Is it the Message, or the Men?

[OBW]

I beleive that the premise that they were "onto something" is much less significant than most of us want to admit. Even those of us that have separated ourselves from it and point at the mess and error that persists.

Why? I'm not entirely sure.

I think that maybe it is that we have a tendency toward correlation with respect to things that are long ago enough that we don't have a complete ability to assess everything about it. I think this is where that "early LRC v late LRC" or "early Lee v late Lee" come into play. We had something enjoyable. Something that uplifted us. I almost said "uplifted our spirits," but while I don't necessarily discount that, I don't think it is as simple to declare that as true as we would like.

As people, we tend toward extremes. When things are rocking along smoothly, we generally ignore it. When they get bad, we take note. And when they are suddenly better, we also take note. And in those "better" times, it is our natural tendency to be "up." Up in whatever way is reasonable or somewhat appropriate. The truth may not be much different from "rocking along smoothly," but because of the juxtaposition to some bad times, we elevate what might actually be simply normal — at least for a while.

And sometimes we are rocking along smoothly and someone comes along and sows seeds of discontent and suddenly things are bad even though nothing has happened. We just have some kind of thought that it could be better, so now must be bad.

Without any reference to Nee or Lee, this was a common thing in Christianity in the 60s and early 70s. There was a bunch of so-called "inner life" writers and speakers stirring up people. There was a charismatic wave such that there were charismatic meetings at Catholic, Episcopal, Baptist, and other denominational groups here in the DFW area. Guys like Kenneth Hagan (inner life) had a sort of cult following (that actually included my parents). There were others but I don't remember names right now. People in all sorts of places were reading all kinds of things. And those things were talking about Christianity in a way that was not fitting in with the status quo in their assembly of choice. At least not well.

So enter the free groups, including the LRC. People who got involved with some others of similar mind that started meeting together regularly rather than just sometimes began a more robust free group movement. In the middle of that came Lee and the LRC. Those who joined-up in those early days were given a fair bit of freedom to be experimental, in a way. They were no longer sitting in pews, singing three songs, 1st, 2nd, and last verse (every sing all of "Let Us Contemplate the Grapevine"?), to the sound of a piano and Hammond organ (or even pipe organ in some of the older traditions). Your voice was now heard regularly. (Notice that, at some level, the freedom for using your voice has now been diminished in the LRC. They have us now.)

It was different. But were the teachings really something worth taking note of? Ground, clergy (or lack thereof (really?)), etc., followed by God's economy, and then flowery term after flowery term with the intent that saying it better meant it was better (and they must actually teach that now).

What did they teach that needs Nee and Lee that is really worthy of keeping?

I can't find anything. They were smart enough to leave most of the base alone. That means it was not theirs. Everything that they played around with was at least pushing the envelope to have differences with the rest of Christianity. Some of it was questionably heretical. And I think that some of it even did not have any question about it.

Now don't go ballistic on me. Some level of heresy is not the end of the world (as we know it).

I am convinced that the LRC needs to keep Nee and Lee intact because they are the source of everything that causes there to be a need to remain separated (and sectarian) relative to everyone else. If Nee was simply a brilliant reader who could distill and repackage other's writings into something he wanted, and was doing it with little true spiritual training at age 21, what was he? From there he went on to become someone of renown, even starting a church at a pretty young age (not necessarily a bad thing). But the accusations of sexual improprieties began at a young age. By the time of the 1942 excommunication (or whatever you want to call it) this was at least the second time the issue had been raised. He may be commended for realizing the error of his ways and taking the discipline.

But it was fairly clear within less than 12 months after being allowed back in (in 48?) that he would not have it happen again. He gave a series of messages in which there was a hierarchy of authority that was understood based on who was the one to direct your spiritual questions to. Since no chain of who was above or below who had him anywhere but at the top, he was the pinnacle. Never had to say it. The whole group simply believed it to be true. But the teaching did not stop there. While you could avoid doing something that this spiritual authority demanded if it was illegal or immoral, you could not question their position or speak against their person on the basis of sin. That was made clear when he said that only God could deal with Nadab and Abihu because they rebelled against God. He declared that only God could deal with the sins of someone who was a deputy authority.

Then came Lee to America. He was just this humble preacher, going from place to place bringing the good news of the church life.

Or so he said.

He was the encourager of the people of the 60s. He was not revered as the MOTA, but some began to suggest "apostle" by the early 70s. I heard it in early 73. The rest is history. Daystar. Max. Run Max off. Lawsuits. Like being exalted. Run off Ingalls, Mallons, and others. Insist that your sexual predator son be the head of your ministry and direct how churches run their affairs.

But enough about the reasons to dislike Nee and Lee. The real question is what they brought that is worthy of keeping such that if they are found to be false teachers just trying to have a better job than being an accountant, or whatever would be seen as suspect to the rest of the Christian world.

I suggest the answer is "nothing."

We went through a little of this several years ago when Steve I started a thread in the other form titled something like "Teachings of Witness Lee that I Think True." (OK, not exactly the title, but the essence of it.) I don't recall there being even one example given that was soundly worth keeping. That was really a teaching discoverable in scripture. Most were bad positions and rewrites of scripture based on an overlay . . . almost always "because of God's economy."

Funny that the way that God orders his kingdom would be the reason that the words he gave to us to understand his kingdom cannot be trusted to mean what they say. It almost creates a circular problem. God speaks his kingdom. But his kingdom requires that the words be redefined, which results in a different kingdom than the one that was spoken of in the first place.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I beleive that the premise that they were "onto something" is much less significant than most of us want to admit. Even those of us that have separated ourselves from it and point at the mess and error that persists.

Why? I'm not entirely sure.

Well, for some reason you decided to comment on a side issue, rather than my main point. But, since you insist, I disagree with your basic thrust that they had nothing to offer. I think there were some things about the movement and what Nee and Lee emphasized that God wanted us to run with. I flatly do not believe we would still be talking about this movement 30 years later if there wasn't something about it that was compelling--and that goes back to more than just the fervor of the group, it goes back to some things Nee and Lee taught.

Some of the things Nee and Lee, IMHO, were onto include:

A greater emphasis on the unity of the Church and on the Church as the place where God dwells and puts his name. The tendency in churches is still to look at each individual church as more or less the work of a pastor or set of pastors, rather than a real and direct work of God. There is also a tendency to look at them more as "ours" than "God's." The sense of the church, the people, as the holy dwelling place of God is still not as strong as it I think it should be.

A greater emphasis on what God is after than what we are after. God is still sold as the answer to man's problems. This is indeed true. But the idea that God has a definite goal in mind which is being worked out in time is still not that popular an idea.

A greater emphasis of the Trinity as a central mystery crucial for our experience. The Trinity is, unfortunately, really de-emphasized in churches today. It's almost a subject they try to avoid, I guess because it's confusing. That's a shame, because in my experience, appreciating the Trinity enhances my relationship with God. Although I disagreed with Lee's flatly stating again and again ad nauseum that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit, at the same time in the best possible way I know what he was getting at. If you make the Son and the Spirit too distinct, it hinders your experience. I don't claim to completely understand it, because no one does. But I do think he was onto something.

Emphasis on God trying to build the Church on the earth as testimony and a Bride prepared before he returns. I rarely hear this taught anywhere else.

Emphasis on the indwelling Christ and union with Christ, being crucified with Christ. These ideas are very rudimentary in Christian teaching today.

I think many of the teachings on the human spirit are still very helpful. Many Christians I meet though they know Jesus lives in them are vague about it. But again, Nee and Lee went a little overboard with it, trying to turn it into a science. That doesn't negate the importance.

Now you might argue that all these things were out there somewhere already and still can be found. I won't argue with that, but I don't think it matters. My point is that I heard them from Nee and Lee, not others. I think God was trying to emphasize certain things through Nee and Lee, but they got off track with their own vision of their movement and how things should come about and the enemy basically torpedoed the thing.

The fact is, OBW, if I didn't feel that in some ways the LC movement imparted some quite amazing things to me, I would not have had a problem leaving it. In fact, it was the mixed feelings about it that confused me--that I knew some very heavenly things had been imparted to me, while at the same time knowing that I could not exist there, was the confusing matter.

Now I know better. I know that just because someone has some good things doesn't mean everything is good, or that I need to pledge my life to him. I also know that just because someone has some bad things, some really bad things, doesn't mean I feel the need to find fault with everything he taught. When I watch you, I seem to see this compulsion. It just doesn't work for me, because I know that many good things were imparted to me. To say otherwise would simply be lying, at least the way I see things now.

The bottom line is, all things our ours. If Nee and Lee had good things, they couldn't do anything to make them bad, in essence. And if they had bad things, we should leave those behind.

The point of this thread is that the reputation of the men and the validity of their teaching are two separate issues. The LC tries to make them the same thing.

[awareness]

Great post Igzy.

Concerning the message:

Now that I'm out of the local church am I still a living stone in The Building that's God's eternal purpose?
------------------------------------------
Deliberately leaving:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, for some reason you decided to comment on a side issue, rather than my main point. But, since you insist, I disagree with your basic thrust that they had nothing to offer. I think there were some things about the movement and what Nee and Lee emphasized that God wanted us to run with. I flatly do not believe we would still be talking about this movement 30 years later if there wasn't something about it that was compelling--and that goes back to more than just the fervor of the group, it goes back to some things Nee and Lee taught.

Some of the things Nee and Lee, IMHO, were onto include:

A greater emphasis on the unity of the Church and on the Church as the place where God dwells and puts his name. The tendency in churches is still to look at each individual church as more or less the work of a pastor or set of pastors, rather than a real and direct work of God. There is also a tendency to look at them more as "ours" than "God's." The sense of the church, the people, as the holy dwelling place of God is still not as strong as it I think it should be.

A greater emphasis on what God is after than what we are after. God is still sold as the answer to man's problems. This is indeed true. But the idea that God has a definite goal in mind which is being worked out in time is still not that popular an idea.

A greater emphasis of the Trinity as a central mystery crucial for our experience. The Trinity is, unfortunately, really de-emphasized in churches today. It's almost a subject they try to avoid, I guess because it's confusing. That's a shame, because in my experience, appreciating the Trinity enhances my relationship with God. Although I disagreed with Lee's flatly stating again and again ad nauseum that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit, at the same time in the best possible way I know what he was getting at. If you make the Son and the Spirit too distinct, it hinders your experience. I don't claim to completely understand it, because no one does. But I do think he was onto something.

Emphasis on God trying to build the Church on the earth as testimony and a Bride prepared before he returns. I rarely hear this taught anywhere else.

Emphasis on the indwelling Christ and union with Christ, being crucified with Christ. These ideas are very rudimentary in Christian teaching today.

I think many of the teachings on the human spirit are still very helpful. Many Christians I meet though they know Jesus lives in them are vague about it. But again, Nee and Lee went a little overboard with it, trying to turn it into a science. That doesn't negate the importance.

Now you might argue that all these things were out there somewhere already and still can be found. I won't argue with that, but I don't think it matters. My point is that I heard them from Nee and Lee, not others. I think God was trying to emphasize certain things through Nee and Lee, but they got off track with their own vision of their movement and how things should come about and the enemy basically torpedoed the thing.

The fact is, OBW, if I didn't feel that in some ways the LC movement imparted some quite amazing things to me, I would not have had a problem leaving it. In fact, it was the mixed feelings about it that confused me--that I knew some very heavenly things had been imparted to me, while at the same time knowing that I could not exist there, was the confusing matter.

Now I know better. I know that just because someone has some good things doesn't mean everything is good, or that I need to pledge my life to him. I also know that just because someone has some bad things, some really bad things, doesn't mean I feel the need to find fault with everything he taught. When I watch you, I seem to see this compulsion. It just doesn't work for me, because I know that many good things were imparted to me. To say otherwise would simply be lying, at least the way I see things now.

The bottom line is, all things our ours. If Nee and Lee had good things, they couldn't do anything to make them bad, in essence. And if they had bad things, we should leave those behind.

The point of this thread is that the reputation of the men and the validity of their teaching are two separate issues. The LC tries to make them the same thing.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now that I'm out of the local church am I still a living stone in The Building that's God's eternal purpose?

Absolutely you are! The LC has no monopoly on anything that matters, period. Although their control of their members largely rests on making them believe they do.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The point of this thread is that the reputation of the men and the validity of their teaching are two separate issues. The LC tries to make them the same thing.

Watchman Nee taught (not sure where) that a man's ministry ought to end with his death, based on a verse about King David (not sure which one.)

After Lee's death, Titus Chu used this teaching against the Blendeds. His point, of course, was two-fold. First, since Lee has passed, the ministry work (e.g. elders' trainings) he carried on should also end. Secondly, since none of the Blendeds had their own ministry, they should also cease to exist. The Blendeds, of course, would not let that happen, so they quarantined him.

Many brothers agreed with this. How could book editors, like Kangas and Marks, who had never even started or shepherded a church, give trainings to "perfect" the elders. But since Philip Lee had already paved the way for unsaved and immoral men to "perfect" all the elders during the new way, anything in the Recovery was now possible.

This, of course, diverges somewhat from your topic at hand, Igzy, but it emphasizes the LC mentality, that if Nee and Lee were perfect, then all their teachings were perfect, and even a caveman could use these teachings to raise up elders in the LC's.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This, of course, diverges somewhat from your topic at hand, Igzy, but it emphasizes the LC mentality, that if Nee and Lee were perfect, then all their teachings were perfect, and even a caveman could use these teachings to raise up elders in the LC's.

But if they weren't perfect, then they were just ministers whose teaching may or may not be beneficial, just like all the other ministers.

That is why it is okay, and in fact needed, to know and even discuss the imperfections, some gross, of even those Christians we might consider "great servants." Otherwise, given human nature, we would be tempted to succumb to damaging reverence for flawed men, and feel compelled to swallow the camels of bad teachings.

The flip side is this: Any party which tries to sell some person as the greatest minister of the age, or the sole authority, or the one we all need to defer to above all others, has an agenda other than God's. They might not think they do, but they do. For all their claims about being for the eternal purpose of God, the LC is really about something else. They just need to wake up to that fact.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The flip side is this: Any party which tries to sell some person as the greatest minister of the age, or the sole authority, or the one we all need to defer to above all others, has an agenda other than God's. They might not think they do, but they do. For all their claims about being for the eternal purpose of God, the LC is really about something else. They just need to wake up to that fact.

The LC's saints are among some of the most devoted, and know how to present all the good things of God in their possession to their new guests. Problems surface when new visitors get wind of what really is stressed at LSM, like this MOTA nonsense. Guests hear about "autonomous" local churches, and then quickly learn how much influence Anaheim has over the church.

Contradictions such as these, and there are many more like them, smell like hypocrisy and dishonesty, and they are. This is why Lee's influence can never go far. As much as Lee and company has tried to keep their dirty laundry from sight, it's too late. If you wanted to rightly maintain such an honorable and upright image for all to see and thus receive your ministry, then like my mom told me, "you should have thought about it before you did all those bad things."

[OBW]

Igzy,

First, if it is all about who you or I first heard it from, then I'm not sure that there is a way to extricate them. But I'm seeing that the things that were true and possibly new to us were not new to others outside of there movement.

First, at least part of your "likes" comes from the inner-life movement. neither Nee or Lee started that movement. In fact, Nee was somewhat steeped in some of the earliest inner-life writers. I think that Jesse Penn Lewis fits in that and he "borrowed" heavily from her. In fact, at some level, the local churches are a kind of inner-life movement group. And it is the near extreme of inner-life emphasis over everything else that underpins much of what we learned. But we didn't need Lee to learn it. And the LRC does not need Nee or Lee to keep those parts of it they want.

You mention several general areas of teaching that you learned from them. I will not deny that it is where we learned it. But is it specially theirs? At any point in time?

Let's look at them:

Originally Posted by Igzy

A greater emphasis on the unity of the Church and on the Church as the place where God dwells and puts his name. The tendency in churches is still to look at each individual church as more or less the work of a pastor or set of pastors, rather than a real and direct work of God. There is also a tendency to look at them more as "ours" than "God's." The sense of the church, the people, as the holy dwelling place of God is still not as strong as it I think it should be.

While there are places that don't have a lot to say about other assemblies, of their group or otherwise, I think that the level of disunity in the church was greatly misrepresented by Lee and the LRC. There is no doubt that we tend to meet with like minds, but with some exceptions, we are not antagonistically at odds, building vast fences to shake hands over. We were taught to look at the fact that there are different groups on the same corner as evidence of a problem. Of course, it was not a problem that right down the street the LRC open yet another franchise. So the rhetoric of disunity in the church was all hat, no boots. They painted a picture of disunity that was cast in terms that only they could cure with something that could duplicate every alleged point of disunity that they pointed at, but was washed away by something else.

Originally Posted by Igzy

A greater emphasis on what God is after than what we are after. God is still sold as the answer to man's problems. This is indeed true. But the idea that God has a definite goal in mind which is being worked out in time is still not that popular an idea.

At least that is the story we are told. But are we sure that the important things that they say God is after are that clearly different from what the rest of Christianity is teaching? It seems to me that the origins are very much about the image of God being exercised on earth by mankind. And most of what comes after that is the steps God has taken to provide a cure for the U-turn that we took as a species at a time long past. So becoming the people we were meant to be seems more important that so much of what we focused on in the LRC. Most of it seems to point to how we act toward God (sacrifice and worship — none of which are bad) and little about how we live as proof that God changes lives (and not how we live in the meetings, but in daily life).

As for not being a popular idea, there is some truth in that. But I'm not sure that the emphasis on what that should be is still a problem. I believe that the missing ingredient for most is that we do not become those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. That are peacemakers. That are truly meek. That tolerate persecution. (We double our fists and demand that our God-given rights as US citizens deny anyone the ability to persecute us.)

In short, sanctification. There is too little emphasis on what comes after deciding that you will check the box to be a believer in Jesus. We don't really see that following is not mostly about evangelism, but about change in our lives.

You can argue that Lee and the LRC made you think there was something God was after. But I'm not sure that they were talking about what God is after. Does that sort of make their teaching on the subject pointless? It seems so to me.

Originally Posted by Igzy

A greater emphasis of the Trinity as a central mystery crucial for our experience. The Trinity is, unfortunately, really de-emphasized in churches today. It's almost a subject they try to avoid, I guess because it's confusing. That's a shame, because in my experience, appreciating the Trinity enhances my relationship with God. Although I disagreed with Lee's flatly stating again and again ad nauseum that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit, at the same time in the best possible way I know what he was getting at. If you make the Son and the Spirit too distinct, it hinders your experience. I don't claim to completely understand it, because no one does. But I do think he was onto something.

I think that the claim that there is a danger of too much distinction between the Son and the Spirit is way over blown. Only if you start treating them as so separate that you pray to one to get aligned with the other so that you get what you want or something ridiculous like that. Start treating them as not truly One.

And I do not see that happening anywhere that I am aware of.

The Trinity is far from avoided in what I hear and read. And oddly, the older the "tradition" is, the more that they really appreciate the Trinity. They are more informed on what it was that scripture says about the Father v the Son v the Sprit rather than throwing them into a blender and getting a Trinity slushie. If there is anything unique about the things I learned concerning the Trinity from Lee and the LRC, it was that their Oneness overrides anything separate about them. And of all the things to unlearn, that should be at the top of our list.

Jesus taught us to pray in a way that was to the Father. It was not to the Son or the Spirit. In fact, is there anything in the NT that suggests that we should pray to the Son or the Spirit? Prayer seems to be designated in a particular way. Now I'm not suggesting that our less formal praying that we start with something like "Oh, Lord . . ." are simply wrong. I still do it. But I am beginning to understand that there really is something to the fact that prayer is to God the Father. And if you "ask in my name" it seems quite wrong to ask Jesus in his name. It is ask the Father in my name.

There is reason that we are given specific statements about the Father, about the Son, and about the Spirit. It was not to devise a doctrine of their relationship. Each was/is specific and pointed. Teaching that it is all just One is to ignore what scripture takes many words to put in place.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Emphasis on God trying to build the Church on the earth as testimony and a Bride prepared before he returns. I rarely hear this taught anywhere else.

The number of references to the subject (not that many) and the relative quantity of words on the subject makes me think that getting so wrapped-up in the topic, even to the point of creating the kind of thing that is the LRC, seems way out of sync. And the references to "Bride" are metaphorical. Not demeaning the importance of that. If we were once truly the image of God, but lost that position, then we are not of similar "species." Once we collectively regain the true position as God's image bearers, then we have become of a similar species. Don't go overboard with the "same species" part of the metaphor because that will lead you to becoming God in everything but the Godhead. The point is that in the new creation, we are destined to be "like him," therefore (at least metaphorically) matching Christ and therefore ready to join Him in the New J.

I am not saying that that is "the way" to understand it. But I would suggest that the emphasis of bride in the LRC is way out of balance to its emphasis in scripture. There's a verse here, and a verse there, then the short bit in the end of Revelation. It is not something so profound that it should become preeminent.

But I have heard this outside the LRC. And it seemed consistent with what the scripture actually says. And in keeping with the balance of things taught in scripture.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Emphasis on the indwelling Christ and union with Christ, being crucified with Christ. These ideas are very rudimentary in Christian teaching today.

Yes, they are imprtant. And they are true whether you dwell on them or not.

And they are part of that inner-life thing that Nee brought into his teaching. You may have heard it first from Nee/Lee, but it did not start with them. No need to keep them protected to make that one work.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think many of the teachings on the human spirit are still very helpful. Many Christians I meet though they know Jesus lives in them are vague about it. But again, Nee and Lee went a little overboard with it, trying to turn it into a science. That doesn't negate the importance.

I'll ignore the tripartite man stuff (which you are also doing).

I would agree that there is a difference in how the LRC views Christ being in us compared to how many others view it. But I'm not convinced that the difference is important. Or that either view is superior. There is a significant sense of God speaking within us in many ways. Some even more than we might actually think is happening. But what I seem to be finding is that the more people tend toward seeking God within v seeking him without (in the scripture, writings, sermons, etc.) the more they tend toward fanciful thoughts and even error. The old joke about the effects of a bad taco on the spiritual life of someone that is too inward-looking is, well, too real. The more we are driven from something inside that does not have a grounding in what is solid and verifiable, the more we are at risk of being driven into error. Or at least distracted from what is important.

And I'm talking about people outside the LRC that aren't even in charismatic groups. Good ol' evangelicals who are happy to nearly go it alone in their search for truth. Just me, my Bible, and God. And if we are not careful, we will become like Nee and Lee who somewhat dismissed the Bible when it did not go along with what they were "feeling" or "seeing" inside (that they claimed was a word from God).

----

And last, earlier I said "No need to keep them protected to make that one work." Since your question was about why we need Nee and Lee (or the LRC does even if we don't), I believe that the things I have said, both in the first post and in this one, are strong points about why there is not reason to protect their image. We — specific people who were once in the LRC — may have heard certain things that were "true" that we had never heard before. But we don't need Nee or Lee for them because they were simply messengers of things already out there that we just had not heard.

I think that your perspective of including things that you suspect were not unique with them is stabbing your own question in the heart. If I have to respect my own first source, then Nee was right in Spritual Authority and we are all in rebellion because we ditched Nee and Lee.

[Cal]

OBW, I never said these things were new or unique to Nee and Lee, or that we had to respect Nee and Lee as the first source or best source of anything.

I said some of them were things I believe God was and still is trying to emphasize. Not all, but some. And many churches and ministries still have not picked up on them, at least as much as I think they should. I said one of the reasons the LC was so compelling (and why we are still talking about it 30 years later) was because there were some essential things that were seen in the LC that were largely neglected at the time, and in many cases still are.

Here's a real simple, basic example. The whole idea of "going to heaven" is I still think, a mis-aiming. It's not a big deal. But it subtly changes your focus from exercising God's authority on earth to looking forward to getting out of here. More ministers in the last 30 year have seen this matter, Randy Alcorn being one. I think this is a good thing. Now my point is not that we need to acknowledge Nee as the founder of this idea, but we should at least say he was ahead of the mainstream with it, and so with some other things he taught.

The fact that I believe Nee and Lee had a few compelling things to say should not bother you, however. Because that was not even my main point, and my point doesn't depend on it. My point was that, even giving them the benefit of the doubt, IT'S STILL NOT ABOUT THEM. It is always about the message. And the message should be strong enough to endure the failures and shortcomings of the messengers. So why bother to, tooth and nail, defend the reputations of Nee and Lee? I'm speaking to those in the LC movement, not to you.

My point is that focusing on the message allows us to examine it objectively. Focusing on men, especially those we feel we need to cowtow to, pushes us to become subjective and accommodating about the message. This reaches it's extreme with Lee. His message is not questioned among LCers because of his reputation, not because the message itself is airtight.

Do you have anything to say about that? Because that's what the thread is really about.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

My point is that focusing on the message allows us to examine it objectively. Focusing on men, especially those we feel we need to cowtow to, pushes us to become subjective and accommodating about the message. This reaches it's extreme with Lee. His message is not questioned among LCers because of his reputation, not because the message itself is airtight.

Great points, Igzy.

If we want to impact current members, we must be objective, and we must address the facts. Bitterness always turns off the loyalists. It was the facts of eyewitness accounts that first caught my attention.

[james73]

Originally Posted by Igzy

My point is that focusing on the message allows us to examine it objectively. Focusing on men, especially those we feel we need to cowtow to, pushes us to become subjective and accommodating about the message. This reaches it's extreme with Lee. His message is not questioned among LCers because of his reputation, not because the message itself is airtight.

Do you have anything to say about that? Because that's what the thread is really about.

The problem is, it's not a church. You might as well go through the messages and manuals of Amway or Nuskin or Philip Morris and point out how unbiblical they are. By arguing their half-baked theology we are simply accepting the premise that they are Christians, that they are a church. But really, the only evidence they are a church is that they say they are.

The whole LSM/local church thing is a scam to support Lee book sales. People pay HK$100 per head to watch a crappy DVD of a conference. They line up to buy the weekly books. Each member must recruit two more members every year and they do it with pride, spiritual pride. LSM's onto a good thing. It even gets tax breaks by calling its sales promotions "missionary work". But don't confuse it with a church, however, just because it calls itself a church and bases its "product" around the bible. Would you bother trying to discredit Peter Popoff's miracle spring water using biblical arguments?

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by james73

The problem is, it's not a church...

The whole LSM/local church thing is a scam to support Lee book sales. People pay HK$100 per head to watch a crappy DVD of a conference. They line up to buy the weekly books. Each member must recruit two more members every year and they do it with pride, spiritual pride. LSM's onto a good thing. It even gets tax breaks by calling its sales promotions "missionary work". But don't confuse it with a church, however, just because it calls itself a church and bases its "product" around the bible.

Well said, james73.

A false teacher has neither power nor authority to establish a genuine Christian church. The only thing he can do is to organize a false church. That’s what Witness Lee did. His organization looks like a church and walks like a church but it’s a delusion. We all know their fruit. As an imitation, the Local Church is rooted and grounded in Witness Lee’s half-baked theology; while a genuine Christian Church is rooted and grounded in the love of Christ.

Ephesians 3:17-19
so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge--that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.

Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Isaiah 29:13
And the Lord said: “Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men.

1 Corinthians 13:2
And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

PS On the other hand, I still believe that their half-baked doctrines can and must be tested by the Word of God. Probably, it will prove nothing to brainwashed Leeists. However, it may help other people to see the truth. When Leeists call themselves the only genuine Christian church, they must have some ground for their claims first. And as we know, they don't. So if we call them a cult or a sect, we'd better have bible grounds for this. It’s not for us and it’s not for WL’s devotees, but for other people who can be deceived by the half-baked theology.

[Cal]

Well, guys. I generally try to approach people with respect, giving them the benefit of the doubt. To me, launching the torpedoes of "You are not Christians nor a church" at the LC would be a losing proposition--sort of like the last insults a couple hurls at each other before the divorce. It doesn't really help, and the fact is you are standing on uncertain ground when you say it.

I prefer to take what someone claims to believe, and show them why their behavior is inconsistent with their belief. In this case, the LC likes to think they are carrying the message the world needs to hear. My point is, whether they are or not, seeking to uphold the reputations of Nee and Lee at all costs only hinders that mission. Being seen as those who would bury the facts about the history of their movement can only make others suspicious of them and their message.

The linchpin that holds the whole LC error together is the idea that leadership, especially Nee and Lee, must never be questioned. Take that out, make them realize that there is an appropriate way to do so, and that being clear about the failures of historical figures is not only helpful, but often necessary, and you have a chance for reform.

I do not believe the rank and file LCers really prefer being unquestioning sheep. They have just been convinced that is God's way. They are wrong. And that's what this thread is trying to help show.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

He was the encourager of the people of the 60s. He was not revered as the MOTA, but some began to suggest "apostle" by the early 70s. I heard it in early 73. The rest is history. Daystar. Max. Run Max off. Lawsuits. Like being exalted. Run off Ingalls, Mallons, and others. Insist that your sexual predator son be the head of your ministry and direct how churches run their affairs.

In the initial post Igzy said, "Yet, clearly from their behavior they feel they cannot carry out their mission of preserving the principles unique to their movement without also preserving as pristine the reputations of their founders. "

Part of the preservation is minimizing of "brothers who were ran off". In recent messages I have heard them disingenously referred to as "heroes".

Character of former elders were bismirched in order to preserve reputations of the founders.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Part of the preservation is minimizing of "brothers who were ran off". In recent messages I have heard them disingenuously referred to as "heroes".

Character of former elders were besmirched in order to preserve reputations of the founders.

Can you say more when these "recent messages" were spoken, and who referred to who as heroes.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can you say more when these "recent messages" were spoken, and who referred to who as heroes.

The messages I am referring to were given in 2013 by Ron Kangas at regional blending conferences. Did not say explicitly who the "heroes" are. An implication towards brothers who rose up in the past.
With the exception of Steve Isitt, brother Ron doesn't mention names. He refers to brothers in form of innuendo (Bill Mallon, Bill Freeman,etc). It's up to the listener to connect the dots.