Comparison and Contrast - Witness Lee versus The Blended

[UntoHim]

As a former longtime LC member, something has puzzled me regarding the various reactions to the Blended brothers' by current LC members over the past number of years. I have known many of these brothers for 30+ years. I have known a number of them personally. Some I knew before they were even elders.

Here is what does not make a lot of sense to me. According to my observation, this men are speaking what Witness Lee spoke. In most cases word-for-word. They are administering the Living Stream Ministry in almost the exact same manner as Witness Lee administered it. They are taking the Movement in the same direction as Witness Lee took it, at least the same as Lee was taking it the last 10 years or so of his life.

If I am not mistaken, during the semiannual trainings and other major conferences, these brothers are doing nothing but reviewing Witness Lee's ministry - in most cases word for word, via the outlines and footnotes produced by Lee himself. I personally attended a couple of meetings at a recent "blending" conference and witnessed a certain Blended brother go over, point-by-point, an outline that was produced by Witness Lee 15-20 years ago. I assume that this outline was used at every blending conference by every blended brother throughout the country (world?).

In regards to "practical" administration of the Local Church Movement, these brothers are handling matters in the exact same manner as Witness Lee. Witness Lee did not take kindly to questionings, much less challenges, by any of his followers. This was true from the little sister in the back row, all the way up to his "right hand man". I see the same from the Blended brothers. When legitimate and concerns are brought up, Witness Lee either ignored them or gave a stern warning that "this is not the way to address problems in the Lord's Recovery!". I see the same from the Blended brothers. When the questionings and or challenges became public, Witness Lee would viciously attack, and the challenger would be forced out. I see the same from the Blended.

To those of you who consider yourself, to one degree or another, a follower of Witness Lee, why would you treat the Blended brothers any differently then you did Lee himself. They have proclaimed that they are "brother Lee's continuation", and I have seen nothing to indicate that they are not exactly that.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

To those of you who consider yourself, to one degree or another, a follower of Witness Lee, why would you treat the Blended brothers any differently then you did Lee himself. They have proclaimed that they are "brother Lee's continuation", and I have seen nothing to indicate that they are not exactly that.

The first thing that comes to mind concerning the differences of Witness Lee's ministry vs the BB's, is Lee did not read word for word, outlines of Watchman Nee. He did have a unique ministry that was able to stand up to scrutiny when compared to scripture and if carried out by those who were not caught up in the "inner circle" struggles, a genuine experience of the Lord could be gained.

Shawn

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

To those of you who consider yourself, to one degree or another, a follower of Witness Lee, why would you treat the Blended brothers any differently then you did Lee himself. They have proclaimed that they are "brother Lee's continuation", and I have seen nothing to indicate that they are not exactly that.

A few years ago I confronted this anomaly and came up with a simple solution which was helpful -- to me at least --to explain the phenomenon you are addressing. I used the expression "early Lee -- later Lee." Some have protested this by saying that "early Lee" was also fraught with problems tracing back to the 50's. My personal view is that WL slowly, over time, became very exclusive, much as JNDarby did, and subsequently, in the end, became very much different than his mentor, WN.

Often "early Lee" conflicted with "later Lee." One example was the matter of writing and publishing. "Early Lee" promoted the writings of others, besides himself. "Later Lee" rejected this, hence, the "burden" for that Feb '86 elders training. The views of GLA leaders often coincided with that of the "early Lee" they had grown to love from the early days. The views of the BB's, however, coincided with the views of "later Lee," whom they watched very closely day in, day out, for many, many years.

I agree with you UntoHim that the BB's are simply teaching and practicing what they "witnessed" WL do and say for years. The recent quarantine of TC simply replicated what happened to JI et al back in the late 80's.

I eventually came to the conclusion that GLA views of WL were somewhat "sanitized" by 3 main things: firstly, TC -- his views of WL were passed on to the GLA leaders and saints. Secondly, the messages we did receive from LSM were highly editted. Thirdly, the annual trainings the GLA saints attended presented a more polished, public image of WL.

Six years ago, when the winds of quarantine and division were first felt, I just knew it would get nasty. I still feel the whole controversy was a power struggle, plain and simple.

"Why would you treat the Blended brothers any differently then you did Lee himself?" The answer is simple: because WL did nourish and teach us in a way the BB's never did. They became like "monkeys" who imitated a man, yet never were the same man.

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"Why would you treat the Blended brothers any differently then you did Lee himself?" The answer is simple: because WL did nourish and teach us in a way the BB's never did. They became like "monkeys" who imitated a man, yet never were the same man.

Not a bad assessment, Ohio, but you left off the first part of the quote.

To those of you who consider yourself, to one degree or another, a follower of Witness Lee...

I would have to add that I never considered myself to be a follower of Witness Lee. Rather I was (and am!) a follower of Jesus Christ. I got a lot of help from Brother Lee, but I never followed him.

Now the so-called Blending Brothers insist that I follow them. That is why I treat them differently than I treated Brother Lee. I ignore the BBs altogether.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Toledo

Now the so-called Blending Brothers insist that I follow them. That is why I treat them differently than I treated Brother Lee. I ignore the BBs altogether.

Thanks for your candor Toledo. I do have a follow up question. In what way are the Blending Brothers asking you to follow them that is so different from Witness Lee. Be as specific as you care to.

Also, some of these brothers claim that they had a "special fellowship" with Witness Lee before he died and that he told them that they were to be "his official continuation" (paraphrase). Either this fellowship took place as these brothers claim or it did not. I assume that some of you have decided that, at the very least, the full truth of what Lee told them is being stretched.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Toledo

Not a bad assessment, Ohio, but you left off the first part of the quote.

I would have to add that I never considered myself to be a follower of Witness Lee. Rather I was (and am!) a follower of Jesus Christ. I got a lot of help from Brother Lee, but I never followed him.

Now the so-called Blending Brothers insist that I follow them. That is why I treat them differently than I treated Brother Lee. I ignore the BBs altogether.

Yeah, I didn't want to get involved with the loaded question "To those of you who consider yourself, to one degree or another, a follower of Witness Lee ... "

I honor your stand, Toledo, and, of course, we all, I assume, would say the same thing concerning following Jesus Christ.

The problem is that I was surrounded by brothers for decades who essentially said, "I follow JC, and I am one with brother so-n-so." I can also say, especially after the start of the "New Way," that WL also required us to follow him. His demands for allegiance were on the same order as the BB's. I could also make a case that TC's demands for allegiance were not too dissimilar from either WL's or the BB's.

This was the dilemma I faced. I got tired of the word games -- proclaiming one thing, yet serving under another set of rules. Eventually I was forced to come to the conclusion that being a denomination had nothing to do with "a name," but had everything to do with headquarters, and the required allegiances placed by those at headquarters upon the churches.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yeah, I didn't want to get involved with the loaded question "To those of you who consider yourself, to one degree or another, a follower of Witness Lee ...

The question was not loaded. If you don't consider yourself a follower of Witness Lee then you don't. I added the modifier "to one degree or another" for a reason. I guess it got lost. No problem.

Anyway, this is the root of my concern:

I can also say, especially after the start of the "New Way," that WL also required us to follow him. His demands for allegiance were on the same order as the BB's. I could also make a case that TC's demands for allegiance were not too dissimilar from either WL's or the BB's.

Ok, Ohio, I appreciate your candor here as well.

Could you and/or Toledo address this:

Originally Posted by Unto.Him

Also, some of these brothers claim that they had a "special fellowship" with Witness Lee before he died and that he told them that they were to be "his official continuation" (paraphrase). Either this fellowship took place as these brothers claim or it did not. I assume that some of you have decided that, at the very least, the full truth of what Lee told them is being stretched.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unto.Him

Also, some of these brothers claim that they had a "special fellowship" with Witness Lee before he died and that he told them that they were to be "his official continuation" (paraphrase). Either this fellowship took place as these brothers claim or it did not. I assume that some of you have decided that, at the very least, the full truth of what Lee told them is being stretched.

I think this really happened: WL charged certain trusted ones to continue his ministry via the feasts, publishing books, giving conferences, etc. This charge, coupled with so-called "fellowship" about certain "concerns" about TC, which they heard directly from WL, empowered ones like BP and RK, acknowledged LSM leaders, to take precautionary "strikes" against TC, which we witnessed at Whistler.

I highly doubt that WL directly authorized some to "quarantine" TC, yet the BB's do feel they have been properly "deputized" agents of the body of Christ, and RK has publicly said as much. The pattern they witnessed first hand of WL (think Fermentation) had a pronounced affect on them. They consider their actions over the past few years, including lawsuits and accompanied conspiratorial "training sessions" to replicate WL's own leadership, and were he still alive, would expect him to have acted the same way, and, even more so, would expect WL's own "nod of approval."

Not only do the BB's consider themselves to be "his official continuation," but all of "the loyal" consider them to be also. Most saints consider the "blended brothers" to be a "more noble" form of "continuation leadership" than another ambitious leader such as TC. They would recall all that "talk" about "the age of spiritual giants is over ..."

GLA leaders, partially based on comments by WN, feel that the personal ministry of WL ended with his own death, and feel that his ministry was neither WL's to give nor the BB's to take. They, especially TC, felt that WL was a spiritual father to them, and they had a spiritual relationship with him. They have no such relationship with the BB's, and consider most of them to basically be wannabe's and frauds.

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by Unto.Him

Thanks for your candor Toledo. I do have a follow up question. In what way are the Blending Brothers asking you to follow them that is so different from Witness Lee. Be as specific as you care to.

1) the one publication rule -- WL actually encouraged some of us to write.

2) the seven "feasts" -- WL never insisted that we attend the major conferences. Of course, we were urged to do so, but once a year was plenty, even for those serving full time.

3) the insistence that we use the same material -- this is a new wrinkle added by the BBs.

4) etc...

Originally Posted by Unto.Him

Also, some of these brothers claim that they had a "special fellowship" with Witness Lee before he died and that he told them that they were to be "his official continuation" (paraphrase). Either this fellowship took place as these brothers claim or it did not. I assume that some of you have decided that, at the very least, the full truth of what Lee told them is being stretched.

I wish there were a nicer way of saying it, but I simply do not believe that WL ever said such things to them.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Toledo

1) the one publication rule -- WL actually encouraged some of us to write.

Here is the Witness Lee I remembers over the last 20 years of his life:

"It bothers me that some brothers among us still put out publications. According to my truthful observation there is no new light or life supply there. They may contain some biblical doctrines, but any point of life or light has been adopted from the publications of Living Stream Ministry. There is nearly no item of life or light that has not been covered by our publications. Based upon this fact, what is the need for these brothers to put out their publications? Because all the publications are mine, it is hard for me to speak such a word. But I am forced to tell the truth. By putting out your own publication, you waste your time and money. You waste the money given by the saints, and you waste their time in reading what you publish. Where is the food, the life supply, and the real enlightenment in the other publications among us? Be assured that there is definitely at least one major revelation in every Living Stream Ministry publication.
.... My intention in calling a writers’ conference was to encourage you to write something, but not in the way that came out. This fellowship may preserve and protect us from doing things lawlessly.
If some localities would have gone the proper way of the recovery, using all the materials of the ministry, their number would have increased greatly. Some are wasting their time by writing and publishing their own material. This is not their portion. I would like to see that many brothers had this portion with the riches of truth. This would be marvelous and wonderful, but this is our problem today. I advise all of you to take care of this matter. You have to swallow up the dissension. Do not let dissension eat you up....
(Elders’ Training, Book 8: The Life-pulse of the Lord’s Present Move, pp. 161-164, Witness Lee)

I am beginning to get the picture that many in the Great Lakes area/Canada really didn't take this word to heart. Maybe the distance between them and Anaheim allowed them such freedom. Nobody who was within earshot of Witness Lee would dare to disobey this as far as I recall.

2) the seven "feasts" -- WL never insisted that we attend the major conferences. Of course, we were urged to do so, but once a year was plenty, even for those serving full time.

First of all, I don't think there is a significant difference between "insisted" and "urged", especially when you are talking about Witness Lee - the end result was always the same. "Once a year was plenty"??? Sometimes I wonder if we are talking about the same Local Church. Thankful Jane described well the atmosphere surrounding the trainings...one would dare not even go to the restroom during one of the long meetings. If one lived anywhere near Anaheim they were expected to attend both 10 day trainings. The only exception would be severe illness or hospitalization. No exceptions. If you had to quit you job to go, then you quit your job and went.

3) the insistence that we use the same material -- this is a new wrinkle added by the BBs.

Please review what Witness Lee wrote above. Lee always, always insisted that all the Local Churches use the same material. This was part and parcel of his constant campaign to see that "all the churches are the same". This is not a new wrinkle added by the BBs, not at all.

I am not being contrary just to be contrary. Nobody has provided me significant evidence that the BBs are any different then Witness Lee. Some have said "Lee nourished me and ministered life, the BBs don't". Ok, that is very subjective and I can't argue your experience. Nevertheless, I am looking for some concrete examples here.

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I am beginning to get the picture that many in the Great Lakes area/Canada really didn't take this word to heart. Maybe the distance between them and Anaheim allowed them such freedom. Nobody who was within earshot of Witness Lee would dare to disobey this as far as I recall.

That may be possible. I am regularly surprised by many of the testimonies here from those who were in Texas or California.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

First of all, I don't think there is a significant difference between "insisted" and "urged", especially when you are talking about Witness Lee - the end result was always the same.

I wasn't talking about Witness Lee. As far as I know, Witness Lee never insisted that we attend his trainings or conferences. The urging to which I referred came from the brothers in Ohio. For the most part I considered WL's trainings to be a valuable time in the word, and in fellowship with the saints from many localities.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"Once a year was plenty"??? Sometimes I wonder if we are talking about the same Local Church. Thankful Jane described well the atmosphere surrounding the trainings...one would dare not even go to the restroom during one of the long meetings. If one lived anywhere near Anaheim they were expected to attend both 10 day trainings. The only exception would be severe illness or hospitalization. No exceptions. If you had to quit you job to go, then you quit your job and went.

No, apparently we are not talking about the same local church. Or perhaps some of our memories have been embellished by time.

I do not recognize the trainings that TJ described. I'll grant you that restroom breaks were discouraged -- it kept the meetings from being interrupted when there were several thousand in attendance. However, I do not recall any draconian threats or punishments for those who had to use the facilities during the meetings. I regularly ushered there, and frequently saw saints heading for the bathrooms during the meetings.

I don't even want to talk about the churches "anywhere near Anaheim". I would take my vacation time and pay several hundred dollars for the flight there, plus another several hundred for my motel, yet the California churches would have their assigned seats nearly empty all week long. They only seemed to show up on the weekends. Sorry, the California churches were noted for missing the training meetings. Nobody had to quit their job...

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Please review what Witness Lee wrote above. Lee always, always insisted that all the Local Churches use the same material. This was part and parcel of his constant campaign to see that "all the churches are the same". This is not a new wrinkle added by the BBs, not at all.

You misunderstand me. What you quoted above was Witness Lee saying we should read his books. What the BBs do is insist all the churches be on the same page of their published morning material (HWMR or whatever).

I attended a meeting one time in South Carolina in which an older brother called a terrible hymn to start the meeting (there is a song no man can learn -- it is in the Hymnal...). Afterwards, I asked him why he called that particular song. He told me it was the "assigned hymn" for that day...!! I was stunned. WL never did that (to my knowledge).

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I am not being contrary just to be contrary. Nobody has provided me significant evidence that the BBs are any different then Witness Lee. Some have said "Lee nourished me and ministered life, the BBs don't". Ok, that is very subjective and I can't argue your experience. Nevertheless, I am looking for some concrete examples here.

You may call it "subjective" if you so choose. However, I think that tends to ignore a spiritual reality: the BBs do not have the ministry that Witness Lee had. Just because they quote his material does not mean that they have the same ministry.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I am beginning to get the picture that many in the Great Lakes area/Canada really didn't take this word to heart. Maybe the distance between them and Anaheim allowed them such freedom. Nobody who was within earshot of Witness Lee would dare to disobey this as far as I recall.

I wonder if this isn't perhaps one of the most useful observations to date, UntoHim.

Folks who flew in for the training and flew home again afterwards were only directly influenced for a brief period of time and, up until the mid-80s, most of that influence was limited by the particular topical message agenda that only had some colorings of the things that later became the focus and center of attention. The printed messages historically always had a lot of more difficult statements tidied up or eliminated so that the messages generally had less negative impact after being spoken. The "poor, poor Christianity" deal, for instance, was always toned down in the publications.

On the other hand, folks near the training centers got direct and indirect input on a fairly constant basis. I was reviewing some old notes recently and I found these words spoken in a meeting I attended: "Our mouths were made to say 'one ministry.'" Before email and the Internet, getting a word like that out all over the world took massive coordinated effort and careful handling. A little one sheet about the Lord's latest burden would have to be properly composed, mailed out, responses would be sluggish, and the overall impact thereby diminished. But at ground zero, the impact of frequently spoken teachings was immediate and simple to observe and adjustments could be made as needed. The ideas would spread largely by word of mouth and thus, the greater the geographical distance, the less likely that problems caused significant impact on the locality.

Perhaps only coincidentally, as electronic communications grew more common, the effort to have more universal conformity throughout "The Recovery" also grew. Being in immediate geographical proximity became less of a necessity. First, all the elders agreed to work together to realize Witness Lee's vision to bring back the Lord in 13 years. A smaller group with more frequent contact with home base took the charge to push the agenda. Then, the focus in the publishing house shifted to getting the new books printed and distributed almost as soon as the words finished falling from his lips. Video trainings became more frequent and more widespread. The communications and travel and exchange among the localities continuing to increase. Eventually, we find ourselves in an age where news from one remote corner can spread to another remote corner almost simultaneously and there is every indication (to me as an outsider for 20 years now) that the Internet plays an important role in LSM's overall outreach program. And the geographical distance makes much less of a difference nowadays than it once did.

Lee was fond of saying that we should embrace the era of the 747 and not remain with an old DC-9. While I don't completely disagree with that way of thinking, it is probably a good idea to consider everything that changes and not just one aspect. Getting to your destination may be quicker but who likes to fly anymore? Maybe email can spread word of the latest thing around the world all at once but what's the content that's being spread? Even if it was "good" stuff, it's probably not appropriate everywhere at that very moment and the failure to appreciate that is the main error of imposed (or "encouraged") uniformity and centralized authority.

If you sense my interest in the interplay between a healthy local assembly and a troubling "Universal Church" in the background of these musings, you are correct. I continue to believe the "Local Church" to be at odds with the "local church," so to speak. But geographical location was, historically at least, a very basic reason for differences in personal experiences and assembly conditions.

This realization is an important step forward in dialog about this denomination's origins and development. Not just simply saying, what happened there didn't happen here, as has been commonly stated, but recognizing that up until a certain point, things that happened in one place had a much stronger likelihood of staying in that one place on account of practical, physical reasons. (Leadership was an obviously important factor as well, providing what I might describe as "psychological" distance between places.)

Very interesting.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever praised the Lord for the Internet?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I am beginning to get the picture that many in the Great Lakes area/Canada really didn't take this word to heart. Maybe the distance between them and Anaheim allowed them such freedom. Nobody who was within earshot of Witness Lee would dare to disobey this as far as I recall.

Let me just throw this into the mix -- anyone who knows Toledo knows that there is not another like him. He will survive just about any situation.

Here's one example I remember, which may serve well to describe his numerous survival skills:

Often times coming late to regional gatherings would bring the ire of TC. I've rode with brothers pushing 90 mph to arrive on time and escape that rebuke. No one dared to voice an excuse, except Toledo, that is ...

Once the eyes of all turned to see who was late ... Toledo then responded in classic form, "I'm not late, I'm married."

Everyone was laughing. Even TC had to chuckle. Survival skills such as these made the LC experience an altogether different one.

[Cal]

So what are you Midwest boys getting at anyway? Are you saying if WL was still in charge you'd be following him? Are you saying that if WL quarantined TC you'd go along with it?

I don't think UntoHim is saying that WL and the BBs have the same ministry. I think he's saying they have pretty much the same outlook and attitude that Lee should not be questioned. The only difference is that the BBs enforce it much more blatantly. But the basic attitude is pretty much the same.

Whether Lee had the greatest ministry since Elijah is irrelevant. It was not his place to insist people go along with him, or state or otherwise imply they are "rebels" for not doing so. He was totally out of line for doing that, as are the BBs. Totally, completely and without exception.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Toledo

That may be possible. I am regularly surprised by many of the testimonies here from those who were in Texas or California.

As I am by many of the testimonies from those in the GLA/Midwest!

I wasn't talking about Witness Lee. As far as I know, Witness Lee never insisted that we attend his trainings or conferences...

"Witness Lee never insisted.." Say WHAT? Now I'm sure we're not talking about the same Local Church.

I don't even want to talk about the churches "anywhere near Anaheim". I would take my vacation time and pay several hundred dollars for the flight there, plus another several hundred for my motel, yet the California churches would have their assigned seats nearly empty all week long. They only seemed to show up on the weekends. Sorry, the California churches were noted for missing the training meetings. Nobody had to quit their job...

What time period are you talking about? Everybody in Orange County was fully expected to take LOTS of hospitality during the trainings. Very, very few stayed in motels. In what training (during Lee's time) was there ever "nearly empty" seats all week long"? You must be talking about after Lee's death. No such thing happened during the 10 day/30 message trainings during the 70s and 80s. Witness Lee would have thrown a huge fit and churches would have been severely punished (probably by having Phillip Lee cut off their LSM publications for a while). I knew MANY brothers who quit their jobs because they couldn't get the 10 full days off. I am not saying that they were forced, but the peer pressure to attend was immense.

You misunderstand me. What you quoted above was Witness Lee saying we should read his books. What the BBs do is insist all the churches be on the same page of their published morning material (HWMR or whatever).

"..should read his books"? How do you get the voluntary sounding term "should" out of Lee's quote here? This implies that Witness Lee said something like..."go ahead and shop around folks...no problem...I think you'll find my stuff the best though". We all know what Lee stated was much stronger then this. There is a reason why Lee's name is on about 99% of the books and tapes.

You may call it "subjective" if you so choose. However, I think that tends to ignore a spiritual reality: the BBs do not have the ministry that Witness Lee had. Just because they quote his material does not mean that they have the same ministry.

Spiritual realities are subjective by nature, just ask any ex LC member who has had the ole "that's your subjective opinion" blast sent their way.
The BBs do have the ministry that Witness Lee had, and they also minister to and administer The LC Movement/LSM in the exact same manner as Lee. This was my point. The fact that some don't "feel" like they have the same ministry is fine and dandy, but it belies the objective fact that I am pointing out.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't think UntoHim is saying that WL and the BBs have the same ministry. I think he's saying they have pretty much the same outlook and attitude that Lee should not be questioned.

Ta Dah! (I really just want a drummer here - Hey Helper...we need some more smilies)

Thanks Igz, I was beginning to wonder if I was writing in English or some mysterious foreign language that nobody else knew.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Folks who flew in for the training and flew home again afterwards were only directly influenced for a brief period of time and, up until the mid-80s, most of that influence was limited by the particular topical message agenda that only had some colorings of the things that later became the focus and center of attention. The printed messages historically always had a lot of more difficult statements tidied up or eliminated so that the messages generally had less negative impact after being spoken. The "poor, poor Christianity" deal, for instance, was always toned down in the publications....
On the other hand, folks near the training centers got direct and indirect input on a fairly constant basis.

Excellent observation. Good points.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever praised the Lord for the Internet?

Praise the Lord for the Internet!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Toledo

I don't even want to talk about the churches "anywhere near Anaheim". I would take my vacation time and pay several hundred dollars for the flight there, plus another several hundred for my motel, yet the California churches would have their assigned seats nearly empty all week long. They only seemed to show up on the weekends. Sorry, the California churches were noted for missing the training meetings. Nobody had to quit their job...

I don't know if what UntoHim was referring to was from the 70's or not? I do know by the mid-80's the SoCal locality I lived in encouraged those wanting to attend the training, to consider taking the video training instead. Reason being brothers and sisters having to travel much further would have a seat.

Terry

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Toledo

I don't even want to talk about the churches "anywhere near Anaheim". I would take my vacation time and pay several hundred dollars for the flight there, plus another several hundred for my motel, yet the California churches would have their assigned seats nearly empty all week long. They only seemed to show up on the weekends. Sorry, the California churches were noted for missing the training meetings. Nobody had to quit their job...

This was a common GLA complaint about those attending trainings from SoCal. We felt that we paid a hefty price to take off time, fly or drive to Anaheim, devote ourselves full-time in the training, and then pay for meals and accommodations ... and all the locals had it easy, but didn't want to pay a price.

Then I learnt what it meant to live in the church life nearby the training centers in Anaheim and Irving ... I suppose if we had put ourselves in their shoes, we would see things much differently.

The attitude that Toledo noted, did not take into account the heavy load on those saints without any spiritual supply ...

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This was a common GLA complaint about those attending trainings from SoCal. We felt that we paid a hefty price to take off time, fly or drive to Anaheim, devote ourselves full-time in the training, and then pay for meals and accommodations ... and all the locals had it easy, but didn't want to pay a price.

Then I learnt what it meant to live in the church life nearby the training centers in Anaheim and Irving ... I suppose if we had put ourselves in their shoes, we would see things much differently.

The attitude that Toledo noted, did not take into account the heavy load on those saints without any spiritual supply ...

VERY interesting!

Especially to see remnants of the same attitude persisting to this very day!

I was in college and a better-off brother paid my way or I would not have gone to any trainings in person. I took hospitality during the trainings instead of staying in a hotel, as I thought most did. Many who were sleeping on floors in sleeping bags discussed how it was good to stay in the fellowship during that time and I assumed the only ones in hotels were husband and wife couples who preferred and could afford to stay together (since, of course, the hospitality was very gender segregated.) As I recall, there was a contribution made on my behalf to defray the expenses of the hospitality, but it was obviously much less than commercial food and lodging. (I had my first crumpet and first ginseng tea with a New Zealander and a Korean in hospitality - much more fun than biscuits and gravy at the breakfast bar and I still keep Lyle's Golden Syrup in my house!) Also, a number of us made the drive to Irving together, sometimes picking up folks along the way, and I felt I was contributing by doing as much of the driving as I reasonably could. But the cost sharing was obviously a savings. I figured people were using as much of their vacation time as they could save up and the trainings were around the holidays so as to help maximize the off time. Time off was less of a problem for me as a college student, of course, but I never considered that people ever quit their jobs to attend trainings in person! After all, "1 in 4 and 1 in 20" required "money-making full timers," right? I remember seeing empty chairs reserved for the local saints but I always considered that they weren't actually "in" the training at all (because not everyone from every locality was admitted to the training anyway, as I understood the practice) and so the space was reserved for them so as to not entirely preclude their use of their meeting hall on the weekends - they would just join in with the trainees for their transformed regular meetings during the training time.

I guess I just got it all wrong!

Local saints were either slacking or suffering, depending who you ask!

Seems like maybe my enjoyment was extraordinary and the whole crazy system was one of religious obligation as much as anything...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by YP0534

VERY interesting! ... I guess I just got it all wrong! ... Local saints were either slacking or suffering, depending who you ask! ... Seems like maybe my enjoyment was extraordinary and the whole crazy system was one of religious obligation as much as anything...

Maybe those "locals" were just plain "bored" with "the ministry" since they were fed with a regular "diet" of it from week to week. They also had passed thru horrible, often heart-breaking, "storms" every few years at the epicenter at LSM. Anaheim has not been a peaceful place. Thank the Lord I never lived there! I don't think any of us in the GLA really understood what transpired there until it was made public these last few years.

Those of us who traveled to trainings saw it as a time to "get away" and labor in the word, and spend time in the Lord. Some saw it as a family vacation time too. Some of the teaching was better than what we were getting locally, especially after the new way effectively "decapitated" the gifted ones, and our "ministry meetings" were often spent sitting in one's home "fighting off children" in order to read the materials or to sing.

Often the ones staying in motels, did so in large groups with some preparing meals, and using the time to fellowship and study with saints we knew. This was also designed to save us from endless gossips (think about the quarantines of the late 80's) by taking hospitality.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

As a former longtime LC member, something has puzzled me regarding the various reactions to the Blended brothers' by current LC members over the past number of years. I have known many of these brothers for 30+ years. I have known a number of them personally. Some I knew before they were even elders.

Here is what does not make a lot of sense to me. According to my observation, this men are speaking what Witness Lee spoke. In most cases word-for-word. They are administering the Living Stream Ministry in almost the exact same manner as Witness Lee administered it. They are taking the Movement in the same direction as Witness Lee took it, at least the same as Lee was taking it the last 10 years or so of his life.

If I am not mistaken, during the semiannual trainings and other major conferences, these brothers are doing nothing but reviewing Witness Lee's ministry - in most cases word for word, via the outlines and footnotes produced by Lee himself. I personally attended a couple of meetings at a recent "blending" conference and witnessed a certain Blended brother go over, point-by-point, an outline that was produced by Witness Lee 15-20 years ago. I assume that this outline was used at every blending conference by every blended brother throughout the country (world?).

In regards to "practical" administration of the Local Church Movement, these brothers are handling matters in the exact same manner as Witness Lee. Witness Lee did not take kindly to questionings, much less challenges, by any of his followers. This was true from the little sister in the back row, all the way up to his "right hand man". I see the same from the Blended brothers. When legitimate and concerns are brought up, Witness Lee either ignored them or gave a stern warning that "this is not the way to address problems in the Lord's Recovery!". I see the same from the Blended brothers. When the questionings and or challenges became public, Witness Lee would viciously attack, and the challenger would be forced out. I see the same from the Blended.

To those of you who consider yourself, to one degree or another, a follower of Witness Lee, why would you treat the Blended brothers any differently then you did Lee himself. They have proclaimed that they are "brother Lee's continuation", and I have seen nothing to indicate that they are not exactly that.

Anybody want to take another stab at this one?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

To those of you who consider yourself, to one degree or another, a follower of Witness Lee, why would you treat the Blended brothers any differently then you did Lee himself. They have proclaimed that they are "brother Lee's continuation", and I have seen nothing to indicate that they are not exactly that.

Unto, this next portion I had recieved in an email of words spoken by Witness Lee in 1963.

Fellowship with Other Christians
February 16, 1963
Glendale, CA

Witness Lee said that,

We need “the variety in unity rather than the uniformities in division.” History has taught us this—there is beauty in variety.
God has received a brother whether we agree with him or not (Rom. 14:1-6).
Have the same mind toward one another according to Christ (Rom. 15:1-7).
Receive those whom Christ has received without criticism.

http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audi...%20Oneness.htm

I won't lump all the blendeds together. Each blended co-worker is different. Yet could some of them be living examples of these four points from brother Lee?

Terry

[OBW]

It was interesting to read through a few of the older posts in this thread. This topic, more than any other, points to the truth and fire in YP's complaint about "Universal Church."

There is a universal church, but it it not an organization. It is NOT practical. Only an assembly is practical. On occasion, several assemblies may combine for a purpose, but there is no practicality to the universal. It exists only because we are all of the common faith in Christ. But it is not a thing that we can touch, or organize, or administer. We can only touch the assembly. Only the assembly operates. Only the assembly can organize to do anything.

Meanwhile, Lee, and now the BBs, are treating the worldwide collection of LCs as if they are the totality of the universal church and trying to organize and direct it all. The result is to cause division that might not otherwise occur among members of practical assemblies. Those who want to hold onto some ethereal notion of "universal unity and oneness" lash out at those who would seek for practical harmony with those right where they are.

I know that some will suggest that my view is skewed by preference, but it seems that the ones who are causing the divisions locally are those who are trying to create some kind of universal oneness. It reminds me of the silly poem:

To dwell above with the saints I love —
Oh, won't that be glory!
But to dwell below with the saints I know —
Well that's another story.

[TLFisher]

Just briefly on comparison and contrast, does anyone recall Witness Lee's speaking in November, 1996 to the elders?

Terry

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

Meanwhile, Lee, and now the BBs, are treating the worldwide collection of LCs as if they are the totality of the universal church and trying to organize and direct it all.

Tah dah! See that wasn't so hard now was it! Thanks Mike - good observation of what I was trying to get at here. Not only do these guys teach exactly what Lee taught they carry out their business exactly how Lee caried out his business. I really do not see a lick of difference between them (Lee and the BBs). The One Publication nonsense is simply an attempt to teach what Lee taught (and only what he taught) and then all the attacks and quarantines against fellow members is simply a power play to enforce their "authority". Same tune different band folks. So when I hear all this complaining that "I don't recognize that tune"...sure you do! It's the SAME ole tune just different players, that's all. If you don't like the new band just say so... but don't tell me you don't recognize the tune.

To dwell above with the saints I love —
Oh, won't that be glory!
But to dwell below with the saints I know —
Well that's another story.

Originally Posted by Terry

Just briefly on comparison and contrast, does anyone recall Witness Lee's speaking in November, 1996 to the elders?
Terry

Terry are you talking about the infamous "Brother Lee's repentence" which was taped and is available on Youtube in Chinese?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Tah dah! See that wasn't so hard now was it! Thanks Mike - good observation of what I was trying to get at here. Not only do these guys teach exactly what Lee taught they carry out their business exactly how Lee caried out his business.

Well, since Mike honored me with lauds (thanks, Mike!), I'll add a couple of pennies worth.

Here's the difference as I see it:

Lee was a flawed brother who I believe did his best to be faithful to what he had seen in the Word, at least up to a certain point in time. The New Way teachings, to my perception, as the imagined steam engine behind the Leeite version of the Universal Church, are primarily what has become the fabric of the organization. But I maintain there was a practical difference up to a ceratin point.

Lee published the pitiful Truth Lessons at the same time as he popularized the phrase "Ti-ti Ta-ta" in connection with the home meetings, which as I understood it, was a Chinese phrase that meant "messy" or something like that. There's a HUGE tension (to say the very least!) between saying that a certain way of practice is "God's own best" and saying that we shouldn't control anything and just let the children play however they please in the home-sweet-home-meetings.

To give it more of the varnish of the day: Ti-ti Ta-ta was Tai Rung Lyao Le (Too Glorious!)

These days, that freedom-based part of Lee's ministry is pretty solidly neglected by the organizational experts at the helm at LSM.

So, concisely, this much I see as different: while still advocating uniformity, Lee at a minimum paid lip service to diversity and being spontaneous to follow the Lord up to a certain point in time. The bold new leaders? I don't see that they even consider it necessary to pay such ideas lip service.

And, in accordance with my other rants against "Universal Church," these who do share with him nearly identical concepts about how to go about building that organizational system have realized, perhaps only institutionally, that the parts of what Lee said that lead to uniformity and conformity are the parts you need to work on to build up the "Universal Church" imagination that they share. Freedom and diversity are of no use and in fact are much too much trouble for ANY institution interested in its own perpetuation, as most are, actually.

You can't have a "Universal Church" any more than you can have an Anarchy Club. The human notions of universality that define denominations such as the Local Church require enforcement of norms that just don't exist beyond their own walls and usually rather quickly degenerate into absurdity inside those walls. The assembly of God in Christ is differently composed in every place where it might be found and it will never have the same complexion, other that with regard to the inward reality of Christ. (Yes, I know that nearly sounds "universal" but you have to FIND it!)

Think about this: Lee loved that Hymnal. Now, nothing against those hymns, per se, but put yourself back 1000 years in the Middle East or Europe and try to imagine everyone throughout "The Church" utilizing a single hymnal! Sure. Print them in China, ship the boxes to Anaheim and then UPS them throughout the Christian world. The only way you could get there is the route that Roman Catholicism took. And folks: Been there. Done that. Let's move on.

Thus, I could envision a Mirror-Mirror Local Church which emphasized only the sweetness and the spiritual and the freedom parts of his ministry and neglected all the organizational stuff, while still perhaps overly stuck on Lee himself. Because I think such a thing is at least theoretically possible, I'd argue that since it's NOT possible under the Big Brothers, then, that's a difference.

I'll concede this much: Lee essentially criticized those brothers, who also left China like he did but didn't count him boss of them, of wanting to only take the "spiritual" part of Nee's ministry and not the "practical" part. And, in fact, the "New Way" was EXPRESSLY designed to be Lee's antidote to that problem, as he saw it. These Big Brother guys could be accused of being just the same in that sense, pushing forward Lee's interpretations of Nee's "practical" ministry for the production of the same practical "Universal Church." I'm not even sure they'd disagree with that characterization. But Lee also did his own thing, for which he was sometimes criticized by those other brothers from China who didn't follow him, and he didn't merely play follow the leader.

What's going on now is just much sicker, it seems to me.

Lee's errors were just Lee's errors.

The Local Church leaders don't merely add to his errors by carrying things out as they do or even as he did - they multiply the errors.

And now I'm back to my "no leaders without followers" soapbox so I know I've gone on way past a pair of pennies now.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

There is a universal church, but it it not an organization. It is NOT practical. Only an assembly is practical. On occasion, several assemblies may combine for a purpose, but there is no practicality to the universal. It exists only because we are all of the common faith in Christ. But it is not a thing that we can touch, or organize, or administer. We can only touch the assembly. Only the assembly operates. Only the assembly can organize to do anything.

You got an amen from this corner. Whenever two believers receive one another based on the one faith, then the Lord promised His presence. He said, "On this rock I will build my assembly [church]". God does something divinely practical when we greet one another in Christ.

But when we look over each other's shoulder, searching for the "universal" church, we arguably miss the point of the exercise.

I am greatly encouraged by the fellowship. Thanks, Mike for your post. I feel validated, somewhat, and that means a lot to me.

[OBW]

I will make one adjustment to my comments on the "Universal Church."

When we acknowledge any Christian brother or sister; when we pray for all Christian groups meeting and acting both close by and afar without "praying" our agenda onto them; when these and other non-sectarian actions and attitudes concerning the whole of existing believers are in play, we do "touch" the church universal. But while this should always be our attitude concerning all believers, it remains that your real, live connections through an assembly of local believers is the only truly practical application of the church which is the body of Christ.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

We can only touch the assembly. Only the assembly operates. Only the assembly can organize to do anything.

Meanwhile, Lee, and now the BBs, are treating the worldwide collection of LCs as if they are the totality of the universal church and trying to organize and direct it all.

Those who want to hold onto some ethereal notion of "universal unity and oneness" lash out at those who would seek for practical harmony with those right where they are.

...it seems that the ones who are causing the divisions locally are those who are trying to create some kind of universal oneness.

Question: when Nee first began to meet with others outside the sphere of denominational christianity, did they have a view of the universal church, or did that come later? I remember reading in Lee's bio of Nee ("the seer" book) that when they began to gather privately, and broke the bread in remembrance of the Lord, the presence of God was strong. This greatly encouraged them to continue this practice.

Eventually, when this practice of gathering in the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ and not under any denominational aegis began to spread to other geographic regions, there was the perceived need to "coordinate", and to "fellowship", among the various gatherings.

So now we come to the two words I underlined above: organize, and direct. At what point did mutual fellowship among different groups of independent believers metastize into an aspiration to create the universal church, complete with an earthly "deputy God"?

I suspect this aspiration to create the universal church wasn't there when Nee et al began to meet together, but gradually evolved over time (However, I don't have anything to base my supposition upon but my dim memory).

So we perhaps have "early Nee" and "later Nee", "early Lee" and "later Lee", and finally the BBs. We gradually go from an independent local assembly in Nee's original experience to what we might now regard as local franchises of the universal church, presided over by the president of the LSM corporation.

So the BBs are not so much a continuation of Lee as they are a continuation of the process of centralization, control, bureacratization, and ossification, which likely began while Nee was still ministering.

And the cure is still the same. Don't aspire to the place of God. Don't try to direct the Spirit; rather let the Spirit direct you. Just be one with the believers God has soveriegnly placed beside you. Encourage, console, edify. And this will be a great testimony to the ones who are still in darkness, apart from God and Christ. Be local, with the person(s) God has placed near you in space and time, and God is quite capable of being universal.

If we are obedient to fill our "local spot" with the Spirit so graciously poured out, God can surely be the one who fills all in all.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

So we perhaps have "early Nee" and "later Nee", "early Lee" and "later Lee", and finally the BBs. We gradually go from an independent local assembly in Nee's original experience to what we might now regard as local franchises of the universal church, presided over by the president of the LSM corporation.

So the BBs are not so much a continuation of Lee as they are a continuation of the process of centralization, control, bureaucratization, and ossification ...

Aron ... I have long been convinced that this "process" which you describe is part of man's fallen nature received directly from God's enemy. No matter how much the Lord on earth addressed this tendency (read all He said to the Pharisees and scribes,) the church has fallen into this "process" throughout its history. This process began in Jerusalem, continued at Rome, and Darby and the exclusives, and Lee and the BB's just have become "closer to home" for us here on the forum.

Apostle Paul addressed this in Corinth, asking "are you not fleshly," referring to envy, strife, and being "of men." He also spoke to the Galatians about the bondage of legalism "bewitching them." We believers can be decent, moral, upright and righteous, yet still be fleshly. We are fleshly when we walk "as men," longing to either rule or be ruled by men. Yes, we must be under man's laws, otherwise we become lawless, and fleshly in an ugly way, yet we must always "stand fast in the liberty." In this liberty, only Christ Himself really rules us.

Sorry to say, but fallen mankind is filled with those who love to rule over others, and those who love to be told what to do. These power mongers use such vehicles as "centralization and bureaucratization" to rule over others. The genuine liberty of the Spirit is a dangerous thing to those who long to control. We believers also can become lazy in that we like to be told what to do, replacing the voice of the True Shepherd with formalized human manipulations. It is just amazing how we became slowly "ossified" while endeavoring to know "high peak" theology and the like. We in the LC's lost much as we were transitioned from "knowing only Christ" to "knowing the full knowledge of the truth."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Terry are you talking about the infamous "Brother Lee's repentence" which was taped and is available on Youtube in Chinese?

Unto, thank you for alerting me. I have this comparison and contrast to share. At http://www.afaithfulword.org/articles/Offending.html the author of the article had this to present of what brother Lee really said:

What Brother Lee said in the Chinese-speaking conference was his observation and realization before the Lord that the churches receiving his ministry had at times failed in the past to live up to that standard:

We have much to learn concerning receiving people according to God and according to His Son. Because of our negligence in this matter in the past, we have offended the Body of Christ and many brothers and sisters in the Lord. For this reason, I had a deep repentance before the Lord. Brothers and sisters, I hope that we can see our past mistakes by getting into this message through pray-reading, studying, reciting, and prophesying. Of course, sectarianism in the denominations is wrong; it is something very much condemned by God. Nevertheless, those who are genuinely saved in the denominations are children of God and have been received by God. Hence, we also should receive them, but we would never participate in the division in which they are. (The Experience of God's Organic Salvation Equaling Reigning in Christ's Life, p. 69)

However the YouTube video with English subtitle was a little different. Of course this is all based that translation from Chinese to English was appropriately translated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Dw4W65MFpw

The following is what was spoken around the two-minute mark:

"This is a lesson for us all. Our co-workers and responsible ones in each locality. The brothers and sisters need to open their eyes. We have so much to learn, we have acted wrongly in the past. Including me. I have to admit I have very painful repentance before the Lord. I am very sorry! I am sorry for the body of Christ not only for the brothers and sisters among us, but also the ones in the denominations. You have to bring this message back and read over and over again in mutual fellowship. Then you will see we were wrong before. Of course denominations are wrong! Division is what God regards as most sinful. But the Lord also wants to bring all the saints there is such no condomnation. To understand and analyze this needs a fair bit of effort. Again I say again, a few of you must come together through pray-reading, studying, reciting, and prophesying. I hope...no I would like to make this part on one hand to accept people just like how God's son does on the other....according to God's son...the undeviating, caring of both parts. On one hand the Jews on the other hand the gentiles God has chosen. What God has done was fair, really fair. I would like to read out to you again: Christ is the ministry of the circumcised the will that He has given to the fathers, and also the ministry, to the gentiles, so that they may glorify God, because of His mercy. What is it to glorify God? Is it to be part of the New Jerusalem? If we cannot be part of the New Jerusalem we cannot glorify God. You only glorify yourself and express yourself. Is that correct? Only if we glorify God in the New Jerusalem, then we are glorifying God in the universe."

Examine comparison and contrast for yourselves.

Terry

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by Terry

However the YouTube video with English subtitle was a little different. Of course this is all based that translation from Chinese to English was appropriately translated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Dw4W65MFpw

The following is what was spoken around the two-minute mark:

"This is a lesson for us all. Our co-workers and responsible ones in each locality. The brothers and sisters need to open their eyes. We have so much to learn, we have acted wrongly in the past. Including me. I have to admit I have very painful repentance before the Lord. I am very sorry! I am sorry for the body of Christ not only for the brothers and sisters among us, but also the ones in the denominations. You have to bring this message back and read over and over again in mutual fellowship. Then you will see we were wrong before. Of course denominations are wrong! Division is what God regards as most sinful. But the Lord also wants to bring all the saints there is such no condomnation."

Examine comparison and contrast for yourselves.

Terry

Hello dear brother Terry,

Thank you so much for typing out all the translated words found on the youtube video. There is a very significant aspect of WL's repentance which shows up clearly on the video. From about 2:20 to 2:29 on the video Witness Lee spoke these words, "we have acted wrongly in the past. Including me." Notice that at 2:26 on the video, exactly when he is saying the Chinese equivalent of "Including me.", WL points to himself and actually touches himself, to emphasize the point of "Including me." (Notice how his jacket actually moves a little bit when he touches it.)

This gets lost in the LSM translation. The LSM translation misses the very important "Including me." and the very important "I am very sorry!" The LSM translation can certainly give the impression that WL was repenting on behalf of mistakes made by the rest of us, which is exactly how this matter was relayed to me during my time in the LSM-loyal LC.

There should be rejoicing that WL included himself so strongly in this repentance. Why hide the fact? WL, like all of us, made plenty of mistakes and, like all of us, needed frequent repentance. There is nothing to be ashamed of here. Instead of diluting the impact of this repentance, WL's public repentance should serve as an example for the BB's. May our dear Lord use this example to shepherd the BB's into a spirit of repentance.

May our heavenly Father have mercy on us all.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

This gets lost in the LSM translation. The LSM translation misses the very important "Including me." and the very important "I am very sorry!" The LSM translation can certainly give the impression that WL was repenting on behalf of mistakes made by the rest of us, which is exactly how this matter was relayed to me during my time in the LSM-loyal LC.

There should be rejoicing that WL included himself so strongly in this repentance. Why hide the fact? WL, like all of us, made plenty of mistakes and, like all of us, needed frequent repentance. There is nothing to be ashamed of here. Instead of diluting the impact of this repentance, WL's public repentance should serve as an example for the BB's. May our dear Lord use this example to shepherd the BB's into a spirit of repentance.

KTS, AMEN! After having seen this video for the first time last night, I was saddened by the exclusion of brother Lee's words in it's entirety. Why? His points are so critically essential. Another point I noted being ommitted was the exclusion of denominations to the body of Christ when brother Lee said:

"I am sorry for the body of Christ not only for the brothers and sisters among us, but also the ones in the denominations."

To me that implies WL's heartfelt repentance was inclusive.

Terry

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

Question: when Nee first began to meet with others outside the sphere of denominational christianity, did they have a view of the universal church, or did that come later?

Short answer: yes.

Go back and look.

You can't make statements about how to meet without implications about your view on the "Universal Church".

It might seem benign at the inception but it's got the same seeds at the root.

I believe another "Lee" would have sprung forth eventually, if it weren't for the one we got.

It was inevitably going to happen under any "vision of the church" that was espoused.

In actual fact, there IS and cannot be a "vision of the church" in a "universal" sense.

Or rather, if there IS, it's just a denominational foundational principle looking for someone to flesh out the idea with another organization.

[awareness]

YP:
>> I believe another "Lee" would have sprung forth eventually, if it weren't for the one we got.

Oh there's been lots of Lee's throughout history, and in the present too. Christians seem to attract bamboozlers. I think because they're very gullible, which makes them an easy mark. A broad look at Christians, from afar off, reveals they'll believe just about anything, and anyone, even when they know they're wrong ; like William Miller, the false prophet of 2 exact days of Jesus' return in the 19th century ; both wrong of course.

That's why brothers and sisters need to be careful about following men. Men are fallen, and I don't care about burying the old man, and becoming the new. The old man doesn't die, not in that way anyway. Sorry if you thought otherwise. Just believe your eyes and it's plain to see. Make no mistake about it, following men will always disappoint. If you don't beleive me, then learn this universal truth on your own.

YP:
>> It was inevitably going to happen under any "vision of the church" that was espoused. <<

Like I pointed out, believers are itching for such leaders. It's like their drug of choice. Without leaders that bamboozle them they are lost. I speak from experience. I was one of 'em. I've been bamboozled.

YP:
In actual fact, there IS and cannot be a "vision of the church" in a "universal" sense.

A "vision" of the universal church is the only way to see the universal church ; cuz it spans 20 centuries.

The local church runs on visions. Or actually on euphemisms, that provides the vision. The vision is a euphemism. It captures your attention while something else is going on ; something by men, and not the Spirit. Again, sorry if you thought otherwise. You'll learn...hopefully....

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by awareness

A "vision" of the universal church is the only way to see the universal church ; cuz it spans 20 centuries.

Anyway, what I said before.

I'm pretty confident about my point, there.

I think a couple of people recently got a glimmer of what I'm talking about around here some kind of way. Not because of me because I never could make anyone understand what I was talking about. Blue in the face. :frown:

I guess maybe I sort of have an anti-vision of the "Universal Church" kind of like an analogue to the people who teach against the practicality of the localism doctrine.

Adding the time element is probably just a red herring.

The Body of Christ is spiritual but it's also physical. That's what the word "Body" means, after all. I don't think it's enough to just throw up our hands and say Christ's Body is only spiritual.

alan, you get what I mean, right?

I don't know how to say it better, I'm afraid.

[awareness]

YP:
>> The Body of Christ is spiritual but it's also physical. That's what the word "Body" means... <<

Yes, the spiritual body spans centuries, but the physical body is real today. But I don't think any of us can know just how big the physical body of Christ is, nor all who are members of it. But one thing is for sure, it's bigger than the LC, by far.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I'll concede this much: Lee essentially criticized those brothers, who also left China like he did but didn't count him boss of them, of wanting to only take the "spiritual" part of Nee's ministry and not the "practical" part. And, in fact, the "New Way" was EXPRESSLY designed to be Lee's antidote to that problem, as he saw it. These Big Brother guys could be accused of being just the same in that sense, pushing forward Lee's interpretations of Nee's "practical" ministry for the production of the same practical "Universal Church." I'm not even sure they'd disagree with that characterization. But Lee also did his own thing, for which he was sometimes criticized by those other brothers from China who didn't follow him, and he didn't merely play follow the leader.

Hello dear brother YP0534,

I definitely see what you are saying about the other co-workers of WN who also left China. It does appear that the other three (Simon Meek, Faithful Luke, and Stephen Kaung) did emphasize the “spiritual” part of WN’s ministry over the “practical” part to a large degree. While Lee may very well have seen a lack of the "practical" side in these three brothers, close inspection might have revealed some surprises. For example, when my family and I attended the recent “Family Christian Conference” where dear brother Stephen Kaung and three other brothers spoke, we were amazed to learn about how many assemblies there are which are somewhat affiliated with Stephen Kaung’s ministry. We heard about various assemblies from Florida all the way up to Maine, and all over New York City and upstate NY, spreading into Canada. Along with all this, we heard of assemblies in Kentucky and North Carolina.

So, these other ones may have emphasized the “spiritual” part of WN’s ministry over the practical, but there was still some practical working out according to WN’ vision taking place, albeit on a smaller scale that Lee would have wanted.

One very big question, however, remains in my mind – If WL was so burdened for the practical working out of the churches, why didn’t he ever co-work with Bakht Singh? Beginning in 1940, Bakht Singh took the way of raising up local churches all over today’s India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. The difficulties he faced were enormous! The Hindu Caste system has to be the most evil thing ever devised to frustrate true church life. Many courageous ones had tried to labor in India and found only limited success. They would gain a few converts from one caste, and that completely prevented any outreach to all of the other castes. Devilish! In Pakistan he encountered the almost impossible situation of trying to gain Christian converts in a Muslim county. In Nepal, Christianity was not allowed. May imprisonments and hardships ensued there.

Despite all this, hundreds of very practical assemblies were raised up in India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. Through intense suffering, Bakht Singh and those with him gained much hard-won wisdom which was then available to be shared with believers all over the world. Why didn’t WL take advantage of the help Bakht Singh could offer regarding “practical” church life? All of the other co-workers of WN were more than willing to co-work with Bakht Singh. Bakht Singh co-worked with Faithful Luke in Singapore, with Simon Meek in Manila, the Philippines, and with Stephen Kaung in the United States. Bakht Singh also co-worked with TAS in London, England, and with both TAS and Stephen Kaung in the United States. WL must have known about Bakht Singh since all these other co-workers of WN knew of him and co-worked with him. If WL saw such a huge need for the “practical side”, why didn’t he humble himself and go find Bahkt Singh, just like Barnabus, recognizing the huge need in Antioch, went out and fetched brother Saul/Paul?

I don’t understand it. This could have been a very beautiful opportunity for some real outside help to bless the LC. It could have brought in some much-needed adjusting form the Lord. Sadly, it never happened.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

One very big question, however, remains in my mind – If WL was so burdened for the practical working out of the churches, why didn’t he ever co-work with Bakht Singh? Beginning in 1940, Bakht Singh took the way of raising up local churches all over today’s India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Sri Lanka.
Why didn’t WL take advantage of the help Bakht Singh could offer regarding “practical” church life? All of the other co-workers of WN were more than willing to co-work with Bakht Singh. Bakht Singh co-worked with Faithful Luke in Singapore, with Simon Meek in Manila, the Philippines, and with Stephen Kaung in the United States. Bakht Singh also co-worked with TAS in London, England, and with both TAS and Stephen Kaung in the United States. WL must have known about Bakht Singh since all these other co-workers of WN knew of him and co-worked with him.

Kisstheson, thank you for painting the picture. I don't know anything about Bahkt Singh, but he appears to had been a respected brother of his generation. It says much each of the brothers you mentioned worked with him and with each other in mutuality.
When the body is functioning properly there is no competition. You would have no cases as menioned in I Cor. 12:21 where one part of the body would say to another part "I have no need of you". Instead you have different parts of the body as illustrated by these brothers functioning in co-ordination with one another.

Terry

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Hello dear brother YP0534,

I definitely see what you are saying about the other co-workers of WN who also left China. It does appear that the other three (Simon Meek, Faithful Luke, and Stephen Kaung) did emphasize the “spiritual” part of WN’s ministry over the “practical” part to a large degree. While Lee may very well have seen a lack of the "practical" side in these three brothers, close inspection might have revealed some surprises.
....
So, these other ones may have emphasized the “spiritual” part of WN’s ministry over the practical, but there was still some practical working out according to WN’ vision taking place, albeit on a smaller scale that Lee would have wanted.
....
I don’t understand it. This could have been a very beautiful opportunity for some real outside help to bless the LC. It could have brought in some much-needed adjusting form the Lord. Sadly, it never happened.

I think the answer has to come down to the single word "pride", KTS.

Laodicea is proud as a consequence of having been imparted that pride.

How else would it be?


Grace to you, brother.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by awareness

But I don't think any of us can know just how big the physical body of Christ is, nor all who are members of it. But one thing is for sure, it's bigger than the LC, by far.

No doubt.

That is why there can be no "vision."

[awareness]

YP:
>> I think the answer has to come down to the single word "pride", KTS.
Laodicea is proud as a consequence of having been imparted that pride.
How else would it be? <<

After reading about his early days in Taipei, and seeing what he did here, the word that comes to my mind is : ambition.

Lee wasn't going to let TAS overshadow him, nor anyone else. Lee wanted to be the only shining star, and when that tree bore fruit, he became the one and only oracle on the earth. That revealed the seed that had been in him since his Nee days. Lee was a bona fide megalomaniac. Lee loved himself, and no one else. Look how he dealt with Engals and Mallon, and Max (his child). After all those years of working close with them, when they questioned him, he cut them with a hard heart. And he promoted cutting all the others -- good brothers and sisters in the Lord -- and then was able to call it : purging Satan from the church, with resounding hallelujahs.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Adding the time element is probably just a red herring.

The Body of Christ is spiritual but it's also physical. That's what the word "Body" means, after all. I don't think it's enough to just throw up our hands and say Christ's Body is only spiritual.

alan, you get what I mean, right?

I don't know how to say it better, I'm afraid.

Well, I don't know how to say it much better, either. But the time element and the space element are both kind of moot, I'm thinking.

Reason being, we are so limited in our capacity to experience. Just suppose, for example, we agree on a definition of the Body of Christ as consisting of all believers from day one until now, regardless of season of life or location. That's the "universal" body of Christ, we suppose. Now, we want to be practical. I say, "Well, I live in Ashland Kentucky, and so I am in that part of the universal church which currently is in Ashland Kentucky in July of 2009."

So now, in the interests of being practical, we go out and clearly define the political jurisdiction, and try to identify all the christians within the physical borders we've mutually recognized, and we think we have our church, located in space and time.

I argue that is such a scenario we are still playing make-believe, and wasting our time; because we have not the resources to go to every person in Ashland and discern their true spiritual state. The best thing we can do is to share our faith, our experience, and our testimony of Jesus with one another, with those who have been placed beside us. That's it.

Time and space are irrelevant. All we have is here and now. I concede a transcendant "cloud of witnesses" urging us forward, but if that's so, I wager that they are urging us to give a cup of cold water to the person next to us.

Any more than that and we are in over our heads.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I believe another "Lee" would have sprung forth eventually, if it weren't for the one we got.

It was inevitably going to happen under any "vision of the church" that was espoused.

In actual fact, there IS and cannot be a "vision of the church" in a "universal" sense.

Or rather, if there IS, it's just a denominational foundational principle looking for someone to flesh out the idea with another organization.

My thoughts as well. This is why the discussion of Nee & Lee must be in a larger context, I'd argue; otherwise we go round in circles like dogs chasing their tails, and in 200 years they're going to be arguing about whether someone else is a prophet or a charlatan.

I believe God has allowed all this to transpire over the centuries. God has allowed the 'bamboozling visions' -- thanks awareness -- to cloud and distract the believers from the simple call to love God, to believe in Jesus Christ, and to receive the person next to you (your neighbor) as if you were receiving Christ Himself. God has permitted the "vision of the universal church" to be espoused, with all of its consequences. But His call remains.

People like Bahkt Singh and Watchman Nee were trying to "go back to the beginning", and as such, to some degree we are their heirs. But to follow them, we have to leave them, and continue the journey, back to the beginning.

The Jews hearkened back to Moses as their sure foundation, but Jesus revealed Moses as a contingency of God's providential hand, and not the source of present reality. In Matthew chapter 19 Jesus referred them twice to "the beginning", before Moses (vv. 4,8). I believe we can free ourselves form the grip of the "vision of the universal church" only by going back to the beginning, to the call of Jesus in the gospels. The clarity and simplicity of that call is can be a salvation from the many grand "visions" that inevitably followed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

After reading about his early days in Taipei, and seeing what he did here, the word that comes to my mind is : ambition.

Lee wasn't going to let TAS overshadow him, nor anyone else. Lee wanted to be the only shining star, and when that tree bore fruit, he became the one and only oracle on the earth. That revealed the seed that had been in him since his Nee days. Lee was a bona fide megalomaniac. Lee loved himself, and no one else. Look how he dealt with Engals and Mallon, and Max (his child). After all those years of working close with them, when they questioned him, he cut them with a hard heart. And he promoted cutting all the others -- good brothers and sisters in the Lord -- and then was able to call it : purging Satan from the church, with resounding hallelujahs.

I do believe that WL loved the Lord much. Same with Darby and so many others who went down that exclusive path.

Martin Luther was another one. Many precious believers were hurt and even some were slaughtered by the Catholics because of his actions. Yet ... he still loved the Lord.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

People like Bahkt Singh and Watchman Nee were trying to "go back to the beginning", and as such, to some degree we are their heirs. But to follow them, we have to leave them, and continue the journey, back to the beginning.

You know what I've always found strange?

I sat and listened to messages where Witness Lee specifically instructed the young people that they should stand on his shoulders and see further just as he stood on Nee's shoulders.

Here's the odd part: Lee's detractors scoff at the idea that he saw anything that required development because it was just error. Lee's proponents have evolved into a doctrinal position that requires suppression of any development because what Lee saw was perfect and complete.

And neither side can see their own unreasonableness. At all. Fascinating.

I'm definitely in the middle ground of saying that in addition to some error, even perhaps some grave, Witness Lee saw some things, especially earlier than 1986, that require further development by those who know his ministry.

I even think there's something to be gleaned from all the "New Way" business. Not in a way of following that model as a commandment, which is surely error, but as an opening of the New Testament regarding our attitudes and approaches toward practical gospel preaching.

I always rejoice to encounter a son of peace and it was Witness Lee who led me to know that verse.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm still uncomfortable to recommend the LSM volumes to just anyone because I'm still deeply disturbed about some of the editorial practices I discovered at one point plus I'm not confident about being able to completely circumscribe Lee's misunderstandings well enough to warn someone away from picking them up. But I really do refer to the Life-Studies for both light and nourishment as I walk on with the Lord. And I believe more and more leaders in general Christianity will do same as time goes by. It's not unmixed pure gold as some have been led to believe, as I was once led to believe, but there are plenty enough nuggets for me to feel it's not a waste of time altogether.

[OBW]

Prior to joining the LC, our family had begun to follow several of the inner-life teachers. I’ve tried to remember some of the names, but I was in high school at the time and I’ve slept many times since then and can only remember Kenneth Hagan (or something like that — definitely not the Hagee guy of more recent fame). The inner-life teachers had begun to spring up during the mid-late 60s and on through the 70s. It was a reaction to a Christian experience that was either mired in knowledge or in works (with the exception of the Pentecostal movement that was experiential, but in a mystical way rather than in a substantive way).

The inner-life teachers brought people into an understanding of the spiritual landscape that was meaningful rather than mystical. And, at least at first, these followers were members of other groups and added this inner-life mindset to their lives. No matter what their background, each new follower now had two sides to their faith and practice. What was missing now was any substantive experience of the thing(s) that were not part of their “home church” mindset or the inner-life practices. Much better for all.

In the midst of this, Witness Lee came along with a new system of theology that marginalized the knowledge and practices that had existed and developed over the centuries and replaced it with a narrower inner-life teaching, coupled with a few peculiar doctrines that did two things:

1. Established the Local Churches as special in God’s eyes (and eventually made him “minister of the age”), and
2. Turned his version of the inner-life teachings into the only teachings and practices of any consequence.

With a couple of exceptions, the core of each of these teachings was sound. We should call on the Lord — not as a mantra, but as real entreaty to the person who is able to meet all our needs. We should read the word in prayer. We should realize that worship is not a matter of a place, but of a way or attitude — in spirit.

But each of these are not so peculiar to Lee. I recently asked in a different context what light Lee had specifically provided rather than simply pointing out what others had seen and taught before him. I only got one answer — calling on the Lord. But even that, as a practice, was too mired in a formulaic practice that mostly robbed it of the true meaning of the fullness of “calling.”

I disagree with YP that Lee really did anything of significance outside of bring inner-life teachings to people whose history was in proposition-based knowledge of evangelicalism, in the traditions and works of the more liturgical (and often liberal) groups, or in the mystical experiences of the charismatics. But rather than add his teachings to the other disciplines, he rallied us all around only a special subset of inner-life teachings while demonizing the ways of the others with their works, knowledge and mysticism as poor and pitiful, even subject to the full wrath of the tribulation that his little sect would avoid.

In a simplistic view, Lee took a subset of the inner-life teachings and made them into everything. It is sort of like going into a department store with everything from lingerie to lawn mowers and suggesting that kids shoes, sizes 5 – 8 is the whole of the store. (I could add that only those made of wood would do, since even the small part that was good was often encapsulated with leavened teachings.) Yes, it may be true that calling on the Lord was that small portion of the shoe section. But there is a department store full of truth that Lee wrote off as not central within his “Christ and the church,” “God’s economy” or some other peculiar doctrine. Those doctrines were not really helpful. They were the way that we were kept away from the fullness of the gospel and the fullness of the Christian life. Was Lee intending to keep us from the fullness of the Christian life? Probably not. But that is exactly what he did.

How do you love your neighbor when you openly despise that some church groups actually help out with soup kitchens or build houses for the poorer ones of society? Is it demonstrated when you tell of the time that you turned away a hungry man from the door of the “big house,” not by noting that the house was not part of the church but instead a private residence, but by saying that this was a church, not a soup kitchen? Is it demonstrated when you speak so disparagingly of other Christians who do not meet in the manner that you do? Is it demonstrated when your group sends not a single person to help in any aspect of the Billy Graham crusade that came through your area? (No requirement to help in this, but the almost intentional absence screams of the erroneous position of Lee and the LC.)

I reissue the challenge. What did Lee bring us that was worthy of retention that could not be found elsewhere? I do not deny that there was truth in the LC. But I have not found that truth to be peculiar to the LC or to the teachings of Lee. Show me what I have missed. As I mentioned, calling on the Lord has been conceded. But even that concession is limited since the thing that was taught was more of a repetition than a reminder to speak to God regularly (and that has never been missing from the teachings of Christianity, just not well practiced).

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I recently asked in a different context what light Lee had specifically provided rather than simply pointing out what others had seen and taught before him.

I disagree with YP that Lee really did anything of significance outside of bring inner-life teachings to people whose history was in proposition-based knowledge of evangelicalism, in the traditions and works of the more liturgical (and often liberal) groups, or in the mystical experiences of the charismatics.

But rather than add his teachings to the other disciplines, he rallied us all around only a special subset of inner-life teachings while demonizing the ways of the others with their works, knowledge and mysticism as poor and pitiful, even subject to the full wrath of the tribulation that his little sect would avoid.

I reissue the challenge. What did Lee bring us that was worthy of retention that could not be found elsewhere? I do not deny that there was truth in the LC. But I have not found that truth to be peculiar to the LC or to the teachings of Lee. Show me what I have missed.

Had Lee merely added his teachings to the other disciplines, instead of trying to be "special", we likely wouldn't be having this conversation, at least in this context. Because every christian teacher and leader has, over the course of a long career of activity and speaking, mis-aimed occasionally. I remember Billy Graham looking back not so long ago, at some of his earlier altar calls to the "heavenly streets of gold", with some mortification. What has Billy Graham added, of substance, to the christian discussion? Nothing, that I can see. What has he spoken that needs pruning? Probably a fair amount. I don't judge Lee any differently.

I see several options:

1. I could act as if Lee never existed. Then, am I not saying that God made an error by placing me there for years? It was all a waste? Nothing salvageable? I disagree. God is a wise husbandman. He prunes, but I don't see him completely cutting off my whole experience. No, the question is not what did Lee add to the christian experience by his teachings, but what did God add to my christian experience by placing me in there, under Lee's teachings. To me, the arrow of time is irreversible. I came into the LCs not knowing much about the Bible, and I gained a lot there. Eventually, I went back to Christianity, but I was different (and better) for my experiences.

2. I could act as if Lee was just a bad experience, a warning to all. Like Lee seems to have done with the book of James, for example. Nothing of value there; it was merely inserted into the record to show us what not to do or think. Again, I think God is wiser than we realize. There are some positive things to be found.

3. I can treat Lee like any other teacher, imperfect but with some value. What has value, to me? I would rephrase: What of value happened to me during my time in the LCs? Well, I opened my mouth. I was quiet in christianity, but when I arrived to a meeting in the LCs the saints there got me up to the front row and got me to open up. When I eventually returned to christianity I went right to the front row and opened up. I had no position, no degree, no title, but I had a mouth and a spirit and some experience and I used that experience in the LCs.

So, "cry out and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion" (isaiah 12:6) became real to me. Now I might have gotten that experience, at lower cost, elsewhere. But it God give me this experience there.

The rest of it, the soul versus the spirit (i.e. "the three parts of man"), the idea of reward versus the gift of grace, the habit of looking at OT works for "types and figures and shadows" of the Coming One, I am sorting through.

The idea that "we have the high peak of the divine revelation" I now take to be evidence of serious spiritual blindness. The "universal church" idea, with all of its terrible "works" to follow, I take as a serious error, also. Trying to get people to "love the church" and consecrate themselves to an organization perporting to represent it on earth is probalby an egregious error. Christ alone can adequately love and care for His Body and bride. Our job is to love God, to love and obey Christ, and express this love, which is actually His love, toward the person next to us. Lee went far astray here.

But the "high revelations" which cause the flock to misaim, and the concomitant organization-building efforts which also mislead so many and stumble the simple, are not errors unique to Lee.

The only thing I can single Lee et al out for special censure is the "one minister of the age" notion, which led to One Publication edicts, quarantines, and vague threats against those who are "different", etc.

But still, I was there, and I go on. I want to build, not tear down. If I considered this a pseudo-christian group I'd flame the whole thing. But I don't; I consider my time there to be a genuine christian experience, so I sift through the rubble for a few precious items, and I place them on what I hope to be a firm foundation, and I go on.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

But there is a department store full of truth that Lee wrote off as not central within his “Christ and the church,” “God’s economy” or some other peculiar doctrine.

Mike, I know you disagree and I've seen you issue your challenge repeatedly.

I'm not about to do this project of analyzing Lee's ministry and attempting to demonstrate it's uniqueness in Christian history. The notion is preposterous, actually, and that's why you haven't had any takers. I'm not a Leeite. I could care less if he's capable of being proven the greatest teacher in the world or whatever. But your argument ab silencio certainly hasn't gained much traction either that I've seen. There's probably a couple of good reasons for that and you should consider why. But I'm not interested in explaining such things. Sorry. Swear at me about hit and run and such, if you wish.

But even WITH my adamant posture vis-a-vis "universal church" I disagree with your easy dismissal of Lee's teachings regarding "Christ and the church" as central to Christian experience. Any faithful believer I've ever seen lives that out practically and daily. I don't have to accept extreme interpretations of localism in currency in the Local Church to proclaim that for a person no less notable than Paul the apostle, "Christ and the church" was pretty clearly of primary importance. I'd even say most of the best stuff along these lines probably wasn't really Lee's to claim, but you can't have it both ways, either.

You can't call it Lee's "peculiar teaching" and also argue it's not his uniquely.

That dog won't hunt.

The challenge, should one be issued, really should be for a point by point expose, on YOUR part, demonstrating the non-uniqueness of Lee's teachings and their ultimate or, I suppose in some cases, alternate but superior, source.

I'll give you one I've enjoyed. This is just off the top of my head. Lee brought me to the verse "We all with unveiled face beholding and reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory even as from the Lord Spirit." Good inner life stuff about transformation is what I got and I don't think this verse gets much airtime in general Christianity. So, from Lee's teachings, I have some appreciation about having an unveiled heart, about beholding and reflecting glory, about transformation, and about the Lord Spirit. I can pull out the Life Studies and talk about all those points in greater detail but I trust you can find the verse's messages online on your own.

Now, perhaps all he did was bring together some stuff about those points from other sources. I don't know the sources, but perhaps you do and can say so and feel compelled to do so now. If so, please do. I'd love to have some additional sources of ministry for enjoyment and sharing so that I can continue to shed the unwarranted judgement of my brothers who perceive me as tainted or such.

Or perhaps you'll go suggest out of turn your argument about the Last Adam to detract from the spiritual value I received concerning this verse. I know that's another of your pet anti-Lee pet doctrines and, wearisome or not, I remain unpersuaded to shed the accusations of modalism that may fall upon me by those who prefer classic Christian statements of orthodoxy. Oh well.

Either way, Lee imparted riches concerning this verse into my being and that stuff has eternal value. Period. So, I'm really not sure what it is you hope to gain by saying he's not unique or, to the extent that he was unique, he was wrong. I can counter by saying, recognizing that he was neither unique nor always correct, he did a great job teaching about some things and did so in a way that tended to equip the saints unto the work of ministry, which at least on some level I think he appreciated was his role. I tip my hat to him and praise the Lord.

I'll leave aside your disagreements regarding Lee's "Economy of God" teachings because I do think there's some merit to calling attention to the way the Local Church has divorced that doctrine from it's practical application in favor of its denominational interpretation and reinvention. I think your attacks on "God's economy" are likewise unpersuasive but nobody seems to see that doctrine very clearly anyway so, I figure, what's the point in arguing that it's really right?

I might as well argue that "God's economy" tastes like maple syrup on pancakes. You can argue that it's just junk food if you wish. I'm not recruiting any converts to my opinions about this doctrine. I remain skeptical about those who feel the need to do so, both pro and con.

Anyways, brother, as always, I appreciate my exchanges with you.

Grace to you.

[awareness]

Mike:
>> I reissue the challenge. What did Lee bring us that was worthy of retention that could not be found elsewhere? <<

Mike the only ones that will be challenged by this question are the ones drinking morning Kool-Aid while attending at the HWMRs. And only because they live in a bubble created to keep them from any outside information and contacts.

All of real value in the LC can be found everywhere, and can be carried with anyone anywhere, which is God Himself. The LCers have been deceived into thinking they have a corner on God.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Mike:
>> I reissue the challenge. What did Lee bring us that was worthy of retention that could not be found elsewhere? <<

Mike the only ones that will be challenged by this question are the ones drinking morning Kool-Aid while attending at the HWMRs. And only because they live in a bubble created to keep them from any outside information and contacts.

All of real value in the LC can be found everywhere, and can be carried with anyone anywhere, which is God Himself. The LCers have been deceived into thinking they have a corner on God.

As usual, awareness arrives with the gift of brevity. (I am sure I could have done better than my earlier post with about 2 hr of heavy editing, but I just hit "submit" instead.)

I would rephrase Mike's question: What has any christian teacher brought us that was worthy of retention, which could not be found elsewhere?

For instance, look at the delineation of the human spirit from the soul. I never heard of such a thing, before being under Lee's tutelage in the LCs. Never heard that I had a human spirit. But in the LC's I was told "Exercise your spirit, brother!" and I yelled along with the rest.

Now, was this teaching exclusive to the LCs? No, I found it eventually in Erasmus (written in 1503, in "The Christian Soldier's Handbook"), and Origen (ca. 200 a.d.) in his expositions of Thessalonians 5 and Hebrews 4.

I liked Erasmus the best, simply because the man could write. (If anyone hasn't had the pleasure of going through Erasmus, I recommend his work highly. He could be snide, but I grant that scorn in the right hands is a formidable weapon, and Erasmus wielded his pen against the "powers" that could have ended his career, and even his life.)

But to whom can I solely ascribe "recovery" of the parts of man? Nobody. And I can't think of any teacher that alone, apart from the larger christian conversation, has revealed and illuminated some critical aspect of the Word.

Even Luther, who arguably "recovered" justification by faith, was not the first one since the Dark Ages descended to have this realization. He was merely thrust by an accident of history into the forefront of the recovery process. But it was still a group effort(Melanchthon, Calvin, etc), and it occurred over time. And Luther et al's dismissal of "Works" from the salvation scheme led to many attempted amendments, from the Anabaptists to Nee, to try to "get it right", so I even question how much of Luther is 'worthy of retention', as you say. Surely not every word of Luther can stand the test of history.

Lee was just another christian brother with just another part of the puzzle, like everyone else. And his insistance that his puzzle piece was the "topstone" of it all was simply an error needing correction, just like your errors and mine.

[OBW]

YP:

When I made the challenge, it was not to destroy or tear-down what we actually received of value wherever we were, even in the LC under the tutelage of Lee. It was to point to the more generality of those true things. I don’t think there is anything (or at most very little) of true significance within the LC body of teachings that is not taught and/or experienced broadly in Christianity, even if not with the special emphasis put on it by the LC.

And looking at the verse about beholding the Lord with an unveiled face is significant. But how do we actually behold and reflect on the glory of the Lord? It is through the things we do in contemplation, mediation, prayer, reading, etc. Maybe not every Christian has heard this verse expounded upon as linked to those activities, but so many of them are doing it without putting the two together. If they are actually beholding and reflecting, then they are being transformed even if they never heard a message on that passage.

That is one of the problems that I have with Lee and the LC. Just like the special lexicon, because they have a message or two that speaks about something so that they can talk about it more, they have something special through the knowledge that they try to deny to others who experience it without the special message(s) and terminology to go with it.

And when I mention 1 Cor 15:45, it is not to make Lee into a modalist. I think that is one of the stupidest things that the “never been in the LC” opposers do. But even if there is significance to the oneness of the trinity that is too often overlooked by much of Christianity, this verse is not saying anything about that. I would not “take away” the truth of the oneness of the Godhead. But just because this verse got mixed up in that discussion by Lee should not be seen as taking that fact away just because the verse gets correctly excluded. If what you received from this verse is actually true, then it must be also found in another place because this one does not say it. If you choose to hang your belief on this verse alone, then I truly see a troublesome position. (Of course, it is arguable that the way that Lee used this verse is willfully contrary to the very meaning of the Three in the trinity. That is problematic.) Still you should be able to find the Oneness of God in many places without needing this verse.

As for the God’s economy doctrine, I believe that God dispenses Himself into man. But that fact is not THE core teaching of the NT ministry that directs our understanding of all scripture. That is my point. That and the essentially fallacious way that Lee defined it and set it in place to be the yardstick for all teachings. Enjoy the fact that God has been dispensed into you (and the rest of us). But it is not a sound basis for the many things that Lee taught that were not actually in the verses he used. When Steve I kept moving from one basic teaching of Lee to another and mentioning God’s economy as the reason that the clear meaning of the scriptures was not the actual meaning, I cannot sit quietly by. How often do you hear people use proper legal terms in an incorrect way to imply something that is not right? The legal term is not the problem. It is the incorrect use that is the problem. God is dispensed into man. That fact is not the reason that much of James should be dismissed as not within the center of God’s NT economy.

Quit talking as if I am denying whatever truth is in the teaching of Lee. I am not. But I am denying the falsehoods that were created by the incorrect application of that truth.

Your arguments toward me are too often a form of equivocation. When you mention my disdain for Lee’s “Christ and the church” doctrines, you imply that I deny that there is anything about Christ and the church. There is much. But what Lee taught under that umbrella was local/universal unity under one ordained set of elders that were in the active fellowship with other such groups, specifically those with only “church in city” names, eventually even including only those that were aligned with the LSM and/or the church in Anaheim. That is not Christ and the church. That is the denomination of the Local Churches. Christ and the church is very real and is experienced regularly by so many assemblies of many different type all over the world. It is very real as they take on their Christian responsibilities, even praying for other such assemblies and for the spread of the gospel throughout the earth by all Christians. Those Christians band together outside those groups to do even more than the groups themselves do.

You can't call it Lee's "peculiar teaching" and also argue it's not his uniquely.

That dog won't hunt.

The challenge, should one be issued, really should be for a point by point expose, on YOUR part, demonstrating the non-uniqueness of Lee's teachings and their ultimate or, I suppose in some cases, alternate but superior, source.

He clearly has teachings that are uniquely his. But I am suggesting that those are not the ones that we want to keep. If there was anything positive about Lee (to me) it was in bringing the teachings from many different places together. But when Lee began to claim things as uniquely his (ignoring his boastful claims to have come up with teachings that were clearly taught by others he had read) I’m looking for any that were truly his and were worthy of keeping. There is no discrepancy in my statements.

As for the challenge, I issue it as a desire to actually find the truth. As I thing about the things that I have considered uniquely of Lee, I have not found them to remain in my arsenal of sound teachings. Of the many that I have kept (or that remained from pre-LC right on through to today) all could be found elsewhere. It will be useless to ask me to discuss them for you. It will just be an exercise in seeing what I already see, namely nothing new from Lee worthy of retention.

So I ask for those who might have considered something I did not to bring it forward. True. I will want to scrutinize it for what I would consider value and/or uniqueness. You are free to disagree with me about any such characterization. I have already conceded calling on the Lord, although somewhat limitedly. For me, the real thing behind it was an emphasis on regular contact so that there is real meaning to “pray without ceasing.” But I find that simply repeating three words often quite short in fulfilling that charge. Still, there is something to it.

Of course, that leads to a discussion of whether someone who should, at some point, be turned out from teaching is presumed to have always been such a person. I submit that this is a troublesome question to which I am not sure of the answer. But in any case, Jesus did warn the disciples not to stop those who were also casting out demons in Jesus’ name. Could it be that some of those, although aiding in the spread of the Word may be some of those who will come at the end and say “did we not cast out demons in your name?” yet be rejected (in whatever form that rejection takes).

You think that I already have an answer for everything. I do not. I might have an expectation. That could cloud my thoughts. But I suspect that everyone else does also. But if we never actually discuss it, what benefit is it to anyone? You seem to think that I am going to take away some important teaching. Is the teaching so important to you that it is not open for discussion? If so, then how can you ever be sure that it is actually sound. I am not trying to put it up against a committee of heathen, but against the standard of scripture. If what you cherish is worthy of such devotion, then it will stand the test. If not, then to continue to cling to it is to join Albert, Bilbo and the others in sticking their heads in the sand. I do not see you that way, and yet there seems to be something trying to take you to that position.

[OBW]

Aron:

I will begin with the question of what Billy Graham has added to the Christian discussion. The very question leads to the presumption that only new thought is important for the Christian. While each individual’s understanding and experience will progress from that of a spiritual child through essentially endless stages, there is technically nothing new in any of it except to the extent that it appears new to us as it becomes known to us. Even if we accept the state of things as described by Nee and Lee such that a “recovery” is required, recovery implies finding old, existing things and bringing them back to their rightful place.

So what does Billy Graham do for the Christian discussion? He is one of many who take the responsibility of getting those who are not even involved in the discussion to turn their thinking in that direction and start on this journey. Without the discussion that leads to conversion, there is no Christian discussion. Yes, we are all called in that way at some level. But some have different primary callings. It is hard to argue that he has not answered his calling well.

When you say that almost all ministers have some sort of error or misaiming, I would agree. And many of them will tell you that they know it of themselves. It is the ones that deny any such thing that bother me. So what do you do with a Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker (sp?), Robert Tilton, Jim Jones, Benny Hinn (sp?), etc? I am not simply drawing a parallel. Some of these we may point to as good, Godly men who let something take over. Others we may think had something flawed from the base. As far as I know, only two of this list are still teaching, with one never having had any kind of scandal, although there is much discussion about his theology. The question really is not whether some, or even a lot, of their teachings were good. If they start from within a sound Christian base, surely their teachings should not all be bad. But the question is what is driving them. What is fueling their march forward. For Lee, while the theological errors that related to his person and authority may not have come until the mid-80s. But what about the money and control issues?

Many churches survive the ouster of a beloved pastor who has appeared to faithfully lead for even decades but was found to have been carrying on in an affair with the church secretary or some other gross sin. The sin does not eliminate the good. But it should eliminate the position of the one who brought it.

I have stated that I vacillate between simply tearing down the LC and remodeling it. There are positives. They are mostly in the community of believers that is too often called upon to carry the members through storms like quarantines. There is a sound evangelical core of doctrine that is foundational to the group. That core is often ignored in favor of pray-reading HWMR, but it is there. If you ask the individual what they believe, it is usually quite sound as long as they don’t get into anything about ministers and apostles.

As for the notion that everything comes from multiple sources, I agree wholeheartedly. The inquiry is not to take away from an honorable man of God his contribution to the current understanding of scripture and Christian practice. It is to find whether there is something important and uniquely Lee’s that might suggest that somehow the charges laid at his feet that should have cost him his ministry should be overlooked and he continue to be considered some unique and super-spiritual person. After all, what is more important, the teaching or the teacher? If we are getting our teaching directly from God, it is the teacher. In all other cases, it is the teaching and the one of whom the teaching speaks — God.

[YP0534]

OBW:

I am nothing like those and everyone knows it. The comparison you attempt to draw is just wrong and frankly more than a little unfair. In actuality, and it's a point that I know you can't see, you are far more like those than I could ever be again. You've developed your own sort rigid doctrinal approach towards them that they apply to everybody else. And paying lipservice to Lee's good points is similarly unpersuasive. The challenge is a farsical rhetorical device that neither imparts nor persuades.

[awareness]

YP:
>> Lee brought me to the verse "We all with unveiled face beholding and reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory even as from the Lord Spirit." Good inner life stuff about transformation is what I got and I don't think this verse gets much airtime in general Christianity. <<

So Lee was great because he could point his finger? Doesn't take much to impress you YP....

It's a great verse tho. It's a picture verse, don't you think? And one thing that impresses me about Lee was his ability to paint pictures. His materials, or paint, was the Bible, and his canvas was the minds and imaginations of those that followed him.

Were his paintings unique? Of course. There's no two artists that paint alike. Were they good? Well yeah! They captured me!

The first picture that captured me was the Tripartite Man. What a neat picture. Wow! I could see how I was made. Koooool!

The second picture that bedazzled me was, God's Kindom. Wow! I could see how God was made, and how his kingdom works. Way Kooooooool!

There were lot's of Lee pictures that bedazzled me. The Building still sticks with me. I'm a stone in Gods' building. Wow! Way, way Koooooooool!

And y'll are stones too. Way, way, way koooool. Truth is, I run into living stones all over the place.

Lee's paintings were great. And Mike, they are something we can take away with us...and they are Lee's unique paintings, unlike any others. So there Mike, your challenge has been answered. Sorry if it disappoints you.

Well, I've walked way from Lee. He's long ago history to me, and I've encountered many great artists since, and been bedazzled by many paintings of the imagination.

And somehow I don't think y'all would really want to hear how I apply the pictures I took from Lee.

I'll give ya one hint : "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

But pictures are just pictures -- I'm an art collector of this genre -- and not the reality.

So, was Lee a Real-Life painter? Or were his pictures abstracts, of the possible way that it is? Or abstracts of the future, that weren't true to reality perchance?

Many such paintings are captivating. And Mike, Lee wasn't the only artist. So your challenge is back on.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by YP0534

...I was in college and a better-off brother paid my way or I would not have gone to any trainings in person. I took hospitality during the trainings instead of staying in a hotel, ....
Seems like maybe my enjoyment was extraordinary and the whole crazy system was one of religious obligation as much as anything...

YP,
The hospitality you and I and many, many other former LCrs and current LCrs was the crem-de-la-crem. That was my experience in the 70s. The saints were most gracious, very hospitable and to my knowledge, I have not experienced the 4 STAR hospitality you/I and others had.

The 'price' we paid was staying focused on Brother Lee and all his messages.

You also wrote in an earlier post to Mike:

Lee brought me to the verse "We all with unveiled face beholding and reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory even as from the Lord Spirit." Good inner life stuff about transformation is what I got and I don't think this verse gets much airtime in general Christianity. So, from Lee's teachings, I have some appreciation about having an unveiled heart, about beholding and reflecting glory, about transformation, and about the Lord Spirit.

I LOVE 2 Corinthians 3:18 !! I had no biblical upbringing so I credit all my solid spiritual food in San Diego. I still pray that scripture and many, many scriptures 'drilled' into us back in the day. Ephesians, Phillipians, Colossians, etc...you know the gambut of scriptures. In recent years, I've gathered a fresh and 'new' appreciation for all the scriptures we learned in the LC.

Most of the scriptures we learned are not emphasized much in most Christian circles. On the other hand, there are a LOT of other scriptures that were NEVER emphasized when I was in the LC and SHOULD HAVE!

Also. For some reason, I personally do not credit Brother Lee for teaching me the Word of God because he was not the 'elder' in my locality who taught us the Word and gave us the messages EVEN though I knew they came from Lee. We/I truly loved reading/praying the WORD of God with the saints. And for a long time, he wasn't the center of attention. JESUS was. CHRIST and the CHURCH were...When he came to the forefront for me, I did not indulge in tossing Brother Lee's name around, as most people did. In fact, I have stated many a time, when his name became more important than that of the Lord Jesus Christ HIMSELF, I had to leave the 'Lord's Recovery'. I still cringe when I hear people say 'Brother Lee' said this or that. I would NOT have a problem if they included other mighty people used by God in the same venue. But we all know, the LC/Lord's Recovery focused on Lee and to a smaller extent, Nee's teachings. I can't imagine anyone in the LC having the liberty with excitement to have gone to a Billy Graham crusade for example. Can you imagine anyone, standing up at an LC meeting and telling everyone how awesome the Billy Graham crusade was and how strong the PRESENCE of GOD was & how they got a chance to minister to the newly saved people ? You think the elders and saints would rejoice and 'AMEN' such an experience?

I often share many of the scriptures I/we learned in the LC with my Christian friends. Much of the WORD is truly rooted and grounded in mmy spirit and my cup indeed runneth over. I'm often told how anointed I am. Well I'm a CHRISTian aren't I? Is not CHRIST the ANOINTED ONE living in me? IN EACH OF US ? He is the One ANOINTING ME and ought to be anointing each and everyone here lurking and posting! Glory be to GOD !!!

The WORD of GOD is LIVING and OPERATIVE, Quick and Powerful Hebrews 4:12 tells us. And you know why the Word of God is Living and Operative? Because He is a LIVING, BREATHING PERSON in the Godhead named JESUS ! The WORD is not an 'it'.

And I LOVEEEEEEEEE HIM SOOOOOOO MUCH !! Every day...in fact, every hour, I taste........and see the LORD. AND OH. How HE IS GOOOOOD! He LOADS US with BENEFITS !

Psalm 68:19
Blessed be the Lord,
Who daily loads us with benefits,
The God of our salvation! Selah

[OBW]

Originally Posted by YP0534

OBW:

I am nothing like those and everyone knows it. The comparison you attempt to draw is just wrong and frankly more than a little unfair. In actuality, and it's a point that I know you can't see, you are far more like those than I could ever be again. You've developed your own sort rigid doctrinal approach towards them that they apply to everybody else. And paying lipservice to Lee's good points is similarly unpersuasive. The challenge is a farsical rhetorical device that neither imparts nor persuades.

I don't know exactly what you are referring to in that first sentence. If you think I am just trying to be coy or sly, you need to understand that what I am saying is as straight as it comes. If I give some ground, it is real. I have no desire to bait someone into a trap.

The problem is that you think I am being inflexible, but I am finding my understanding (about Lee, the LC and theology in general) changing a lot these days. Since you actually can't see what is going on very well, I will let your "point that I know you can't see" remark slide. I said much about certain teachings and positions. I suggested that being unwilling to reconsider might be a sign of being closed. I even indicated that I do not think of you as being unwilling to reconsider. I may have disagreed with where your "appointing elders may be wrong" kind of inquiry was going, but that inquiry says you are very open. So what if I disagree. In that thread I said that I simply wanted be make sure that my comments were understood, but that beyond that I did not try to shut it down.

Why do you seem to misread me to be talking about you in some negative way? Why do you think that actually discussing the source of Lee's good teachings and the validity of his original ones is so farcical? If you think there is something I am missing in one of the doctrines of Lee's that I miss or dismiss, don't just say I do it about some unstated point, tell me what it is. That is what I do for you. I don't require you to agree. I wasn't being snide when I told you to carry on with your "elders" thread.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

I don't know exactly what you are referring to in that first sentence.

Originally Posted by OBW

Is the teaching so important to you that it is not open for discussion? If so, then how can you ever be sure that it is actually sound. I am not trying to put it up against a committee of heathen, but against the standard of scripture. If what you cherish is worthy of such devotion, then it will stand the test. If not, then to continue to cling to it is to join Albert, Bilbo and the others in sticking their heads in the sand. I do not see you that way, and yet there seems to be something trying to take you to that position.

This is the part I was referring to.

Look, I'm even going to disagree with "calling" being a unique thing of Lee's. It's been practiced for centuries and referred to as "The Jesus Prayer":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Prayer

The thing is, your approach in your "challenge" is just all wrong and that's why it isn't achieving any fruitful discussions. To the extent that Lee ministered the truth of the Bible uniquely, we tend to just consider it what the Bible says, not what Lee uniquely taught. (Although, I think my previous verse citation gets close to something along those lines and you didn't really address it, I note, so I have to wonder aloud now about the sincerity of your motivation.) And to the extent that it's something that Lee uniquely taught and which doesn't have good foundation in the scriptures, well, it doesn't meet your criteria in the first place, does it?

A much better approach to what I think all our mutual concerns are is an approach akin to what Nigel is doing. Now, I've got my opinions about the way he's going about it but I honor his efforts and do believe he has insights to share.

Those who are still wowed by Lee aren't going to set up targets for you to shoot at, Mike. And those who aren't wowed by him aren't going to bother. You've basically got a null set of people who might respond to your "challenge." I fall into the latter group, personally. I knock them down myself when I come to them and I usually don't even pay it much mind. Oh, look, Lee was mistaken about something else. Curious how he got that wrong too. And then I move on. We should really be all about that - moving on - even those saints in the Local Church.

How about you direct a discussion of what you feel are harmful doctrines, telling how they are harmful and then offering some substantial ministry from the Bible to nourish us in a good direction?

Something like this, maybe?

The doctrine of "quarantine" as practiced by the Local Church is error. Lee invented this doctrine during a time of particular turmoil during the denomination's founding days and the doctrine has been further developed since then. The messages spoken in the Leviticus training were exceedingly dry and ministered very little Christ to the listeners. And the concept of "leprosy in a house" was improperly generalized to apply to the entire denomination when, in fact, it should have application, at a maximum, within an individual assembly. The instructions in Leviticus regarding any "quarantine" are that it should be for a limited time and with close supervision rather than a global cutting off and waiting for the cut off one to return in repentance with a burnt offering. It's both doctrinally incorrect and wrongly applied in practicality in the Local Church and it has led to much suffering among the saints everywhere. If someone becomes infected by a belief such as doubt in the divinity of Christ (I think you might know who I mean here) we should, in perfect love, consider preventing him from speaking concerning those things in the meeting so that he doesn't infect others with his issues. And we should do that by seeking to rehabilitate him under close supervision for a brief period of time with the goal of restoring him to full fellowship in the assembly. This is to protect the others as well as to help him. The cutting off version of this doctrine practiced by the Local Church has omitted important points that are there in Leviticus and the Local Church interpretation, initiated by Lee himself, must be rejected. We can no more cut off our brother or sister by "quarantine" than we can cut off our own hands. We are members of the Body and of each other. Disagreement over the "one publication" doctrine (another error) by no means could be grounds for such cutting off and to say that this is a proper "quarantine" manifests the errors of the denomination clearly to anyone with eyes anointed with the eye salve.

Something like that.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

I wasn't being snide when I told you to carry on with your "elders" thread.

I haven't gotten back to that thread for reasons wholly unrelated to your comments, there, Mike, and I harbor no ill feelings about it.

When I get back to it and have something to say, I will do so.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I haven't gotten back to that thread for reasons wholly unrelated to your comments, there, Mike, and I harbor no ill feelings about it.

When I get back to it and have something to say, I will do so.

I didn't presume that you would stop on my account. I was pointing out that I was not trying to simply stop you.

Your post just before the one I quote above is more meaningful that the one before that. My complaint in between was that you had made your complaints about my intentions and attacked me personally; "far more like those than I could ever be again" "developed your own sort rigid doctrinal approach" and "paying lip service." Even when I said something about you, it was really about what I did not believe to be you. And I meant it.

Now #59 is much more of a discussion. Here you say something about how you think that there will be no takers due to the lack of willingness of the few current LC members here to submit their notions for scrutiny. You may be right. But the thing that caused me to say it in the first place was that there has been a regular occurrence of comments by the ex LCers mentioning of vague things like the “riches of Lee's ministry” that they seem to think is unique. Maybe calling it a challenge is not the best thing.

But over the past almost four years I have begun to personally take each thing that remained in my doctrinal arsenal that was from Lee and not wholly consistent with what I could find elsewhere. One by one I either discovered that if it was valid, it was "available" outside the LC and I did not need to be in a quandary about whether it might not be made invalid due to the fact that I was finding my original source to have been bad (Lee).

On the other hand, I have not discovered his unique teachings to be so sturdy against scrutiny. Besides the much debated "ground of the church" I have questioned his basis for claiming that pray-reading as described in that booklet that we discussed about a year ago (no matter who wrote it, he had to approve it) was "the proper way to approach scripture" and even his application of 1 Cor 3, talking about gold silver, precious stones, etc., broadly to everyone when Paul was pointing it to the teachers that the Corinthians we aligning behind and not to the Corinthians themselves. There are others.

I will not pretend that every word that proceeded from Lee’s mouth was evil. He didn’t get a following by providing a diet of only leaven and chaff. There had to be some flour, even red meat, to put it all in. (And I will not presume that the things I consider error were intentionally put in knowing they were error. It could be true, but I will not assert it as a fact.)

Aron accurately pointed out that Lee was a master of metaphor. When he set out to draw a picture of some doctrine, he typically came up with pretty good examples. So the main question would be whether the doctrine being pictured was accurate. In some cases, he used great metaphors to create doctrines that were questionable and even not set out in scripture. But when he was demonstrating good doctrine, he did a good job with metaphor.

One that was mentioned was his description of the building. Even when in the LC, I found this one to be both good and bad. On the one hand, it provided a visual that made it seem so practical — bricks mortared together in a wall. But almost immediately there were brothers going around talking about figuring out who was mortared to their left, right, above and below. He may not have intended this kind of completeness of the metaphor, but since he often did take his metaphors to the nth degree, everyone else did too even when he did not. In this case, it became even more troublesome when people moved or left. You now have this picture of a rigid wall being torn apart and rebuilt. And there may be some truth to that. But if we instead take the general picture of having people we are connected to and omit the rigidity of a brick wall, it is a good metaphor.

But is a good metaphor the riches of a ministry? If it opens your eyes to actually live differently, then maybe so. If it merely gives a good picture or even feeling about something that is either true or not true with or without the metaphor, I’m not sure that it qualifies. I do not have a clear idea where to put this one.

BTW. As you can see, I did not cause Lee to be made into a mere charlatan here. For me, the question is whether there is something about his ministry that I am so unable to separate from Lee that I become unable to deal with his frailties and even see his error. How can I examine proper faith and belief in a framework that also provided error, and also extricate myself from an almost paralyzing subservience to the person who provided any ultimate riches rather than giving thanks to the God who actually provides any such riches? I will only do it if I actually examine those “riches” and accept them from God while winnowing away the chaff.

So you may be right. “Challenge” may not have been the best way to approach this, or the best way to term it even if the process is not changed. But in a way, every time we open up our beliefs to examine them, they are challenged. You could liken it to the trying by fire in 1 Cor 3, although doing a Berean-like analysis or saying “come, let us reason” is probably more accurate and inviting.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

One that was mentioned was his description of the building. Even when in the LC, I found this one to be both good and bad. On the one hand, it provided a visual that made it seem so practical — bricks mortared together in a wall. But almost immediately there were brothers going around talking about figuring out who was mortared to their left, right, above and below. He may not have intended this kind of completeness of the metaphor, but since he often did take his metaphors to the nth degree, everyone else did too even when he did not. In this case, it became even more troublesome when people moved or left. You now have this picture of a rigid wall being torn apart and rebuilt. And there may be some truth to that. But if we instead take the general picture of having people we are connected to and omit the rigidity of a brick wall, it is a good metaphor.

Well, not to "build" too much on that issue, but, just as an aside, God's house is made of stones, never bricks. And I think they're tightly fitted together rather than stuck with mortar.

But nevermind that for now.

Your general point here is excellent and something I've kind of talked about in different ways.

A lot of the problem with Lee's ministry is what was done with it and what it became in the minds and ministry of the subsequent denominational leadership.

Which is kind of what this thread is about, right?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

Even when I said something about you, it was really about what I did not believe to be you. And I meant it.

I find this statement quite confusing but I think I understand what you mean and I apologize if you took offense at my defensiveness.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by YP0534

A lot of the problem with Lee's ministry is what was done with it and what it became in the minds and ministry of the subsequent denominational leadership.
Which is kind of what this thread is about, right?

Actually a major part of my contention here is that the leadership (Blended brothers for the most part) have taught what Lee taught (after all that's what the One Publication is all about) and they have done what Lee did. Pretty much word for word and action for action.

From my opening post:
Here is what does not make a lot of sense to me. According to my observation, this men are speaking what Witness Lee spoke. In most cases word-for-word. They are administering the Living Stream Ministry in almost the exact same manner as Witness Lee administered it. They are taking the Movement in the same direction as Witness Lee took it, at least the same as Lee was taking it the last 10 years or so of his life.

Nobody has yet to come close to disprove or put any major holes in what I stated here. I'm not saying it's impossible, it's just that nobody has even bothered to take a shot. Hey, I think the whole "brothers wee" stuff is more then childish and even a bit bizarre, but ya got to admit that these characters have stuck to the program and have performed as promised.

[OBW]

I think that in one sense Unto is right, but in another YP is.

Yes, we have demonstrated over and over how the membership, with and without the leadership, takes Lee's teachings to extended heights. But even where things have been taken beyond where Lee did, both during his lifetime and since, the ways that position over the membership, and even lesser leadership has been exercised has been consistent with the ways that Lee developed and used.

I do not believe that everything that Lee did in this area was willfully erroneous or controlling. I think he honestly believed in the things he both taught and practiced. But honest belief does not make them all OK. I also believe that the things he did that were psychologically controlling were not from calculated study of such practices with a goal of capturing minds without their conscious consent. There are many tricks to argument that I have heard about that can be used to persuade but that disarm the listener with respect to their natural defenses and objections. Now the BBs, although not as charismatic, continue in the same way that Lee did.

But when it came to protecting his frailties from scrutiny, Lee was a different person. He would lash out at his detractors, or even at an insider whom he perceived as a threat. The late 80s purge, as well as the one in 78 when Max was ousted, were carried out in a most unrighteous manner. The BBs have also continued in the same ways, now ousting Titus since he would not toe the line and disappear into their plain vanilla group of We.

On the other hand, much of the current leadership always had its own agenda. I think Lee believed his theology, but had a mixture of the world that Paul would have said disqualified him from teaching. But much of the more extreme controlling of the churches seems to have been the work of his underlings, even during his lifetime. I’m not suggesting that Lee did not put many controls into place, but rather that the totality of what was seen at any particular point in time, especially from the mid-80s onward, was at least partly the work of others like Benson, Ray, Ron, etc. But in one sense, it was just more of the same — just like Lee. He may not have been as willful about it, and they may be seen as doing more, but it is mostly of the same variety.

Now it is true that the membership (meaning everyone that was not Lee) often took things to ridiculous extremes. But when these happened, I have a hard time believing that Lee did not know what was going on, at least eventually. In a few cases, he gave some word to correct wayward thought and action. But in so many he did not. Was he ignorant of the situation, or was this a silent consent? We do not know for sure. But I suspect that it was consent in many if not most cases. So when we went off the deep end and he did nothing, there is serious consideration that he was pleased that we were entrenching ourselves into his theology so strongly.

The BBs are the epitome of the next generation of followers that carry on the “great teacher’s” message at all costs. Lee’s words are now set in stone. The Lord not longer has more light and truth to break forth from his word. The BBs will never be as smooth and effortless in their ways as the “great one.” They are clearly different. But in terms of their practice and intent, They look like more of the same.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

On the other hand, much of the current leadership always had its own agenda.

We've heard as much repeatedly concerning Phillips.

But I consider it this way: most of those early joiners were in seminary at the time or at least were prime seminary material.

I think Lee probably believed that his ideology was so pure that it was not subject to corruption and manipulation into denominational formation. But although he lamented that religion was in all of our bones, he tended to exclude himself from that category and excused much of the religious behavior he personally observed in others. Religious Christianity, bad. Religious Local Church, not so bad.

Hogwash.

Just because you can't smell your own garlic room doesn't mean it doesn't exist, brothers.

We who have removed ourselves from your garlic room can testify that it smells quite strongly.

Originally Posted by OBW

Now it is true that the membership (meaning everyone that was not Lee) often took things to ridiculous extremes. But when these happened, I have a hard time believing that Lee did not know what was going on, at least eventually. In a few cases, he gave some word to correct wayward thought and action. But in so many he did not. Was he ignorant of the situation, or was this a silent consent? We do not know for sure.

Brother, I'd suggest to you that there is good evidence to believe that the information didn't pass upstream very well either in the Local Church.

We have the story about one of the Big Brothers being rebuked by Lee when Lee finally learned that ambitious one had been telling everyone that the only way to Witness Lee was through him.

I met Lee once, I believe, and shook his hand. I really don't remember for certain now, if you can believe that. I'm pretty sure of it though because of the circumstances of how I came in. Regardless, I spent a little bit of time on the periphery of those who were in the inner circle and there was definitely a tendency to never say anything negative to him and only bring him the positive news of successes. I personally observed some religious practices within the LSM operations that I truly believe Lee would have condemned had he been aware of them. And I'm convinced that some of Lee's most helpful comments will never make it into print because of the editorial process which filtered out parts that they didn't understand and, if Lee ever did review them before printing, which I seriously doubt, it was close enough that he didn't miss the omitted parts.

Now, I'll go back and agree with you that when Lee went full-bore "on the practical side" in the last decade of his life, he laid out a denominational foundation which could be carried forward and has been and which is being done fairly faithfully to that pattern. But the real shame of the current Local Church is how much of Lee's ministry they actually ignore in favor of the specific denominational program he designed and bequeathed to them.

So I have to decline to say that the Big Brothers are doing things just the same as Lee did in general because I think the evidence is there to say that they omit lots that Lee instructed in former days, and to their own detriment. But also, Lee himself is the primary source of the errors which have led them to lay aside much of his earlier ministry.

It's not so clean to say that they are different or the same because they are both.

They carry on his latter instructions to the nullification of some of his earlier and more important teachings.

I have to go back to Ohio's early vs. late analysis and I make the dividing point in Feb. 1986, although it was a slow decline from there over several years and I don't think it was ever truly complete before his death, and the seeds existed long before. But from what I've seen, very little of his last messages conveyed the living Christ but only sought to establish a practical denominational religious pattern for people to follow. HWMR and the "Seven Feasts" may not be so terribly harmful in the abstract but they are fully in the nature of an outward religious form, regardless of the supposedly high truth of the content.

I found this new "contending" site interesting because, going back to the Elders' Training books from 1986, they have now picked up his word there concerning fasting and prayer which has apparently been mostly neglected in the ensuing years. Makes me wonder what else is in those books that they will decide to incorporate into their denominational practice.

But I submit it is no coincidence that they go back to those books for what to do now for that is precisely where Lee began to set forth clearly his denominational vision, AKA the way to practice having the "Universal Church" according to his opinion.

[OBW]

Sorry, wrong thread.

[awareness]

YP:
>> Brother, I'd suggest to you that there is good evidence to believe that the information didn't pass upstream very well either in the Local Church. <<

Well that sure wasn't the case in Cleveland back in the early 1970s. Back then saints were bringing all kinds of instruments to the meetings. Bongos and tambourines came in, and when we had the Lord's Table everything broke loose.

Someone went up and turned the table upside down. And shouts of no religion rose up in the meeting. With all the insturments, the meeting went to rock'n. And everyone, to show we weren't religious, got up and started a train. Then the music was rock'n, and the train was going around and around the meeting hall, and the bread and wine was being passed around, and sloshed around as it was passed. It was great, I thought. So different from Christianity's religious Lord's tables.

It was a great meeting. And everyone, including the elders, enjoyed themselves, and the Lord, with great enthusiasm.

It was so outstanding that the news of the meeting went to Lee. And in the next meeting Lee's shoe dropped. We were told that Lee ordered that all instruments, besides the piano and guitars, were no longer allowed. And that we were never to have such a Lord's table again.

The Pope had spoken......

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by YP0534

But the real shame of the current Local Church is how much of Lee's ministry they actually ignore in favor of the specific denominational program he designed and bequeathed to them.

They carry on his latter instructions to the nullification of some of his earlier and more important teachings.

As I have watched videos of brother Witness Lee's speaking, I realize there is a difference between Witness Lee's ministry and Living Stream Ministry as the publisher of his speaking.
There are portions of his speaking that never made it to print. These portions aren't see-stories, but burdened speaking of Witness Lee. One example was Witness Lee's speaking on visiting & shepherding the saints. Is it too much to administer?
Brother Lee's report of acting wrongly in the past. Why omit this portion? Is it because it dispels the image of brother Lee as being infallible? Not only that, brother Lee's speaking of feeling sorry indicates he also includes Christians meeting in denominations as part of the body of Christ.

Terry

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well that sure wasn't the case in Cleveland back in the early 1970s.

...

It was a great meeting. And everyone, including the elders, enjoyed themselves, and the Lord, with great enthusiasm.

It was so outstanding that the news of the meeting went to Lee.

Well, firstly, note that the message bearers THOUGHT that they were bearing victorious news. (And I'd say they were but there could be differences of opinion on this point, I think.)

Secondly, reactions such as Lee had on this occasion reshaped how they thought about what was good and what wasn't. AND it reinforced the notion that only the best victories, rightly understood, should be reported to him.


Sorry to learn of that alleged action of Lee's. I'm thinking it likely his listeners may have overreacted to his criticisms (which were admittedly unwarranted in themselves), but of course, we'll never know that for certain. But I suspect he, in a gentle way, said something like, Brothers? We'd better be careful not to get too wild in the table meetings, which should be a somber time before the Father. Wrong but not so bad. Then when the hearers reinterpreted it, it came out as a word of rebuke.

Actually, their table meetings, to my observation, were one very open and obvious item that no element of "recovery" could be found in. The religiousness of the conduct of those meetings was unmistakable from day one in my contact with them.

Sounds like Cleveland may have been close to getting there at one point and got shut down.

Pitiful.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Terry

As I have watched videos of brother Witness Lee's speaking, I realize there is a difference between Witness Lee's ministry and Living Stream Ministry as the publisher of his speaking.

Of course you have. I have as well. It was one of the things that got me in trouble in my locality in the late 80s and got me the boot. I dared to suggest that the printed ministry wasn't 100% faithful to what Lee had spoken. It was about 95% right but the missing percentage was frequently the top portion. And the only conclusion I could reach about it was that the editors just couldn't understand it so they left it out.

And I made the mistake at the time of bringing my concerns to an elder. I had NO IDEA about what was going on in "The Ministry Office" nor who Ron Kangas was. But I was expressly told in response to my demonstrable concerns, "There's no conspiracy working at LSM."

Well, that's just wrong.

The entire universe is involved in a conspiracy against the work of our God. And even though there may not be a conscious effort among those brothers to work towards some goal other than Christ, the fallen nature that they share does all the coordination necessary.

I'm aware that they could level the same accusation against those of us who are here and I seek the Lord's mercy to protect me from that sort of participation in the enemy's schemes.

But like I said, Lee implicitly believed that his vision and explanations about "Universal Church" were so pure as to be immune to the derailing effects of the sinful nature. And those around him no doubt picked up that very same conceit: "We are laboring here to uniquely build God's temple all around the earth. How could we end up with a tower of Babel?" How? Because the sin in you is interested in the tower, not the temple.

This realization is partly why I'm so keen on my issue about "Universal Church." To my observation, every such "vision" will build something different from the Body of Christ. The Body builds itself. The only "vision" required is that all the believers around you are the assembly in that place. Some may meet on sectarian grounds, which is admittedly not optimal but probably not as horrible as the Local Church says, and some may meet simply as believers in that place, which is all that should be of concern or interest as far as that doctrine goes. Connecting those believers up with a global organization is unnecessary, at least, and very likely it would derail them from proper building with all the believers.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

The entire universe is involved in a conspiracy against the work of our God. And even though there may not be a conscious effort among those brothers to work towards some goal other than Christ, the fallen nature that they share does all the coordination necessary.

And the religious ones are the worst. Jesus said to the scribes and pharisees, "The sinners and harlots are going into the kingdom before you." (Matt. 21:31)

Originally Posted by YP0534

I'm aware that they could level the same accusation against those of us who are here and I seek the Lord's mercy to protect me from that sort of participation in the enemy's schemes.

A preservation is to not "coordinate" one's efforts with others, besides merely to say "amen" when you sense God flowing. That's all the coordination God needs. When we receive one another as God received us in Christ Jesus, God can do a great work. So just receive the person next to you, as were he/she the very Christ. (Rom. 15:7) Anything more is tower-building.

Originally Posted by YP0534

But like I said, Lee implicitly believed that his vision and explanations about "Universal Church" were so pure as to be immune to the derailing effects of the sinful nature. And those around him no doubt picked up that very same conceit: "We are laboring here to uniquely build God's temple all around the earth. How could we end up with a tower of Babel?" How? Because the sin in you is interested in the tower, not the temple..

Too true. Look at the great poem by Alexander Pope, An essay on Man, Epistle 1. On "sinful man aspiring to the place of God."

121 Snatch from his hand the balance and the rod,
122 Rejudge his justice, be the God of God.
123 In pride, in reas'ning pride, our error lies;
124 All quit their sphere, and rush into the skies

Originally Posted by YP0534

This realization is partly why I'm so keen on my issue about "Universal Church." To my observation, every such "vision" will build something different from the Body of Christ. The Body builds itself. The only "vision" required is that all the believers around you are the assembly in that place. ... Connecting ... believers up with a global organization is unnecessary, at least, and very likely it would derail them from proper building with all the believers.

Amen. Be local.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

A preservation is to not "coordinate" one's efforts with others, besides merely to say "amen" when you sense God flowing. That's all the coordination God needs. When we receive one another as God received us in Christ Jesus, God can do a great work. So just receive the person next to you, as were he/she the very Christ. (Rom. 15:7) Anything more is tower-building.

I'm really captured by this idea of the tower vs. the temple, aron.

Part of it came to mind the other day with the mentioning of bricks vs. stones.

I'm thinking that this image precisely captures what has gone wrong.

Lee and his assistant chiefs, with full confidence in the ultimate scripturalness of their doctrines, considered that their conception of "Universal Church" was indeed the "One True Church" that everyone else should get into or fall short.

Accusations that they exclude other believers from their definitions aside (because that would differ from their historic stance as articulated by Lee and because I have no first-hand knowledge of that), they have proudly believed that the riches of "The Ministry" have provided them with all that they need to pursue the goal which they are clear is God's own true heart's desire for His counterpart and His eternal dwelling place. The problem is that the doctrines and the forms have now demonstrably displaced the reality of what was supposed to be happening there among them and instead of their labors being given to building something that might permissibly be called "Universal Church" they have turned aside to typical denominational tactics for maintaining order and distinctiveness and thusly build another Tower of Bable. And they really don't see it.

The somber words of the Whistler conference provide a new point of demarcation in the denomination's development. Formally founded in February 1986 by all the local leadership pledging allegiance to a "universal" leader other than Christ himself, Whistler reflects the decision among them that it was time to get organized, that rather than maintaining strained relations and working towards denominational unity the better answer was to cut their losses and hope opposition to their formal organizational efforts didn't spread further.

Considering Lee's excision of longtime and trusted companions in the late 80s as the laying of the foundation and his subsequent "New Way" efforts as laying out the blue prints, the Big Brothers now are building that tower which Lee had long envisioned (and perhaps actually shared with Nee) and are calling it the temple, even as Lee (and perhaps Nee) would. They implicitly and blindly trust that the excellence of their doctrines alone necessitates that they cannot be exercising mere human effort but are only working out the operation of the divine grace. That is not a wholly unreasonable supposition, as it makes a certain kind of sense, but it is now manifestly incorrect and the overcomers in Laodicea must repent and realize that Laodicea will remain until the end.

The efforts to build there are resulting in the tower rather than the temple.

The Lord is sovereign and this is as it must be but we must continue to encourage the saints to open the door to His knocking.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Part of it came to mind the other day with the mentioning of bricks vs. stones.

Originally Posted by YP0534

Well, not to "build" too much on that issue, but, just as an aside, God's house is made of stones, never bricks. And I think they're tightly fitted together rather than stuck with mortar.

Originally Posted by aron

A preservation is to not "coordinate" one's efforts with others, besides merely to say "amen" when you sense God flowing. That's all the coordination God needs. When we receive one another as God received us in Christ Jesus, God can do a great work. So just receive the person next to you, as were he/she the very Christ. (Rom. 15:7) Anything more is tower-building.

This is not actually any kind of complaint or response specifically to YP, however, since it does spring from a conversation that he, I and aron have been morphing through, I will write it as if to him. (It makes the wording a little easier since I will be responding to things that he said.)

When you wrote the first line above, I know that you were referring back to my mention of some confusion about what constituted building together and to your original comment on that in the second quote above. Understand that I agree with where your discussion is going, so don’t take this as an attack on any position. Aron’s quote is a most worthy consideration.

My concern is that in analyzing the points, was there ever an actual “bricks v stones” issue or is this a carryover from Lee’s ways of milking every metaphor for its full impact, applying outlying points which are actually meaningless to the purpose of the metaphor and causing them to become just as central.

When I mentioned the historical events, I was not concerned with the nature of the building material or what was used to put them together. While it is possible to get into a discussion of natural v created building materials, and that could be interesting since there might be some who think that the materials being built in are new creations in Christ and not just the natural man, the point was over-analyzing the details instead of understanding a general picture. Whether mortared-in or simply carefully fit together, if one is removed, there is a problem with the wall and there might be a need to take out a significant portion and redo it. It would seem that the intent of the metaphor is to suggest that there is a connection, not to draw some complete analysis of walls, their materials, the methods of building them up and ways to repair damaged walls.

Maybe it is as simple as aron’s comment. The picture of a wall or other strong structure built of stones (or bricks) with or without any kind of mortar provides a picture of something of substance and permanence. But it is not the only view of the building, so getting into the details of how a wall is built might be beyond the value of the metaphor. And getting into a discussion of bricks v stones is to analyze the nature of the materials — the Christians.

At some level, I find the discussion of bricks v stones interesting, and as I mentioned above, if we need to make the building metaphor into a complete picture in which every element of the metaphor is relevant, there might be some reason to reassess which should be used. But most often, when someone uses a metaphor, it is for the primary picture it provides. And since the metaphor is not the actual thing being discussed, it is understood as being incomplete in its description and probably inaccurate if overanalyzed. So when someone talks about a stone (or brick) wall, and the effects of that image in an environment in which the components — real humans who change, move away, etc. — the way the metaphor is extended as if it is a complete picture is the problem, not whether mortar is included, or the primary material is bricks or stones. So when a metaphor is suggested, be careful to stick to the purpose of the metaphor and to refrain from overanalyzing it. We are, at some level, like stones built into a wall. But it would seem that extending it to knowing who are the stones (or bricks) around you is not mentioned, or what happens when a stone moves away... Yep, the metaphor is straining to cover everything when it was only intended to make a specific statement about some aspect of the connection of Christians in an assembly.

Now, having said all of that, even if discussing stones v bricks is not meaningful to the discussion I was having, it is a meaningful discussion. Further, I admit that there are often reasons, even suggested by what might be seen as side issues, to take a rabbit trail. Those rabbit trails may ultimately be worth more than the original discussion. Just don’t pretend that it is a response to the original discussion. Keep the primary discussion on track, or admit that you are going somewhere else. Otherwise it can seem as if discussing "B" is being given as an answer to the discussion of "A."

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

And getting into a discussion of bricks v stones is to analyze the nature of the materials — the Christians.

I disagree.

All the Christians are living stones being built up in a house not made with hands. There simply are no bricks. That was my only point on the very small side issue.

What I recalled followingly was that the Tower of Babel was built of bricks, representing human effort and all the Christians are the stones to be built together with Christ as the corner stone to become the temple.

It wasn't an effort on my part to extend your analogy further than intended or to miss your larger point but just a comment about my appreciation of the Biblical references to those two materials. I completely agree with your description of the wall and only sought to support it further with an additional aspect you may not have considered.

I once compared the assemblies to McDonald's restaurants on these pages. I'm well aware of the limitations of this sort of speaking and truly intended no offense.

I apologize if I was out of line with my comment.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I disagree.

All the Christians are living stones being built up in a house not made with hands. There simply are no bricks. That was my only point on the very small side issue.

What I recalled followingly was that the Tower of Babel was built of bricks, representing human effort and all the Christians are the stones to be built together with Christ as the corner stone to become the temple.

It wasn't an effort on my part to extend your analogy further than intended or to miss your larger point but just a comment about my appreciation of the Biblical references to those two materials. I completely agree with your description of the wall and only sought to support it further with an additional aspect you may not have considered.

I once compared the assemblies to McDonald's restaurants on these pages. I'm well aware of the limitations of this sort of speaking and truly intended no offense.

I apologize if I was out of line with my comment.

No apology necessary. In the context of that particular verse, you are correct.

I wasn't really saying anything negative about the particular chain of discussion here. I was just pointing to the tendency to over-analyze metaphors — a tendency that was at least strengthened by our time in the LC where metaphors were often built into something more precise than the verse(s) they was intended to explain. If I gave any notion that I was saying anything about where the current discussion has gone or what you meant, I apologize. I tried to make it clear from the start that this was more of an aside about metaphors and not about any actual discussion currently in play.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

All the Christians are living stones being built up in a house not made with hands.
... the Tower of Babel was built of bricks, representing human effort and all the Christians are the stones to be built together with Christ as the corner stone to become the temple.

Recall, if you will, Peter and John, arriving to the temple at the ninth-hour prayer (Acts ch. 3). They saw a man who'd been lame from birth, who was carried to the door of the temple each day, and who lay there all day asking for alms.

Now, I ask you, was it human effort or marvelous divine revelation that caused Peter to speak so strongly with him, then to grab him by the hand and haul him to his feet? This man was a pathetic creature, the lowest of the low, the bottom of the barrel. Why bother with such dregs of humanity?

Because Jesus did, so did Peter. Now, look at the result. "All the people ran together toward them on the portico called Solomon's greatly amazed." (v.11). The gospel immediately got flowed out to many, with great power.

Now, look at human effort. "Go get the good material", is the current mantra. You know, educated college students. Especially the middle class Caucasian Americans. Get the best, right? Forget the widows, the orphans, the dregs. Get the good material. Notice any difference in m.o. between the human attentions and the divine stream?

The stone that smashes the idol in Daniel 2:45 is "cut without human hands"; eventually it becomes a great mountain that fills the earth. Contrast this to the tower of Babel, which has human hands all over it.

Follow the stream, brothers; "hands off" the Body of Christ.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Now, I ask you, was it human effort or marvelous divine revelation that caused Peter to speak so strongly with him, then to grab him by the hand and haul him to his feet?

To which some might rightly retort, "Okay, loudmouth, when's the last time you hauled a lame man to his feet? You who are so quick to criticize the labors of the faithful, what have you done of note lately. Stop hiding behind Peter!"

Point well taken. I myself have neither been the instrument of divine healing, nor have I spoken before thousands. However, my orientation is less these days on "doing" something, and more on "being" something, and that is a person who sees what Jesus saw. Jesus saw the dregs, the offscouring. He didn't focus on the "good material" for some organization purported to represent God on earth. No, He wasted His time with the Samaritan woman. When they got back from their shopping trip, the disciples were curious, Why is He talking with her? But modesty prevented them from challenging the Master. Eventually some of them got it, it seems.

We are just rats in a maze, sniffing for the next piece of cheese. This is how we follow the spirit. Don't pretend to have a "God's eye view" of everything. If you do, you'll try to build a tower, high and mighty, to sit beside God and survey all of creation, both new and old.

No, leave that to the impertinent angels and the religion-builders. Just be nice to the person next to you. And if you are faithful, one day the Spirit will arrive, like a mighty rushing wind, and will pour out of you, and into that neighbor of yours, and then spill over from them to the next person, and so on. I'd counsel, just try to "dispense" (I know, I know, but hey?) the Spirit into the earthen vessel next to you.

Lee & the Big Brothers are just like you & me. They are merely rats in a maze, trying to get through another day, trying to make it to the next sunrise. Do you really think "Daystar" was part of the Universal Plan? No, it was just an idea to raise some money. Eventually, this led to selling the "Universal View of God's Administration", which became a cash cow.

So anyway, I'm no different. I'm just a blind rat in a maze, hunkered down and sniffing. But I don't pretend to see. Only God can see. And God can show me the "Christ" waiting for me, in the person next to me. To those who deign to look beyond, to the "Grand Universal Blue-Print", I say, "It's in the person next to you."

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

However, my orientation is less these days on "doing" something, and more on "being" something, and that is a person who sees what Jesus saw. Jesus saw the dregs, the offscouring. He didn't focus on the "good material" for some organization purported to represent God on earth. No, He wasted His time with the Samaritan woman.

we've got to be able to see the assembly, that is, you and me and the other guy right here, as the sum total focus of whatever "universal vision" we might have

or to paraphrase what someone said recently

Amen. Be where you are.