What have we learned?

[zeek]

Idealization is a mental mechanism in which the person attributes exaggeratedly positive qualities to the self or others. When viewing people as all bad, the individual employs devaluation: attributing exaggeratedly negative qualities to the self or others. [source: Wikipedia] An extreme form of devaluation might be called demonization, although, in the present context I am using the word "demon" in a metaphoric sense only.

I was reminded of this problem yesterday when a friend mentioned the human tendency to make heroes of people. That would be an example of idealization. I would like to suggest that we idealized Witness Lee when we were in the church. The problem for us now is how to arrive at an objective [fair and balanced to quote a much abused phrase] view of Mr. Lee without engaging in devaluation/demonizing him. The possibility that we suffered emotional wounds while in the church or upon leaving makes objectivity all the more difficult for us to achieve this.

So I throw this out there for your discussion. Do you think we idealized WL when we were in the church? Do you think we ever demonize him now? How can we tell the difference? Is part of the group behavior to idealize in-group members and dynamic of devalue out-group members? For example, did we ever do that in prayer meetings? Could there be a "piling on" tendency that occurs even on a website like this. Again, if so, what can we do about it?

[awareness]

Idolizing Lee needs to be balanced with demonizing him. It may be a an undesirable job, but somebody has to do it. Personally, the idolizing of Lee demands the best weapon, that of, mocking Lee & his idealized systematized theology. Mocking may be ugly, but not as ugly as scamming the saints, conning the saints, and, as Lee put it after ripping off the saints with Daystar, taking their virginity. And mocking is free, and requires no donations

.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Idolizing Lee needs to be balanced with demonizing him. It may be a an undesirable job, but somebody has to do it. Personally, the idolizing of Lee demands the best weapon, that of, mocking Lee & his idealized systematized theology. Mocking may be ugly, but not as ugly as scamming the saints, conning the saints, and, as Lee put it after ripping off the saints with Daystar, taking their virginity. And mocking is free, and requires no donations.

I understand that there is a need to vent feelings and to say things we probably should have been said when we were members. There is a general need to re-evaluate everything. I feel similarly in so far as I have not even talked about this stuff for years. At the same time, I think there is the need for us to take responsibility for the fact that we enabled Witness Lee, Mel Porter and others like them to do what they did by passively [and in some cases actively] going along with the program for as long as we did.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Idealization is a mental mechanism in which the person attributes exaggeratedly positive qualities to the self or others. When viewing people as all bad, the individual employs devaluation: attributing exaggeratedly negative qualities to the self or others. [source: Wikipedia] An extreme form of devaluation might be called demonization, although, in the present context I am using the word "demon" in a metaphoric sense only.

I was reminded of this problem yesterday when a friend mentioned the human tendency to make heroes of people. That would be an example of idealization. I would like to suggest that we idealized Witness Lee when we were in the church. The problem for us now is how to arrive at an objective [fair and balanced to quote a much abused phrase] view of Mr. Lee without engaging in devaluation/demonizing him. The possibility that we suffered emotional wounds while in the church or upon leaving makes objectivity all the more difficult for us to achieve this.

So I throw this out there for your discussion. Do you think we idealized WL when we were in the church? Do you think we ever demonize him now? How can we tell the difference? Is part of the group behavior to idealize in-group members and dynamic of devalue out-group members? For example, did we ever do that in prayer meetings? Could there be a "piling on" tendency that occurs even on a website like this. Again, if so, what can we do about it?

Great questions, ones I have struggled with for the past decade or so. Yes, some idealized WL. No doubt about it. I like this word because it dodges the word "idolize," a more extreme word, which forces an up/down debate. When I was younger, I'm sure I did this to some degree. In one training in 1978, I actually felt WL was writing new books of the Bible. So I ran my thoughts by a brother I was staying with, and he graciously helped my understanding. Thank the Lord for that. Others may have not had any balancing or correcting words, and their views of WL were encouraged to soar into outer space.

Titus Chu, a regional leader in Cleveland, made an interesting comment back in 1998 saying, "I see WL as a man, but the Blended brothers see him as a god." This brief description says a lot about the difference between the GLA and the rest of the Recovery.

I have always believed that those of us with dysfunctional upbringings, and that's about all of us, were more vulnerable to idealization and its subsequent "side effects." The more dysfunctional, the more potential damage to us, and the greater tendency to demonize WL upon departure. I have attempted to reduce my level of "demonization" by addressing WL's actions, rather than his person. I can't know and judge his heart, but I can know what he did and how people were hurt because of it.

I also need to discern which of WL's teachings were leavened, so I can purge myself of those. Otherwise, by discarding my entire LC experience, I throw out the good with the bad.

[zeek]

Otherwise, by discarding my entire LC experience, I throw out the good with the bad.

Yes, that's what I would like to avoid. But it's a sorting process that might get messy at times. This time around I would like to avoid groupthink; that is, where group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints. There was a lot of that in the LC. For example, in the business meetings which were a total sham in the churches I attended.

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I also need to discern which of WL's teachings were leavened, so I can purge myself of those. Otherwise, by discarding my entire LC experience, I throw out the good with the bad.

I probably have a jaded view of this, but to me it seems as though there aren't that many good things to be taken out of it. But I don't have the same experiences the rest of you have, so I may be wrong.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

I probably have a jaded view of this, but to me it seems as though there aren't that many good things to be taken out of it. But I don't have the same experiences the rest of you have, so I may be wrong.

How is your experience different?

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

How is your experience different?

I grew up outside the LR and have never been a part of it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

I grew up outside the LR and have never been a part of it.

So then what is your connection to it? Why are you interested in this discussion?

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by zeek

So then what is your connection to it? Why are you interested in this discussion?

Perhaps you should check a certain intro thread made by an unregistered guest to find out my particular connection to the LC and my interest in it.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I also need to discern which of WL's teachings were leavened, so I can purge myself of those. Otherwise, by discarding my entire LC experience, I throw out the good with the bad.

1 Corinthians 5:6 "Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? "

Sorry brother, but your statement about trying to sift out the leaven from what was good reminds me of a caller Walid Shoebat (a brother who was called out of Islam into Salvation through Christ) took on a radio show. This caller posed Walid this question:

"Isn't there some good in the Koran?"

His answer to her is the same I would give to you:

"Isn't there SOME good in it? Isn't there some good in the Koran? Of course, sure, there's some good in it! But imagine you are thirsty in the desert, and I have here a clean glass of pure, cold water to give to you. Now, before I give it to you, I reach into my pocket and I take out a small flask of a colorless liquid, and unscrew the top. drip-drip-drip, I pour it into the glass and then hand the glass to you. 'Here you are, drink up!' I say.

You would look at it suspiciously, and you would ask 'What did you put in that water?' All I say to you is 'This? It's nothing. That glass is 99.9% pure water, go ahead - drink it!"

Are you sure you want to drink from this cup Ohio? Can you bear to drink the cup?

You don't need Lee or LSM, no one does. This is why I refuse to call it even by thier own acronym "LRC". That very name is an abominable lie. The Lord was not behind that movement, although there were many there within the churches who surely know and love Him.

You have and know Christ Jesus as Lord, Brother. Follow Him and Him alone. If you want to look back on your past then say, "I don't know what I gained there Lord, I don't have any of what I had there left. But I praise You Lord, because You know what I need, even when I don't... and You have a purpose for all things that You do."

Remember; we should be here as Paul, to preach Christ and Christ crucified - not Lee and Lee vilified.

In Christ,


NeitherFirstnorLast

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

1 Corinthians 5:6 "Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? "

Sorry brother, but your statement about trying to sift out the leaven from what was good ... Are you sure you want to drink from this cup Ohio? Can you bear to drink the cup?

You have and know Christ Jesus as Lord, Brother. Follow Him and Him alone.

Brother NFNL, we are on different wavelengths here.

We have fine folks who have left the LRC, and have discarded Christ their Lord and Savior, their Bible, all their Christian friends, and have thrust head first into alcohol, drugs, witchcraft, atheism, etc.

So when I speak about discerning "the good from the worthless," (as in Hebrews 5.14) we are obviously speaking of different things.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Brother NFNL, we are on different wavelengths here.


So when I speak about discerning "the good from the worthless," (as in Hebrews 5.14) we are obviously speaking of different things.

I don't think we are, brother.

You had said:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I also need to discern which of WL's teachings were leavened, so I can purge myself of those. Otherwise, by discarding my entire LC experience, I throw out the good with the bad.

You did not say, "I need to discern which teachings of Christ, of the Bible, of the Truth had been leavened." - you speak rather of Lee's teachings. You are saying that some of Lee's teachings were good, and that you can somehow separate the good from the bad. That's a difficult if not impossible task, and that's what 1 Corinthians 5:6 tells us.

Imagine the sum of Lee's ministry - his entire set of Life Studies, commentaries, messages, etc. etc. are likened to a loaf of Wonderbread. Now I come and place this loaf of Wonderbread in front of you, and say "Here my brother is food to nourish you. Only beware the leaven of the bread. That will poison you, sicken you, and kill you." Would that loaf be of any use to you at all? HOW do you pick leaven - yeast - out of the loaf to eat the nourishing substance in that loaf? More importantly, do you not see that even if you were able to exactly chemically separate what was left of the yeast from rest of the components of the dough, is it not still true that the presence of yeast in the bread earlier changed it's very composition and nature? No matter what you do, the dough was effected by that yeast, and it can never again be the same.

I began reading this morning from an abridged edition of Jessie Penn-Lewis' "War on the Saints". What touched me immediately was the Forward to this edition - please read this through carefully:

"John Wesley, in dealing with overbalance and fanaticism, uses the word enthusiam, and says: "Enthusiasm is undoubtedly a disorder of the mind; and such disorder as greatly hinders the exercise of reason. Nay, sometimes it wholly sets it aside: it not only dims but shuts the eyes of understanding. It may, therefore, well be accounted a species of madness; of madness rather than folly: seeing a fool is properly one who draws wrong conclusions from right premises; whereas a madman draws right conclusions, but from wrong premises. And so does an enthusiast. Suppose his premises are true, and his conclusions would necessarily follow. But here lies his mistake: his premises are false. He imagines himself to be what he is not, and therefore, setting out wrong, the farther he goes, the more he wanders out of the way."


My God my God! Does this very word not speak to the nature of the LSM system in it's entireity, and to your own quest to discover and remove the leaven specifically? Lee's premises are false - and his ministry was built entirely upon one premise: That the Bible contains MORE THAN ONE GOSPEL - that it has a LOW and a HIGH Gospel... that there was a "different gospel" to be preached, that no one else on Earth was preaching: God's Economy! We are warned very specifically within Scripture to stay away from those who preach a different gospel (Didn't Paul say: " I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned." (Galatians 1:6-9) and also "..there shall be false prophets among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies... through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you." (2nd Peter 2:1-3 excerpted), and did He not praise the Church in Ephesus when He said "you have tried those who say they are apostles, and are not, and have found them liars." Revelation 2:2. In Lee's case, we ALL ignored Christ's admonition. I am not singling you out brother - far from it: we were ALL decieved. That's indeed a bitter pill to swallow, but swallow it we must.

How were we so easily deceived? Because, I think, we were seduced. We were seduced by a man who really was very gifted at writing and constructing clever arguments to make his case. We were deceived because he built a system that gave us something that many Christian groups don't have: a true community of fellow saints. That was sweet, I confess it - but the plan behind that community was most foul: It was a plan that would see us isolated from our brothers and sisters in Christ, the True Body Universal, and would make us more susceptible to the deception within, so that even when we heard troubling news, we immediately discounted it and determined that to even raise questions would be rebellious.

We became the enthusiastic slaves of the system: we helped build a Corporation built on book publishing, funded by our donations, built up by our time spent constructing halls and housing... and all to do what? To reach the lost for Christ? To preach the gospel (even the so-called 'Low gospel') to the unbelieving world? To provide shelter for the poor and food for the hungry? To reach out to those in prison or those in distress? No. None of those things. The money and time we invested in LSM was used to build up it's offices and it's corporate profits and launch lawsuits against fellow believers to protect those assets and that income... and ultimately to raise first one man (Lee) and today a consortium of them up (the so-called 'Blended Brothers') on pedestals where they do not belong. Where no man belongs, in the place we are to reserve for Christ and Christ alone (Ephesians 5:23b "Christ is the head of the Church, His Body, of which He is the Saviour.")

Shame on us all! We were taken in because we did not study enough of the The Word, because we were not able to discern for ourselves what was the truth. Because we failed to test every spirit. We failed to trust our own discernment. We came to imagine we were something that we were not: the only true church, the only overcomers in a world full of perverse 'christians' who didn't know Him as we knew Him. The truth is, we thought we were rich and increased with goods and had need of nothing. We thought we had it all. But we were poor and wretched and miserable and blind and naked. (Rev 3:17-18).


The only defense against false apostles is found in staying in the Word. This is something each of us needs to do daily. And don't just study - obey. That's the part left entirely out of LSM's ministry: The need to obey Christ and the commands of the Father. It's left out because that would put you under the light yoke of Christ, and out from under the heavy and burdensome yoke of LSM.

In Christ,

NeitherFirstnorLast

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

You did not say, "I need to discern which teachings of Christ, of the Bible, of the Truth had been leavened." - you speak rather of Lee's teachings. You are saying that some of Lee's teachings were good, and that you can somehow separate the good from the bad. That's a difficult if not impossible task, and that's what 1 Corinthians 5:6 tells us.

I think we are playing word games here. I have already explained myself, and gave some examples to clarify my posts. When I first heard WL, I was a very young, but born again believer in Cleveland. Growing up in the Catholic schools, I had very little Bible knowledge. I had barely read the Bible. I was at that time doing the same purging work in my mind concerning all the Catholic teachings I had received.

In my first visit to Anaheim for the Revelations training, Lee taught me, for example ...

• That the book was the "revelation of Jesus Christ" v1.1 and not the revelation of frogs and scorpions -- shall I throw out that teaching?
• WL taught me that the book was a book of signs v.1.1 -- shall I throw out that teaching?
• WL taught me that John was the writer, and he was exiled on Patmos for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ v1.2 -- shall I throw out that teaching?
• WL taught me that those who hear these words and keep them is blessed -- shall I throw out that teaching?
• WL taught me there were 7 churches in Asia, and many details about them -- shall I throw out that teaching?
• WL taught me that v.1.4 shows us the Triune God, the Father Son and Spirit -- shall I throw out that teaching?
• WL taught me about Jesus Christ, the Firstborn of the dead, indicating that He resurrected as the Firstborn Son v.1.5 -- shall I throw out that teaching?
• WL taught me how He loves me and has loosed us from our sins by His blood v.1.5 -- shall I throw out that teaching?
• WL taught me that we are His kingdom, and we are all priests to serve God v.1.6 -- shall I throw out that teaching?

Help me out here brother NFNL. I have only mentioned the first 5 verses of my first training with WL. I had 10 more years of Life Study trainings after this. And you want me to throw out all WL teachings? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

• WL taught me that the book was a book of signs v.1.1 -- shall I throw out that teaching?

Help me out here brother NFNL. I have only mentioned the first 5 verses of my first training with WL. I had 10 more years of Life Study trainings after this. And you want me to throw out all WL teachings? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

I'm outside doing the yard work thinking about how all the Christians I know talk about going to heaven, hoping they can play golf, and praying their beloved cat will be there too! They talk about the pearly gates and the streets of gold -- now remember that gold is over $1400/oz by now. They talk about skipping down the golden streets to their buddies mansion ... how ridiculous!

And you want me to throw out WL's teachings?!? You want me to return to my superstitions? You want me to return to the ignorance of my Christian "childhood?" WL taught me many solid foundational truths of the Bible. O sure, I could have learned them from someone else, but I didn't. I learned them from that Lee. Many things I also learned from other brothers in the LC's. After close to 4 decades, how can I distinguish exactly what I learned from who?

NFNL, let me be honest and frank. If we define leaven like this, then we must conclude that every teacher on earth is leavened. So we must do what some have done leaving the LC's, they crawl into their little cave, with the Bible cracked occasionally, and live in their pure unleavened bliss.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

I began reading this morning from an abridged edition of Jessie Penn-Lewis' "War on the Saints". What touched me immediately was the Forward to this edition - please read this through carefully:

"John Wesley, in dealing with overbalance and fanaticism, uses the word enthusiam, and says: "Enthusiasm is undoubtedly a disorder of the mind; and such disorder as greatly hinders the exercise of reason.

Brother NFNL, be careful what you read of Penn-Lewis and John Wesley. They are both as "leavened" as Wonder Bread.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Brother NFNL, be careful what you read of Penn-Lewis and John Wesley. They are both as "leavened" as Wonder Bread.

Yes, you might catch her Jezebel demon, that killed the Welsh revival.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I also need to discern which of WL's teachings were leavened, so I can purge myself of those. Otherwise, by discarding my entire LC experience, I throw out the good with the bad.

Well we have had a lot of discussion on the meaning of leaven in the Bible. I have come to the conclusion through all those discussions that WL understanding and teaching of leaven is inaccurate. So I would encourage you to discard that teaching first.

My reasoning is this. The OT said "purge out the old leaven" and this referred to once a year removing all of the leaven from the house for a week. In order to make leavened bread the Israelites would have kept a cup of sour dough by the hearth. Once a year this sour dough would have been thrown away. To make a new batch they would make unleavened bread, remove a lump and put it in the cup. A week later it would be a new batch of sour dough. They would then put this into the dough every time they made bread and before cooking they would remove a lump to go back into the cup for sour dough. God did not tell them to stop making leavened bread, rather his emphasis was on "the old" leaven. After all, if leaven signifies sin then why did Israel eat leavened bread 51 weeks out of the year?

So, if you consider it, the worst thing about the teachings of WN and WL is that the LRC refuses to purge out the old leaven. If instead WN and WL were merely treated as those who baked bread for many years and passed on the art to us, and now the LRC is full of those baking bread, the errors of the teaching would seem minor and easy to correct. The real issue is his teachings are becoming codified. The Lord said to purge out the old leaven, not venerate it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well we have had a lot of discussion on the meaning of leaven in the Bible. I have come to the conclusion through all those discussions that WL understanding and teaching of leaven is inaccurate. So I would encourage you to discard that teaching first.

My reasoning is this. The OT said "purge out the old leaven" and this referred to once a year removing all of the leaven from the house for a week. In order to make leavened bread the Israelites would have kept a cup of sour dough by the hearth. Once a year this sour dough would have been thrown away. To make a new batch they would make unleavened bread, remove a lump and put it in the cup. A week later it would be a new batch of sour dough. They would then put this into the dough every time they made bread and before cooking they would remove a lump to go back into the cup for sour dough. God did not tell them to stop making leavened bread, rather his emphasis was on "the old" leaven. After all, if leaven signifies sin then why did Israel eat leavened bread 51 weeks out of the year?

So, if you consider it, the worst thing about the teachings of WN and WL is that the LRC refuses to purge out the old leaven. If instead WN and WL were merely treated as those who baked bread for many years and passed on the art to us, and now the LRC is full of those baking bread, the errors of the teaching would seem minor and easy to correct. The real issue is his teachings are becoming codified. The Lord said to purge out the old leaven, not venerate it.

My use of the phrase "purge out the leaven" has nothing to do with the O.T. practice of the Israelites. My understanding is based on I Cor. 5.6-13, Gal 5.7-9, and Matt. 16.11-12. Here Jesus instructs His disciples to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" referring to their teachings. These teachings had to be removed or purged from the disciples. After the Lord gave them this warning, He took them to Philippi, and asked them, "who do men say that I am? Obviously the leaven of the Pharisees hindered them from knowing who Christ really was.

In Corinth, the church there was "glorying" in evil things. Their thinking and teachings about moral matters was leavened, so Paul warned them to purge out these teachings of malice and wickedness. Paul even went further to instruct the church to separate themselves from those who practice such evil. To the Galatians, Paul reminded them of how well they were running after Christ, but were leavened by the teachings of the Judaizers. They had not been persuaded by Him who had called them, but by leavened teachings which affected the whole lump.

Both Jesus and Paul struggled to expose the teachings, practices, ways, patterns, thoughts, principles, methods, etc. which collectively could be considered as "leaven." These much be purged, so that what remains can be a new lump of fine flour, representing Christ and His pure word. One brother has wisely said, "we got lots of extras" in the LC's. These extras are the leaven which require purging. The Lord never said to throw the "lump" out with the leaven.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My use of the phrase "purge out the leaven" has nothing to do with the O.T. practice of the Israelites. My understanding is based on I Cor. 5.6-13, Gal 5.7-9, and Matt. 16.11-12. Here Jesus instructs His disciples to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" referring to their teachings. These teachings had to be removed or purged from the disciples. After the Lord gave them this warning, He took them to Philippi, and asked them, "who do men say that I am? Obviously the leaven of the Pharisees hindered them from knowing who Christ really was.

In Corinth, the church there was "glorying" in evil things. Their thinking and teachings about moral matters was leavened, so Paul warned them to purge out these teachings of malice and wickedness. Paul even went further to instruct the church to separate themselves from those who practice such evil. To the Galatians, Paul reminded them of how well they were running after Christ, but were leavened by the teachings of the Judaizers. They had not been persuaded by Him who had called them, but by leavened teachings which affected the whole lump.

Both Jesus and Paul struggled to expose the teachings, practices, ways, patterns, thoughts, principles, methods, etc. which collectively could be considered as "leaven." These much be purged, so that what remains can be a new lump of fine flour, representing Christ and His pure word. One brother has wisely said, "we got lots of extras" in the LC's. These extras are the leaven which require purging. The Lord never said to throw the "lump" out with the leaven.

Well, I think regardless of OT or NT, if you use the term "leaven" to refer to teachings you are using an analogy. The metaphor is still the same metaphor. The reason for purging could be that it is old, or that it is evil, or that it is malicious, but whatever the reason, the practice of purging would still be the same.

The quote that I was commenting on said you wanted to figure out "which of WL's teachings were leavened and purge them". My understanding of this analogy is that all teachings are leavened. The leaven isn't the factor that determines it is evil, or malicious, or old. Teachings act similar to leaven by causing the whole lump to be leavened (just like WN teaching that you have one church in one city affected the entire LRC). So Jesus's words were "the bread of life" and the Body of Christ is likened to a loaf of bread "we being many are one lump". WN's teachings spread like leaven and have leavened the whole Body of Christ. The fact that they act like leaven doesn't make them evil, or old, or malicious. So why is the Lord's Body likened to unleavened bread? The NT age was a time to purge out the old teachings, not because they were bad, or evil, but because they were old. Prior to the incarnation and crucifixion of Christ they might have been fine, but after the crucifixion it was time to start anew.

Second, what is truly the most damaging teaching of the LRC or of LSM? My feeling is that they forbid the saints from purging out the old teaching. Say for example that as a result of the Life study messages there were 100 saints that stood up and began to minister. John So, JI, etc. No one stopped them, no one defamed them, no one excommunicated them, no one required that they filter everything through the LSM office. If that were the case any other negative teaching of WL would be irrelevant. It would have been corrected by the Body of Christ, he would have been balanced by others, he would have been rebuked, chastened, etc. The truth would have prevailed and PL would have been properly dealt with. So instead of canonizing his teachings they should have been used for a springboard for many others to go forth and speak. WL often said that he was standing on the shoulders of giants. So why all of a sudden did they forbid anyone else from standing on their shoulders?

Third, I would contend that because they didn't purge out the old leaven but instead took the erroneous concept that WL ministry was the end all and be all, it was the effort to make that so that brought in the malicious and evil teachings. Is the MOTA a spark plug that ignites everyone else or is he a lone burning coal that everyone has to huddle around to stay warm. The second view, to me, is pitiful and pathetic, but that is the one the LSM took, the BB's carry, and the LRC pushes. My point is not to accept the teaching of the MOTA but to point out how pathetic their view is of this MOTA. The Apostle Paul lit a fire that has spread around the world, like leaven, so that there are more than a billion saints worldwide. In contrast the only thing the LSM will raise up with their MOTA teaching is parrots. The LRC is not for everyone, it is only for those willing to parrot WL.

Why did this happen? Because he teaches that leaven signifies sin. If instead you understand that just like gathering manna every day, the labor in the word also must be done daily. You can't live off of yesterday's manna and you can't live off of yesterday's teacher. On the other hand if you understand that you have to regularly purge out your old teaching and start anew, then we would have taken a different path. If you understand that teachings are like bread, then it is easy to understand you can't save 20 or 30 year old bread and feed a church with it. You have to make bread fresh every day, at least every week.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well, I think regardless of OT or NT, if you use the term "leaven" to refer to teachings you are using an analogy... .

I think we are talking past each other, like NFNL, we are on different wavelengths.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think we are talking past each other, like NFNL, we are on different wavelengths.

The experience I got from the LRC was to study the word for myself, and to minister the word to others. I learned how to "bake bread". Prior to coming into the LRC I could not understand the Bible, after being in the LRC I can feed others. That is what I take from it. I don't discard that.

As for all the other teachings they are not important to me. I have a Bible, everything I need is in there. I rarely refer to any WL teachings except to comment on them. Even when I met with the LRC I rarely used LSM materials to prepare for speaking a message.

No doubt there is a certain amount of training and no one wants to reinvent the wheel, but regurgitating teachings is not feeding the saints.

There were a lot of other teachings about one church one city, etc that I have come to realize is merely an emphasis on the oneness in the Body of Christ. The fact that I do not meet with the LRC does not in any way suggest I have compromised on my prizing the oneness. On the contrary, it was only after I was clear that the LRC only gave lip service to the oneness of the Body that I felt the peace to leave those meetings.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

So I throw this out there for your discussion. Do you think we idealized WL when we were in the church? Do you think we ever demonize him now? How can we tell the difference? Is part of the group behavior to idealize in-group members and dynamic of devalue out-group members? For example, did we ever do that in prayer meetings? Could there be a "piling on" tendency that occurs even on a website like this. Again, if so, what can we do about it?

Who is we? Idealized Witness Lee? I did not. He was a gifted brother. During high school I saw him speak several times a year at conferences. Aside from that, his ministry did not have impact on me directly whom Gene Gruhler did have.
Once again who is we? My understanding practically of demonizing WL would to be in total denial there was nothing helpful/beneficial from WL's ministry. I cannot say that. Many who left LRC cannot say that. Personally I've appreicated his early ministry in North America.

Yes, group behavior has been to if not idealize, but speak glowingly of in-group members. Out of group members are devalued. If you've spent time in the LRC, you know the descriptive words. Cold, poisoned, lost the vision, negative, critical.
In prayer meetings, I can't say I've heard anyone devalued. Prayer meetings were to pray.
What exactly do you mean by piling on? There is a tendency to beat a dead horse.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

Who is we? Idealized Witness Lee? I did not. He was a gifted brother. During high school I saw him speak several times a year at conferences. Aside from that, his ministry did not have impact on me directly whom Gene Gruhler did have.
Once again who is we? My understanding practically of demonizing WL would to be in total denial there was nothing helpful/beneficial from WL's ministry. I cannot say that. Many who left LRC cannot say that. Personally I've appreicated his early ministry in North America.
Yes, group behavior has been to if not idealize, but speak glowingly of in-group members. Out of group members are devalued. If you've spent time in the LRC, you know the descriptive words. Cold, poisoned, lost the vision, negative, critical.
In prayer meetings, I can't say I've heard anyone devalued. Prayer meetings were to pray.
What exactly do you mean by piling on? There is a tendency to beat a dead horse.

Well said. Amen.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Terry

Who is we? Idealized Witness Lee? I did not. He was a gifted brother. During high school I saw him speak several times a year at conferences. Aside from that, his ministry did not have impact on me directly whom Gene Gruhler did have.
Once again who is we? My understanding practically of demonizing WL would to be in total denial there was nothing helpful/beneficial from WL's ministry. I cannot say that. Many who left LRC cannot say that. Personally I've appreicated his early ministry in North America.

Yes, group behavior has been to if not idealize, but speak glowingly of in-group members. Out of group members are devalued. If you've spent time in the LRC, you know the descriptive words. Cold, poisoned, lost the vision, negative, critical.
In prayer meetings, I can't say I've heard anyone devalued. Prayer meetings were to pray.
What exactly do you mean by piling on? There is a tendency to beat a dead horse.

The "we" questions were intended to query the group to see if anyone had these experiences in common. You don't think those generalizations apply to you. Got it. By piling on, I meant the tendency of groups to promote consensus by attacking out-group members. Stuff like that happens.

[OBW]

Ohio,

I came to the forum this morning after 3 days out of town with no connections. And my typical markers to what had not been read were not accurate, so I had to fish back and try to remember what I last read.

And in this thread I started shortly before your post concerning what Lee taught on several verses, mostly in Revelation, on which he was correct. But showing that Lee did teach some correct things does not answer the question as to whether it is reasonable or wise to hold on to Lee's teachings.

So that is what I responded to. In your case, to simply say Lee taught only junk would be ridiculous. That would leave you with no firm foundation.

As for the comments about people throwing out Christ along with Lee, that is a different problem. But even there, you can't just link the two. It must be differentiated.

My decision to intentionally dismiss what I recall as coming from Lee was not to dump truth and have nothing, but to take the position that what I sense being of Lee/LRC origins (and Nee for that matter) would be intentionally open for debate/discussion. Even if I did not know how to go about it, I would start with the idea that if I was not also finding it in front-and-center, mainstream Christian teaching it would be suspect. I would not speak it as if simply true. Instead, I would intentionally read the relevant passages and alternate sources of commentary with an intent to let it speak as if in a vacuum rather than in need of supporting or opposing Lee.

And, of course, a lot of the Lee differentiators were terminology used just to stir things up. I now find that saying "communion," "Sunday," "recite," "tradition," "religion," etc., without immediately being accosted by Lee's narrow or alternate definitions in my mind is very liberating. I can have "true religion" and can practice according to a "tradition" without looking around to see if some LRC acquaintance is in the vicinity. If there is a problem with any of those words, it is in their court, not mine.

I will not speak as if there is some "ground of oneness" that we have to look for. Or flinch at the idea of being a member of an assembly that is part of a denomination. While there may be a general problem with the top leaders of the various denominations not being more open to discuss their positions in that manner, it is nowhere near as bad as with the leadership of the LRC. (And I pick on the leadership because if we think that we are each individually responsible for doctrine, then there will never be any kind of oneness.) With a few exceptions, the leadership of "poor pathetic Christianity" is more inclined toward oneness than the LRC is within its own denomination.

And for most of us, being the building, and the farm, is much easier (and biblical) than all being the workers. We have some basis for stability. Even if we are included at some level in the discussion of doctrine and teaching, the fact that some are commissioned to study and preach the Word for our benefit is a help to us all. The alternate is a mess in which we all think entirely whatever we want and there is strife at more levels than Paul found in Corinth.

In effect, "let's just all be equal brothers/sisters" is not entirely scriptural. There are to be teachers. Jesus sent out the disciples to preach and teach. He didn't just send them because all the others were fallen and reprobate. He did it because those are the ones he trained and commissioned. It does not excuse us from the exercise of our gift. But everyone is not a teacher, or prophet, or evangelist, or even shepherd. Yet we can all shepherd to some extent. And we do speak. But it is not what Paul was talking about. There are workers, but there is a farm. And for most of us, we are the farm. Our primary task is learning and obeying. Not leadership, but God. And yet to some extent we don't know God without leadership. We just become disgruntled if we think it is all about us and there are no leaders. There are some of those around here at times.

[zeek]

In effect, "let's just all be equal brothers/sisters" is not entirely scriptural.

Remember Witness Lee taught us that if we were all on the same level we would be like a snake that crawls on its belly. Therefore, equality must be evil.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Remember Witness Lee taught us that if we were all on the same level we would be like a snake that crawls on its belly. Therefore, equality must be evil.

Actually, I don't remember that. And coming from Lee, I take it as just a ploy to push a result. It doesn't matter that all being simply equal (in some aspects) is wrong. Lee probably wasn't talking about the legitimate differences. Otherwise he could have come up with a scriptural reason for differentiation. And there are some. It was probably just not relevant to the differentiation he wanted.

And if anyone thinks that I know Lee's motives, I do not. This is clearly an opinion. But if he was the great Bible expositor he wanted everyone to think he was, he wouldn't have needed to create so many extra-biblical examples, pictures, metaphors, etc., in the place of clear scriptural directives or principles to arrive at his conclusions.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, I don't remember that. And coming from Lee, I take it as just a ploy to push a result. It doesn't matter that all being simply equal (in some aspects) is wrong. Lee probably wasn't talking about the legitimate differences. Otherwise he could have come up with a scriptural reason for differentiation. And there are some. It was probably just not relevant to the differentiation he wanted.

And if anyone thinks that I know Lee's motives, I do not. This is clearly an opinion. But if he was the great Bible expositor he wanted everyone to think he was, he wouldn't have needed to create so many extra-biblical examples, pictures, metaphors, etc., in the place of clear scriptural directives or principles to arrive at his conclusions.

He said it more than once. I think that he was saying that hierarchy was justifable.