The Ministry Becomes the Lampstand

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by OBW

I also believe that Lee spent hours praying, even as mentioned here. The problem is that he was never a cleansed vessel in the way that Don Hardy once believed. I'm not denying his salvation. I am denying some special cleansing. I would rather characterize his condition as "needing more cleansing." Since we have some record now of his returning to Taiwan to regain control over those churches (in the midst of this "cleansed" period), what was happening in the US can only be characterized as window dressing.

Yes indeed you have hit on a core issue! Witness Lee was persona non grata in Taiwan due to business dealings that went awry there. But is he going to come to America and tell people that? Of course not! So a "spiritual" story had to be made up to legitimize him and his work in the eyes of Christians here. (Using the name of Watchman Nee to gain credibility was part of that process.)

The cultural turmoil of the 1960s happened to be an ideal time for him to land on our fair shores with his tale because young people were searching for something "new" and the LC system's model at the time was highly community oriented. This was attractive to many who didn't want to be hardcore hippies but wanted communal living. Basically Jesus people who ended up in the LC system instead of another church.

Originally Posted by OBW

I find these kinds of statements like "charged and burdened by the Lord for the release of the Spirit and the unveiling of Christ and the church in the Scriptures," "Witness Lee was a cleansed vessel," and "His ministry was not common, but was proceeding out from the throne of God" to be extremely naive given all that we now know.

I find such statements by Indiana to not only be naive but also somewhat insulting to those who know what Witness Lee was really like.

I'm willing to say Witness Lee was a flawed Bible teacher who handicapped himself and his ministry by his own arrogant attitude and behaviors including engaging members of the LC system (in the Far East and America) in his failed business schemes. I agree with some of the things he taught and disagree with some of the things he taught. IMHO claiming that his ministry is anything more than that is wishful thinking at best and frankly I find it childish when Indiana or anyone else engages in such empty and unnecessary rhetoric.

[Indiana]

"The ministry should be for the church; the church should never be for the ministry. We must be exceedingly clear concerning this principle. We must drop all wrong practices. A gifted brother should keep his hands off the local church… All gifts and gifted persons must be entirely for the local church. This is a tremendously vital matter.” (W. L., The Vision of God’s Building, pp 173-175,1964)
So, Brother Lee, Philip Lee, Benson, et al, took this wrong way, thus causing division everywhere. This “tremendously vital matter” of not pushing a ministry is not heeded in the Local Churches today; they find the ministry of Witness Lee to be “indispensable to our oneness”, and herald their sectarian position before all in their One Publication proclamation, 2005.

http://www.twoturmoils.com/TheAccoun...dReceiving.pdf

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by Indiana

"The ministry should be for the church; the church should never be for the ministry. We must be exceedingly clear concerning this principle. We must drop all wrong practices. A gifted brother should keep his hands off the local church… All gifts and gifted persons must be entirely for the local church. This is a tremendously vital matter.” (W. L., The Vision of God’s Building, pp 173-175,1964)

Sorry Steve, but the way I read what Lee wrote here "a gifted brother must keep his hands off the local church" means a 'gifted' brother shouldn't contradict the teaching of Witness Lee... and if he does, then it's because he's not "for" the local church. This statement in 1964 is actually entirely consistent with the later one publication policy, one ministry, one trumpet etc etc. The problem here is the differentiation between "the ministry" and "the church" - where does that come from Biblically? This quote doesn't support your case that Lee was a Holy Roller who went off the rails in the mid-to-late 1970's, it shows he was self-seeking and self-exalting from the beginning.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

The ministry should be for the church; the church should never be for the ministry.

I believe this is a theme that ties the late 80's turmoil and the turmoil of the last decade together. It may have been one time the ministry existed to serve the localities, but no longer. The change in the late 80's became localities existing to serve the ministry. Once a locality no longer served the ministry, it was deemed to be replastered.

[UntoHim]

From: http://www.twoturmoils.com/TheAccoun...dReceiving.pdf

Former leading ones, John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, Bill Freeman, and many more have testified of the immense help they received under Lee’s ministry. A familiar word from those closest to him in Anaheim was that they could not believe the same person who imparted to them such a heavenly vision in his ministry could be the same one manifesting some defect of character with such devastating results as they bore witness to. They turned away from following him due to the discrepancy and division.

Throughout the history of man-made religion, people have testified of the immense help they have received from all sorts of so-called ministers, teachers and self-made apostles. The problem is that these are usually the very same people who were decidedly blinded to the bad fruit and damage caused by the teachings and practices from the very beginning. We now know for a fact that John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, Bill Freeman and many other of the earlier followers of Witness Lee failed to do their due diligence, or maybe even worse, they knew about the bad fruit and seemingly endless damage caused to the saints in the Far East, but chose to turn a blind eye. In fact, they promoted Witness Lee as the one minister with the one ministry for the age from the very beginning here in America.

To say that all the false teachings, divisive practices and abusive treatment of God's people is merely the result of "some defect of character" is a direct slap in the face of God, and a great insult to those of us who were deceived by this man and the religious system/movement he invented. Witness Lee's "heavenly vision" was not based in the Word of God, else it would not have produced the bad fruit and division that it cause from the very beginning. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately for us), thanks to the Internet and venues like this one, we have seen "the man behind the curtain", but unlike the well-meaning but bumbling false wizard, we were deceived by somebody who claimed to be speaking for God. To make matters worse, Lee's earliest followers blindly promoted him and his "heavenly vision", and thus thousands of new believers and young people were carried away, many of them still shipwrecked in their faith to this very day. May God have mercy.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

We now know for a fact that John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, Bill Freeman and many other of the earlier followers of Witness Lee failed to do their due diligence, or maybe even worse, they knew about the bad fruit and seemingly endless damage caused to the saints in the Far East, but chose to turn a blind eye. In fact, they promoted Witness Lee as the one minister with the one ministry for the age from the very beginning here in America.

Before I get to the Far East, I'll say this much I don't think they ever promoted Witness Lee "as the one minister with the one ministry for the age". That came from brothers who had the ambition to promote Witness Lee. Some brothers who left, their receiving of Lee was based on their vision of the Word through Nee's ministry. Once the nature of the recovery changed, they weren't going to go along with it. Even among brothers who did not openly promote WL, to remain idle and say nothing is just as bad because saying nothing gives the appearance "you agree with the promotions". That applies now with the BB's as it did then with WL.

I do know when the North American local church saints visited Taiwan in the mid-1960's, they knew nothing about what happened the previous decade. How the congregation became divided over selling church property to pay for Lee's personal debts. That was not revealed until decades later. One of the former elders who was on that trip to Taiwan said about 10 years ago as I paraphrase, had one of the Chinese saints said something, it would have made a difference. By the somber tone of the conversation, Lee would not have been given the latitude given when Daystar occurred. Knowing Lee's propensity to business dealings, eyes would have been open.
What about the last ten years? It's been said or suggested the Far East suffered far more devastation than the Great Lakes experienced from LSM. Brothers that know, won't go into detail. Only saying, give mercy. There is more than a fair amount of culpability in withholding the negative aspect of the recovery's history. As we know from reading the Word, there are many examples where a person's reputation or honor is not spared or kept hidden for our acceptance.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Indiana

"The ministry should be for the church; the church should never be for the ministry. We must be exceedingly clear concerning this principle. We must drop all wrong practices. A gifted brother should keep his hands off the local church… All gifts and gifted persons must be entirely for the local church. This is a tremendously vital matter.” (W. L., The Vision of God’s Building, pp 173-175,1964)
So, Brother Lee, Philip Lee, Benson, et al, took this wrong way, thus causing division everywhere. This “tremendously vital matter” of not pushing a ministry is not heeded in the Local Churches today; they find the ministry of Witness Lee to be “indispensable to our oneness”, and herald their sectarian position before all in their One Publication proclamation, 2005.

IMHO from the inception of the LC system in America (Witness Lee brand) his ministry was indispensable to their oneness. His ministry was the curriculum for all the churches, his publications were sold in all the churches, people were expected to attend his trainings and conferences, elders were appointed by him, elders and coworkers were expected to attend conferences specifically for them and all decisions of any signifcance had to be fellowshipped with him for his approval prior to implementation. This was true in the 1960s, 1970s and the 1980s. But in the 1986 what was already true in practice became official when the elders and coworkers signed a document stating that his ministry was indispensable to the oneness. This merely confirmed what already existed for decades.

[UntoHim]

Many thanks to alwayslearning for stating this is a more concise and succinct package.

My dear brother Terry, I understand and appreciate that you have ties that go way back in the Local Church. But I am afraid that you have bought into the fairy tales. You will not find any person on this forum who respects John Ingalls, Bill Mallon and some of the others more than me, but the simple fact is that they were simply the first in a long line of gullible Americans to be deceived by Witness Lee. No, Lee probably didn't use the exact words "the one minister with the one ministry for the age", but all the puzzle pieces were there from the beginnings, and had they done a little investigation, coupled it with some basic decrement and common sense, they would have rejected Witness Lee at the start.

More later.

[Indiana]

Brother Lee was as an apostle to John Ingalls and others who were being called into the fellowship of the Son in the local churches in the 1960s. Samuel Chang, who knew of Brother Lee’s negative side, was there also following him. These brothers, according to their own testimony, perceived that his ministry was coming out from God, enlightening and enlivening them. They, in response to the Spirit, gave themselves to the vision they received for the building up of the church. It is not that they were gullible or being taken advantage of, but that true light was shining and saints were singing “we are home, we are home, we are home!” The brothers were in a move of the Lord!

The Defect

Brother Lee once shared that some men or women of God in the past had defects. Yet, they were still used by God. He gave certain examples.

Samuel Chang once described a defect in Brother Lee himself and warned of it (1966); but he did not discount Witness Lee or his ministry, at that time.


Samuel Chang to Don Hardy

“SC was very burdened and started groaning deep within, praying. Then he said: "Don, I want to share something with you for prayer, and you must keep it to yourself. Brother Lee loves the Lord, and is all-out for God and His recovery. But Don, he has a weakness, a big hole in his side, which we have to keep covered much in prayer. You see, his children (7 of them) suffered very much in China, and they are always after him; and he has a burden to help them as much as he can. But WL is very poor right now. So he has tried to help Timothy in business, but....." Then SC did a strange thing, he slapped his mouth with his hand, and told me, "Oh, I should keep quiet. Forgive me brother Don, just pray.”

When Daystar happened in the early seventies, the defect was manifest and began the decline of the churches in the U. S.


SENIOR COWORKERS

1974 to 1988 = decline to the point of senior coworkers opening to John Ingalls in fellowship which got into John’s book, a transparent account of “the decline,” and his exit from the churches. The decline, of course, featured the movement of a man and his ministry - in ministry churches, causing permanent division in what was called the Lord’s recovery.


“Brother Chu Shun Min then told me how that on April 1, 1988, he had a conversation with Brother Lee in the Bay Area. He presented a number of serious concerns to Brother Lee and asked him to bring all these things to the Lord. Brother Chu told me that Brother Lee listened quietly and passively to all his points (with one exception), making no comment, neither admitting nor denying. The exception was a point he made concerning Brother Lee’s son, Philip Lee.

“In conclusion, Brother Chu told Brother Lee, "All the sweet feeling we had in the past is lost. All the rest in our spirit is over."

http://twoturmoils.com/twoseniorcoworkers.pdf

Steve Isitt
12-30-2012

[UntoHim]

For decades after coming to America, Witness Lee denied being an apostle. He even denied being an apostle under oath in a legal deposition (circa 1981). Not more than 7 years later Lee was boastfully declaring that he was the only person ON EARTH speaking as God’s oracle SINCE 1945, and most of his closest co-workers were declaring that he was “an apostle of the first kind”, comparing him to the apostle Paul.

Dear brothers and sisters, this kind of attitude did NOT just appear in the 1980s, or even the 1970s. There is ample evidence that Witness Lee held this kind of attitude all the way back to the Taiwan days, and maybe even before. The evidence was there for Lee’s earliest American followers to find out, if they just did some basic fact checking. For example, they could have easily found out that, despite his claims, Witness Lee was not the only person sent out by Watchman Nee to continue the Local Church denomination. They could have easily found out that Lee had already defrauded and even sued members of his own sect. They could have easily found out that his teachings were already being challenged and found to be unbiblical by other Christians there in Taiwan.

Witness Lee already had a reputation of financial malfeasance (with church funds no less), and it’s a safe bet that his sons Timothy and Phillip were already well on their way to becoming a major disgrace to Witness and the denomination he lead. The simple fact is that by the time Witness Lee hit our fair shores, he did not even meet the most basic qualifications to be an elder, much less the leader and chief theologian of an entire Christian movement. Samuel Chang was surely aware of this, and you can be sure that the saints whom Lee defrauded were aware as well.

And I haven’t even gotten into the fact that Witness Lee had already deviated greatly from Watchman Nee in teaching and in practice. Many of Nee’s books were already available at this time, and had the early Americans done some fact checking and comparing and contrasting, they would have seen the stark contrast between Nee and Lee right from the start.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

For decades after coming to America, Witness Lee denied being an apostle. He even denied being an apostle under oath in a legal deposition (circa 1981). Not more than 7 years later Lee was boastfully declaring that he was the only person ON EARTH speaking as God’s oracle SINCE 1945, and most of his closest co-workers were declaring that he was “an apostle of the first kind”, comparing him to the apostle Paul.

Dear brothers and sisters, this kind of attitude did NOT just appear in the 1980s, or even the 1970s. There is ample evidence that Witness Lee held this kind of attitude all the way back to the Taiwan days, and maybe even before.....

Witness Lee already had a reputation of financial malfeasance (with church funds no less), and it’s a safe bet that his sons Timothy and Phillip were already well on their way to becoming a major disgrace to Witness and the denomination he lead. The simple fact is that by the time Witness Lee hit our fair shores, he did not even meet the most basic qualifications to be an elder, much less the leader and chief theologian of an entire Christian movement. Samuel Chang was surely aware of this, and you can be sure that the saints whom Lee defrauded were aware as well.

1. At least we can say there was discrepancy in the testimony of Witness Lee and it “blew the minds" of leaders. Some left, some stayed. But all would agree he was an oracle of God to them with more than basic qualifications.

2. He liked to avoid saying he was an apostle, but he described himself as one, even as a commander-in-chief and a wise masterbuilder. Benson and Ray Graver picked up what he was tacitly saying, THAT “I am an apostle” (in a certain sense) and need more serious support- they thus campaigned in the churches for him and his ministry. WL had said that he was forced to “speak foolishly” concerning himself and his ministry, as Paul did in 2 Corinthians. The brothers “read between the lines” and rose up to speak on his behalf, and 400+ brothers signed an agreement with them to follow WL as the one who “led them into God’s New Testament economy” in teaching and practice.

3. In one of my last meetings before being cut off, a major blending brother very "humbly" and carefully uplifted Witness Lee’s ministry as surpassing Watchman Nee’s and, yes, even the apostle Paul’s (in a certain sense). This statement might be roundly criticized, but broken down it means that Lee has come later and stands on their shoulders, and has entered into the spirit of Paul’s writings and expounded on them all in hundreds of pages of easily readable and well-edited New Testament fellowship.

4. LSM strategy is to use Watchman Nee as a blocking fullback protecting Witness Lee and opening the way for him to run and for his ministry to spread. Watchman Nee’s name protects him and covers him, and also LSM, at every turn, though Nee would never himself cover him if he was present.

We should read carefully this testimony:

“The Daystar experience was a great frustration to the move of the Spirit.
In 1975, we were having a conference in Dallas. Before the meetings, we would pray in the large home on our property and then would walk across the parking lot to the large new hall we had just built. One evening I was walking with Brother Lee. He stopped, turned to me and then put his arm around my shoulder. (Never before and never since have I seen him embrace a brother.) Thus, I realized he was about to tell me something very serious. He told me that he had made a terrible mistake with Daystar. He said that if he saw Brother Nee he would not know what to say since Brother Nee had warned him not to mix the church with financial matters or business. He then told me that he had once told Watchman Nee that he was not following him (Watchman Nee), but rather was following the truth and vision that Brother Nee taught. Furthermore, that he (Witness Lee) would not follow Watchman Nee if Brother Nee left the vision, but he (Brother Lee) would continue to follow the vision. He then looked me straight in the eye and charged me, “Brother Don, if I leave the vision do not follow me, but follow the vision.” I was a little speechless but I did manage to return the embrace and assure Brother Lee that I would remain true to the vision and the truth.” -Don Rutledge


Steve Isitt
12-31-2012

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Brother Lee was as an apostle to John Ingalls and others who were being called into the fellowship of the Son in the local churches in the 1960s. Samuel Chang, who knew of Brother Lee’s negative side, was there also following him. These brothers, according to their own testimony, perceived that his ministry was coming out from God, enlightening and enlivening them. They, in response to the Spirit, gave themselves to the vision they received for the building up of the church. It is not that they were gullible or being taken advantage of, but that true light was shining and saints were singing “we are home, we are home, we are home!” The brothers were in a move of the Lord!

Witness Lee was like a man who omits major events on his resume and provides a key reference who cannot be reached because he is in a Maoist gulag. Meanwhile a reference like Samuel Chang remains mute and this no doubt had more to do with his culture than anything else. Of course the problem with lying by omission on a resume is that eventually things start to show up in the workplace and people start to take a closer look at the real you and finally do a background check which they should have done in the first place.

Witness Lee was "an apostle to John Ingalls and others..."? Really? Imagine if this "sent one" told them the truth: that actually he was not sent by the Lord to America to start the recovery but rather had become persona non grata in the Far East because of his financial shenanigans among the churches and was running away from the mess he created. What if he told the truth about how he handled the TAS issue and the situation in Hong Kong, etc. If he put that on his resume or innocents at the time like John Ingalls did a background check instead of taking him at face value I seriously doubt they would have joined up with Witness Lee to help him build up the LC system in America. And after dedicating their lives in helping him what did they get in the end when making legitimate inquiries into how "the work" was operating? Ridiculed and ousted. Just like what happened to coworkers in the Far East decades before. Different decade. Different country. Same Witness Lee.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Witness Lee was like a man who omits major events on his resume and provides a key reference who cannot be reached because he is in a Maoist gulag. Meanwhile a reference like Samuel Chang remains mute and this no doubt had more to do with his culture than anything else. Of course the problem with lying by omission on a resume is that eventually things start to show up in the workplace and people start to take a closer look at the real you and finally do a background check which they should have done in the first place.

For arguments sake, suppose you are correct in what you're saying, how would you go about a background check? You have a language barrier. Suppose you use a Chinese speaking brother to translate your questions. Would the answers be forthcoming? Would the translater be willing to translate the answer? This is more a recent example than historical. Much more than this, don't lose sight we're speaking of brothers. Unless there is a Biblical reason to refuse a brother, he should be received. That does not mean there should be unquestioned latitude given.
Regardless cuplability is shared. Even now as it was then.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Many thanks to alwayslearning for stating this is a more concise and succinct package.

My dear brother Terry, I understand and appreciate that you have ties that go way back in the Local Church. But I am afraid that you have bought into the fairy tales. You will not find any person on this forum who respects John Ingalls, Bill Mallon and some of the others more than me, but the simple fact is that they were simply the first in a long line of gullible Americans to be deceived by Witness Lee. No, Lee probably didn't use the exact words "the one minister with the one ministry for the age", but all the puzzle pieces were there from the beginnings, and had they done a little investigation, coupled it with some basic decrement and common sense, they would have rejected Witness Lee at the start.

More later.

UntoHim, I was quite fine with your post until I came across the phrase "fairy tales". I was perturbed, but I plan to remain participating on this forum.

[OBW]

It is unfortunate that we all bought into fairy tales while in the LRC. They may have morphed over time, and been added onto, but they were always there. And one of the fairy tales that I keep hearing is how certain things were so different back in the 60s and early 70s. I can only comment on the 60s from external knowledge of the sketchy history that is now available, along with some of the doctrinal garbage that was published during that period.

I cannot declare that there was no enjoyment and fellowship among the believers. There clearly was a lot. But the overlay of "blessing" is almost clearly a presumption based on the enjoyment and fellowship. But people tend to be in a state of enjoyment when they find something new and different. While not "related," it is notable that people often enjoy their first hit of cocaine. Eventually, life is a drudgery without more hits just to feel a little better.

And some of those "it didn't happen until the end of the 70s" things, like people calling Lee an apostle is simply a rewrite of history. I heard it in the first months of 73. It was probably soft-sell then, coupled with statements about us all being "sent ones." But there was, at minimum, a kind of beating-around-the-bush to make Nee and Lee into much more of an apostle than what everyone might be. They were clearly the "capital A" Apostles that gave anything to anyone else to be a "small a" apostle.

Yes, there were some more enjoyable times in the 60s and 70s. But they were less because of Lee and the LRC and more because of something new. There was surely blessing on many. But it was not about the "church." It was not special to the LRC. It never was.

That the LRC was something special and it went away is a fairy tale. It was never something special. It was a transplanted upstart group whose initial goal was to create an indigenous church that did not owe anything to foreign mission boards or denominations, now transplanted to America. Now there's an interesting take on it. A group created to be indigenously Chinese transplanting itself to Westerners.

That the people had a better time of enjoyment in those days is true. But it was not about the LRC, but the people.