Angel of Light Ministers in the LC

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

I have a question about WL's 2 sons. Why were those incidences not reported to the police? Were things different back then?

Because Witness Lee promised the saints that he would take care of the matter. Who would you trust more, dear old Brother Lee or some LA cop?

The same thing happens over and over, whether the Recovery or the Catholic Church or the Penn State University. Someone in charge, well-trusted and highly respected, whose credentials in your eyes are without reproach, says to you, "I'll take care of this matter."

[Truth]

I understand. However, because this was not brought to the proper authorities, this kind of behavior in the WL's sons perpetuated, and some others were wounded as well. This is what happens when you idolize someone above the law. No one is above the law (even human government laws), except God Himself.

One my favorite the books is Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, where the main character had a thought that he was above the law. He commits a serious crime (2 murders) and his conscience tortures him, until he gives himself in to the police. During this process, he receives the salvation of God.

It is sad that WL was not only saved but considered a spiritual giant, and yet he had no conscience in this matter (regarding his sons).

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Indiana

I am sorry to have to give such a report to the reader, but there are two sides to talk about concerning Brother Lee.

Compare and contrast with the living and abiding Word of God:
With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God;
from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.
Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water?

No wonder Witness Lee badmouthed James, it exposes him in a major way. The current leadership of The Local Church cannot afford to let the members know about this side of Lee and his family because it will call into question his so-called rich and heavenly ministry. Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water? Thanks brother James for setting us all straight.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Compare and contrast with the living and abiding Word of God:
With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God;
from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.
Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water?

No wonder Witness Lee badmouthed James, it exposes him in a major way. The current leadership of The Local Church cannot afford to let the members know about this side of Lee and his family because it will call into question his so-called rich and heavenly ministry. Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water? Thanks brother James for setting us all straight.

I'm not sure if I agree with your interpretation of this verse. I'm not saying I disagree with this verse. But it is a tricky verse.

Consider this: Peter was speaking words of revelation in minute and then in another minute, the Lord called him Satan because he was speaking words of Satan.

Also in the Old Testament, David was a man according to God's heart. However he committed 2 great sins (adultery and murder). His sins did not negate the fact that he still had a good heart for God. His sins did not invalidate his "ministry". So goes the same with David's son, Soloman.

I don't think WL's entire ministry was invalid just because of his behavior (lack of control over his sons, not apologizing to the saints, ex-communicating innocent saints, etc...). And also, I don't think WL's entire ministry was invalid just because some parts of his ministry may be wrong.

The interpretation that James was a little off the New Testament track is not a new idea invented by WL. This has been pointed out previously by Christian scholars. Also there is a reason why the book of James almost did not make it as part of the cannon, but this is a completely separate discussion. The point I am trying to make is that even if WL was wrong in his interpretation of James, that does not invalidate the rest of his ministry.

WL is just one man. He has his thoughts and opinions which formed his ministry. Some of it is part of the genuine NT ministry and some of it isn't. I'm not here to debate what is and what isn't. But I want to point out that there are probably no ministers who have it 100% right. If we all understood the bible 100%, we would be God. This is why we need to constantly seek the Lord for more revelation and not assume anything.

Lastly, the problem I have with Lee is not the verse you pointed out. But the fact that he did not confess to any of the problems he caused among the saints due to his sons. Instead he kept his image and his sons' images pristine and sacrificed the others. David confessed, so did Peter. Maybe WL confessed too, but he did not do it publicly (especially to clear it with those whom he offended).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

I don't think WL's entire ministry was invalid just because of his behavior (lack of control over his sons, not apologizing to the saints, ex-communicating innocent saints, etc...). And also, I don't think WL's entire ministry was invalid just because some parts of his ministry may be wrong.

I agree with this.

On the other hand, I have been removed from my steady and intense diet of only WL for a good number of years. Now when I read his ministry, things tend to jump out and trouble me. Lots of this is related to his general condemnation of all things Christian, and his exclusive claims concerning God's blessing upon the Recovery. I now consider these to be "leaven."

Concerning the teachings of the Pharisees, the Lord Jesus did tell us to "do what they say, but not what they do," thus exposing their continual hypocrisy in action. The Lord Jesus did not condemn their teachings categorically, but did warn the disciples to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." Hence, due to all we now know of WL and his teachings, we must read his books with a heightened level of discernment.

[UntoHim]

Thanks for your participation Truth, your point of view is sorely needed around this place.

Actually one thing I really appreciate about James is that he is pretty straight forward...not a lot of "interpretation" is needed. The context is very clear at the end of James 3 - the context is hypocrisy, which is why I quoted the two verses before the one that says "Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water?"

I did not say, nor would I ever say, that Witness Lee's entire ministry was invalid just because of his behavior. I hope you can understand that there is some kind of middle ground between the two extremes - of Lee being the one minister with the one ministry of the age and the other that he was some maniacal cult leader. After about 37 years of close association (both in and out of the LC Movement) I know for a fact that neither one of these two extremes are accurate.

To say that Witness Lee’s “interpretation that James was a little off the New Testament track” is a gross understatement. Here is an exact quote: "Today's Christianity, just like James, is devoid of divine revelation. James was a sincere, god-fearing man, but was lacking spiritual discernment and revelation.""The Uniqueness of the Lord's Recovery" HWMR It is this kind of asinine and absurd statement that has gotten Witness Lee in trouble, and it also explains why many of his followers seem to treat his words as equal to or even above the Word of God.

Anyway, getting back to the passage I quoted from James, I think the point is that hypocrisy can “pollute” one’s ministry, and we know for a fact that Witness Lee’s hypocrisy extends as far back as his earlier days in Taiwan, probably even before. And what makes matters worse is that his ministry is the only “fountain” in the Local Church/LSM Movement, and the Blended Brothers have made sure that it remains as the only fountain.

I don’t think using the example of the failures of any of the Old Testament figures is applicable. The standard is much higher today. God has given us more, and he expects more from us, especially Christian leadership. Just ask Jim Bakker, just ask Jimmy Swaggart, just ask Ted Haggard. And it was not just sin that brought them down – it was HYPOCRISY. Their ministries were very helpful to many people, but their ministries were also polluted by their sin AND by their hypocrisy.

[OBW]

I have a handful of comments (hopefully short this time), but I will start with this comment by Truth.

Originally Posted by Truth

I don't think WL's entire ministry was invalid just because of his behavior (lack of control over his sons, not apologizing to the saints, ex-communicating innocent saints, etc...). And also, I don't think WL's entire ministry was invalid just because some parts of his ministry may be wrong.

You are at least partly correct. WL's sons do not disqualify him. Neither do some kinds of errors in teaching. I would presume that, given our general lack of certainty concerning at least some parts of scripture, no one's teaching is entirely correct. But most are materially correct.

And when I say materially correct, I mean that the core components of the faith are correctly included.

So, for me, to dismiss Lee as a teacher is more about the overall quality of his emphasis than on some kind of weighing of good v bad teaching. He included the sound, orthodox core of the teaching of scripture. But the things that he majored on were too often questionable, at best. He majored on teachings that created a divide between the LRC and the rest of Christianity. He drilled this divide into his followers and then chastised Christianity for lack of oneness or unity. At this point, it would seem that completely separate denominations get along much better than some portions of the LRC, yet they claim to be imbued with special blessing by God for their unifying stand on the basis of political boundaries arbitrarily created by man.

Lee did not need to control his sons. He needed to expel them from contact with his ministry or with the churches. He was guilty of the very thing that Eli was condemned for in 1 Samuel.

As for the book of James, this little letter never contradicts justification by faith. It simply questions whether claims of faith are legitimate where there is no evidence that the supposed believers are actually obeying the one that they claim to have come to believe and follow. The evidence does not save you. But lack of evidence seriously suggests that claims of belief are nothing more than rhetoric . . . agreeing with terms and phrases but not having a real belief that changes you.

As for the suggestion that the police be called on Lee's sons, I am not aware of any situation in which the activity was criminally forced. The "law" that takes these things "very seriously" is civil law, not criminal law. You do want to make an account of the events, but the police are not necessarily the best choice, and have no responsibility to arrest anyone unless there is reasonable suspicion of physical force being applied to gain compliance.

In the corporate realm, what is now called sexual harassment generally is not something that you call the police about, but you call a lawyer. It is not a crime for which incarceration can be imposed. But there can be monetary penalties awarded in a lawsuit, as well as loss of employment for the perpetrator (assuming that the employer is righteous). And a stigma that will follow you.

It is interesting that one of the women who was involved was the wife of an Anaheim police officer who had to be talked-down from simply going and doing some kind of bodily harm to PL when he found out. The problem there is that the only one that would potentially go to jail for such an act would have been the policeman.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is interesting that one of the women who was involved was the wife of an Anaheim police officer who had to be talked-down from simply going and doing some kind of bodily harm to PL when he found out. The problem there is that the only one that would potentially go to jail for such an act would have been the policeman.

What ............... ?!? Never heard that before.

Is that the brother who was bent on shooting PL for molesting his wife, but was talked out of it by John Ingalls?

John Ingalls saves PL's life (and the officer too) and then gets publicly shamed and quarantined for his actions!

These kinds of stories convince me that LSM leaders have become nothing more than today's Pharisees. Look at how much good Jesus did for Israel in those 3-1/2 years, but all He got was a public "quarantine" by the Pharisees, who then convinced Pilate to scourge and crucify Him.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Because Witness Lee promised the saints that he would take care of the matter. Who would you trust more, dear old Brother Lee or some LA cop?

The same thing happens over and over, whether the Recovery or the Catholic Church or the Penn State University. Someone in charge, well-trusted and highly respected, whose credentials in your eyes are without reproach, says to you, "I'll take care of this matter."

If you pay any attention to sports news, it is well-known how the US public has reacted to the Penn State situation. The reaction involves something that occurred more than 10 years ago. As for the recovery, this is how their Public Relations spokesperson responded to a concerned brother:

"As to the issues you have raised related to the events of the distant past, the brothers here just do not have the heart to reopen old wounds and delve into matters that we believe were resolved many years ago. After considering your manuscript, it just didn’t seem that anything new was there, so it’s hard to see what good could come of it. "

There is a comparison between Joe Paterno and Witness Lee. Both were highly respected men of their respective organizations. Each choose a path of controversy in handling a sensitive situation.
Difference being Penn State had Joe Paterno's statue torn down. In the recovery, history becomes selective to preserve an image.

[Truth]

I don't think Penn State had a choice. The whole nation now knows. And those who were involved by being silent are now being investigated.

Everything is still hush hush in the LC. Criminal charges need to be pressed before all this can be public and images are torn down.

That is the difference.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

Everything is still hush hush in the LC. Criminal charges need to be pressed before all this can be public and images are torn down.

I struggle with Paul's word to Corinth about not going to law (I Cor. 6.1-8) because in the hands of abusive leaders it can become a license for them to continue without outside intervention, especially when the "wisest" brother around, who was considered by many to be their "spiritual father," was the one under discussion.

[Truth]

It is true that the LCs has had a very bad history. However, the person who caused the problem, WL, has passed away. Also, the last group of people (the current BB) who witnessed some of the horrible things that happened in the LCs will also pass away. It is sad that no one will take responsibility for what happened. Yet the Lord will judge. We are not the judge. He is the judge.

The fact is the new generation of LC members will rise up and take the place of the BB in about 20 years. Since these younger members have no idea of the past (none witnessed), they are completely innocent. If they remain innocent and do not play hypocrisy, it can bring the LC into a new era. I think this may happen. The Lord will have a new start with a new group of leaders. I already see it happening. The current young people (from teenager all the way to about 40 years old) are much more broad and accepting of Christianity than the older generation. Many of you have not seen the newer members of the LC. The fact is if the current LCs are as exclusive as many of you say they are, they will never survive. However many of you speak from the past.

There is another thread that says "What about the present?" Maybe I should post there. Slowly, the part of WL's ministry where he condemns Christianity will fade away. The LCs will no longer use that part of the ministry. It is just impossible to gain and keep new members with that kind of condemnation. I'm already seeing it right now, even with the "kosher" radio program that LSM produces (yes, I know some of you think it is hypocrisy...still this indicates that there is already a shift). Also we rarely speak of these items in WL's ministry in our meetings anymore (only in big conferences that LSM hosts). Believe it or not, many of the current (younger) LCs are no longer as exclusive as many of you think (at least relatively to their past).

[Indiana]

The Claim that it was said the Manager of LSM Should Be Fired

On page 51, FPR, John Ingalls is charged with suggesting that the manager of Living Stream should be fired, as if this was an attack and not a legitimate suggestion. The LSM manager was responsible for immoral behavior and for division in the churches, which Brother Lee was well aware of before he released The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. Yet he indicts John Ingalls for suggesting that his son, Philip Lee, should be fired! As was shared earlier, Paul Kerr, a promising younger brother in Anaheim during the turmoil, wrote: “In the real business world, where I operate, Philip Lee would have been fired, legally charged by the abused plaintiff, forced to settle for millions of dollars and he and the LSM would have been reported to the California labor board”.

Brothers like John Ingalls and Paul Kerr should be commended for their integrity when there was none in the political handling of Philip Lee by others during the late eighties turmoil.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truth

It is true that the LCs has had a very bad history. However, the person who caused the problem, WL, has passed away. Also, the last group of people (the current BB) who witnessed some of the horrible things that happened in the LCs will also pass away. It is sad that no one will take responsibility for what happened. Yet the Lord will judge. We are not the judge. He is the judge.

The fact is the new generation of LC members will rise up and take the place of the BB in about 20 years. Since these younger members have no idea of the past (none witnessed), they are completely innocent. If they remain innocent and do not play hypocrisy, it can bring the LC into a new era. I think this may happen. The Lord will have a new start with a new group of leaders. I already see it happening. The current young people (from teenager all the way to about 40 years old) are much more broad and accepting of Christianity than the older generation. Many of you have not seen the newer members of the LC. The fact is if the current LCs are as exclusive as many of you say they are, they will never survive. However many of you speak from the past.

There is another thread that says "What about the present?" Maybe I should post there. Slowly, the part of WL's ministry where he condemns Christianity will fade away. The LCs will no longer use that part of the ministry. It is just impossible to gain and keep new members with that kind of condemnation. I'm already seeing it right now, even with the "kosher" radio program that LSM produces (yes, I know some of you think it is hypocrisy...still this indicates that there is already a shift). Also we rarely speak of these items in WL's ministry in our meetings anymore (only in big conferences that LSM hosts). Believe it or not, many of the current (younger) LCs are no longer as exclusive as many of you think (at least relatively to their past).

Thanks Truth, I'm not sure if anyone has yet to express this view of the Recovery.

Looking back on our history, it just seems impossible to separate exclusivism from hypocrisy. Once the unending claims were made that the Recovery was God's Move on Earth, that Witness Lee was the Minister of the Age, and that the rest of the body of Christ was hopelessly and pitifully degraded, then the entire leadership was forced to play the hypocrite to maintain some false image to the rank and file.

If today's generation has dropped those exclusive claims, then they can be liberated from the many entanglements of the current leadership, including lawsuits and quarantines, and that's good news! It's so much better just to be who you are in Christ, and not be forced to maintain some old pretension.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If today's generation has dropped those exclusive claims, then they can be liberated from the many entanglements of the current leadership, including lawsuits and quarantines, and that's good news! It's so much better just to be who you are in Christ, and not be forced to maintain some old pretension.

This is exactly what I'm hoping...that the next generation will have a new start. I don't sense that the younger are judgmental at all. And many who are deeply involved with the LCs, though they don't criticize Witness Lee's condemning part of his ministry, don't really emphasize either, if at all. They seem to just ignore that part. If this trend continue, it is a positive thing, even if the LCs still only use WL's ministry (at least it is the good part of his ministry).

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Truth

It is true that the LCs has had a very bad history.

The fact is the new generation of LC members will rise up and take the place of the BB in about 20 years. Since these younger members have no idea of the past (none witnessed), they are completely innocent. If they remain innocent and do not play hypocrisy, it can bring the LC into a new era. I think this may happen. The Lord will have a new start with a new group of leaders. I already see it happening. The current young people (from teenager all the way to about 40 years old) are much more broad and accepting of Christianity than the older generation. Many of you have not seen the newer members of the LC. The fact is if the current LCs are as exclusive as many of you say they are, they will never survive. However many of you speak from the past.

Ignorance of their history does not change it which is a fundamental flaw of your argument. The younger generation of leaders have to squarely face the history of their church and take measures so it is not repeated when the next Witness Lee comes along. (And there's at least one in every crowd!)

As OBW as indicated a couple of other things would be necessary: a dismal of the ground of locality doctrine and a lexicon that makes sense to average people.

I would add the following:

1. The removal of LSM as having any special place or status above other publishers as far the LC system is concerned i.e. the LCs not a captured audience for LSM. (No we don't have to buy your books, no we don't have to announce your events, no we don't have to sell your books, no we don't have to attend your events, no we don't have to use your material. And if you don't like it too bad - we don't care what you think about us not doing it.)
2. The disbanding of the Anaheim Politburo.
3. "The work" being put in it's proper place without any influence or control of the LCs.

These are structural changes that reach into the core of how the LC really operates. If that doesn't change nothing substantial ever will. IMHO relying on the ignorance of the next generation is a poor substitute for real change.

[Cal]

Truth, I would say as long as you are afraid to confront LSM about their abuses of God's children, there is something unhealthy about your relationship with them. Even you should admit that.

[Truth]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Ignorance of their history does not change it which is a fundamental flaw of your argument.

I'm not suggesting ignorance of history changes history. But I am suggesting that if you are pure and innocent and you become the leader then there is a good chance for change.

Corruption, not wrong teaching (I'm not saying WL doesn't have wrong teaching), was what brought down the recovery in the 80's. This is very obvious to me. This was what caused the LCs to lose its blessings. Once corruption is gone, then the blessing will come again.

By the way, I don't consider it corrupt to follow a ministry exclusively. But I do consider it wrong to force others to do the same.

From the other point of view: just as it is wrong to condemn someone who does not follow WL's ministry, it is just as wrong to condemn someone who does (even if they do it exclusively). We have the freedom in Christ to follow the ministry/ministries that helps us the most. Please do not tell me which ministry I should read or not read. You may make suggestions but not condemnations. You must be fair on both sides. I understand some of you are against WL's ministry because you find that it doesn't help you. I respect that. But please also respect those who are helped by WL's ministry.

Lastly, I don't know if any of you still participate as an active member in the LCs. I am still one. From my observation, regardless of what you all say, I have not seen the kind of corruption in the young people that you describe with the BB. I don't doubt that what some of you say about the BB is true. However it is unfair to say that the young ones are just the same. Again this is just my observation. True enough, I have not observed EVERY young person in the LCs. But I have observed enough to make a fair statement.

We don't know the future. Only time will tell. But as of right now, I have not observed the exclusivity in the newer generation as I have observed in the old. This is just my observation of all the young people I've seen. I feel it is unfair to say today's new generation is guilty of their predecessors' past. However, if the new generation become corrupt, then we will not see the changes in the LCs that I hope for in the future.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

There is a comparison between Joe Paterno and Witness Lee. Both were highly respected men of their respective organizations. Each choose a path of controversy in handling a sensitive situation.

Witness Lee had a ministry to preserve and Joe Paterno had a football program to preserve.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...sky-abuse-1976

"Is it accurate that Coach Paterno quickly said to you, I don't want to hear about any of that kind of stuff, I have a football season to worry about?"

Reinsert football season with ministry and that's the consensus not wanting to hear about "persons, matters, and things".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Witness Lee had a ministry to preserve and Joe Paterno had a football program to preserve.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...sky-abuse-1976

"Is it accurate that Coach Paterno quickly said to you, I don't want to hear about any of that kind of stuff, I have a football season to worry about?"

Reinsert football season with ministry and that's the consensus not wanting to hear about "persons, matters, and things".

The way people feel about Joe Paterno, after learning how he enabled Jerry Sandusky to molest boys for decades, is exactly how I feel about Witness Lee, who enabled his own son Phillip to do similar atrocities as the ministry "Office."