More Clarity About www.afaithfulword.org

[Cal]

In 2006, in response to threats to its power base in the Local Church movement founded by the deceased Christian leader Witness Lee, The Living Stream Ministry, via their public-relations arm DCP, published the website www.afaithfulword.org. This website, which is still online, contains publications intended to discredit and defame anyone who took exception to LSM’s claim of sole authority to issue publications, authoritative or otherwise, for the movement.

This website should be required reading for any Christian seeking to understand how Christian movements go wrong and why it is so hard for those inside the movement to see the errors. It is a classic example of how to use equivocation to deceive oneself and others.


Equivocation

This essential error of equivocation--the confusion of one thing for another (whether intentionally or mistakenly) leading to false conclusions--is one the movement commits over and over. Examples include but are not limited to:

• Confusing Witness Lee’s ministry with the word of God and the leading of God.
• Confusing their movement with the Church and God’s purpose.
• Confusing the defense of their brand with the defense of God's move.
• Using the multiple meanings of “the Lord’s recovery” to further all the above confusion.

Here is a quote from the home page:

Finally, all the churches and saints everywhere must understand that the matter of one publication is not a matter of the common faith but something related to the one ministry in the Lord's recovery. The ministry is the sounding of the trumpet among us in the Lord's recovery, and there should be no uncertain sounding of this trumpet, as Brother Lee has mentioned on a number of occasions.

Note the mention above of "the Lord's recovery," the movement's term for itself, as if it were a thing of central resonance to God. “The Lord’s recovery”--the idea of God's specific working in end times to "recover the genuine church" embodied in unique movements--is neither defined nor even mentioned in the Bible. The LC movement tries to get some distance from the image of the woman giving birth to the man-child in Revelation 12 and other vague typology, but to base such a game-changing concept on such threadbare biblical evidence is folly in the first degree.

If you examine LSM’s thinking expressed in these writings, you see again and again that they imbue their movement with the same and sole authority as not only God’s Church, but also God’s very purpose. To them, to be in their movement is to be in God's Church and purpose, to be out is to be out of God's Church and purpose. But being in a movement has nothing to do with either!

Essentially the movement's error is to hijack the general characteristics of the Church and God’s purpose and make them the specific characteristics of them and them alone. This is an example of the work of equivocation.

To call this a catastrophic error is an understatement. LSM so glibly and matter-of-factly talks about “the Lord’s recovery” as if it were a real thing, an entity with the centrality of the Church itself, that they deceive not only themselves but also thousands of followers. This is an error squared. It is an error to believe there is such a thing as the Lord’s recovery embodied in one movement, and it is a further error to believe that they are it.

In reality, “the Lord’s recovery” is nothing more than what the movement started by Witness Lee calls itself. So when LSM calls for one publication in the Lord’s recovery (with requisite high-sounding appeals to “one trumpet sound”) it is actually saying nothing more than “we’re in charge of this brand and of how this brand publicizes itself.” But they want readers to think they are saying much more. They may well have rights to the brand, though even that is debatable. But even if they did, it wouldn't give them rights to any spiritual realities. Again, note the confusion in their minds expressed in equivocation.

All of the LC movement’s errors and the resilience of those errors spring from this primary error—of believing their subset of the Church is the unique representative of the whole Church and God’s purpose. In other words, of mistaking one thing for another.

To follow and understand the thinking and errors of this movement, especially those on www.afaithfulword.org, simply do the following: Whenever they say “the Lord’s recovery,” replace those words in your mind with “our movement,” remembering that in their minds they believe it to be much more than that, even though they have no rational biblical or spiritual ground on which to base that belief.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

To call this a catastrophic error is an understatement. LSM so glibly and matter-of-factly talks about “the Lord’s recovery” as if it were a real thing, an entity with the centrality of the Church itself, that they deceive not only themselves but also thousands of followers. This is an error squared. It is an error to believe there is such a thing as the Lord’s recovery embodied in one movement, and it is a further error to believe that they are it.

All of the LC movement’s errors and the resilience of those errors spring from this primary error—of believing their subset of the Church is the unique representative of the whole Church and God’s purpose.

For the sake of debate, let's examine "what if". What if one time four decades ago, "the recovery" was one movement God moved through (as in revival)?
Now God may be moving in a complete different direction. However LSM may see their organization being "organically" tied to wherever God is moving. Whatever new move or flow (current terminology is burden) is raised by LSM co-workers, that is also the Spirit's move. All the while setting aside 1 Corinthians 12 and re-defining what the Body is. You're a Christian living in Dallas, Austin, Houston, etc. If you're not meeting with the Church in ____, guess what you're not practically part of the Body.
What if Living Stream Ministry is simply one of many ministries God has used or is using?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Terry

For the sake of debate, let's examine "what if". What if one time four decades ago, "the recovery" was one movement God moved through (as in revival)?

Terry, I don't think there is any doubt that is true. And I'm sure that God is still using the LCs.

But their error is thinking they were/are his main move, let alone his only move. That is such a destructive delusion that it threatens to bring the movement's contribution to a net negative.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Terry, I don't think there is any doubt that is true. And I'm sure that God is still using the LCs.

But their error is thinking they were/are his main move, let alone his only move.

Yes. There are many ministries active in bringing the gospel to every part of the earth.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

For the sake of debate, let's examine "what if". What if one time four decades ago, "the recovery" was one movement God moved through (as in revival)?

Without getting into the possibility that God was never more than simply using whatever mess we got ourselves into (as in God works all things together for our good), I would say that you have misstated the issue.

I think that the idea that we should look to movements that God "moves through" is to miss that he is also still moving through the rest. There is no real change on God's part. The change is in the people that he is trying to reach. In the 60s and 70s, there was a growing sense among some that a more personal spiritual aspect was being overlooked. And inner-life teachers who had been around for a while but sort of unseen popped-up with something to answer that. At some level, I can agree that Nee, and early Lee (as far as we were able to discern at the time) were small players in that. Nee was essentially dead — or at least unaccessible other than in writings. Lee, on the other hand, was quite available. And he found some who liked his twist on the inner-life message. And he listened to the needs of his new followers and fed them at least a little of what they needed.

What I'm not going to manage to say in few enough words is that the LRC was never something that God necessarily moved through specially. Rather, it was something that may have been a more acceptable alternative at one time in the smörgåsbord of offerings for the people of God. I don't think that there was ever some special place in God's heart for it — at least not any more than for any other gathering of believers. That God used it for us is not a badge of honor for the LRC. It is evidence that God can use anything. Even some who wandered through the Moonies, or some kind of occult thing.

The point is not that God was using the LRC. It is that God uses our circumstances, whatever they may be. Including the LRC. I think that we are too often still caught in the mindset we learned from the LRC that God is specially using some and not others. Instead, God is using it all — even things that are otherwise not really about church or God. He uses it all.

And we give thanks to God. Not for the things, but to/for God who uses the things. Something that Obi Wan said to Luke (in episode VI, I believe) was that sometimes it is a matter of perspective. We were taught to use a perspective that there is God's use and Satan's use. I do not deny that Satan uses things. But God uses it all. That is a different perspective than the one we learned from the LRC. But it is the one that the Bible teaches.

Originally Posted by Terry

For the sake of debate, let's examine "what if". What if one time four decades ago, "the recovery" was one movement God moved through (as in revival)?
Now God may be moving in a complete different direction. However LSM may see their organization being "organically" tied to wherever God is moving. Whatever new move or flow (current terminology is burden) is raised by LSM co-workers, that is also the Spirit's move. All the while setting aside 1 Corinthians 12 and re-defining what the Body is. You're a Christian living in Dallas, Austin, Houston, etc. If you're not meeting with the Church in ____, guess what you're not practically part of the Body.
What if Living Stream Ministry is simply one of many ministries God has used or is using?

I think this cuts to the heart of the error of the LSM. I agree, let's suppose that the Lord did work through the "recovery" at one point. Let's also suppose that the Lord used the LSM to publish books, videos and music that helped minister to the saints. I am willing to agree to both of these hypotheticals and still conclude that there will be a severe judgement on the LSM.

1. A false prophet is judged not by what "percent" of truth they speak, just like a counterfeit bill is not judged by what percent of the rendition is accurate. If the prophet is found to speak falsehood knowingly once, then they are a false prophet. The story WL told about WN being excommunicated, was it
a. That WN was accused of living with a woman (who was his mother but he kept that to himself)
b. or was it that WN went back to work to support the ministry
C. or was it what is currently being put out by the LSM, that WN challenged the church for letting a denominational brother baptize saints, so out of jealous rebellion the elders excommunicated WN.

Surely WL, having been there, knew what the actual story was. If he has concocted a false story then he is a false prophet. Condemning WL condemns LSM.

2. The fermentation of the present rebellion, published by the LSM. Is there any chance that they could publish this and not be aware that it was false and misleading? If not, they are false prophets.

[OBW]

FriendofGod,

I think you are on the right track here. There are two possibilities concerning Lee. He was a righteous man, even if he had some mistaken doctrines. Or he was an unrighteous man, even if he had some good doctrines. There are arguments that acknowledge that none of us are righteous. So this is not the end of the inquiry.

But as a teacher and self-declared lead minister of the move that he claims is God's heart, he cannot also be an unrighteous man in the manner that he clearly was in the writing of that slanderous rag "Fermentation." And if he is using a willful lie concerning the excommunication of Nee to further his own ministry, then it would also be evidence of his unfitness for teaching. We just cannot be so certain about this last part. But I cannot see a way out for him with the first one.

And for that reason, I must reject him as a teacher. Not as a Christian. And not as a brother. But as a teacher. He is not qualified.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by FriendofGod

Surely WL, having been there, knew what the actual story was. If he has concocted a false story then he is a false prophet. Condemning WL condemns LSM.
The fermentation of the present rebellion, published by the LSM. Is there any chance that they could publish this and not be aware that it was false and misleading? If not, they are false prophets.

First of all, Witness Lee was NOT there, he was in another city far away. He only came in after the fact and vigorously defended Nee. By this I am not saying that Nee was guilty as charged in this instance, only that Witness Lee was not there, only he defended Nee on the basis of what he knew about him. I actually respect Lee for this. There is nothing wrong with defending a friend and mentor.

Your second "question" is obviously rhetorical. Your only misstatement is using the word "they". The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion was a %100 percent Witness Lee production. The other "characters" in this charade and farce were merely actors - the whole thing was written and produced by Lee. Anybody who thinks that anything the "accusers" in that kangaroo court said was not hand fed to them by Lee is in la la land. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Lee actually had them rehearse their "testimonies" in front of him ahead of time, making sure that everything matched up.

Originally Posted by OBW

And for that reason, I must reject him as a teacher. Not as a Christian. And not as a brother. But as a teacher. He is not qualified.

This is the bottom line. This is what must be considered after all the dust settles. This man claimed that he was the ONLY PERSON ON EARTH speaking as God's oracle. Was he? No, he was not. This fact alone puts him in the category of false teacher-false apostle-false prophet. This man was not qualified to be an elder in a single local church, much less the undisputed leader/chief theologian of an entire Christian movement.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by FriendofGod

2. The fermentation of the present rebellion, published by the LSM. Is there any chance that they could publish this and not be aware that it was false and misleading? If not, they are false prophets.

I believe there are brothers who knew this publication was misleading, but chose to go along with it and there are brothers who only had this publication to go by.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Lee actually had them rehearse their "testimonies" in front of him ahead of time, making sure that everything matched up.

Wow UntoHim, based on eyewitness testimony this is exactly what happened at Whistler when Titus Chu, Nigel Tomes, etc were quarantined. Only difference is reinsert Lee with Blended brother _______ and Blended brother _______ .

[UntoHim]

Exactly my brother Terry! Who do you think these brothers learned this from? The ironic thing is that our brother Titus found out the hard way what it is like to be on the other end of the shotgun barrel I am not saying that Titus deserved this "treatment"....only that maybe he has a little better perspective, shall we say, on what happened to John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon et al!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion was a %100 percent Witness Lee production. The other "characters" in this charade and farce were merely actors - the whole thing was written and produced by Lee. Anybody who thinks that anything the "accusers" in that kangaroo court said was not hand fed to them by Lee is in la la land.

Not to disagree with you substantially, but this portrayal of events, at least to me, is too perfect.

Kind of like the opening of a spy thriller where the audience is intensely watching numerous unrelated events to eventually determine the underlying story line, not even knowing the good guys from the bad guys, WL came along and supplied the plot which subsequently interpreted and scripted all the happenings into some "believable" flick. Yes, perhaps WL did choreograph the testimonies of certain key Blended brothers, making sure enough "evidence" was provided to fill in the blanks for the LC rank and file, but WL also had to safeguard the conscience of his average follower. They needed to believe.

Otherwise, "leaks" from the Fermentation "movie production staff" would have hit the streets, and I have not seen that, have you? Though we have numerous accounts from the quarantined (Ingalls, So, Mallon, etc.), no one else has come forward with this allegation of staged testimonies. I have long been convinced that WL's fabricated story of rebellion was believed solely based on his own elevated MOTA status. WL was the perfected god-man. He had risen above the potential for sin. He had ascended to the status of an "infallible." He was high above all, where only he could properly "see" what was in the hearts of fallen man. Such a man could be trusted at all costs.

Once the Recovery bought into his MOTA credentials, and were provided with a believable plot to connect all the events, everything else fell in place. All else was needed was to keep the faithful properly "inoculated" by subsequent re-injections.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Exactly my brother Terry! Who do you think these brothers learned this from? The ironic thing is that our brother Titus found out the hard way what it is like to be on the other end of the shotgun barrel I am not saying that Titus deserved this "treatment"....only that maybe he has a little better perspective, shall we say, on what happened to John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon et al!

TC was in a unique perspective to know the actual truth of things which had transpired. He knew Chinese family customs, he was well aware of the "character" of Lee progeny. He was well-learned in the ways of righteousness. He had passed thru numerous Recovery "storms" since the early 50's in Taipei. He was an extremely observant character. Initially TC was very sympathetic to John Ingalls, knowing full well what he was going through in Anaheim with the LSM office. As Ingalls records it, TC's own Christian conscience and sensibility had taken hold of him, that is, until he got "reorientated" and flip-flopped his allegiances back to the MOTA and his sons, all at the expense of the truth, righteousness, and many dear brothers.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not to disagree with you substantially, but this portrayal of events, at least to me, is too perfect.

Many years ago a relative of mine came to a conference meeting and said pretty much the same thing about the "testimonies" of the brothers and sisters after the message. They were struck with how little original thoughts or opinion they had about the subject matter....they only just repeated what Witness Lee had just spoke, and maybe through in a few Oh Lord Jesus' and hallelujahs.

This is EXACTLY what took place at this sham kangaroo court. The accusing brothers had already been "primed" by Witness Lee on what to "testify" to and about. Lee was the one who called the meeting and dictated the agenda. (as always) I don't believe for a second that these brothers were giving original thoughts and opinions.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Many years ago a relative of mine came to a conference meeting and said pretty much the same thing about the "testimonies" of the brothers and sisters after the message. They were struck with how little original thoughts or opinion they had about the subject matter....they only just repeated what Witness Lee had just spoke, and maybe through in a few Oh Lord Jesus' and hallelujahs.

This is EXACTLY what took place at this sham kangaroo court. The accusing brothers had already been "primed" by Witness Lee on what to "testify" to and about. Lee was the one who called the meeting and dictated the agenda. (as always) I don't believe for a second that these brothers were giving original thoughts and opinions.

I'm a little skeptical that they were all so carefully orchestrated. But I would have little difficulty concluding that they had their Lee/MOTA glasses firmly in place and were led by bread crumbs to arrive at a desired conclusion. And I'm confident that there was some searching to find just the right kind of testimonies.

Having said all of that, I am aware that my own father was once requested to write a letter to Anaheim to complain about a former Dallas elder (who has been active here) concerning things that he probably had little or no actual knowledge concerning. My dad would never intentionally write a fabrication. But I'm sure that he was fed enough such bread crumbs to conclude that what he was being asked to write about was true. I know that this is what the former elder believes to be true.

And the reason that there are no wiki-LSM-leaks is that even those who might not have really told the truth still thought they were. And they have dutifully followed the edict to avoid the "hearsay" from dissenters and the internet and therefore have never had what they thought was truth challenged by facts. (Don't trifle me with facts!)

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

Having said all of that, I am aware that my own father was once requested to write a letter to Anaheim to complain about a former Dallas elder (who has been active here) concerning things that he probably had little or no actual knowledge concerning.

So they asked your father to "tattle" on a local elder about a local matter? "Letter to Anaheim"? If Witness Lee was alive then this really means a "Letter to Witness Lee". What was he (or anyone else in Anaheim) supposed to do about something that was a local matter happening 1500 miles away?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So they asked your father to "tattle" on a local elder about a local matter? "Letter to Anaheim"? If Witness Lee was alive then this really means a "Letter to Witness Lee". What was he (or anyone else in Anaheim) supposed to do about something that was a local matter happening 1500 miles away?

This would have been in the 1980s. And the elder was eventually declared to be somewhat in cahoots with the rebellion that fermented later that decade. He was no longer in Dallas then.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This is EXACTLY what took place at this sham kangaroo court. The accusing brothers had already been "primed" by Witness Lee on what to "testify" to and about. Lee was the one who called the meeting and dictated the agenda. (as always) I don't believe for a second that these brothers were giving original thoughts and opinions.

Brings to mind another brother from another time once said his testimony in Fermentation of the Present Rebellion was copy and pasted to make it appear his speaking was given at one time rather than in different times. Of course I'm sure those that edited the book made sure these concerned brothers were portrayed in negative a light as possible. Unsuspecting saints who went on to read the book swallowed it up. Believing every word.
Thankfully in the appendices of Speaking the Truth in Love there were letters of a more balanced speaking.

[Cal]

What bothers me about Witness Lee's power plays is not as much them as that a bunch of supposedly intelligent people fell for them and continue to fall for them.

It's a pretty sad commentary on humanity that any of us ever went for this MOTA/One-Move-of-God nonsense. And it's a really sad commentary that LSM continues to shovel this manure.

That's my visceral response to www.afaithfulword.org. Every time I go back to it, it seems more bizarre and ridiculous.

Take some of the "contributions"... Like this one by Bob Danker.

He writes, in typical self-important LSM style, of "The Peril of Different Companies of Workers." But the only things in peril from different companies of workers is Witness Lee's domination and LSM's cash cow. God's been using different companies of workers for centuries, thanks very much.

What's really a peril is one company of workers going around saying everyone needs to join them. That's the real danger.

In the end, none of these guys really knows the Bible. All they know is what Lee said, and that's all they care about.

It's a faithful word alright--faithful to Lee's words. But not the Bible's. Or God's.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Having said all of that, I am aware that my own father was once requested to write a letter to Anaheim to complain about a former Dallas elder (who has been active here) concerning things that he probably had little or no actual knowledge concerning.

This is so typical of the Recovery.

After the fiasco in Anaheim hit the fan ~1988, and audio tapes of their meetings were sent out to all the LCs, we were all encouraged to write our own "shame on you John Ingalls" letters to Anaheim. None of us were ever provided with the actual facts of what so upset the saints in Anaheim, but who cares! They have disgraced our leader! How dare they let their saints get so upset about beloved brother Witness Lee! How dare they let the saints throw WL's books on the floor! Shame on you John for not "controlling" your saints!

If WL fabricates stories about the dear brothers, that is OK, but if these brothers dare to tell the truth about Lee's reprobate son Phillip, and how the "Office" meddles in local affairs all over the world, then the whole Recovery must rise up and take to the streets in protest.

..........................

Another equally obnoxious story comes to mind concerning my old days in Columbus. After Phil Comfort was so brutally shamed in Cleveland by TC, another elder Louis Cheng tried to address the way TC was controlling brothers and churches. TC, by the way, takes this kind of thing as an personal assault on his deputy authority, and instead of allowing others to balance him, he in turn attacks them.

I never had a clue what was going on until that one cold morning I got a call at work from Titus Chu. No "hello's" or "how's the weather," but instead he immediately launches into his agenda, "did Louis Cheng ever control you?" I must admit the entire phone call caught me totally off guard. Excuse me sir, but what did you say? "Did Louis Cheng ever control you?" How in the world did he ever get my work number? Uhhh ... sir ... can I call you back on another line? I can't believe this is happening to me, and I'm gonna kill the brother that gave him my work number. "Did Louis Cheng ever control you?" Well ... I'm not sure ... control? ... I can't think of anything right now. As a matter of fact my brain just went completely blank. How many other brothers got the same call that day?

.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

None of us were ever provided with the actual facts of what so upset the saints in Anaheim,

If you were one who wanted to seek what caused the saints to be upset, that would be likened to "eating from the wrong tree". All the ministry would want you to know is how some saints in Anaheim reacted in a riotous manner.

Originally Posted by Terry

If you were one who wanted to seek what caused the saints to be upset, that would be likened to "eating from the wrong tree". All the ministry would want you to know is how some saints in Anaheim reacted in a riotous manner.

Yes, the mere act of asking for the facts was seen as being tempted by Satan.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Yes, the mere act of asking for the facts was seen as being tempted by Satan.

You know why is has to be worded that way, or as we know the term of "eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" is to enforce you should trust what you are told. In otherwords if you are not trusting in man, you are "eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" for seeking the facts.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Another equally obnoxious story comes to mind concerning my old days in Columbus. After Phil Comfort was so brutally shamed in Cleveland by TC, another elder Louis Cheng tried to address the way TC was controlling brothers and churches. TC, by the way, takes this kind of thing as an personal assault on his deputy authority, and instead of allowing others to balance him, he in turn attacks them.

Could you or someone say more about this? What do you mean "brutally shamed?"

Ohio, could you please explain what happened to Phil Comfort? Did he leave the "recovery" because of abuses from TC?