in expression, in flavor, in appearance, in composition, in teaching, in nature, etc.

They should be as identical to one another as all of the seven golden lampstands in Revelation. No differences whatsoever are allowed, because all of these differences were supposedly "negative."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hi Drake, how do you define a "mistake?" We seem to have different dictionaries here.

Secondly, if you don't like ex-members addressing the excessive exaltation which Lee received in the LC's, then why do you falsely claim that members "loathe the very ground the man walked on and the air that he breathed."

Please define for us what you would consider a "normal regard" for Brother Lee? I have a problem calling just about anything at LSM "normal."

Hi Drake,

Whenever questions get difficult for you, then you seem to disappear.

My questions here are altogether legitimate, since you regularly dismiss all of Lee's failings with the saying, "everyone makes mistakes."

[UntoHim]

"They bear the same lamp for the same purpose and are fully identified with one another, not having any individual distinctiveness. The differences among the seven churches recorded in chs. 2 and 3 are all of a negative nature, not a positive one. Negatively, in their failures, the churches are different and separate from one another; but positively, in their nature, shape, and purpose, they are absolutely identical and are connected to one another."
Revelation 1:20 Footnote (Recovery Version)

Witness Lee's footnote here is a classic argument from silence. One could probably throw in an argument of ignorance as well. His logic is shoddy and over-simplistic. "Not having any individual distinctiveness?" These churches were made up of flesh and blood human beings, not mindless, opinionless automatons. Furthermore, it does seem to reflect the Chinese/Asian homogeneous worldview. Of course there is nothing inherently wrong in this ancient worldview...the problems come in when this worldview is sold as "Recovered truth".
-

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"They bear the same lamp for the same purpose and are fully identified with one another, not having any individual distinctiveness. The differences among the seven churches recorded in chs. 2 and 3 are all of a negative nature, not a positive one. Negatively, in their failures, the churches are different and separate from one another; but positively, in their nature, shape, and purpose, they are absolutely identical and are connected to one another."
Revelation 1:20 Footnote (Recovery Version)

Witness Lee's footnote here is a classic argument from silence. One could probably throw in an argument of ignorance as well. His logic is shoddy and over-simplistic. "Not having any individual distinctiveness?" These churches were made up of flesh and blood human beings, not mindless, opinionless automatons. Furthermore, it does seem to reflect the Chinese/Asian homogeneous worldview. Of course there is nothing inherently wrong in this ancient worldview...the problems come in when this worldview is sold as "Recovered truth".
-

Thanks.

The Footnote says identical in " their nature, shape, and purpose"

What nature, what shape, and what purpose does the Footnote describe?

Drake

[Sons to Glory!]

Hey - we might need more Chinese in Scottsdale . . . send 'em over here!

Seriously, we're just fine, since "God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired." (1 Cor 12:18)

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

What nature, what shape, and what purpose does the Footnote describe?

Please don't insult my intelligence (such as it is) by treating me like "a new one". I didn't just fall of the Local Church turnip truck this morning ya know. We are not talking about heavy-duty theological concepts and terms here.

One of the things many outsiders have had questions about is why nearly everyone in the Local Church looks, dresses and talks the same. And they wonder why they can't get but a few "average American Caucasians". The group has been hemorrhaging young American Caucasian kids at an alarming rate for decades. The makeup of the Full-Time Training Anaheim is so skewed with Chinese/Asians that it looks like it should be in Taiwan, not Anaheim.

Why? Are American Caucasians so blind, deft and dumb as to not recognize "the heavenly culture" Witness Lee created? Why wouldn't they want to be "trained" in the godly and glorious ways of the Kingdom? Conversely, why are the Chinese/Asians flocking to the FTTA?

You see, there is a method to the madness. If you fill all the churches with people who look, dress, talk and act the same you will end up with a bunch of churches that look, dress, talk and act the same. A bunch of little rank-and-file automatons meeting in a meeting hall make up the corporate automaton. You get what you pay for my friends. And the followers of Witness Lee have been payin and payin for about 50 years now.
-

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Please don't insult my intelligence (such as it is) by treating me like "a new one". I didn't just fall of the Local Church turnip truck this morning ya know. We are not talking about heavy-duty theological concepts and terms here.

One of the things many outsiders have had questions about is why nearly everyone in the Local Church looks, dresses and talks the same. And they wonder why they can't get but a few "average American Caucasians". The group has been hemorrhaging young American Caucasian kids at an alarming rate for decades. The makeup of the Full-Time Training Anaheim is so skewed with Chinese/Asians that it looks like it should be in Taiwan, not Anaheim.
-

You may have a point in the above, I cannot say if factually you are correct. ... but perhaps it is related to a point that Evangelical made a few posts back.

Yet that was not my objection. Aron referenced a footnote in the Recovery Version (Revelation 1:20) to substantiate his Asian culture claim. That footnote does not say or even imply what he said it does... it comes nowhere near to it. He is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.

Therefore, aron, back to your assertion...... that footnote says the local churches are identical in "nature, shape, and purpose". According to that footnote what does the nature, shape, and purpose refer to?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Thanks.

The Footnote says identical in " their nature, shape, and purpose"

What nature, what shape, and what purpose does the Footnote describe?

Drake

Hi Drake,

I know you are having a hard time here, but ...

How do you interpret Lee's quoted footnote to demand that every LC must read from the same identical book, and that would be the latest HWFMR based on the latest semi-annual Training at LSM?

LSM used this demand to quarantine and literally divide all the LC's in the Midwest. Operatives from LSM literally incited local adherents to physically disrupt the Lord's Day meetings out of their desire to be "absolutely one with other LC's" according to Witness Lee's own instructions.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

You may have a point in the above, I cannot say if factually you are correct. ... but perhaps it is related to a point that Evangelical made a few posts back.

Yet that was not my objection. Aron referenced a footnote in the Recovery Version (Revelation 1:20) to substantiate his Asian culture claim. That footnote does not say or even imply what he said it does... it comes nowhere near to it. He is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.

Therefore, aron, back to your assertion...... that footnote says the local churches are identical in "nature, shape, and purpose". According to that footnote what does the nature, shape, and purpose refer to?

Drake

According to the footnote, as read to us by the "trainers" in the LSM, it meant "flavor". In other words, we use spiritual mumbo-jumbo to tell people, "get with the program".

But truly it wasn't ALL of the LC that was abusive, manipulative, and controlling. Just enough of it that a clear pattern was established. Somewhere between zero and 100%. Jane Anderson, Max and Sandee Rappaport, 'Hope' and John So, Bill Mallon, the sisters abused by Philip Lee, Sal Benoit and the Daystar 'investors', Bill Freeman, etc.

I admit that also there's abuse and manipulation in non-LC churches and in non-religious groups. But in the LC it's well-covered over by those spiritual words. Because in the LC you don't talk. Another Chinese trait. Just smile and nod.

Who was the Chinese brother (Samuel Chang?) walking with the American brother in the mid-60s, who turned to the American (Don Hardy?) and said, "You have to watch out for Witness Lee's family", then clapped his hand over his mouth and said, "Oh! I shouldn't have said that!" Why? Chinese culture says it's bad form to speak of others like that. So Lee's past got hidden by people who knew. When the Tour of Asia happened and Lee took those strapping young American men, none of the Chinese warned the Americans what was coming. Bad form to speak ill. So they let it pass. And when the storm came the Americans didn't know what hit them. But the Chinese already knew.

Lee would hide behind words, "Nature, shape, and purpose". But those on the ground knew exactly what it meant. When Lee looked over the mass of humanity dressed in identical garments he couldn't contain his delight. This is what Ohio tells us of what he saw during the "New Way" in Taipei. Another witness to the non-witness of Witness Lee. He wasn't testifying of Christ, but his native culture. (but he wasn't a monster; Drake says we say that here but I don't ever remember using that word. WL was just another sinner trapped by his concepts and his flesh).

[aron]

Here's a post from a dumb American who opened his mouth:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Thanks for asking about my "excommunication". In an attempt to help a young brother that I brought to the church in OKC who was under condemnation for his personal failings I told him all have sinned and come short of the glory of the Lord and even our dear Bro. Lee had done illegal acts and the Lord had forgiven him and was still using him. This helped the brother and we prayed and he left. The next day he apparently shared his testimony with another brother who immediately reported to James Barber that I had said Bro. Lee had done illegal acts.

James called an emergency meeting of the elders and called me to come meet with them. Upon arrival James informed me that what I said was a lie and unless I repented I would be excommunicated. Of course what I had said was the truth regarding Bro. Lee committing illegal acts was absolutely true and I had been intimately involved in helping Francis Ball prepare his legal defense had he been caught (in retrospect what I said about Lee repenting may have been wrong) but suffice it to say I was in a real quandary. If I am to stay in Fellowship then I must say what I said was a lie when in fact it was the truth. I did not have the peace to uncover the sins of Bro. Lee even though I knew he was guilty so I reflected inwardly and said Lord I choose You and the Spirit of Glory fell upon me.

I said nothing in my defense and James pronounced my excommunication and the other elders nodded in agreement(two of whom I had brought to the church the other two appointed by Benson. Only James had spoken and thus I was excommunicated from the church in OKC that had been birthed in my heart and started in my home

Bad move. Keep your mouth shut in the LC, if you want to "make it."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Brother Lee took serious advantage of Francis and put him at serious risk. I was close friends with Francis and his wife Martha lived with us briefly before they married. Francis would and did do anything Bro. Lee asked. When I explained the potential liability to Francis he was shocked and terrified. I was greatly relieved when the statute of limitations expired as Francis would have faced serious criminal and civil consequences.

Don Hardy was shocked when he discovered Phillip Lee was "cooking the books" in other words maintaining two sets of books. Don was outraged and resigned as an officer. Bro. Lee was himself an accountant and had to be complicit with Phillip as he personally funneled money through Francis and others. I have direct proof of this as I prepared the tax returns for Francis and heard first hand from him that Bro. Lee gave him the funds and told him what to do with them and of course I saw the actual bank statements.

Brother Lee and others were advised by Benton Fonner of the illegal and fraudulent nature of the Daystar offering. Daystar was the pivotal turning point for Brother Lee and Phillip and Timothy in the US. It is well documented of their previous business failings in Taiwan and the Phillipines. Bro. Lee came to me in Anaheim asking for Business advice as I had successfully invested for 39 Chinese clients in Taipei, Tainan and Brazil as well as Anaheim and had gained their trust and respect. I later traveled to Taiwan to meet personally with two brothers in Taipei and the other in Tainan. One of my sons has lived in Taiwan for 6 years and two years in China. I visited Beijing for 3 weeks about 3 years ago. I have been retired for 7 years and have no interest in discussing Daystar except to set the record straight. I knew personally all the major players and most of the investors and can say in summary that it was a disaster.

This is what happened. More from the American:

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Bro. Lee often referred to the glorious days of Elden and surely for those of us who were there from 62-74 many would testify to that fact. Why then did those key workers from that era ultimately all leave. Doug Kreiger in his testimony has testified that by 1974 it was all over as a result of Daystar and other issues. Doug had devoted 12 years of his life and had brought hundreds into Elden and Berkley. The core leadership at Elden Hall consisted of Samuel Chang, Don Hardy, John Ingalls, Bill Mallon and Al Knoch and yet all of these were betrayed by Bro. Lee after 20-25 years of faithful service . Godfred Otuteye , Sal Benoit, Ken Unger, Ned Nossaman were also greatly used and then wrongfully much maligned. Fred Malir and John Cowan were chosen to go to Brazil and returned to Elden and both left in 78. Fred now 91 was greatly used later in many countries especially in Cuba where with Don Hardy hundreds of home meetings were established and thrive to this day. Only Samuel Chang and Ken Unger have gone to be with the Lord the other men are still serving the Lord and most have written testimonies available on this and other sites. I could name dozens more like Jose Nunez who has been a missionary to Uganda the past 10 years and has mentored hundreds of Christian workers. More and more names are filling my memory and all left and all have gone on with the Lord. The hidden history of Bro. Lee is shameful in how he treated those co-workers and it will all be revealed at the Judgment Seat. The current activity of the Blended Brothers to me has been incomprehensible since I knew most of them and I'm shocked at the level of deception that has encompassed them, but a little leaven eventually leavens the whole lot.
May we all continue to pray for their deliverance and for all who remain under their control.

I know some will ask, "What does this have to do with Asian culture?" This thread was birthed from a thread on whether to attend the FTT. I said, "Why would anyone want to be trained/programmed/acculturated into this group?" It is a culture of tacit silence. It has roots in its native soil. I am trying to show that Nee and Lee were both captive by their native culture, which infected the movement. There are witnesses to what happened in the LC. We can pretend, and quote Lee's 'spiritual words', or we can see what actually occurred on the ground, with real people.

Let me give a personal view. I read Witness Lee holding that in the Psalms the phrase "I will dip my feet in the blood of my enemy" was a type of Christ triumphing over Satan (per Lee's interpretation). Then another Psalm has the Psalmist also wishing harm to his enemies and Lee said, "That's not Christian. We should bless our enemies." I pointed out the interpretational inconsistency and a LC member replied, "Perhaps it is so." Well, perhaps it is not so. And the footnote said it was, not 'perhaps'. Only a docile and compliant culture could stand such ridiculous teachings. Our American culture is if we see something stupid someone will point it out. But the Chinese culture is, "Don't bring shame to elder brother Lee." So they keep their mouths shut.

So my point is that the FTT is to give you a "Chinese flavor". Then you will "make it" in the LC. There are many nations and cultures. The Bible says that the kings of the nations will bring their glory into the City of God. Revelation 21:24,26; cf Isaiah 60:3, 5. Nothing wrong with the Chinese, but they aren't the only nation. So imposing their culture as requisite for the Kingdom is patently false. There are other voices besides that of Witness Lee. Let them come forth. There are other "flavors" that will also give glory to God. Let them speak, also.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Who was the Chinese brother walking with the American brother in the mid-60s, who turned to the American (Don Hardy?) and said, "You have to watch out for Witness Lee's family", then clapped his hand over his mouth and said, "Oh! I shouldn't have said that!" Why? Chinese culture says it's bad form to speak of others like that. So Lee's past got hidden by people who knew.

Right Don Hardy, one of the original Americans with W. Lee way back in the early 60's, and Samuel Chang, W. Nee's brother-in-law, who had come to the US from Taipei.

They had taken a break, and were taking a walk when SC confided in DH about WL's serious issues with his children.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Lee would hide behind words, "Nature, shape, and purpose". But those on the ground knew exactly what it meant.

Ok aron... but what does the footnote say? What is the "nature, shape, and purpose" as defined in the footnote?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok aron... but what does the footnote say? What is the "nature, shape, and purpose" as defined in the footnote?

Drake

Hi Drake, how do you define "mistake" in the context of W. Lee?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

If you read the footnotes to your RecV, Witness Lee wrote that ALL local churches have to be "exactly identical" with "no differences whatever". See e.g., Rev 1:20 footnote.

Or did you have printed messages from LSM giving other directives? Please share, and reconcile that with the footnote.

Unless we hear of sweeping changes in the LC, we are not remiss in assuming this is the case, yes in ALL the LC assemblies, today. Because that's the way it was set up and the current leadership makes such a deal of "closely following the apostles", i.e. Lee's written directives.

I dont think the footnote means chinese culture if you think that you havent done your homework about the point Lee made.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok aron... but what does the footnote say? What is the "nature, shape, and purpose" as defined in the footnote?

Drake

The footnotes are defined in LC practice. If you don't get that, eventually someone will tell you, "I was with Lee. I know." So I felt it was important to quote people like Doug Krieger who brought many into the Lee orbit, only to find out what the "nature, shape, and purpose" of the LSM-affiliated assemblies really was. You can push words around, but eventually the Lord will send a witness to describe what it means to be "exactly identical" in LSM credo.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Here's a post from a dumb American who opened his mouth. Bad move. Keep your mouth shut in the LC, if you want to "make it."

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Thanks for asking about my "excommunication". In an attempt to help a young brother that I brought to the church in OKC who was under condemnation for his personal failings I told him all have sinned and come short of the glory of the Lord and even our dear Bro. Lee had done illegal acts and the Lord had forgiven him and was still using him. This helped the brother and we prayed and he left.

The next day he apparently shared his testimony with another brother who immediately reported to James Barber that I had said Bro. Lee had done illegal acts. James called an emergency meeting of the elders and called me to come meet with them. Upon arrival James informed me that what I said was a lie and unless I repented I would be excommunicated. Of course what I had said was the truth regarding Bro. Lee committing illegal acts was absolutely true and I had been intimately involved in helping Francis Ball prepare his legal defense had he been caught (in retrospect what I said about Lee repenting may have been wrong) but suffice it to say I was in a real quandary.

If I am to stay in Fellowship then I must say what I said was a lie when in fact it was the truth. I did not have the peace to uncover the sins of Bro. Lee even though I knew he was guilty so I reflected inwardly and said Lord I choose You and the Spirit of Glory fell upon me. I said nothing in my defense and James pronounced my excommunication and the other elders nodded in agreement (two of whom I had brought to the church the other two appointed by Benson. Only James had spoken and thus I was excommunicated from the church in OKC that had been birthed in my heart and started in my home.

Everyone should carefully read this testimony. The faithful who remain in the LC will dismiss it, pointing you to some wonderful footnote which will "give life," but when it comes to the demands for righteous behavior in the kingdom of God, this story tells us differently ...

1. Even if Lee is wrong, he is still right
2. Because only Lee is above the law
3. Never shepherd a young brother using Lee as an example
4. The truth must never get in the way of defending Lee
5. Lee never needs to repent, that would be a mistake
6. Speaking the truth about Lee will get you excommunicated
7. Remaining in the LC requires you to speak Lee's words not the truth
8. All must choose between the spirit of Lee and the Spirit of glory
9. Oneness with the ministry demands a dirty conscience
10. Regarding mistakes, being a "spiritual father" only helps if you are Lee

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I dont think the footnote means chinese culture if you think that you havent done your homework about the point Lee made.

I have witnesses who have done a lot of homework on LSM and Lee's LC. What happens behind closed doors. I've posted some of their testimonies.

You're focusing on "hearers of the word", and I keep trying to point you to the "doers". If you can't tell the difference then you haven't done your homework.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The faithful who remain in the LC will dismiss it, pointing you to some wonderful footnote which will "give life," but ...

1. Even if Lee is wrong, he is still right
2. Because only Lee is above the law
3. Never shepherd a young brother using Lee as an example
4. The truth must never get in the way of defending Lee
5. Lee never needs to repent, that would be a mistake
6. Speaking the truth about Lee will get you excommunicated
7. Remaining in the LC requires you to speak Lee's words not the truth
8. All must choose between the spirit of Lee and the Spirit of glory
9. Oneness with the ministry demands a dirty conscience
10. Regarding mistakes, being a "spiritual father" only helps if you are Lee

An LC member was talking to another, who was attempting to bring some small semblance of righteousness into the Lee family situation. He said, "According to my conscience I know you are right, but according to my culture I must remain loyal to brother Lee." (this man later published a book, apparently with LSM approval, promoting Lee's ministry)

Now, an American wouldn't say that. But a Chinese would. Different cultures. Different values and practices. Now, guess which one runs the LC?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

The footnotes are defined in LC practice. If you don't get that, eventually someone will tell you, "I was with Lee. I know." So I felt it was important to quote people like Doug Krieger who brought many into the Lee orbit, only to find out what the "nature, shape, and purpose" of the LSM-affiliated assemblies really was. You can push words around, but eventually the Lord will send a witness to describe what it means to be "exactly identical" in LSM credo.

So, you are unwilling to post the definition of the way churches are the same in nature, shape, and purpose according to the footnote in Revelation 1:20 .. a footnote that you paraded out to bolster your claim of Asian culture. It does not lend a shred of support to your Asian culture narrative, you know that because if it did you would have enthusiastically posted it, played off of it, and repeated it a hundred times.

Instead of a best effort to prove your point, or better yet, admit that it doesn't .... well, we hear crickets.



Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

So, you are unwilling to post the definition of the way churches are the same in nature, shape, and purpose according to the footnote in Revelation 1:20 .. a footnote that you paraded out to bolster your claim of Asian culture. It does not lend a shred of support to your Asian culture narrative, you know that because if it did you would have enthusiastically posted it, played off of it, and repeated it a hundred times.

Instead of a best effort to prove your point, or better yet, admit that it doesn't .... well, we hear crickets.



Drake

Drake.

Definition of "mistake" please.

Even the *crickets* are silent.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

So, you are unwilling to post the definition of the way churches are the same in nature, shape, and purpose according to the footnote in Revelation 1:20 .. a footnote that you paraded out to bolster your claim of Asian culture. It does not lend a shred of support to your Asian culture narrative, you know that because if it did you would have enthusiastically posted it, played off of it, and repeated it a hundred times.

Instead of a best effort to prove your point, or better yet, admit that it doesn't .... well, we hear crickets.



Drake

Okay, let's try again. Not that you will be satisfied but I enjoy the conversation.

Nature: Chinese
Shape: Hmm? Help me here. There are seven spirits before the throne. Are they all identical in shape? Witness Lee says so. Where did he get this idea? From his culturally-shaped imagination? Then he poses it onto the captive audience?

An angel is in the shape of a man (Rev 21:17). Or do you think the word "measure" translates into height? I think man is formed in variety. This pleases God.

Witness Lee wanted a shapeless, faceless proletariat. This thread, I remind you, was out of a "training" thread. My comment was, and remains, who would want to be trained by this group?

There are seven angels before the throne. Do you think they are all "exactly identical without any differences whatever" in shape, form and purpose? Really? Why? Does Gabriel, who stands before God, have the exact shape, form and purpose as Michael? Do the twelve gates, each bearing a name of a tribe, have exactly the same shape, form and purpose? (Rev 21:12; Exod 28:21; Ezek 48:31) Where did Lee get this idea? He doesn't say in the footnote.

So I see him impose uniformity on the LC, telling us to be "Witness Lee tape recorders" in the "Witness Lee duplication center" and this points to the Full Time Training. If you don't commit yourself to 24/7 immersion in the LC culture the cracks start to appear quickly. You begin to notice where the teachings don't match each other, nor apostolic precedent: in one place, scripture's said to be "Christ", in another "fallen". And so forth. You begin to think, to have an opinion... ! Gasp! No! Mustn't think! Erk!

Now, does this have anything to do with fallen human culture? According to Philip Lin, who wrote the LSM biography of Lee, yes. When he said "according to my culture" he meant Chinese culture. Or do you think he meant another culture? Divine culture? According to divine culture I must abandon my conscience and pledge loyalty to a man?

I don't think so.

Purpose: See shape, above. Each creature has a purpose, to glorify the Creator. But a frog does it different from a cricket. If you get bricks coated with slime, each "exactly identical with no differences whatsoever" you can build a nice tower for yourself, so I'm told (Gen 11:3, KJV). Lee tried to mold us into one purpose - his. Good luck with that. And my point all along is that the Bible was interpreted by his cultural bias. Paul, for example, was "the minister of the age", and evidently John, Peter, James and all the rest had to "get in line". But where do you see John getting in line? I don't.

The only "line", or purpose to get in is to love. You don't need "local ground" or "the ministry of the age" or FTT or "high peak theology" for that. In fact I daresay that all those things just distract and mislead.

[aron]

So why did Lee interpret violence in the OT as "Christ defeating Satan" in one place (e.g. Psalm 62) and as "fallen humanity" in most other places? Why did David get a pass by Peter to declare fealty and reward as being indicative of the Coming Seed (e.g. Psalm 16) and yet Witness Lee wouldn't fallen suit, instead saying David was a sinner (e.g. Psalm 18)? Yet Peter acknowledged David as a sinner. Acts 2:29. Dead and buried. Entombed. But Jesus had said that "David was in spirit" and writing of Messiah and Witness Lee said no, David was just a fallen human being exercising his vain imagination.

Now, to the real question of this thread: Why didn't anyone in the audience raise a hand and say, Wait a minute here? Didn't any one of the gathered throng stir uneasily at this blatant exegetical reversal, or at this failure to follow apostolic precedent? No? Why? Were they "trained" out of thinking? Or just trained to suppress? And for what? To be identical? Is that God?

No, that is culture. Fallen human culture. This is how you survive in the Lee Dynasty. Keep your mouth shut and look straight ahead. Numb and quiet. No opinion. Maybe you will "make it". Make it where? And I think this culture betrays its land of birth.

Now, it's not any worse than German culture, which shaped Luther's thought. Or Italian popes. Or Swedish Christians. Or Norwegians, for that matter. But why did Lee make fun of Western imports - Christmas trees and Easter bunnies - and not see the ridiculousness of exporting his own culture onto others? It's one of the tough things about being blind. You can't see your own blindness. ~John 9:41; Revelation 3:17,18 Culture is like that.

Why could Nee source women as spiritual authorities, even foundational (uncovering previously hidden "truths") yet 80 years later an LC sister couldn't give a Sunday morning talk, because "women can't teach"? Answer: because the Mota makes the rules as he goes along. A "truth" only had utility until the Mota didn't need it, then it must be forgotten. Don't bring up what the Mota has dropped - is this not cultural in source? It sure isn't biblical.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

There are seven spirits before the throne. Are they all identical in shape? Witness Lee says so. Where did he get this idea?

Sorry, I was looking two far. Let's forget angels, living creatures, gates, elders and so forth.

Lampstands. How do you know the lampstands are identical? Because Witness Lee needs them to be. It fits his culturally-shaped perceptions.

But perception is not reality. The Bible doesn't say they are "exactly identical in shape, form and purpose". The footnote said this. Why doesn't anyone question this?

Angels are not identical. Nor are flowers, bees, snowflakes, living stones being built together. The twelve disciples were not identical.

But in Witness Lee's LC, it helps to be empty, drab, faceless, opinionless. Just pump your fist at the right moment. Get the sing-song intonation, inflect the vowels just so and you are "in spirit". And there's just one spirit, right? The Bible says so! On your way!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake.

Definition of "mistake" please.

Even the *crickets* are silent.

Ohio. Please. One mustn't ask for specifics, and cause the Mota to lose face. This will never do. (and put proper stress on the word "never")

[Sons to Glory!]

Man, you guys are all so far above my public scholl education - I need a nap!

I'm curious - does anybody ever officially "win" one of these debate hootenannies?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Okay, let's try again. Not that you will be satisfied but I enjoy the conversation.

Nature: Chinese
Shape: Hmm? Help me here. There are seven spirits before the throne. Are they all identical in shape? Witness Lee says so. Where did he get this idea? From his culturally-shaped imagination? Then he poses it onto the captive audience?

An angel is in the shape of a man (Rev 21:17). Or do you think the word "measure" translates into height? I think man is formed in variety. This pleases God.

Witness Lee wanted a shapeless, faceless proletariat. This thread, I remind you, was out of a "training" thread. My comment was, and remains, who would want to be trained by this group?

There are seven angels before the throne. Do you think they are all "exactly identical without any differences whatever" in shape, form and purpose? Really? Why? Does Gabriel, who stands before God, have the exact shape, form and purpose as Michael? Do the twelve gates, each bearing a name of a tribe, have exactly the same shape, form and purpose? (Rev 21:12; Exod 28:21; Ezek 48:31) Where did Lee get this idea? He doesn't say in the footnote.

So I see him impose uniformity on the LC, telling us to be "Witness Lee tape recorders" in the "Witness Lee duplication center" and this points to the Full Time Training. If you don't commit yourself to 24/7 immersion in the LC culture the cracks start to appear quickly. You begin to notice where the teachings don't match each other, nor apostolic precedent: in one place, scripture's said to be "Christ", in another "fallen". And so forth. You begin to think, to have an opinion... ! Gasp! No! Mustn't think! Erk!

Now, does this have anything to do with fallen human culture? According to Philip Lin, who wrote the LSM biography of Lee, yes. When he said "according to my culture" he meant Chinese culture. Or do you think he meant another culture? Divine culture? According to divine culture I must abandon my conscience and pledge loyalty to a man?

I don't think so.

Purpose: See shape, above. Each creature has a purpose, to glorify the Creator. But a frog does it different from a cricket. If you get bricks coated with slime, each "exactly identical with no differences whatsoever" you can build a nice tower for yourself, so I'm told (Gen 11:3, KJV). Lee tried to mold us into one purpose - his. Good luck with that. And my point all along is that the Bible was interpreted by his cultural bias. Paul, for example, was "the minister of the age", and evidently John, Peter, James and all the rest had to "get in line". But where do you see John getting in line? I don't.

The only "line", or purpose to get in is to love. You don't need "local ground" or "the ministry of the age" or FTT or "high peak theology" for that. In fact I daresay that all those things just distract and mislead.

Aron,

I’m not asking for your definition of “shape”. Or any of the irrelevant manderings about the Coming Seed, angels, creatures, frogs, bugs, Christmas Trees or Easter bunnies, tape recorders, ...or your ironic call for a line of love.

This is ultra simple and it is point of YOUR argument, not mine, You introduced and referenced the footnote Revelation 1:20. You claimed it was a proof point that the local churches are identical in Asian culture. That is what we are discussing and the title of this thread. Now, that footnote says the churches are identical in “nature, shape, and purpose”. The question is simple and the answer will either support your assertion or not.....

According to the footnote you referenced, what is the definition of

1. Nature
2. Shape
3. Purpose

Thanks
Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Man, you guys are all so far above my public scholl education - I need a nap!

I'm curious - does anybody ever officially "win" one of these debate hootenannies?

You mis-spelled "school". Who are you? (kidding)

This is, hopefully, a discussion. AKA "Local Church Discussions". My idea of a discussion is that both parties learn something. Versus a lecture or monologue, in which one person dispenses to a ready vessel. Lee obviously specialised in the second format. I prefer discussions. So I'm happy to have folks critique my ideas. And I'm trying to critique those of LSM.

This thread grew out of another on Full Time Training, whether to attend or not. My comment was, and remains, "Who would want to be trained by this group?" I pointed out the pressure for outward conformity, and noted what I perceived as a strong cultural component. Everyone must be exactly identical, with no differences whatsoever. There are words on paper, which mask a spirit. Always. The question is, are these words from God or not? From whence this spirit comes? I say, China, not heaven. The earth has rebelled against God, including China. Lee taught us that China was "virgin soil". It was not so virginous as he supposed.

Now, we get into problem #2. Satan would love for USA and China to fight. Or Belgium and Germany or whatnot. God has given His sinless Son as Saviour of the world, and we all should submit. But if one sinner tries to get another to submit to him, I'm calling it out. But not, hopefully, in the way of a fight. Just simply saying, "This is not of God."

StG, Drake says he doesn't want to talk about bugs, only lampstands. So humour me for a minute and let me talk about bugs. There's all different kinds, but from one Creator. God doesn't mind variety. "The heavens declare the glory of God" says Psalm 19. But star differs from star in glory (1 Cor 15:41). Yet they all have the same purpose!! So why impose uniformity? Does that make any sense?

Basketball teams have the same purpose. But the Center is tall and lean, the Power Forward is thick and "powerful", and the guard is small and speedy. Yet Lee tried to push for conformity. To what? To his culturally-mediated perceptions. So he put out pseudo-spiritual words, but eventually, if you stuck around, you found out what was behind those words.

I don't know if you know the story of Bill Mallon and Ray Graver. Bill was trying to manage various locales in the Southeast USA, and "the office" aka Philip Lee was pushing non-biblical and non-spiritual rubbish on them. People were discouraged. "Life" was at a low ebb. "Enjoyment" was dissipating rapidly. Bill mentioned this to travelling minsitry enforcer Ray, who replied, "We do what we are told." Eventually, you find out what spirit is behind the words. As did Godfred Otuteye and the Lee-appointed elders in Anaheim, as did others. You eventually find out what nature, shape and form of spirit you're really dealing with, whether it is of heaven or no.

So in some sense Drake and I are talking past each other, yes. He's fixated upon the appearance of words on paper, what they might seem to mean (gold meaning divine nature) and I'm pointing to the reality of what happens on the ground if you let this spirit in.

This is why I keep pointing to what happens. Let's say the supposed Oracle of God makes an exegetical faux pas (I've specifically noted several, on this thread). Or this year's interpretation is diametrically opposed to last year's, because apparently the Mota needs something different today. Everyone in the audience sits quiety. Because LC (Chinese) culture dictates "you don't make the Mota lose face publicly". So you accept poor teachings (or at least questionable) and 'life' goes on. Apparently the "flow" from Lee's throne has changed, and you try to make do in your LC "church life". But your conscience is damaged.

So I'm trying to publicly think here - an ugly sight yes I know - in the hopes people might realize that Witness Lee wasn't the only person on earth with a brain. We can all think what these words mean. And to the topic, my counsel has been to avoid "training" that doesn't allow some freedom to accept other sources. There is a marketplace of ideas out there. Watchman Nee sourced them. Can't we, also? This goes for the LC and any other cloistered sect (LDS, JW &c). The LC has how many hundreds of full time recruiters on college campuses around the world, trying to convince naive teen-agers to go get trained by their "ministry". . . I'm pointing to the spirit behind this. A spirit of corrosion and control. I say, resist and reject it. Think for yourself and this spirit will go away.

Sorry for my ability to be short, quick, and to the point. I like talking about stars, angels and bugs. (not in that order, though). Thanks be to God for a format to freely discuss such things publicly.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

According to the footnote you referenced, what is the definition of

1. Nature
2. Shape
3. Purpose

Maybe you can post the entire footnote for our readers? That would be helpful. I don't have a RecV handy at present.

I have been pointing out the fruits of the footnote, as indicative of it's source, and thus it's "true meaning" or "reality", but if you want to discuss the actual arrangement of words on paper please post them.

Let's do discuss definitions.

Also, where did Lee get the idea that the lampstands were "exactly identical"? Are you and I "exactly identical"? I think there is a hidden meaning here, a push for control, which aligns with cultural preconceptions of leadership, which is probably what Jesus taught as "the way of the gentiles". This is, I posit, a "Chinese-flavoured (i.e. gentile)" interpretive model imposed on scripture. At it's source, however, someone is angling for control.

Let me give an example, from similarly placed source, the NT. 1 Cor 1:10 "Speak the same thing". Now, there is a way to interpret that which still honours the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Love one another. God raised Jesus from the dead. Repent and confess.

Or there is another way - unless you take arcane doctrinal position, "x", you will be expelled from the "Christian" assembly. In both cases, the first and the second, you are "speaking the same thing". But in the second case, the letter of Paul is used to quench the Spirit of Christ.

Because the letter of Paul is improperly appropriated, according to personal motives and directed by culturally-mediated ignorance. Don't forget thousands of years have passed since these words were written, and now we have liberty to percolate them through our gentile brains and come up with all sorts of nonsense.

Sorry for writing so much. Just thinking aloud here.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Also, where did Lee get the idea that the lampstands were "exactly identical"? Are you and I "exactly identical"? I think there is a hidden meaning here, a push for control, which aligns with cultural preconceptions of leadership, which is probably what Jesus taught as "the way of the gentiles". This is, I posit, a "Chinese-flavoured (i.e. gentile)" interpretive model imposed on scripture. At it's source, however, someone is angling for control..

Sorry for adding so much, but it's an important topic.

There was a fall, and man got separated from God. Now men (and women) fight and dominate each other, having lost connection to their Source.

Along comes Jesus. He sees His disciples arguing for pre-eminence. He knows what spirit is behind that. The spirit that controls the earth, of grasping anxiety, manifesting itself in what He calls "the way of the gentiles". A spirit of domination. "If I can just push others down, and get them to do what I want, then I will be happy."

Because of the fall, we should take the opposite tack. We should all humble ourselves. Paul affirmed this - "why not rather be wronged" - in 1 Corinthians 6:7.

My point in noting the footnote in Revelation 1:20 is that it is a wedge, if you uncritically accept it, to separate you from your fellows. Because someone wants control of you. If you submit to them, you will be separated from your brothers and sisters into someone else's holding pen. They get elevated, you get suppressed and lose your natural function. This could be any seemingly spiritual group.

I don't know if I'm making any sense -- I just see a bad spirit behind this group and I'm trying to call it out. It hides behind words; we all do, I know, including myself. But I'm not trying to get $$ from anyone, or get them to go to my school. I'm just saying beware of false prophets, of wolves in sheep's clothing. You will tell them by their fruits. And their footnotes also indicate the source.

Avoid people who use the word of God for gain, to elevate themselves and control others.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Man, you guys are all so far above my public scholl education - I need a nap!

I'm curious - does anybody ever officially "win" one of these debate hootenannies?

Actually, brother StG, it has been these kinds of discussions which have served to de-leaven my mind of 30 years of LC indoctrinations.

Aron, using wit, scripture, reason, and historical examples is dismantling all the baggage we have accumulated in the name of "oneness." We considered any *diversity* to be negative, and divisive, and almost "evil." Lee had effectively used a twisted understanding of the 7 Lampstands to leaven us with Chinese thinking and customs.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Maybe you can post the entire footnote for our readers? That would be helpful. I don't have a RecV handy at present.

Well, aron, why didn't you just say that upfront? I will be more than happy to post that footnote.

And yet, it begs the question, why are you referencing and expounding source material to substantiate your argument that you don't have right in front of you? Apparently you don't know what your own reference actually says.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Because of the fall, we should take the opposite tack. We should all humble ourselves. Paul affirmed this - "why not rather be wronged" - in 1 Corinthians 6:7

Then why don't you?

That verse has been quoted many times in this forum.....by people who lack humility and apparently unwilling to be wronged.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

I’m not asking for your definition of “shape”. Or any of the irrelevant meanderings about the Coming Seed, angels, creatures, frogs, bugs, Christmas Trees or Easter bunnies, tape recorders, ...or your ironic call for a line of love.

This is ultra simple and it is point of YOUR argument, not mineke

But if Lee wanted to talk about Christmas Trees or Easter Bunnies to make his point of cultural influences coming into Christianity, you would accept his "irrelevant meanderings", right? Or did you jump up and object after the lecture was over? I might have missed it.

Or if he wanted to meander about tea-ification, as the basis of his doctrine of deification, you were okay with that? Or, no? Did you hop up and say, "I'm being 'tea-ified'!" after the lecture was over? I mean, if we are all exactly identical in shape, form and purpose, isn't that what we're supposed to demonstrate?

Tea bags and water was okay, right? It's ultra-simple. If Lee wants to talk about something, fine. Don't go against the Mota. My point is that this has cultural roots.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Then why don't you?

That verse has been quoted many times in this forum.....by people who are not humble and apparently unwilling to be wronged.

Drake

We were "wronged" for many years, and we lived with it, and unlike you LSMers, we never sued in court.

But there are other verses in the Bible too. Verses like exposing heresy, marking divisive ones, pointing out error, protecting others, etc.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We were "wronged" for many years, and we lived with it, and unlike you LSMers, we never sued in court.

But there are other verses in the Bible too. Verses like exposing heresy, marking divisive ones, pointing out error, protecting others, etc.

And notice that he doesn't hold this standard to Lee and Nee. Why didn't they stay in the Anglicans and Baptists, and be wronged? Because there are two sets of rules: one for Mota, one for everyone else. When they do it, it's okay. But no one else. This is Chinese culture. Just as bad as Easter Bunnies.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Drake

Well, aron, why didn't you just say that upfront? I will be more than happy to post that footnote.

And yet, it begs the question, why are you referencing and expounding source material to substantiate your argument that you don't have right in front of you? Apparently you don't know what your own reference actually says.

Drake

Find below the relevant point in the footnote that aron referenced to bolster his claim of Asian culture in the local churches. Unfortunately for aron and his cohorts this footnote indicates nothing of the sort. When Brother Lee refers to the churches in Revelation 1:20 being identical in nature, shape, and purpose he is expounding on the example provided by the scripture itself, that of a lampstand...... for the Lord says the "the seven lampstands are the seven churches". As is clear from the imagery of the lampstand it is golden in its nature which the footnote says represents the divine nature. The shape is a lampstand to bear lamps for the purpose of shining in the darkness by burning the oil of the Spirit. The lampstands are identical because God, in His Triuneness, is represented in the nature, shape, and purpose of each lampstand. Each lampstand is golden, each is in the shape of a lampstand to bear lamps, and the lamps burn to shine according to their purpose.

Sadly, aron, what you did by misrepresenting what this footnote actually said is what some opposers of the Lord's recovery have done in the past. They take a statement out of context and twist it to mean something entirely foreign to its stated meaning. They want it to mean something they can attack.... in other words, they, and you, are engaging in deliberate falsehood by creating a strawman to advance a propaganda war... a form of sophistry. Yet, if you did not read the footnote as you indicated, your argument may not be that sophisticated. ... instead you would be guilty of simply repeating the falsehoods of others without due diligence on your part. Of the two, I'm undecided which is worse.... someone who uses craft to slander brothers or someone who slanders brothers out of sheer ignorance.

Thanks for dialogue.

Drake

Revelation 1:20 footnote 1 (concerning the nature, shape, and purpose of the lampstands). The Recovery Version of the Bible

"The churches, signified by the seven golden lampstands, are the testimony of Jesus (vv. 2, 9) in the divine nature, shining in the dark night locally yet collectively. The churches should be of the divine nature — golden. They should be the stands, even the lampstands, that bear the lamp with the oil (Christ as the life-giving Spirit) and shine in the darkness individually and collectively. They are individual lampstands locally, yet at the same time they are a group, a collection, of lampstands universally. They not only are shining locally but also are bearing universally the same testimony both to the localities and to the universe. They are of the same nature and in the same shape. They bear the same lamp for the same purpose and are fully identified with one another, not having any individual distinctiveness. The differences among the seven churches recorded in chs. 2 and 3 are all of a negative nature, not a positive one. Negatively, in their failures, the churches are different and separate from one another; but positively, in their nature, shape, and purpose, they are absolutely identical and are connected to one another."

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

Sadly, aron, what you did by misrepresenting what this footnote actually said is what some opposers of the Lord's recovery have done in the past.

I'm undecided which is worse.... someone who uses craft to slander brothers or someone who slanders brothers out of sheer ignorance.

Ah, and there it is...right on schedule...the ole Local Church of Witness Lee fallback position - Call anyone who has criticisms of Lee or The Movement an "opposer" and one who "slanders brothers".

I hate to break the bad news to you Drake, but this forum is not merely about "what this footnote actually said". Witness Lee said a lot of things. He taught a lot of things. Some things very biblical, helpful and enlightening. Some things not so helpful and not so biblical. Some things harmful and totally unbiblical. Some things extremely toxic and heretical.

I would place this footnote where I would place many of Lee's teaching - in the category of "harmful and totally unbiblical". You see Drake, you can decry that we haven't cooperated with you in your quest to present Lee's teachings in the most positive light, but please keep in mind that aron and I and many other have already paid our dues for decades doing just that. (been there, done that and bought the t-shirt)

So now some of us are trying to put some light on the teachings and practices, and this time we don't feel so obligated to make sure that light points towards the positive. Speaking for myself only, I have found that the more light gets shined on the teachings and practices, the worse they look. Yes there are positives - lots of them. But neither Lee, LSM/DPS, the Blended Brothers or their followers need us to proclaim and accentuate the virtues and positives in Lee's teachings - They have tons of websites, meetings, conferences and trainings to do just that. And they also have you and Mr. E to do that right here on this forum.

not having any individual distinctiveness...but positively, in their nature, shape, and purpose, they are absolutely identical and are connected to one another.

Like I said, this is an argument from silence....and making an argument from silence is a very dangerous thing to be doing when it comes to the bible. "Absolutely identical"? I think not. If he is nothing else, our God is a Creator of diversity. No two human beings are absolutely identical in "nature, shape and purpose." The church is composed of these diverse human beings. Remember, just a few chapters later in Revelation 7 - "from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages" (vr 9) Doesn't sound like God is after absolutely identical after all. He started with diversity in the beginning and he ends up with diversity in his eternal Kingdom.

If God wanted every church to be absolutely identical he would have filled them with people with absolutely identical color of hair, eyes and skin. They would all be absolutely identical in their thinking, speaking, actions...nature, shape and purpose. Wow, now that I mention this, it seems to me that a number of people/groups/ministries have tried this over the past 2,000 years or so. How'd that come out for them?
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"not having any individual distinctiveness...but positively, in their nature, shape, and purpose, they are absolutely identical and are connected to one another."

Like I said, this is an argument from silence....and making an argument from silence is a very dangerous thing to be doing when it comes to the bible. "Absolutely identical"? I think not.

None of these Lampstands were even "absolutely identical." They were not cast from a common mold, rather they were hammer beaten from a solid talent of gold.

And then Drake uses this as justification for LSM forcing all the LC's being identical?

We should note, however, that all of the LC websites, except for LSM's, are somewhat identical, all cast from a common template.

I grew up in the RCC and I had a Catholic Missal, good for the whole year. There was a time when I could go to any RCC around the world and hear the same identical Mass spoken in Latin for every Sunday of the year, orchestrated by some priest wearing the same clothes as every one else.

That was the kind of twisted "oneness" that Drake dreams of. It's more like cloning than anything Christian.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

None of these Lampstands were even "absolutely identical." They were not cast from a common mold, rather they were hammer beaten from a solid talent of gold.

And then Drake uses this as justification for LSM forcing all the LC's being identical?

This was my point: where does one see beaten gold work, especially with calyxes, pomegranites and lilies, looking absolutely identical? Or conversely, where does this get shown or even suggested in the scripture? No, Lee dreamed it up; rather his cultural conventions necessitated it.

Now, where's this cultural influence most clearly seen? Probably in the phrase, "not having any inividual distinctiveness". Meaning, anyone with distinctiveness is a threat to group leadership. Any outstanding or "gifted ones" get regular beat-downs, sorry, perfecting and training, to keep them in line.

By contrast, look at the stars. They differ in glory (have distinctiveness) yet they all shine light for the same glorification. I covered this already (see my post #105). Same purpose but differentiated expression, and with no problem but rather glory. The archangels Michael and Gabriel, the four living creatures - who is threatened by individual distinctiveness? LC leadership, that's who. And my point all along has been that Witness Lee was NOT a monster but rather a sinner like the rest, trying to make his way home, but misled by his native (gentile) culture, which happened to be Chinese. Lee could see a splinter in others but missed the beam in his own eye.

In my time in the LC I noticed how Cleveland, Brasil, New York, and Austin had individual distinctiveness, or "local flavor"; the rest were bland ministry stations, as local as a McDonalds franchise. Two of the four groups survived the LC acculturation system and two didn't. Not a great track record.

And it's worth noting that if you don't understand what words like "absolutely identical" mean on the ground, some ministry enforcer like Ray Graver will come along and make it oh so plain. Suddenly spiritual niceties are set aside and "practical oneness" appears: "Here, we do what we are told". As one brother put it to me, "You are in the [Chinese] army now."

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

This is, hopefully, a discussion. AKA "Local Church Discussions". My idea of a discussion is that both parties learn something. Versus a lecture or monologue, in which one person dispenses to a ready vessel. Lee obviously specialized in the second format. I prefer discussions. So I'm happy to have folks critique my ideas. And I'm trying to critique those of LSM.

So in some sense Drake and I are talking past each other, yes. He's fixated upon the appearance of words on paper, what they might seem to mean (gold meaning divine nature) and I'm pointing to the reality of what happens on the ground if you let this spirit in.

Thanks be to God for a format to freely discuss such things publicly.

Well AMEN to that last comment! And I'm sorry for perhaps being overly critical of these lengthy discussions - they're not for me so much these days. But I also appreciate more now what Ohio (I appreciate when he bolds mine & others' names), you and some others have said - it is a discussion forum to hash out things and bring these into the light of day. I don't have so much of an appetite for hash currently . . . I just see the rankling - I mean discussion - going on and on and on, and seemingly going nowhere. BUT I must say that it all does seem 99.9% to be a civil interaction, of which I would hope no less from those with the life of Christ in them and (hopefully) living through them.

So please forgive me in advance if I jump into any future conversations and spout-off some self-righteous thing like "Can't we all just get along!?"

Of course, I too experienced some of the woes of central LC control, and we've all seen in the 2000 year history of the ekklesia what happens as a result (Church in Rome, et. al.). This is just Adam's natural propensity - he desperately wants to control.
.
.
(BTW: Considering the need for control, I wonder how LSM views this open discussion board . . .)
.
.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

"Can't we all just get along!?"

Somewhere over the rainbow.

Originally Posted by Sons

I wonder how LSM views this open discussion board . . .)
.
.

Prolly as much as they liked Jim Moran.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

This was my point: where does one see beaten gold work, especially with calyxes, pomegranites and lilies, looking absolutely identical? Or conversely, where does this get shown or even suggested in the scripture? No, Lee dreamed it up; rather his cultural conventions necessitated it.

So aron, the way you see things the lampstands in Revelation 1:20 are not identical in their nature (gold), their shape (lampstands), and their purpose (to shine light). According to you that is just Chinese culture talking there..... A Chinese man dreamed that description up. He couldn't help himself because his Chinese "cultural conventions necessitated it".....



Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

not having any individual distinctiveness...but positively, in their nature, shape, and purpose, they are absolutely identical and are connected to one another.

Like I said, this is an argument from silence....and making an argument from silence is a very dangerous thing to be doing when it comes to the bible. "Absolutely identical"? I think not. -

Argument from silence?..... Well, let us do have a closer look then.

"Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands" Revelation 1:12

"As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands.... Revelation 1:20

"‘The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands. Revelation 2:1


So John saw seven golden lampstands and mentions it three times as above....... not 5 lampstands and 2 Birdfeeders... not 4 lampstands, 2 Harley choppers, and 1 Ukelele... I am pretty confident that they are identically shaped as lampstands else John would have called our attention to it. Exodus 25 gives a detailed description of the shape and features of the lampstand.

John recorded that they were all golden .. not some golden and some ceramic... none were made of aluminum foil, tin, tupperware, particle board, rubber, or other such materials... all were golden. I think we can safely say they were identically made of of the same substance ...gold. That is their nature.

Now, we could just infer the purpose of the lampstand... a stand to a hold a lamp and the lamp was to give light by burning oil. But just in case that is perceived as an argument from silence, we can recall Exodus 25 and v37: "And you shall make its lamps, seven; and set up its lamps to give light to the area in front of it." so I think we can safely add this to what is identical about the lampstands.. their purpose is to give light.

Given those verses and descriptions there is no argument from silence in the footnote for that is what it exactly states.. It is the plain teaching and description from the scripture. In any event, it has absolutely nothing to do with Chinese culture and frankly, to insist on that in the face of clear biblical evidence to the contrary is to fail to recognize or acknowledge that our High Priest is the One who designed the earthly pattern of the tabernacle to mirror the heavenly one. Is there all sorts of variation in the heavenly tabernacle?... none that we can see and any argument for variation in nature (gold) , shape (lampstands) , and purpose (to shine light) of the lampstands in the heavenly tabernacle is a bonfide argument from silence. Furthermore, if there is a danger to be considered, it is the heart that discards the clear testimony of scripture (here regarding the lampstands in Revelation 1:12, 20 and 2:1) in favor of flawed human reasoning. I'm good to go with the scriptural definition myself.

thanks
Drake

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Drake

In any event, it has absolutely nothing to do with Chinese culture and frankly, to insist on that in the face of clear biblical evidence to the contrary is to fail to recognize or acknowledge that our High Priest is the One who designed the earthly pattern of the tabernacle to mirror the heavenly one. Are there all sorts of variation in the heavenly tabernacle?... none that we can see and any argument for variety of nature, shape, and purpose of the lampstands in the heavenly tabernacle is a bonfide argument from silence. Furthermore, if there is a danger to be considered, it is the heart that discards the clear testimony of scripture (here regarding the lampstands in Revelation 1:12, 20 and 2:1) in favor of flawed human reasoning. I'm good to go with the scriptural definition.

thanks
Drake

(I admit I am not really following all of this line of discussion that closely, so please forgive me if I'm out of turn here.) Are we talking about how the lampstands all came to be golden and apparently alike? If so, you stated the answer (see your quote in BOLD above). He did it. Man cannot and should not try to do it. Christ said, "I will build my ekklesia..."

When we get our dirty hands into the patient, an infection is the result.

(Again, please let me know if I'm not remotely on track with this discussion.)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

So aron, the way you see things the lampstands in Revelation 1:20 are not identical in their nature (gold), their shape (lampstands), and their purpose (to shine light). According to you that is just Chinese culture talking there..... A Chinese man dreamed that description up. He couldn't help himself because his Chinese "cultural conventions necessitated it".....

Are not all humans "absolutely identical?" Each has a head, body, two arms and two legs? Each head is "identical" with two eyes, two ears, one mouth and one nose. Cut them open and they all look the same -- heart, lungs, liver, stomach, etc. You get the message.

Lee taught this too! Especially "early-Lee" back in the early days. This kind of "identical-ness" was likened to the oneness of the Spirit. He even wrote a book: Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life. The LC's enjoyed some blessing from God in those days. Even some real "oneness" and love and joy in the Spirit. The LC's even looked like the local populations -- mostly white, some yellow, some black.

Then Lee changed. Our oneness was not good enough for him. The 1974 elders' meeting was the start -- designated ministry stations all speaking Lee's messages. The 1984 "New Way" was another huge push. Now it was "absolute for the ministry or get out." The demands for uniformity had surpassed any demand in the scripture -- trainings, uniforms, firing all resistant elders and workers, ministry books for every meeting, one man speaking and all speaking from the one man, and not just any man, but the MOTA, the acting God.

Fear and duty replace love in the church -- spying on one another, who is not up-to-date, who is not one with WL, who is doing their own thing, who is not absolute enough -- and we have sleeper cells in the LC's, ready to tattle on the locals, scoring points with HQ's -- the results could be seen with brothers like Titus Chu publicly shamed by Witness Lee as an example to all.

Pathetic. John Ingalls et. al. were right! Lee had changed. Lee had changed the nature of the Recovery -- from Christ-centered to Lee-centered, from love to fear, from serving to spying, from the Bible to Lee's books -- thinking the same thing, speaking the same thing, reading the same thing -- "Lee, Lee, only Lee" -- just like he ranted in that Rosemead Conference, Thanksgiving, 1988 -- "it must be Lee!"

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are not all humans "absolutely identical?" Each has a head, body, two arms and two legs? Each head is "identical" with two eyes, two ears, one mouth and one nose. Cut them open and they all look the same -- heart, lungs, liver, stomach, etc. You get the message.

Yes, I looked down on the basketball court and there was a basketball team. All with the same shape, form, purpose. All had on the same uniforms. But one of them was tall and slender, one was thick and powerful, and one was small and speedy.

So they are "absolutely identical" if you mean they are humans. Or lampstands. Or whatever the class. Same "life and nature". Same "gold", beaten fine, into a utensil (a lampstand).

But "without any individual distinctions"? What kind of a God is this? God wants all His children (remember the lampstands are churches, composed of people) to be without any individual distinctions? This is a God of Human Culture, not a God that I want. This is the God of this age, pushing for control through conformity to an all-too-human model. The Conform-and-Submit God of this age.

Do you think an American would have written that footnote? Or a Pole or a Swede? We don't think that way. We value the individual. We allow distinctiveness. Yes we have issues, too, with our cultural make-ups. But we wouldn't have looked at "seven golden lampstands" and written the RecV footnote in Revelation 1:20. No, that was shot through with Lee's cultural presuppositions.

Where did this kind of teaching come from but from fallen human culture? Not from the text.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Argument from silence?..... Well, let us do have a closer look then.

"Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands" Revelation 1:12

"As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands.... Revelation 1:20

"‘The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands. Revelation 2:1


So John saw seven golden lampstands and mentions it three times as above....... not 5 lampstands and 2 Birdfeeders... not 4 lampstands, 2 Harley choppers, and 1 Ukelele... I am pretty confident that they are identically shaped as lampstands else John would have called our attention to it. Exodus 25 gives a detailed description of the shape and features of the lampstand.

Are the seven angels who stand before God in Revelation 8:2 "absolutely identical" without any individual distinctiveness? Gabriel said, "I stand before God". If Gabriel has no individual distinction, then why does he have a distinct name? But he has the same form, shape and purpose as Michael. But perhaps not the same function. Perhaps God likes variegation. Look around you!

Are the 12 gates (Rev 21:12, 13), each with the name of a tribe of Israel, absolutely identical, without any individual distinctiveness? They are all gates. Same function. But where does it say they have to be identical?

Why the need for no individual distinctiveness? I think it's pathological. It has its roots in the fall. It's not supported by either the text or common human understanding. But it resonates with a certain cultural predisposition which is why it's predominantly taken root there.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Are we talking about how the lampstands all came to be golden and apparently alike?

Suppose I'm talking to someone in a restaurant. I say that I have 4 pet rock pigeons. Then I say, "They all have the same substance - bones, flesh and feathers - and they all have exactly the same shape, form, and purpose." My companion will look at me funny. I'm spouting nonsense. Of course all this is true, but it's essentially meaningless. It adds no informational value. I didn't say, "I have three pigeons and a ukelele."

Then I add, "They have no individual distinctiveness." My companion will probably get up and walk away.

But in the LC its not gibberish. It's code for, "Get with the program." In the LC they don't walk away, because they've been conditioned, or trained, to sit through this stuff. No different than a Chinese man dressed up as Santa Claus. Someone's cultural fluff has become your pseudo-reality.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by aron

Suppose I'm talking to someone in a restaurant. I say that I have 4 pet rock pigeons. Then I say, "They all have the same substance - bones, flesh and feathers - and they all have exactly the same shape, form, and purpose." My companion will look at me funny. I'm spouting nonsense. Of course all this is true, but it's essentially meaningless. It adds no informational value. I didn't say, "I have three pigeons and a ukelele."

Then I add, "They have no individual distinctiveness." My companion will probably get up and walk away.

But in the LC its not gibberish. It's code for, "Get with the program." In the LC they don't walk away, because they've been conditioned, or trained, to sit through this stuff. No different than a Chinese man dressed up as Santa Claus. Someone's cultural fluff has become your pseudo-reality.

I always had trouble with this kind of stuff. In college a well-meaning saint tried to spend time with me but it always centered around reading a ministry book and then asking me to immediately share what I enjoyed from those 2-3 pages. First of all it was always impossible for me to immediately digest and regurgitate after reading anything 3 seconds prior, and secondly so often I felt it had no informational value to me whatsoever. Often the content was this kind of meaningless stuff (repeated over and over again in those 2 pages) and it always confounded me what I was supposed to enjoy or give the slightest hoot about. I got really good at deflecting/faking/changing the subject/making them laugh so they would forget they'd asked me to share my enjoyment.

There have been a rare ministry book or two that I found worthwile (How to Enjoy God and How to Practice the Enjoyment of God, for one.....Practical Issues of This Life, for another), but so many others just left me with nothing.

Cue to years later when a non-LC believer gave me a non-LC book and after the requisite period of time where I shoved that "waste of a book" in my bookshelf and then pulled it out one day when I was bored and had nothing else to do, much to my surprise it actually talked about specific things I was dealing with in my life and thoughts I actually had that I never would have been able to express to anyone in the LC, and it blew me away! Now THAT I could have shared my enjoyment from!!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I always had trouble with this kind of stuff. In college a well-meaning saint tried to spend time with me but it always centered around reading a ministry book and then asking me to immediately share what I enjoyed from those 2-3 pages. First of all it was always impossible for me to immediately digest and regurgitate after reading anything 3 seconds prior, and secondly so often I felt it had no informational value to me whatsoever. Often the content was this kind of meaningless stuff (repeated over and over again in those 2 pages) and it always confounded me what I was supposed to enjoy or give the slightest hoot about. I got really good at deflecting/faking/changing the subject/making them laugh so they would forget they'd asked me to share my enjoyment.

There have been a rare ministry book or two that I found worthwile (How to Enjoy God and How to Practice the Enjoyment of God, for one.....Practical Issues of This Life, for another), but so many others just left me with nothing.

Cue to years later when a non-LC believer gave me a non-LC book and after the requisite period of time where I shoved that "waste of a book" in my bookshelf and then pulled it out one day when I was bored and had nothing else to do, much to my surprise it actually talked about specific things I was dealing with in my life and thoughts I actually had that I never would have been able to express to anyone in the LC, and it blew me away! Now THAT I could have shared my enjoyment from!!

Great story!

You would be amazed to know how many saints have done the same thing!

One such book was Joyce Meyer's book, Battlefield of the Mind.

[Evangelical]

Based on the quotation Drake provided earlier it is clear to me that aron and others are extracting a single sentence from a footnote and not considering the context of the whole paragraph footnote in which the sentence is found. This is very dishonest and not something a "noble Berean" would do. For a noble Berean does not dishonestly extract a single sentence and then argue their mistaken point of view, but "receive the message with great eagerness and examine to see if what is said was true" (Acts 17:11).

This quote shows clearly the context of being absolutely identical. As we can see it has nothing to do with human culture but the divine nature and other spiritual attributes.

That is:
Same nature - divine
Same purpose - bearing the lamp (Christ)
etc

Now that the true meaning of "same nature, and same purpose" has been established as relating to divinity and not to human culture, aron and others should explain why the divine nature and the person of Christ and the Holy Spirit is not "absolutely identical" for every Christian.

[aron]

On another thread I was discussing the military, and how American/western cultural practices could be seen in organisational arrangements. Contrast that to the Asian military practices.

I gave General George Washington as an American paragon. He wasn't afraid of strong, independent lieutenants. He never required them to be exactly identical in form, shape and purpose, not having any individual distinctiveness.

Now, occasionally, this got him and the Americans in trouble. Alexander Hamilton comes immediately to mind.

Of course I am being anecdotal. But my experiences in viewing cultures made me think that an American would never have written that footnote in Revelation 1:20. Witness Lee was betraying his cultural schema as he was angling for complete control/domination in the LC. So he "read" things in the text which simply were not there.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Based on the quotation Drake provided earlier it is clear to me that aron and others are extracting a single sentence and not considering the context of the whole passage in which the sentence is found.

This quote shows clearly the context of being absolutely identical. As we can see it has nothing to do with human culture but the divine nature and other spiritual attributes.

That is:
Same nature - divine
Same purpose - bearing the lamp (Christ)

Aron and others should explain why the divine nature and the person of Christ and the Holy Spirit is not "absolutely identical" for every Christian.

We were talking about lampstands. Local churches.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

We were talking about lampstands. Local churches.

Yes but you can see that the footnote you've been quoting is regarding the divine attributes of the lampstands or local churches, which must be absolutely identical. You have invented an argument about Chinese culture based on a single sentence excerpt of an entire paragraph which shows the whole context.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Based on the quotation Drake provided earlier it is clear to me that aron and others are extracting a single sentence from a footnote and not considering the context of the whole paragraph footnote in which the sentence is found. This is very dishonest and not something a "noble Berean" would do. For a noble Berean does not dishonestly extract a single sentence and then argue their mistaken point of view, but "receive the message with great eagerness and examine to see if what is said was true" (Acts 17:11).

This quote shows clearly the context of being absolutely identical. As we can see it has nothing to do with human culture but the divine nature and other spiritual attributes.

That is:
Same nature - divine
Same purpose - bearing the lamp (Christ)
etc

Now that the true meaning of "same nature, and same purpose" has been established as relating to divinity and not to human culture, aron and others should explain why the divine nature and the person of Christ and the Holy Spirit is not "absolutely identical" for every Christian.

You cannot play it both ways. If the nature of the Lampstand is golden, referring exclusively to God's holy nature, then we must conclude all Christian gatherings in His name are also Lampstands bearing the light of the Spirit.

But you and Drake reject this, claiming only LSM franchises with supposedly a proper name can be Lampstands. This is both hypocritical and contrary to the truth.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You cannot play it both ways. If the nature of the Lampstand is golden, referring exclusively to God's holy nature, then we must conclude all Christian gatherings in His name are also Lampstands bearing the light of the Spirit.

But you and Drake reject this, claiming only LSM franchises with supposedly a proper name can be Lampstands. This is both hypocritical and contrary to the truth.

I know you believe a simple gathering of two or three can have its own little lampstand and be called a "church" but this is not biblical. In Revelation there was only one lampstand per city. Not one lampstand per gathering within that city. The biblical and historical fact is that all Christian gatherings are not churches, so your conclusion that "all Christian gatherings in His name are also lampstands" is a false conclusion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes but you can see that the footnote you've been quoting is regarding the divine attributes of the lampstands or local churches, which must be absolutely identical. You have invented an argument about Chinese culture based on a single sentence excerpt of an entire paragraph which shows the whole context.

Those who have spent any amount of time in an LSM run LC can see the wisdom of aron's insight into culture, and the folly of your rejections.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I know you believe a simple gathering of two or three can have its own little lampstand and be called a "church" but this is not biblical. In Revelation there was only one lampstand per city. Not one lampstand per gathering within that city. The biblical and historical fact is that all Christian gatherings are not churches, so your conclusion that "all Christian gatherings in His name are also lampstands" is a false conclusion.

What is a city?

Can you tell me how many "cities" are in New York City?

Only someone steeped in Nee's exclusive teachings could even dream to demand that all NYC be one gathering with one eldership.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Those who have spent any amount of time in an LSM run LC can see the wisdom of aron's insight into culture, and the folly of your rejections.

Aron's insight could perhaps stood on its own without misrepresentation of a footnote. Aron's insight is questionable considering it is based on blatant misrepresentation of a footnote. Anyone who can read and comprehend English can see that the context of the footnote and the words "absolutely identical" is not about human culture. Clinging to a misrepresented footnote just seems like an act of desperation and casts doubt on the claimed insight.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What is a city?

Can you tell me how many "cities" are in New York City?

Only someone steeped in Nee's exclusive teachings could even dream to demand that all NYC be one gathering with one eldership.

Whatever a city is, in Revelation there are only 7 mentioned, and only one lampstand per city, so only 7 lampstands. If we want to argue that every gathering of two or three has its own lampstand, then we are forced to come to the nonsensical conclusion that a city can have only two or three people in it. If Jesus mentioned that there are 1000 lampstands that represent all the gatherings of two or three "churches" in the 7 cities then you might have a point, but, it doesn't. 7 cities, 7 churches - a gathering of two or three within each city, therefore, cannot be "a church", otherwise there would be more lampstands that cities mentioned.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes but you can see that the footnote you've been quoting is regarding the divine attributes of the lampstands or local churches, which must be absolutely identical. You have invented an argument about Chinese culture based on a single sentence excerpt of an entire paragraph which shows the whole context.

Lee invented an argument for homogeneity of expression of the churches throughout the earth, an argument which betrayed his eastern roots. The western model is much more comfortable with heterogeneous expression. Lee tried to hide his 'strings' with words like 'divine attributes'. But eventually you would find a Mel Porter coming along to make everything clear. You know, 'operational'. As you put it, the whole context.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You cannot play it both ways. If the nature of the Lampstand is golden, referring exclusively to God's holy nature, then we must conclude all Christian gatherings in His name are also Lampstands bearing the light of the Spirit.

Right. If the "divine nature and attributes" have a "shape, form, and purpose", then everyone who confesses Jesus is "exactly identical" in this matter. Either you are a Christian or you are not. Lee used this spiritual mumbo-jumbo as a back door to control. Yet the text does not support his call for identicality of expression, "with no individual distinctiveness".

Ohio told us a story of the Full Time Training in Taiwan, the push for absolutely identical expression. How happy Lee was when he looked out over a sea of disciples, all dressed in identical clothes, none having any individual distinctiveness. This, I say, has cultural roots. Those who couldn't get with the program were suspected in the LC of "Crimes of Fashion". It's outward-looking, with an eye for control. The spiritual-sounding words are just for cover.

https://internalreference.com/crimes...n-56d6fd77b38c

There is a remarkable photo in this essay, on public shaming of those who didn't conform. It is obviously an exaggeration of what we saw in the LC, but in a way that is more pernicious, because the cultural influence in the LC is more hidden, and mistaken for spirituality.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Are the seven angels who stand before God in Revelation 8:2 "absolutely identical" without any individual distinctiveness? Gabriel said, "I stand before God". If Gabriel has no individual distinction, then why does he have a distinct name? But he has the same form, shape and purpose as Michael. But perhaps not the same function. Perhaps God likes variegation. Look around you!

Are the 12 gates (Rev 21:12, 13), each with the name of a tribe of Israel, absolutely identical, without any individual distinctiveness? They are all gates. Same function. But where does it say they have to be identical?

Why the need for no individual distinctiveness? I think it's pathological. It has its roots in the fall. It's not supported by either the text or common human understanding. But it resonates with a certain cultural predisposition which is why it's predominantly taken root there.

Aron, you are grasping at straws here. First, we are taking about lampstands not angels, we are discussing churches not rock pigeons. However, I'll ride shotgun with you for a bit on your strange and long detour.

________________Lampstands_____________________ Angels

Nature__________ Golden ________________Created Divine "elohim"
Shape _________Lampstands __________________Angels
Purpose________ Shine Light ______________Messengers, Emissary

Names______ Ephesus, Colosse, etc. _______ Gabriel, Michael, etc.


The lampstands are absolutely identical in nature, shape, and purpose as the footnote in Revelation 1:20 states. . For that matter so are angels in nature, shape, and purpose. Revelation 1:20 does not say the seven lampstands all have one name. Rather, it states clearly that "the seven lampstands are seven churches ". You are misappropriating the definition of "absolutely identical " as the footnote defines it (nature, shape, purpose) and then twisting it to mean something different (e.g Gabriel name analogy).

I suggest that you stop misrepresenting footnotes that you haven't actually read, quit making stuff up, and consider explaining ".. why the divine nature and the person of Christ and the Holy Spirit is not "absolutely identical" for every Christian."..... an insightful observation and challenge from brother Evangelical

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Whatever a city is, in Revelation there are only 7 mentioned, and only one lampstand per city, so only 7 lampstands. If we want to argue that every gathering of two or three has its own lampstand, then we are forced to come to the nonsensical conclusion that a city can have only two or three people in it. If Jesus mentioned that there are 1000 lampstands that represent all the gatherings of two or three "churches" in the 7 cities then you might have a point, but, it doesn't. 7 cities, 7 churches - a gathering of two or three within each city, therefore, cannot be "a church", otherwise there would be more lampstands that cities mentioned.

I once posted how ancient cities were defined by "walking distance."

This was roughly equivalent to a "Sabbath's Day Journey" in ancient Israel.

I doubt if any human has ever transversed the boundaries of NYC on foot.

I just love how LSMers love to play word games, going back to ancient language semantics when it suits their needs.

[Trapped]

There are also many aspects/significances to this portion of the Word. Seven lampstands which refer to seven churches at a specific time in church history are mentioned, but this passage takes on a scope larger than that. There is the heavenly view, the earthly view, the individual local aspect, the aspect of the universal church, etc, and there is a risk in applying characteristics from one view or aspect to another, in a portion so heavily subject to interpretation, that should not be applied.

In CWWN, Nee says, "The lampstands are seven in number, yet that is not to say that these seven churches are combined into a perfect church.....The word seven represents perfection in number, that is, these seven churches typify a whole church." (emphasis added) So if the seven churches typify a whole church, of course the lampstands which typify that whole church would look the same, since they all typify the same one thing.

Others, including Nee, provide another level of interpretation that the seven churches represent the church at different points in church history. Since "the church" is just "the church" no matter at what point it is in history, again, in type the seven lampstands would look the same because they are all simply "the church".

However (in CWWN again), Nee states, "In life and communion, the churches are one like a body, but in their earthly responsibility and appearance, the churches are administrated separately as seven lampstands. When we read chapters two and three, we see how the seven churches at that time were different in their works, circumstances, failures, rewards, punishments, and responsibilities. To deny this fact is to create confusion."

So in the heavenly or universal senses, yes, the lampstands are the same because they all typify one thing. However, this similitude does not by default extend to ALL local/earthly aspects or characteristics in terms of being identical from one locality to the next. Yes, the divine nature is the divine nature is the divine nature, in every lampstand and in every church. But these lampstands are not physical lampstands. There are no geographical coordinates where you can go and visit/look at/touch the lampstands. So in the divine realm, each lampstand is “identical” in certain divine attributes. However, in its earthly appearance, each local church is different.

How would identical localities even be practically carried out anyway?!

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by aron

Suppose I'm talking to someone in a restaurant. I say that I have 4 pet rock pigeons. Then I say, "They all have the same substance - bones, flesh and feathers - and they all have exactly the same shape, form, and purpose." My companion will look at me funny. I'm spouting nonsense. Of course all this is true, but it's essentially meaningless. It adds no informational value. I didn't say, "I have three pigeons and a ukelele."

Then I add, "They have no individual distinctiveness." My companion will probably get up and walk away.

But in the LC its not gibberish. It's code for, "Get with the program." In the LC they don't walk away, because they've been conditioned, or trained, to sit through this stuff. No different than a Chinese man dressed up as Santa Claus. Someone's cultural fluff has become your pseudo-reality.

I understand what you are saying here. If you have seven of the same items, and you state that they are all gold, all lamps, and all shine light, anyone listening will understand they all look the same. But you verge into crazytown if you take it further and say "they have no individual distinctiveness." It's like, okay, what do you want me to do with that information?

Yes, all the lampstands are constituted with the divine nature, are all in the shape of a lamp, and all shine forth light. This is true. But the line is crossed when the significance applied to that fact is that they have no individual distinctiveness. It is a hyper-analysis of the Biblical text.

When I quoted Nee in my previous post, he states, "In life and communion, the churches are one like a body, but in their earthly responsibility and appearance, the churches are administrated separately as seven lampstands. When we read chapters two and three, we see how the seven churches at that time were different in their works, circumstances, failures, rewards, punishments, and responsibilities. To deny this fact is to create confusion." Nee does not state that these differences are negative, just that they are differences.

In the footnote Lee takes it further (too far) and says, "...not having any individual distinctiveness. The differences among the seven churches recorded in chs. 2 and 3 are all of a negative nature, not a positive one. Negatively, in their failures, the churches are different and separate from one another; but positively, in their nature, shape, and purpose, they are absolutely identical and are connected to one another."

Nee says they are different in works, circumstances, failures, rewards, punishments, and responsibilities. Not all these are negative, some are neutral (works, circumstances, responsibilities). Lee pushes it and calls these differences between the churches negative and a failure, thus elevating his concept of "no individual distinctiveness" where it should not be taken and where it is simply not stated.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

There are also many aspects/significances to this portion of the Word. Seven lampstands which refer to seven churches at a specific time in church history are mentioned, but this passage takes on a scope larger than that. There is the heavenly view, the earthly view, the individual local aspect, the aspect of the universal church, etc, and there is a risk in applying characteristics from one view or aspect to another, in a portion so heavily subject to interpretation, that should not be applied.

In CWWN, Nee says, "The lampstands are seven in number, yet that is not to say that these seven churches are combined into a perfect church.....The word seven represents perfection in number, that is, these seven churches typify a whole church." (emphasis added) So if the seven churches typify a whole church, of course the lampstands which typify that whole church would look the same, since they all typify the same one thing.

Others, including Nee, provide another level of interpretation that the seven churches represent the church at different points in church history. Since "the church" is just "the church" no matter at what point it is in history, again, in type the seven lampstands would look the same because they are all simply "the church".

However (in CWWN again), Nee states, "In life and communion, the churches are one like a body, but in their earthly responsibility and appearance, the churches are administrated separately as seven lampstands. When we read chapters two and three, we see how the seven churches at that time were different in their works, circumstances, failures, rewards, punishments, and responsibilities. To deny this fact is to create confusion."

So in the heavenly or universal senses, yes, the lampstands are the same because they all typify one thing. However, this similitude does not by default extend to ALL local/earthly aspects or characteristics in terms of being identical from one locality to the next. Yes, the divine nature is the divine nature is the divine nature, in every lampstand and in every church. But these lampstands are not physical lampstands. There are no geographical coordinates where you can go and visit/look at/touch the lampstands. So in the divine realm, each lampstand is “identical” in certain divine attributes. However, in its earthly appearance, each local church is different.

How would identical localities even be practically carried out anyway?!

Researched. Well said. Factual.

I would only modify that the extension to earth from the heavenly is permitted.... We are partakers of the divine nature, there is a shape of the local churches, and they all shine forth the Spirit.... or rather should..... when we come to Revelation 2 & 3 we see big differences but those are mostly negative.... even in one case the Lord threatens to remove the lampstand....

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

In the footnote Lee takes it further (too far) and says, "...not having any individual distinctiveness. The differences among the seven churches recorded in chs. 2 and 3 are all of a negative nature, not a positive one. Negatively, in their failures, the churches are different and separate from one another; but positively, in their nature, shape, and purpose, they are absolutely identical and are connected to one another."

Firstly, Lee's teaching that all the differences were "of a negative nature" is frankly wrong. The Son of Man commended each church positively and individually, knowing their positives quite well. Why would W. Lee downplay this fact? Every Pastor/Shepherd in the world knows the positive characteristics of his church, just ask him. W. Lee, however, could not acknowledge that each church had its own good works, pleasing to God. This corresponded with Lee's unending fellowship that only LSM could do anything good. "So, send your best people to the training."

Secondly, why would Lee continually stress that each LC must "not have any individual distinctiveness?" Since God has placed gifts in the body as it pleases Him, and each member has been gifted by the Lord uniquely, it only stand to reason that each church would have different strengths (and weaknesses too.) Why is this so threatening to W. Lee that he would create a teaching about member churches that is completely different from the rest of the body of Christ? What was his motive here? What were the results, or the fruit, of such teaching? How did W. Lee and LSM act to remove "any individual distinctiveness" between churches. These are fair questions to ask. We also have the advantage of decades of history to examine.

One notable action which Lee and LSM has taken is to remove and neutralize the gifted members of the body from ministering according to the anointing Spirit. The list of gifted and fruitful ministers around the globe, who once labored to establish churches, and have been expelled by Lee/LSM is just incredible. This forum is filled with their accounts. They were used by Lee, then were discarded. None of them ever parted peacefully. They were always nasty "divorces." Why would Lee/LSM do this? What was there motive? Just to remove "any individual distinctiveness" from the churches?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Researched. Well said. Factual.

I would only modify that the extension to earth from the heavenly is permitted.... We are partakers of the divine nature, there is a shape of the local churches, and they all shine forth the Spirit.... or rather should..... when we come to Revelation 2 & 3 we see big differences but those are mostly negative.... even in one case the Lord threatens to remove the lampstand....

And all that applies to the church(s) today? Do they progress to The Recovery?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Researched. Well said. Factual.

I would only modify that the extension to earth from the heavenly is permitted.... We are partakers of the divine nature, there is a shape of the local churches, and they all shine forth the Spirit.... or rather should..... when we come to Revelation 2 & 3 we see big differences but those are mostly negative.... even in one case the Lord threatens to remove the lampstand....

Drake

Yes, on the divine side the extension from heavenly to earthly is permitted.

1. Nature - do all the churches have the Lord's life/divine nature? Yes.
2. Shape - are they all lampstands? You bet!
3. Purpose - do they shine forth the Lord in a dark place? Yes.

But again, these are not physical attributes and are thus in the divine realm. All these criteria can be met, and met fully, in the divine realm without requiring that the churches have no individual distinction in the earthly realm. In the context of this discussion I do not see the grounds for applying "no distinction" to the churches in the earthly realm.

(For example, let me go hyper-Biblical myself and let's pretend for a second that you and I, as people, are each a lampstand:
1. Do Drake and Trapped both have the Lord's life? Yep!
2. Are we both believers? Yep!
3. Do we shine forth the Lord in a dark place? Yep! [okay, ideally, right?]
But is there individual distinction between Drake and Trapped? You better believe it! Thus, we can both be fully lampstands with the same nature, shape, and purpose, but still have individual distinction.)

Nee said it correctly: in the divine realm the lampstands are identical in nature, shape, and purpose. In the earthly realm there are positive and negative differences from one to another and each has its own earthly appearance.

Lee took it too far/angled into a wrong direction: in the divine realm the lampstands are identical in nature, shape, and purpose. In the earthly realm there is no individual distinction and any distinctions are negative and failures. (We know this is not true, as Ohio mentioned, because the churches were individually commended for their own positive attributes).

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Firstly, Lee's teaching that all the differences were "of a negative nature" is frankly wrong. The Son of Man commended each church positively and individually, knowing their positives quite well. Why would W. Lee downplay this fact? Every Pastor/Shepherd in the world knows the positive characteristics of his church, just ask him. W. Lee, however, could not acknowledge that each church had its own good works, pleasing to God. This corresponded with Lee's unending fellowship that only LSM could do anything good. "So, send your best people to the training."

Secondly, why would Lee continually stress that each LC must "not have any individual distinctiveness?" Since God has placed gifts in the body as it pleases Him, and each member has been gifted by the Lord uniquely, it only stand to reason that each church would have different strengths (and weaknesses too.) Why is this so threatening to W. Lee that he would create a teaching about member churches that is completely different from the rest of the body of Christ? What was his motive here? What were the results, or the fruit, of such teaching? How did W. Lee and LSM act to remove "any individual distinctiveness" between churches. These are fair questions to ask. We also have the advantage of decades of history to examine.

One notable action which Lee and LSM has taken is to remove and neutralize the gifted members of the body from ministering according to the anointing Spirit. The list of gifted and fruitful ministers around the globe, who once labored to establish churches, and have been expelled by Lee/LSM is just incredible. This forum is filled with their accounts. They were used by Lee, then were discarded. None of them ever parted peacefully. They were always nasty "divorces." Why would Lee/LSM do this? What was there motive? Just to remove "any individual distinctiveness" from the churches?

Yes, I agree (see my response to Drake just now). Lee took the erroneous concept too far and applied it in disastrous ways.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Yes, I agree (see my response to Drake just now). Lee took the erroneous concept too far and applied it in disastrous ways.

Shall we assume this is another of Lee's "mistakes," or should we examine the results to determine his motive?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Thus, we can both be fully lampstands with the same nature, shape, and purpose, but still have individual distinction.

Nee said it correctly: in the divine realm the lampstands are identical in nature, shape, and purpose. In the earthly realm there are positive and negative differences from one to another and each has its own earthly appearance.

Lee took it too far/angled into a wrong direction: in the divine realm the lampstands are identical in nature, shape, and purpose. In the earthly realm there is no individual distinction and any distinctions are negative and failures. (We know this is not true, as Ohio mentioned, because the churches were individually commended for their own positive attributes).

Exactly! A big mistake comes when man thinks he can take the place of God and tries to make all of them look the same! In this life, that's just not likely to happen, and I don't even believe the Builder of the church will do that (again, at least in this life). But in any case, that's not our role and to try it sounds more like Communism.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Shall we assume this is another of Lee's "mistakes," or should we examine the results to determine his motive?

Examine away if you'd like!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

there is a shape of the local churches,

What is the shape of the local churches? Does the footnote help us? Does the scriptural text?

How can we tell if the local churches have exactly identical shape? If we can't tell, then how does this footnote help us?

It reminds me of the various abstractions that can be interpreted any old way one wants. Lee, naturally, got to pick the "proper" meaning.

Originally Posted by Drake

Revelation 1:20 footnote 1 (concerning the nature, shape, and purpose of the lampstands). The Recovery Version of the Bible

"The churches, signified by the seven golden lampstands, are the testimony of Jesus (vv. 2, 9) in the divine nature, shining in the dark night locally yet collectively. The churches should be of the divine nature — golden. They should be the stands, even the lampstands, that bear the lamp with the oil (Christ as the life-giving Spirit) and shine in the darkness individually and collectively. They are individual lampstands locally, yet at the same time they are a group, a collection, of lampstands universally. They not only are shining locally but also are bearing universally the same testimony both to the localities and to the universe. They are of the same nature and in the same shape. They bear the same lamp for the same purpose and are fully identified with one another, not having any individual distinctiveness. The differences among the seven churches recorded in chs. 2 and 3 are all of a negative nature, not a positive one. Negatively, in their failures, the churches are different and separate from one another; but positively, in their nature, shape, and purpose, they are absolutely identical and are connected to one another."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

What is the shape of the local churches? Does the footnote help us? Does the scriptural text?

How can we tell if the local churches have exactly identical shape? If we can't tell, then how does this footnote help us?

It reminds me of the various abstractions that can be interpreted any old way one wants. Lee, naturally, got to pick the "proper" meaning.

And Lee/LSM has given us the "proper meaning." They have spoken loud and clear.

The Midwest Quarantine ostensibly was over Titus Chu's right to publish his own books, and many have considered only the financial implications of this. What was really at stake was Lee/LSM's definition of oneness, vis'a'vis Golden Lampstands being absolutely identical in nature, shape, and purpose. When Lee/LSM are the only source of teaching in the LCM, they automatically wield great power over all their members, and in exclusive systems such as the LCM, power is much preferred to money.

So it is only Lee/LSM who determines what the exact "shape" of each member LC should be. Why is it that whenever the elders seek the Lord in order to shepherd their people, they immediately get charged with "independence." If that elder becomes effective at positively influencing others, the charge of "ambition" gets hurled at him. Thus, as I have seen for decades, the two unforgiveable sins in the LCM are ambition and independence. Financial impropriety and sexual immorality can be readily covered up as "mistakes," as in "everyone is entitled to a few," but ambition and independence must be rooted out of every LC leader. Except for the one at the top. Only he is allowed to possess unlimited "ambition and independence."

This is absolutely contrary to western American Christianity. Neither Billy Graham nor Rick Warren was condemned for "ambition and independence," rather many leaders looked to them as patterns to learn their source of blessing from the Lord. Why attack the fruitful ones? Who would do that? It only makes sense if it is the lust for power that drives the "maximum brother." This explains why the demands for the collective far outweigh any personal liberties we have in the Spirit. It also explains the system of public shaming.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And Lee/LSM has given us the "proper meaning." They have spoken loud and clear.

We'd like to know, if the shape of the local churches must be exactly identical, what shape they should be: triangular? If so, isosceles or equilateral? Or, perhaps cylindrical? Or maybe a nice neat cube? Lee just said "shape" and went on, but if we all should be exactly identical in shape then probably we need a little more information.

Here's what I think: Witness Lee was a flim-flam man. He noticed that Watchman Nee had made a go selling spiritual-sounding words to the masses and wanted to follow suit. So he put out these hifalutin messages, but when examined critically they dissolve like wet crepe paper. There's almost nothing there. He had no theological training so he cribbed 19th century Bible study lessons and Brethren teachings. But the cracks are showing, and what lurks below.

The local churches are to be exactly identical, but in what way? In shape? How are we supposed to implement that? Eventually a Ray Graver or a Paul Hon will come by and tell you how.

Ironically, the LSM has recently been trying to legitimise Lee by marketing him as a "global Chinese Christian leader", using pseudo-scholarly papers, e.g. Globalization of Chinese Christianity: A Study of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee's Ministry. Asia Journal of Theology. Apr 2016, Vol. 30 Issue 1, p 96-114. Author: Liu Yi.

Truth is, he was just another businessman trying to make a living for his family. And his culturally-derived leanings showed when his income or family was threatened: then he was an angry Chinese man defending his business interests, reflexively using the only methods that he knew, in order to survive. Anyone on the wrong side found this out quickly and clearly!

Back to the footnote - I know Drake doesn't like it when I use analogies, but Lee did, so I will also. Remember the tea bags and water? In this case I'll use Lee's animal analogies - remember his gophers and turtles? For example he'd say that people tried appear to be something, but eventually a "fox tail" would appear, or the true self would come out. In the footnote to Revelation 1:20 I see a Chinese fox-tail. How are local churches supposed to be exactly identical in "shape"? How are they supposed to be without any individual distinctiveness? The answer is, by following Headquarters and the dictates of Maximum Brother. It's a push for centralisation and control, with hardly the slightest hint of spiritual veneer. And he shows his cultural roots: uniformity and conformity equals "oneness", LSM-style.

One further point: if you look at whatever was going on in the LC when Lee was giving his Life Study Conferences, then you'll usually find the source of his "vision"; it was indeed a "timely word". . . check the date of the Revelation training and probably some church or regional leader was getting too "distinctive" if you know what I mean. The whole thing was political to further selfish business interests. (Ohio tells us that one day Witness Lee rang up Titus Chu, and informed him, "You just bought 1,000 chairs". Evidently one of his family's business deals went south.)

This thread grew out of a discussion on the Full Time Training. Drake had said, in effect, "It's not for everyone." I replied, "It's not for anyone" and pointed to stuff like this as my reasoning. I also mentioned other things as well but got challenged on a footnote so here we are.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Researched. Well said. Factual.

I would only modify that the extension to earth from the heavenly is permitted...

How about where he referred to the footnote's promotion of local churches not having any individual distinctiveness as "crazytown" - was that also well said & factual, and if not, why?

Lest readers think I'm merely trying to score debate points against a rival, I'd say rather that it's about ideas. Good ideas help us on our way & bad ideas hinder. I know families that split up, with parents going with the Dong-ites and children with LSM in Anaheim. The only "truth" that mattered was, "Who are you with?" Everyone felt maligned and persecuted by the other.

And behind it all was flawed assumptions and teachings, uncritically received. Ignorance and fervor is a bad mix.