Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?

OBW · 11-29-2011, 09:00 AM

Igzy,

I think that the angle that has been missing in the discussion is that this is not simply about whether it is correct to lay claim to the title MOTA, or to allow others to designate you as such without strong condemnation for it.

It also is not simply about some longstanding minister of good standing who has a moral lapse and then becomes a spiritual liability from that time forward.

It is a pattern of moral lapses going back longer than most of us have been alive on which there is no evidence of actual apology or repentance prior to his death over a decade ago. That person lost any claim to position in at least the 50s. Maybe before. So there is little reason to start from a framework in which he is presumed to be a "good teacher" (not trying to invoke the imagery of the man who called Jesus "good teacher"). He starts from a place where we should not have been listening. If someone felt compelled to listen to him and then study it really carefully then pass on what they concluded was valid and valuable, that would be fine.

But that never happened. Lee was the source of truth for the LRC faithful. We needed to get out of our minds to accept his teachings and we happily followed. And virtually all other theologians rejected his teachings. Only an exorcist and a ministry in need of funds has fallen in line, at least in what they will speak of.

I have realized that I was directly duped for 14 years. Then for many more years than that I remained in Lee's fog, thinking that there were all these great teachings simply mired in a system that didn't live up to its own standards. I am learning differently. Few items, alone and in themselves, are truly "bad." But the "Collected Works" lead somewhere that a Christian with their mind in gear would not agree to go.

It is the constant interspersing of garbage with the truth. Sectarian ideas phrased in the rhetoric of oneness. An air of humility in a man who would reject anyone else's teachings, and spit on a book by another. I don't really like all of what certain contemporary writers produce. But I do not spit on any of it. And I don't refer to them as demonic or Satanic.

And while I may not have spent as many years allegedly given to the study of the Word as Lee did, I do recall that his former calling may have been as an accountant. Assuming that is true, he should have kept his day job. I honestly think that my pathetic understanding of scripture is at least founded on the scripture. I'm beginning to see more and more that Lee was not bound by scripture, but only by what he could define as a principle through which scripture could be reworded.

OBW · 11-29-2011, 09:15 AM

One follow-up. My last post made some sweeping statements. For anyone who is incensed at them, rather than trying to dismantle them as a unit, let's turn to the teachings and the practices one-by-one and see how they fare. I will concede that I cannot prove my generalities in a single reply. But that does not make it invalid. It just makes the proof difficult.

And it has been happening here and on the old BARM for several years. We have discussed many of the doctrines; "ground of locality," "God's economy" (both the teaching and the book), the Trinity, the definition of soul and spirit, Spiritual Authority (Authority and Submission), elders, apostles, abiding v obedience, works v dispensing. The list goes on.

One thread was about teachings of Lee's that someone really liked. So many of them seemed to start with virtual dismissal of the actual words of the underlying scripture due to an over lay of "God's economy." Another thread covered the places where Lee altered readings and understandings in a manner that altered the meaning of scripture (under the title "The Leaven of Lee" or something like that).

We have discovered that even Nee openly restated scripture to his liking and no one batted an eye.

So if you want to discover the Lee (and possibly Nee) that evidences a disconnect from God rather than some special connection, we should pick a topic and start discussing it.

And as I so often will state, Nee and Lee are not authorities for this purpose. We can read what they say. But it is not true until it is discovered to be true because it accurately aligns with the scripture or with standard understandings of scripture. I would even go so far as to suggest that Brethren teachings should be considered suspect because, at some level, they did no better than Nee and Lee. Even to the point of similar exclusivity.

Cal · 11-29-2011, 09:42 AM

OBW,

I agree with your point. My point was that until people jettison the MOTA concept (and with it the Recovery concept), they will not be able to see Lee in a way where his failings even matter.

The "Recovery" was and is nothing more than Lee's private church, a subset of the Church in which he could make up certain rules and teachings which always pointed back to him as the final authority on everything. "The Recovery" is not scriptural, but he convinced enough people that it was real and he was at the helm.

Those two principles, being the Recovery and being the MOTA, are self-reinforcing. When rival publications appeared, Lee gave lip service to personal freedom while stating in no uncertain terms that any teachings which were not completely in line with his were not of the Recovery, i.e. not of God's up-to-date, unique move.

In other words, when you boil it down, it was all about him and what he thought. Period. Don't believe me, just read www.afaithfulword.org, an astounding bundle of circular logic whose conclusions are totally based on the notion that Lee and Nee were MOTAs which must never be questioned.

I agree that if Lee were any typical Christian teacher, he would not be taken very seriously (in fact he is not) because of his arrogance and his shady dealings. But until one learns to look at him simply as one looks at any other Christian, one is going to continue grade him on a curve, the curve of him being right even when he's wrong.

Thankful Jane · 11-29-2011, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I have realized that I was directly duped for 14 years. Then for many more years than that I remained in Lee's fog, thinking that there were all these great teachings simply mired in a system that didn't live up to its own standards. I am learning differently.

First, I'd like to make one thing clear. I never said Lee's ministry should be "rejected." This word was introduced in response to my post about Lee not being clean and was then argued with in strawman fashion. My actual words were that Lee's teachings could not be trusted. In my mind, there is a big difference.

When I post, I am addressing people who are, or were, under the spell of Lee's teachings and persona. (If I were addressing ones who had never been involved with his teachings, I would recommend they not become involved with his ministry, i.e. reject it.) However, I do not think that it is possible to be devoted to his ministry for years and then one day decide to reject it and just walk away. Once you have been willingly webbed in Lee's ministry, you have to use your will to de-web yourself, string by string, or you will not find freedom and spiritual health. You'll remain in the fog that Mike mentioned. That's a fog most of us exes know all too well.

De-webbing requires seeing truth for yourself in the light of the Word. That, to me, is one of the biggest benefits of forum discussions. When we help each other examine, in the light of the pure Word, what Lee taught, then here and there truth breaks out, and minds get set free. Like Igzy, that is why I started posting here, and that is why I still follow the forums when I am able and post as time permits.

I continue to be involved periodically in one-on-one conversations with people who have struggled and struggled in their Christian walk after leaving the Local Church. They range the gambit from agnostic to severely depressed. I find that the root of much of their trouble is Lee's teachings that are imbedded in their brain. Only as they receive and accept sound scriptural refutation of such teachings do they start to find mental clarity and then freedom and peace.

I agree with OBW that it's best to look at Lee, teaching by teaching, and compare each teaching to the Word of God. Lots of that has been done already on internet forums and much of that bears repeating because of new readers. In addition, lots more needs to be done for the sake of the webbed.

I continue to pray that we will fight the good fight for one another and that the truth of the Word of God will prevail.

Thankful Jane

OBW · 11-29-2011, 03:57 PM

Jane,

You may not have said that Lee's ministry should simply be rejected. But I have.

Thankful Jane · 11-29-2011, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Jane,
You may not have said that Lee's ministry should simply be rejected. But I have.

Yes, I understand that you did

. I was clarifying my position on this after reading through this thread. I have no problem with someone reaching the point they reject the ministry of Lee overall, as I understand from your posts that you have done. I just don't advise others to take this step without some specific purging and clearing up of the beliefs they embraced wholeheartedly. I hope that was clear in what I wrote.

Jane

OBW · 11-30-2011, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Yes, I understand that you did

. I was clarifying my position on this after reading through this thread. I have no problem with someone reaching the point they reject the ministry of Lee overall, as I understand from your posts that you have done. I just don't advise others to take this step without some specific purging and clearing up of the beliefs they embraced wholeheartedly. I hope that was clear in what I wrote.

I think that it was very clear.

And when I say that I reject Lee outright, I also clearly did not simply leave the LRC and immediately reject Lee. I actually defended him for many (many) years. It was only when I was faced with this and its predecessor forums that I began to see that I should reject the whole, not just cherry-pick.

But I am also surrounded by strong evangelical teachings so that I am never at risk of doing the old baby-with-the-bathwater thing. I know what is sound. But when something gives me reason to stop and think, I stop and think. I explore anything that doesn't jive.

And I've concluded that the fact that it has Lee's name attached to it is grounds to start with a strongly skeptical view.

Thankful Jane · 11-30-2011, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

And I've concluded that the fact that it has Lee's name attached to it is grounds to start with a strongly skeptical view.

Yes, I have concluded likewise. I believe that anyone who will ask the Lord for help in knowing what is true and will seriously and objectively examine the unadulterated Word of God will reach the same conclusion.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth ...

11-30-2011, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

First, I'd like to make one thing clear. I never said Lee's ministry should be "rejected." This word was introduced in response to my post about Lee not being clean and was then argued with in strawman fashion. My actual words were that Lee's teachings could not be trusted. In my mind, there is a big difference.
I find that the root of much of their trouble is Lee's teachings that are imbedded in their brain.
Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane,

The distinction you make between teachings that cannot be trusted vs. teachings that should be rejected is a matter semantics. If you don't trust teachings then reject them until you are convinced otherwise.

"imbedded" in their brain? Are you a clinical psychologist? Seriously, it appears that you are engaging in subjective validation. You expect to see some telltale trait and sure enough there it is, you find it every time.

Besides, what beliefs are not "imbedded" in the brains of people? Are your beliefs not "imbedded" in your brain? If not, then where? I this whole idea about "de-webbing" is a bit nutty and maybe dangerous.

Cassidy

UntoHim · 12-01-2011, 10:07 AM

Cassidy, If you really want to be a stickler about semantics you would have noticed that Jane made a clear distinction between “teachings that cannot be trusted” and the rejection of Witness Lee’s entire ministry. Most reasonably people would have picked up on the difference. Actually, I think maybe you did to but are just trying to stir the pot... not that stirring the pot is against Forum rules, but don't forget the old adage that "too many cooks spoil the broth".

None of us who were subjected to the teachings of Witness Lee for a substantial period of time need to be a clinical psychologist to know the affect they had upon us. The teachings and practices had a profound affect both the heart and the mind, and sorry to say that for the most part the affect was not positive. This is the main reason why much of our discussions regarding The Local Church seem to gravitate towards the “negative” side of the ledger.

12-01-2011, 03:08 PM

IMHO an all or nothing stance as it pertains to Bible teachers is somewhat childish. God gave us sober minds and discerning spirits and unlike Lee, the Blendeds, Titus Chu, etc. most Bible teachers today don't expect their audiences to accept everything they say as "the gospel truth". Adults discuss things and weigh things. So after hearing a sermon my wife and I discuss it on the way home and we may disagree with a few things or different things or whatever. So what? What's the big deal?

But I do know one thing: if I ever came across a teacher who expected absolute agreement and acceptance of his teachings as "the truth" = finding the nearest exit and escaping through it as quickly as possible! There's too many good teachers out there who don't think this about themselves to be fiddling around with those who do.

Cassidy · 12-01-2011, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Cassidy, If you really want to be a stickler about semantics you would have noticed that Jane made a clear distinction between “teachings that cannot be trusted” and the rejection of Witness Lee’s entire ministry. Most reasonably people would have picked up on the difference. Actually, I think maybe you did to but are just trying to stir the pot... not that stirring the pot is against Forum rules, but don't forget the old adage that "too many cooks spoil the broth".

None of us who were subjected to the teachings of Witness Lee for a substantial period of time need to be a clinical psychologist to know the affect they had upon us. The teachings and practices had a profound affect both the heart and the mind, and sorry to say that for the most part the affect was not positive. This is the main reason why much of our discussions regarding The Local Church seem to gravitate towards the “negative” side of the ledger.

Untohim,

I am not trying to stir the pot. I actually think the "de-webbing" practice is nutty and maybe dangerous. I mean, if something is unhealthy then it would be best to disconnect ourselves and others from it asap. I'd prefer that rather than this idea of staying in an unhealthy situation while someone attempts to remove trillions of synapses from my brain in an attempt to unravel my belief system. Sounds like a slow drip water torture version of de-programming.

Yet, I do agree with you that we don't need to be clinical psychologists to make decisions about our own experiences and share them with others both positive and negative. That is all part of what makes the world an interesting place to live.

Ohio · 12-01-2011, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

I am not trying to stir the pot. I actually think the "de-webbing" practice is nutty and maybe dangerous. I mean, if something is unhealthy then it would be best to disconnect ourselves and others from it asap. I'd prefer that rather than this idea of staying in an unhealthy situation while someone attempts to remove trillions of synapses from my brain in an attempt to unravel my belief system. Sounds like a slow drip water torture version of de-programming.

I'm jumping into a conversation and may mess up the context, but as I understand the "de-webbing" practice, it is to reject those teachings of WL which are not healthy, and hold onto those which match the Bible.

Some former members who did not properly "de-web" the good from the worthless (see Heb 5.14) have sadly discarded their faith also as they left the LC's. This is most unfortunate. This forum serves as an aid to expose all the dangers of WL's teachings without discarding what healthy things we have received from the Lord. Sometimes this is difficult, especially for ones like me who had very little Bible foundation before entering the Recovery.

Cassidy · 12-01-2011, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

... as I understand the "de-webbing" practice, it is to reject those teachings of WL which are not healthy, and hold onto those which match the Bible.

If that is what "De-webbing means then there is no need to call it "de-webbing'" because it is just part of normal human cognitive process. We all do it and not with just Witness Lee.

In fact, I'm doing it right now.

However, the poster meant more than that as is apparent from her description of "de-webbing" and the introduction of the term to describe the process of systematically unraveling someone's belief system over a period of time.

Even if such a meticulous mind-altering extraction where proven to be good therapy it should only be practiced by someone who is qualified to perform it. Otherwise, the rest of us should do our best to talk straight, be a friend, and pray a lot for those in need.

11-29-2011, 09:00 AM	#1
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,384	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? Igzy, I think that the angle that has been missing in the discussion is that this is not simply about whether it is correct to lay claim to the title MOTA, or to allow others to designate you as such without strong condemnation for it. It also is not simply about some longstanding minister of good standing who has a moral lapse and then becomes a spiritual liability from that time forward. It is a pattern of moral lapses going back longer than most of us have been alive on which there is no evidence of actual apology or repentance prior to his death over a decade ago. That person lost any claim to position in at least the 50s. Maybe before. So there is little reason to start from a framework in which he is presumed to be a "good teacher" (not trying to invoke the imagery of the man who called Jesus "good teacher"). He starts from a place where we should not have been listening. If someone felt compelled to listen to him and then study it really carefully then pass on what they concluded was valid and valuable, that would be fine. But that never happened. Lee was the source of truth for the LRC faithful. We needed to get out of our minds to accept his teachings and we happily followed. And virtually all other theologians rejected his teachings. Only an exorcist and a ministry in need of funds has fallen in line, at least in what they will speak of. I have realized that I was directly duped for 14 years. Then for many more years than that I remained in Lee's fog, thinking that there were all these great teachings simply mired in a system that didn't live up to its own standards. I am learning differently. Few items, alone and in themselves, are truly "bad." But the "Collected Works" lead somewhere that a Christian with their mind in gear would not agree to go. It is the constant interspersing of garbage with the truth. Sectarian ideas phrased in the rhetoric of oneness. An air of humility in a man who would reject anyone else's teachings, and spit on a book by another. I don't really like all of what certain contemporary writers produce. But I do not spit on any of it. And I don't refer to them as demonic or Satanic. And while I may not have spent as many years allegedly given to the study of the Word as Lee did, I do recall that his former calling may have been as an accountant. Assuming that is true, he should have kept his day job. I honestly think that my pathetic understanding of scripture is at least founded on the scripture. I'm beginning to see more and more that Lee was not bound by scripture, but only by what he could define as a principle through which scripture could be reworded. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

11-29-2011, 09:15 AM	#2
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,384	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? One follow-up. My last post made some sweeping statements. For anyone who is incensed at them, rather than trying to dismantle them as a unit, let's turn to the teachings and the practices one-by-one and see how they fare. I will concede that I cannot prove my generalities in a single reply. But that does not make it invalid. It just makes the proof difficult. And it has been happening here and on the old BARM for several years. We have discussed many of the doctrines; "ground of locality," "God's economy" (both the teaching and the book), the Trinity, the definition of soul and spirit, Spiritual Authority (Authority and Submission), elders, apostles, abiding v obedience, works v dispensing. The list goes on. One thread was about teachings of Lee's that someone really liked. So many of them seemed to start with virtual dismissal of the actual words of the underlying scripture due to an over lay of "God's economy." Another thread covered the places where Lee altered readings and understandings in a manner that altered the meaning of scripture (under the title "The Leaven of Lee" or something like that). We have discovered that even Nee openly restated scripture to his liking and no one batted an eye. So if you want to discover the Lee (and possibly Nee) that evidences a disconnect from God rather than some special connection, we should pick a topic and start discussing it. And as I so often will state, Nee and Lee are not authorities for this purpose. We can read what they say. But it is not true until it is discovered to be true because it accurately aligns with the scripture or with standard understandings of scripture. I would even go so far as to suggest that Brethren teachings should be considered suspect because, at some level, they did no better than Nee and Lee. Even to the point of similar exclusivity. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

11-29-2011, 09:42 AM	#3
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? OBW, I agree with your point. My point was that until people jettison the MOTA concept (and with it the Recovery concept), they will not be able to see Lee in a way where his failings even matter. The "Recovery" was and is nothing more than Lee's private church, a subset of the Church in which he could make up certain rules and teachings which always pointed back to him as the final authority on everything. "The Recovery" is not scriptural, but he convinced enough people that it was real and he was at the helm. Those two principles, being the Recovery and being the MOTA, are self-reinforcing. When rival publications appeared, Lee gave lip service to personal freedom while stating in no uncertain terms that any teachings which were not completely in line with his were not of the Recovery, i.e. not of God's up-to-date, unique move. In other words, when you boil it down, it was all about him and what he thought. Period. Don't believe me, just read www.afaithfulword.org, an astounding bundle of circular logic whose conclusions are totally based on the notion that Lee and Nee were MOTAs which must never be questioned. I agree that if Lee were any typical Christian teacher, he would not be taken very seriously (in fact he is not) because of his arrogance and his shady dealings. But until one learns to look at him simply as one looks at any other Christian, one is going to continue grade him on a curve, the curve of him being right even when he's wrong.

11-29-2011, 03:57 PM	#5
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,384	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? Jane, You may not have said that Lee's ministry should simply be rejected. But I have. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

12-01-2011, 10:07 AM	#10
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,826	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? Cassidy, If you really want to be a stickler about semantics you would have noticed that Jane made a clear distinction between “teachings that cannot be trusted” and the rejection of Witness Lee’s entire ministry. Most reasonably people would have picked up on the difference. Actually, I think maybe you did to but are just trying to stir the pot... not that stirring the pot is against Forum rules, but don't forget the old adage that "too many cooks spoil the broth". None of us who were subjected to the teachings of Witness Lee for a substantial period of time need to be a clinical psychologist to know the affect they had upon us. The teachings and practices had a profound affect both the heart and the mind, and sorry to say that for the most part the affect was not positive. This is the main reason why much of our discussions regarding The Local Church seem to gravitate towards the “negative” side of the ledger. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

12-01-2011, 03:08 PM	#11
me Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? IMHO an all or nothing stance as it pertains to Bible teachers is somewhat childish. God gave us sober minds and discerning spirits and unlike Lee, the Blendeds, Titus Chu, etc. most Bible teachers today don't expect their audiences to accept everything they say as "the gospel truth". Adults discuss things and weigh things. So after hearing a sermon my wife and I discuss it on the way home and we may disagree with a few things or different things or whatever. So what? What's the big deal? But I do know one thing: if I ever came across a teacher who expected absolute agreement and acceptance of his teachings as "the truth" = finding the nearest exit and escaping through it as quickly as possible! There's too many good teachers out there who don't think this about themselves to be fiddling around with those who do.