The Ministry Becomes the Lampstand

[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

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Indiana

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.

I'm not quite sure if this is supposed to be a response to my post or what. Lee did not say he was "an" oracle (that would be bad enough) he said he was THE ONLY ORACLE....Big difference. "An oracle of God to them"? Sure, and many Catholics would call the Pope an oracle of God to them, and Seventh Day Adventists would call Ellen White and oracle of God to them. Being a good speaker with all sorts of highfalutin spiritual sounding jargon does not excuse a man from the scriptural requirements to be a leader among God's people. Can you understand this, or is it that you just don't agree?

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..

You are not going back far enough my brother. You are speaking of the mid-late 80s Lee. I just gave you a lot of factual information which shows he had such an attitude decades before this.

3In 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.

The apostle Paul clearly and plainly stated that his writings were to complete the Word of God. I don't care whose shoulders you're standing on, if someone says that their words are surpassing anything in the New Testament they are to be condemned and marked as a heretic. Furthermore, "easily readable and well-edited" do not equal sound and orthodox. Much of Lee's ministry cannot be called "New Testament fellowship" since much of it cannot be found anywhere in the New Testament.

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.

I don't think Watchman Nee would allow Witness Lee into the stadium.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Indiana

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.”

The problem is, how do you distinguish between the man and the vision? I submit that you cannot. Especially when the man claims to be the only contemporary bearer of the vision. Especially when the man's core followers claim the man's words are second only to the Bible in authority (and practically equal to it, and sometimes better than it). Many, including you, Steve, have tried to follow the vision rather than the man, and were defamed and disfellowshipped for doing so. What are you supposed to do? Spend your life arguing over what the "vision" really is? Surely not.

What must become clear is there is a more fundamental error at work--and that is this whole exercise of becoming obsessed with one man and his vision, or even thinking it is an important issue. The Bible never, ever encourages this exercise. This is why, positively or negatively, obsession with Lee and his vision, and more fundamentally, thinking you need to identify who is "the man" or what is "the vision," is an error.

The truth of the Bible is that God has spoken in his Son, and his Son is manifested through all the members of the Body. There is never the thought in the Bible that one man can embody all, most, or even a large chunk of this speaking. Why? I think it is because once you go down that road you inevitably end up in the place where the LRC is. If you believe in the man and vision of the age, or anything even approaching it, you are going to end up with rabid followers who are willing to throw anyone and everyone under the bus to defend him and his vision. It's inevitably and inescapably part of the package.

Obsession with a man, Lee or any other, is unhealthy. It is unhealthy for those who defend him, and it is unhealthy to some degree for those who accuse him. It is an exercise whose very existence demonstrates why the Lord is so wise in never endorsing the idea of a "man or vision of the age" or anything approaching it. That, I think, is the lesson we all need to learn.

I have little doubt that Witness Lee said some things better than have ever been said. It is equally true that some things he did not say well. But that is true for all of us. Each of us has the ability to manifest the Son in ways no one else can. That is the beauty and wisdom of the Body. We each can contribute, but none can dominate, let alone monopolize. Rick Warren says some things like no one else can. Whenever I hear him teach, I marvel, because he just reveals God to me in such a fresh way. A young black man gave a message at our church on Sunday. I always marvel when he teaches, because he speaks the truth like I've never heard. He can do this because he is unique. No one else has his exact same gifts, experiences, personality or insights. The same is true for all of us. That's the Body.

Anyone who thinks Witness Lee or anyone else has a corner on God's vision is already deceived and imbalanced, because in very principle the idea is wrong. So in a sense, even arguing about whether Lee is the man of the age or not is imbalanced, because doing it is obsessing on a man, rather than God. God wants us to appreciate each other and our gifts, not obsess on each other, even Witness Lee.

Practically speaking, a man and his vision cannot be separated. So upholding the vision of one man inevitably leads to revering, defending and, yes, even accusing the man more than is healthy. Therefore, we should conclude that the very idea of a man with the vision of the age is a fundamental error.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Igzy

What must become clear is there is a more fundamental error at work--and that is this whole exercise of becoming obsessed with one man and his vision, or even thinking it is an important issue.

Anyone who thinks Witness Lee or anyone else has a corner on God's vision is already deceived and imbalanced, because in very principle the idea is wrong.

I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment. The fundamental error of the LC system is not a miscommunicated doctrine here or there or even a false teaching here or there or a weird practice or certain negative events in their history. These issues are problematic but subsequent to the fundamental error of Witness Lee being the MOTA, apostle, one oracle, etc. Why? Because once this idea is accepted then anything subsequent that comes forth from that source cannot be questioned and challenged and if need be corrected. It is from this kind of error that a teaching like: "Follow Witness Lee blindly; even if he's wrong he's right" can gain currency, become widespread and ultimately be accepted.

If this error is ever discarded as the folly that it is within the LC system then and only then will they be able to take off their Witness Lee rose colored glasses and assess his work with any semblance of objectivity.