Against the LC Practice of Prophesying

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Maybe I should ask the same thing in reverse. Have any of you considered and prayed about whether it is a good idea to continue to suggest that Lee was a gifted minster of the Word? Or just a naturally gifted speaker that captured all of us at one time or another?

Or would you rather I just shut up and allow my ideas to fall back into the threads that are on the third page back of languishing threads and eventually be lost in antiquity.

It isn't black and white. That's the whole issue. There was some good and some bad. I think you have the kind of mind that wants to categorize it as one or the other. Others are less comfortable doing that. Ohio is one. He feels like you are leaning on him a bit and he responded to you. Just take his feedback at face value, process it and see what the Lord says to you about it.

To me what makes the LCM such a difficult thing to deal with is precisely because it seemed to have such good things, alongside the bad things. Why the dichotomy? Didn't the Lord say a tree was either good or bad? It seems your approach has been to analyze the good things away, to say they were just emotion or delusion. Maybe some were. But I can't believe they all were. Some of those good things were precious to me. The LCM didn't own them. God did. But it would be sad indeed if we felt we had to abandon them to excise all influences of the LCM just to be "free."

It's the baby and the bathwater question. And we all have to deal with it differently. So Ohio is saying, I think, let him deal with it his way. He's comfortable with that, why shouldn't you be? When you continually qualify his positive comments with negative ones it makes him feel like you are saying he is wrong.

Ohio is a sensitive guy. You are very brainy guy. Brainy guys like you and me tend to step on sensitive people's feelings. So take that into consideration when you comment on his posts. Emotional intelligence is the key here.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It isn't black and white. That's the whole issue. There was some good and some bad. I think you have the kind of mind that wants to categorize it as one or the other. Others are less comfortable doing that. Ohio is one. He feels like you are leaning on him a bit and he responded to you. Just take his feedback at face value, process it and see what the Lord says to you about it.

To me what makes the LCM such a difficult thing to deal with is precisely because it seemed to have such good things, alongside the bad things. Why the dichotomy? Didn't the Lord say a tree was either good or bad? It seems your approach has been to analyze the good things away, to say they were just emotion or delusion. Maybe some were. But I can't believe they all were. Some of those good things were precious to me. The LCM didn't own them. God did. But it would be sad indeed if we felt we had to abandon them to excise all influences of the LCM just to be "free."

It's the baby and the bathwater question. And we all have to deal with it differently. So Ohio is saying, I think, let him deal with it his way. He's comfortable with that, why shouldn't you be? When you continually qualify his positive comments with negative ones it makes him feel like you are saying he is wrong.

Ohio is a sensitive guy. You are very brainy guy. Brainy guys like you and me tend to step on sensitive people's feelings. So take that into consideration when you comment on his posts. Emotional intelligence is the key here.

Actually I am extremely analytical like OBW, but that is both a strength and a weakness, depending on how employed. For example, I always excelled in engineering analysis, aced all my classes, given the tough assignments at work, etc. But the downside is to get mired in all the petty details, "analysis paralysis" if you will.

None of us is perfect, and we are all a mixture at best. I have tried to be fair, as the scripture says, "I will have mercy on those who show mercy." For example, I have always tried to limits my comments to Lee's actions rather than his unseen motives. Only God can know the hearts. Because I take a middle-of-the-road position, I sometimes get it from both sides, and not just here on the forums.

About the time my wife and I were leaving the LCM a decade ago, we watched a great series of video presentations by a well-respected Christian counselor named Gary Smalley. He has helped many a brother and sister involved in all sorts of difficult relationships. It was he who presented the concept of "treasure hunting" the painful parts of our past. Since God loves us dearly, and has worked all things for our good, it is very beneficial for us psychologically, spiritually, emotionally, and even physically to discover and identify "the good" in our past.

Thirdly, I cannot judge Lee to a higher standard that I would other ministers. For example, I have been to congregations which excessively promoted tongues, to the point where they saw tongues in almost every scripture. I didn't like it, but that was their way, and they have lots of company. Likewise the practices promoted by Lee. Prophecying, or allowing every member to speak, is "a" way, but not "the" way, kind of like tongues is "a" way. There's nothing inherently evil about about any of these promoted ways, and it is only the excessive stress which can be detrimental to believers.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It isn't black and white. That's the whole issue. There was some good and some bad. I think you have the kind of mind that wants to categorize it as one or the other. Others are less comfortable doing that. Ohio is one. He feels like you are leaning on him a bit and he responded to you. Just take his feedback at face value, process it and see what the Lord says to you about it.

To me what makes the LCM such a difficult thing to deal with is precisely because it seemed to have such good things, alongside the bad things. Why the dichotomy? Didn't the Lord say a tree was either good or bad?

I'll not burden the post with a complete quote. We know what is there and responding to this part alone is sufficient.

I read both your post and Ohio's that follows before this. I will start by saying that I do believe that we need to seriously consider our experiences in the LCM. I cannot say that they are all bad, or that any particular one is. But the environment was so charged with teachings where something is dismissed for something else (because of God's economy or some other overlay), where we were constantly reminded of our special position due to our (divisive) stand of oneness "on the proper ground," and were focused to strongly on finding types of Christ (and the church) that were designed to point us away from now and instead to the age to come — to a period when we would be "overcomers" (unlike so many other poor mooing Christians) — and so on. How, in the midst of all of that can we assert that the "positive" experiences are clearly positive?

I will concede that some may truly be. But if they are not described independent of the problem that is the LCM, such as in conjunction with a statement like "the rich ministry of WL" or "WL was a gifted minister of the Word," then I have a problem with it. It has nothing to do with emotions.

You say that it isn't black and white. And I would agree. But once there are certain signs, Paul said to shut them down, not to cherry-pick.

Do you really think that anyone could get away with teaching entirely bad theology — then or now — and have a following? So none of them were entirely bad. But the presence of certain things was Pauls' sign to turn off the spigot. Not just take care of what you accept from their ministry.

In short, a teacher with a collection of good and bad was rejected as bad.

Period. End of story.

That was Paul's rule. Not mine.

Don't try to sort out the chicken from the bones. Or separate the wheat from the leaven.

Reject them altogether without reference to what they taught that might have been good.

Open the dumpster and drop it all in.

There are many more teachers that are not rejected. Whatever the rejected teacher taught that was good will come back from the good teachers. And if it does not come back, maybe we should take a closer look to see if it really was so good.

Every time we suggest that Lee was a gifted minster of the Word, we deny the reasons to reject him altogether.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

In short, a teacher with a collection of good and bad was rejected as bad.

Sounds good. Until you consider every teacher is a mixture of good and bad. Including you. To play the advocate where is the line? Please provide a reference for "Paul's rule," too. I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Really though, dealing Witness Lee or any teacher is relatively is easy. Because like you said you can drop a teacher.

But mostly we were talking about the teachings and the experiences. Those are the difficult ones to sort out.

We are really talking about two things: Whether there was anything good about our experiences, and how to talk about it going forward. As I said, saying you got good out of something is not the same as recommending it. It's just citing what to you are the facts.

In general, I don't think you should ask people to act like they got nothing good out of it just because you are squeamish someone might take that as a recommendation.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Igzy

How, in the midst of all of that can we assert that the "positive" experiences are clearly positive?

I don't like this kind of agnostic approach. To me it's like the question: how do you know you really exist? At some point you have to take a stand one way or the other. Again, if you think you had no good experiences in the LCM, no experiences you will take into eternity and treasure, then fine. Others don't necessarily agree with you.

How can you be sure what you believe and experience now is good and real? I mean, how far do you want to push the skepticism? All the way into cynicism?

The bottom line is we walk by faith, not knowledge. Because whatever we think we know is always based on certain more basic assumptions, including that our reasoning ability in any way actually corresponds to reality. Nothing really can be proved without assuming by faith something more fundamental. This is why there is no proof of God, because if he exists he's the most fundamental principle there is. There is no more basic principle on which to base a proof of him.

The same goes for the most basic things we believe. At some point we just have faith that what we think we know is true. You can't really exist, except as a tediously negative cynic, without doing so.

So the only real clue we have is what is the fruit of our lives and beliefs. You shall know them by their fruit. Check out the fruit of how you think and live. There the answer lies.

[OBW]

The first verses of 2 Timothy 3

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God — having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

So let's consider those attributes:

Lovers of money. Daystar. Tennis rackets. Chairs. Suits. Requiring the church in Taiwan to sell some of its property to pay for Lee’s business debts. LSM, especially to make his essentially reprobate son its manager (paid) and contact point for the churches. And don't forget that this is not just a complaint that he had business ventures. Most of these were designed to use the money of the people of the church for his own personal gain.

Boastful, proud, conceited. “I kind of like being exalted.” “That Lee! . . .” When asked what we would do when and if he died, “It’s all in the books.” Constantly directing that no other sources of spiritual nourishment is required than Lee’s writings.

Unforgiving. John Ingals. Al Knock. Bill Mallons. John So. (need I go on?)

Slanderous. The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. (again, need I say more?)

Rash. Spitting on the Lang book. Cutting off fellowship with Sparks because he did not agree on the ground doctrine. Two significant places where he took somewhat sudden and apparently rash positions on people. Probably could say the same about his sudden about-face on Max R.

Having a form of godliness but denying its power. Not sure how else to describe his own declaration that we should not bother reckoning ourselves as anything (like dead to sin) because he couldn’t do it. Rejecting being righteous by faith and instead saying we should wait until it comes out of us (after enough dispensing). And this is why he could not stand James. It required that he at least try to be righteous.

Can we find every sin in Paul’s list? Not likely. But Paul was not requiring that someone be guilty of all before they fell into the category of someone with whom we were to have nothing to do.

This is a troubling phrase because it seems to stand opposed to Christ’s own statement of loving everyone as you love yourself. So somehow it does not mean to literally write them off entirely. But it is still serious. Yet I surely cannot imagine that however it should be understood in a more moderate form would be to continue to listen to such a one as a teacher of the Word.

You don't see it? I can't seem to avoid it. It is everywhere.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

The first verses of 2 Timothy 3

Yet I surely cannot imagine that however it should be understood in a more moderate form would be to continue to listen to such a one as a teacher of the Word.

You don't see it? I can't seem to avoid it. It is everywhere.

Well, you make a good point.

But, again, this does not answer the question how do you explain the good spiritual experiences in the LCM. Now you can continue with your plea that they were all delusional. I don't think that dog hunts however. For one, it's not likely. For two, we wouldn't still be here discussing it years later if it was all delusion.

My point again is it's the real things alongside the bad things that is so confusing about processing and coming to grips with the experience of those days.

I know for a fact that I experienced the Lord's presence in powerful ways back then. I wasn't dreaming or brainwashed. The brainwashing was not the experiences, by and large. The brainwashing came by what we were told the experiences meant: I.e., we were in God's up-to-date move, His best, Lee's ministry was the top ministry, yada. All that was the brainwashing. What I experienced when I touched the Lord was not brainwashing.

You are going to have to work much harder than you have to convince me that all the spiritual experiences I had were delusion. I don't buy that for a minute. Because if I did it would mean my whole comprehension of reality is so far off I might as well check it in, walk around in foam slippers, stay away from sharp objects and wait until the next life to understand anything at all.

Sneak preview of my theory: Here's what I think. The Bible says "draw near to God and he will draw near to you" (James 4:8). We were goofy and mixed-up in a lot of ways in the LCM. But one thing we did do seriously was try to draw near to God. I think we possibly did that with more intensity than any group ever. And so God honored it. We drew near, so he did. It wasn't a confirmation of our theology or meeting habits or being the best or anything like that. It was simply God doing what he promised. We had some amazing experiences as a group and individuals because of it. Unfortunately, some used those to lead us to false conclusions.

It's hard to have this experience now on Sunday morning because most church-goers don't know to try to draw near to God. They just show up and hope he shows up. But I do experience it on retreats and other gatherings when the attendees are of a more serious cloth. In the LCM we experienced it all the time, back then anyway.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

My point again is it's the real things alongside the bad things that is so confusing about processing and coming to grips with the experience of those days.

I know for a fact that I experienced the Lord's presence in powerful ways back then. I wasn't dreaming or brainwashed. The brainwashing was not the experiences, by and large. The brainwashing came by what we were told the experiences meant: I.e., we were in God's up-to-date move, His best, Lee's ministry was the top ministry, yada. All that was the brainwashing. What I experienced when I touched the Lord was not brainwashing.

You are going to have to work much harder than you have to convince me that all the spiritual experiences I had were delusion. I don't buy that for a minute. Because if I did it would mean my whole comprehension of reality is so far off I might as well check it in, walk around in foam slippers, stay away from sharp objects and wait until the next life to understand anything at all.

Sneak preview of my theory: Here's what I think. The Bible says "draw near to God and he will draw near to you" (James 4:8). We were goofy and mixed-up in a lot of ways in the LCM. But one thing we did do seriously was try to draw near to God. I think we possibly did that with more intensity than any group ever. And so God honored it. We drew near, so he did. It wasn't a confirmation of our theology or meeting habits or being the best or anything like that. It was simply God doing what he promised. We had some amazing experiences as a group and individuals because of it. Unfortunately, some used those to lead us to false conclusions.

It's hard to have this experience now on Sunday morning because most church-goers don't know to try to draw near to God. They just show up and hope he shows up. But I do experience it on retreats and other gatherings when the attendees are of a more serious cloth. In the LCM we experienced it all the time, back then anyway.

My experience was always a mix of the good and the bad, and even as a kid I saw some of the bad in the LC. Over time, the bad started progressively more apparent. As I reached adulthood, I had opportunities to take my own initiative with participating in LC activities. Some of this resulted in positive experiences along the way. I can disregard those experiences, but neither do I expect they could ever be repeated again in the LC.

When I was younger and took the initiative to attend conferences and trainings, I don't see that as a bad thing, I just didn't know any better. I wouldn't do it now. The way I try to look at it is that there are much worse things I could have been doing.

Where I think the line has to be drawn is to realize those experiences were something of the past. Whatever the benefit was, I think it's like Igzy said, I tried to "draw near to God". Now that I know better, attempting to stay immersed in the LC environment is not something that God will honor. I also realize I still have a lot of "unlearning" that needs to take place.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But, again, this does not answer the question how do you explain the good spiritual experiences in the LCM. Now you can continue with your plea that they were all delusional. I don't think that dog hunts however. For one, it's not likely. For two, we wouldn't still be here discussing it years later if it was all delusion.

. . . .

You are going to have to work much harder than you have to convince me that all the spiritual experiences I had were delusion. I don't buy that for a minute.

I have not denied that any happened. But how much that we still think was real was because of the LCM or despite it. I'm not talking about the people in the LCM. Many of them are dear Christians who have built an alternate reality around themselves that revises much of the doctrine and practice just enough to be able to declare their allegiance to this utopia that they probably could not stomach otherwise. I know that I have heard a fair number of softer or slightly altered versions of Lee's theology over the years since leaving.

And you have really put up a shield when you declare that I am trying to convince you that you had no experiences and were delusions. IT NEVER HAPPENED. You are as guilty of contextualizing my posts as Lee was in isolating 1 Cor 15:45b to declare that Jesus was the Holy Spirit. Read the whole thing instead of having some knee-jerk reaction to one sentence. It makes you sound as if you need the strawman argument to defend some position. If you do, then maybe you need to study you position better . . . either to get clearer on how to defend it (and I will be listening) or to realize its error.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's hard to have this experience now on Sunday morning because most church-goers don't know to try to draw near to God. They just show up and hope he shows up. But I do experience it on retreats and other gatherings when the attendees are of a more serious cloth. In the LCM we experienced it all the time, back then anyway.

Maybe it's hard to have that experience on Sunday morning for other reasons. Maybe experience is less important than we learned in our past. The people that I meet with in a rather vanilla Bible church do not have, or at least speak of, "experiences" like we think are so important. Is that because they are somehow deficient in their Christian living? Or because we are still hanging onto a form that was necessary to survive in the place that we speak of as run by overbearing masters and leavened throughout its theology? And a form that was useful in keeping us in line. Because if we had these experiences in the LCM, then it must be the place to be to gain God's favor.

Do most church goers really not know how to draw near to God? Or have we created a narrow rule as to what it means to draw near to God? One that is possibly as narrow as Lee's definition of God's economy as stated in a single sentence in the first chapter of the book by the same name.

Did we draw near to God with more intensity? Or did we need something that was not able to be provided in the normal ways, so we narrowed our attention in a spiritual v secular view of life on a very "spiritual" set of activities that provided feelings and from that the conviction that it was confirmation of what we were about.

Is the Christian life really about experiences of God in a spiritual context where spiritual is so removed from secular? Or is the very existence of the spiritual-secular divide a falsity itself that should inform us of a different kind of sickness. I believe that true experience of Christ is mostly in your living because that is most of your life. If you are not "drawing near," whatever we think that includes, a lot of the time, then the result is a life of a variant on the "get saved, backslide, get saved, backslide get . . . " but on a weekly or even daily basis. As long as we are pointing at the experience as the cure for the backslide, we will convince ourselves that we need a better, stronger experience the next time around. A variant on dispensing theology.

Instead we need to experience (without the need for feelings) drawing near when we write code, drive the car, buy groceries, read tax law, cook dinner, go to a baseball game, fix the toaster, etc. To eliminate the spiritual-secular divide and instead live all of life seeking God, hungering and thirsting for righteousness, making peace. In short, living a life of love for God and of neighbor as self.

And there are actually a whole lot of those "church goers" that you still look down on just a little that are actually doing that. It is not demonstrably true because of a burning desire to jump up in a meeting and "prophesy." It is demonstrably true because of the lives that they now live. Oh, you can say some that are not doing that. As the one parable said, there are tares planted by an enemy. And there are some that have barely sprouted from seed.

But our learned version of spiritual maturity that looks like an LCM member without the LCM on their back is a false image of the true believer. The one who was spoken of over 3 or so chapters beginning in Matthew 5. And when I look at chapter 5, I see evidence speaking strongly against the one who helped muddle our view of true seeking for God, and true righteousness. More reasons to simply reject him and his predecessor and those that are following. To seek my spiritual instruction elsewhere.