What have we learned?

[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.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

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

At some level and in some ways it was/is. But since he had already destroyed the existence of any kind of hierarchy in his previous rhetoric, he needed a different way to arrive at it. So he made up the snake metaphor.

"I put the gold in the fire and out came this calf."