Did Witness Lee believe his teaching on "One city one church"?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Much has been said about the "one city - one church" ground of locality promoted in the Recovery for 70 years. The Bible not only does not prescribe this format, but several verses (i.e. Acts 9.31, Rom 16.5, Col 4.15) have been shoe-horned into saying what a simple reading indicates to the contrary. Before leaders establish their church based on certain premises, at least they ought to have some definitive scripture to support them.

Since you have to "shoe-horn" your teaching into the verses doesn't that suggest that WN and WL did this knowingly?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Personally, however, I believe that the corollary to this teaching, i.e. the one eldership in each city has been more destructive. Based on Acts 14.23 and Titus 1.5 the entire Recovery operates under the basic premise that there can be only one eldership per city, and that eldership must be appointed by the "apostle." It is this teaching, coupled with errant notions of deputy authority, which gave both Lee and Chu tremendous power over their satellite churches. Thus the very basis of authority vested in the local eldership has nothing to do with the authority of the Head walking in the midst of the church, nor the approval and recommendation of her members. Sole authority to direct elders, appoint elders, move elders, or remove elders lies remotely in the hands of a man deemed to be their "apostle."

I think it has to be obvious to many besides us that this teaching was destructive. Certainly WN and WL had to realize this was a destructive teaching. Therefore if "they had proved by testing what the perfect will of the Lord was" I would have expected them to correct this teaching. Since they didn't I wonder if they were truly walking by faith.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The history of the Recovery is littered with incompetent elders whose sole qualification is zealous loyalty to a remote headquarters. They serve their office solely at the pleasure of the one who appointed them. Their ultimate loyalty is neither to the Head of the church, nor to the members of the church, but to him who sent them there. In truth, both Lee and Chu thus operated more as Bishops then apostles. Apostles were travelers, while Bishops resided at some headquarter church. Apostles preached the gospel to the unsaved, while Bishops mainly trained elders.

Once again I have to believe that WL and WN realized these elders were incompetent but valued their allegiance higher than their stature. I saw this first hand in Taipei when all of the elders were replaced by young men who wouldn't stand up to WL. Therefore, based on the works of WL I have to conclude that this destructive heresy was brought into the church intentionally by him.

Originally Posted by Ohio

When one looks at the descriptions Ignatius gave to the bishops, it readily becomes apparent that the relationship in the Recovery between the leaders and the members far more closely models the teachings of Ignatius than the teachings of the N.T. apostles. It is one of the Recovery's greatest hypocritical inconsistencies that Ignatius could at the same time be so maligned and yet so readily modeled.

"A hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbor". To me this sums up the works of WL. This is not the work of faith but the work of a hypocrite.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Since you have to "shoe-horn" your teaching into the verses doesn't that suggest that WN and WL did this knowingly?

When Nee developed his city-church model, the context was early 20th century British colonialism orchestrated by denominational boards ten thousand miles away. Nee's independent idealism, in an effort to return to the glory of the apostolic church, latched on to the appealing notions of localism. In his defense, Nee's book TNCCL enumerates many caveats to the model, making the one city - one church model (OCOC) almost workable. In the late 50's / early 60's, an almost similar situation existed in America, and that's what sparked the interest in this book.

I believe Lee tried to operate according to Nee's ecclesiastical principles when he started afresh in the US. The genuine move of the Spirit, called the Jesus Movement, helped to fuel Lee's early ministry here, and since he promoted an appealing alternative to the existing denominationalism, he attracted many gifted followers. Eventually Lee departed from all of Nee's guiding principles and safeguards laid out in TNCCL. Whether Nee's OCOC model is even valid is another question, but under the leadership of Lee, local church autonomy gave way to headquarter abuses and domination.

It is eye-opening for any member of the Recovery to one day realize that every so-called storm and rebellion was never a "rebellion" at all, but rather men of God crying out for the liberties they once enjoyed. Insiders call it being "poisoned," but it really is just the liberating truth once again reaching them and setting them free.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I believe Lee tried to operate according to Nee's ecclesiastical principles when he started afresh in the US.

WN's ecclesiatical principle in TNCCL
Whenever an apostle tries to control a church, he loses his extra-local character. Much confusion has arisen because the divine line of demarcation between the churches and the work has been lost sight of. (Watchman Nee, Chapter 6, sect 1, TNCCL).

Witness Lee controlled the vision of the Elders
In this chapter we will consider the need for the elders to renew their vision of the Lord’s recovery. (Witness Lee, Basic Principles concerning the Eldership, chapter 10, section 1).


Witness Lee controlled what was taught by elders in the churches
The only way that can preserve us in the recovery is the unique ministry. If we say that we are in the recovery, yet we teach something so lightly, even in a concealed way, that is different from God’s economy, we sow the seed that will grow up in division. (WL, Elders’ training book 3, the way to carry out the vision, chapter 4, sect 2).

In addition the LSM controlled what books a church bought and sold.

Churches were required to attend trainings.

Watchman Nee stressed repeatedly that it was wrong for an apostle to try and control a church. But it seems very obvious that WL completely ignored that principle. Where is the evidence that WL tried to operate within the ecclesiastical principles that WN gave?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Watchman Nee stressed repeatedly that it was wrong for an apostle to try and control a church. But it seems very obvious that WL completely ignored that principle. Where is the evidence that WL tried to operate within the ecclesiastical principles that WN gave?

That's a good question.

Lee definitely taught many of these same ecclesiastical principles, but whether or not he ever put them into practice is another question.

I have consistently found the most informative source on the history of the Recovery in the USA to be brother Hope. One thread in particular New Light From Old brought out numerous insights from behind the scenes. I found post #16 particularly informational. I will copy it here ...

The turn away from the vision WL had regarding the Practice of the Local Church Life began in January 1974 at the very first special elders and co-workers conference.

Thanks brothers for bringing up this thread. In the coming third chapter, I stress this event. Few of the saints realize or even know what an earthquake this meeting was:

An attempt to salvage the Day Star disaster,

National Local Church Credit Union, complete with a national organizational chart with LSM on top, (bet you never heard of that),

Consolidation of existing but not so critical churches,

Move to Anaheim and to the "young people cities,"

Max R. becomes WLs right hand man to direct the churches on behalf of WL,

The Launch of LSM and dissolving of "The Stream Ministry",

The official designation of the Approved speaker list,

The shift from local initiated meetings to Life study ministry and common direction from Anaheim,

The appointment of Max R. to travel to the churches to make adjustments on behalf of WL,

The shift from elders being shepherds to being good organizers and dynamic leaders,

The public put down and humiliation of senior brothers and co-workers begins,

etc. Much more to report!!

The effects were immediate but gradual. While I have no use for the cult books that came out later or the authors, I believe the Lord allowed it as a loud siren warning to us. The full effect of this falling away came about in 1986. By then it was too late. WL's shouting put downs of TC and other senior brothers in 1974 became the fermentation book, spitting on Lang's book and the 1989 Lee is great message.

WL had the concept that he needed to be in charge at least by 1977. He told John So and myself in Athens Greece that he was the thumb and other gifted brothers were fingers whose function depended on being related to him. (Now that was quite a conversation!!!)

May we all continue in His love and peace and abound in hope.

In Christ Jesus, "Hope" aka Don Rutledge

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's a good question.

Lee definitely taught many of these same ecclesiastical principles, but whether or not he ever put them into practice is another question.

I have consistently found the most informative source on the history of the Recovery in the USA to be brother Hope. One thread in particular New Light From Old brought out numerous insights from behind the scenes. I found post #16 particularly informational. I will copy it here ...

So, if we look at the history in 1974 WL was clearly not following WN’s ecclesiastical principles. The reason was not a new revelation, but Day Star. So then this raises a new and equally critical question:

Was Day Star an example of poor judgment or fraud?

I will start a new thread for this question, but let me say this, if Day Star was fraud then it strongly supports the assertion that WL did not have faith in his teachings but rather they were a means to an end.

Step 1 – Start the church based on WN’s credibility. Explains why he lied about WN's excommunication.
Step 2 – Raise serious funds to establish LSM through fraud. Simplest explanation of the facts.
Step 3 – Convert the churches into an LSM franchise. History as presented by Hope.

In this plan the only person capable of sending WL to prison is PL and TL who know that Day Star was a scam from day 1. In exchange for guarding the secrets PL is given an office, a salary and is protected at all costs.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So, if we look at the history in 1974 WL was clearly not following WN’s ecclesiastical principles. The reason was not a new revelation, but Day Star. So then this raises a new and equally critical question:

Was Day Star an example of poor judgment or fraud?

It seems, from all I have read, that Lee regularly exhibited poor judgment in a string of failed business activities. Even his departure from Taiwan to the USA resulted from intense pressure over using church funds to pay off bad business debts surrounding Hall #1 in Taipei. It appears like Lee got mixed signals from Nee concerning mixing his ministry with business. Nee told him definitively not to do this, and Lee once commented about how he could ever face Nee knowing he had done what he was instructed never to do. On the other hand, Nee's pharmaceutical business was quite lucrative. Lee appeared to have learned more from what Nee did, than what he taught. The Blendeds, btw, were the same with Lee.

I doubt Dayster was initially embarked upon with fraudulent intentions. Lee was presented with a large offering and a concept for making money. Saying that, however, I will note that both Don Hardy and Terry Reisenhoover, Dayster officers, witnessed what appeared to be illegal business practices, which confirms that Lee believed he was above the law. Lee refused to heed any of their warnings, and hence they quit.

Phillip Lee changed Lee's outlook on money. Why attempt to "do business" when we could charge good money for Daddy's ministry. It was proceeds from those early trainings, no longer called open conferences, that rescued Lee from investor cries for payback. Lee and Texan operatives set up a secret (at least to Dallas elder Don Rutledge) bank account via the church in Dallas in order to make these payoffs.

This context was occurring during that first special elders and workers gathering in Jan 1974. Obviously it was convened to do damage control. It also attempted to institute means to control the Recovery going forth. Phillip Lee rose to prominence despite the reservations of every one who knew him. Why would Lee violate every principle of ministerial conduct and the better judgment of all his supporters?

We do know that Lee's Life Study of the N.T. began shortly after this. Starting with the book of John, Lee methodically went through the Bible. He said this burden was from the Lord to "release the riches" given to him by the Lord. Now we know that part of that incentive was also financial.

[ZNPaaneah]

So ignoring what WL said, here is what he did:

Originally Posted by Ohio

1. Lee regularly exhibited poor judgment in a string of failed business activities. Even his departure from Taiwan to the USA resulted from intense pressure over using church funds to pay off bad business debts surrounding Hall #1 in Taipei.


2. Lee was presented with a large offering and a concept for making money.

3. I will note that both Don Hardy and Terry Reisenhoover, Dayster officers, witnessed what appeared to be illegal business practices, which confirms that Lee believed he was above the law. Lee refused to heed any of their warnings, and hence they quit.

4. It was proceeds from those early trainings, no longer called open conferences, that rescued Lee from investor cries for payback.

5. Lee and Texan operatives set up a secret (at least to Dallas elder Don Rutledge) bank account via the church in Dallas in order to make these payoffs.

6. This context was occurring during that first special elders and workers gathering in Jan 1974. Obviously it was convened to do damage control. It also attempted to institute means to control the Recovery going forth. Phillip Lee rose to prominence despite the reservations of every one who knew him. Why would Lee violate every principle of ministerial conduct and the better judgment of all his supporters?

1. One event can be written off to bad judgment followed by repentance. Regularly getting involved in these fraudulent activities should no longer be passed off as "bad judgment" or "innocent mistakes". If WL did not suffer financial loss why should we give him the credit of calling it a "mistake" or "bad judgment".

2. If you ask people to donate money to your ministry you might get $10-$20 offerings from each person. If however you pump up this "money making" proposal and you are asking for "investments" not "donations" you might get $1,000 to $2,000 from each person. You can make 100 times more. Investing is all about trust. Who do you trust more than the "Apostle", the close coworker to Watchman Nee, the "Minister of the Age". Once again, I think all the evidence points to fraud and there is no logical reason to discount it.

3. Here is a person who has repeatedly been involved in fraudulent business practices, he was run out of Taiwan, he saw what happened to WN, he was charged by WN never to do this, and the two leading officers in the latest fraudulent scheme complain of illegal business practices, he ignores them so they are forced to quit. I consider this proof he was a fraud.

4. Once again, in order to make money from LSM they needed a large hall, Anaheim, and free lodging, the church in Anaheim. Launching LSM took money, much of which he got from donations for building the hall and the free labor. It seems to me the plan was always to create the LSM franchise church and Day Star was merely a stepping stone to get the funds he needed. If WL actually profited from Day Star while everyone else lost money that would be a secret that he would gladly trade PL for JI to keep.

5. Secret payoffs are proof of fraud.

6. Putting PL in charge after 1974 reminds me of when Scar took power after Mufasah's death and Simbah running away. From this point on it was a new order of Lions and Hyenas. In this analogy WL was Scar, PL and TL were two of the hyenas.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It seems, from all I have read, that Lee regularly exhibited poor judgment in a string of failed business activities.

James
1:6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
1:7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

According to James a "double minded man" is in contrast to a man of faith.

You know that a man is a "double minded man" because he is unstable in all his ways.

We know that the LRC was unstable in all its ways, going through turmoils every 10 years. Excommunications, lawsuits, recriminations, etc. We have also deduced that these turmoils, though always blamed on others, were the result of unrighteousness in the Lee house. To me the evidence is shouting that WL was a double minded man, and by extension not a man of faith.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's a good question.

Lee definitely taught many of these same ecclesiastical principles, but whether or not he ever put them into practice is another question.

I have consistently found the most informative source on the history of the Recovery in the USA to be brother Hope. One thread in particular New Light From Old brought out numerous insights from behind the scenes. I found post #16 particularly informational. I will copy it here ...

Ps10:2 The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor: let them be taken in the devices that they have imagined.
10:3 For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth.

WL shut down the Stream Ministry and started the LSM in the 1974 meeting. This is a device used to protect assets. It was done as a result of the DayStar fiasco. You have a secret fund to pay off some investors, and you move all your assets to a new corporation in the event of a lawsuit as a way to shield assets. At the same time he is suggesting a Local Church Credit Union. Is there any suggestion that there was a repentance or feeling of shame? Is there any doubt he was focused on getting the saints money? He was motivated by covetousness, how can that be denied?

WL had the concept that he needed to be in charge at least by 1977. He told John So and myself in Athens Greece that he was the thumb and other gifted brothers were fingers whose function depended on being related to him. (Now that was quite a conversation!!!) (quote from Hope as posted by Ohio)

Surely this is an example of the wicked boasting of his heart’s desire.