Double Standards

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I was once told that, "we all can't go back and reinvent the wheel, we'll never get anywhere."

But what we got stuck with was a early 20th century Chinese wagon wheel.

The effects of Nee/Lee creating such a standard are devastating. Nee presumably had read most of the Christian books of his era, so it's understandable that no one thought to question his ability to summarize everything. It's not like everyone was that ambitious to read anything and everything, or to fill their room with books so that the couldn't walk anywhere. How are you supposed to challenge someone who claims to have read everything? Lee went on to say something to the effect of "since 1949 there hasn't been a weighty spiritual book published." So LCers are pretty much stuck in a time warp of at least 65 years ago.

When will they learn? Does it take the better half of a century for them to realize that both Nee and Lee are old news? Given the amount of time that has passed, there's been plenty of time to reinvent the wheel within the LC. They are stubborn. Too stubborn to admit that this isn't the early or mid 1900's.

[Freedom]

Here are a few more double standards that come to mind:
Why could Lee get away with claiming that he was "perfected", and nobody else was? Obviously no one is perfect, yet he could get away with employing tactics like when he said the following: "None of you is perfected. Who can say that he is perfected? So you are not qualified to criticize what I am doing."

Why is there such a strong stigma among LC members against discussing and debating doctrinal issues or points of disagreement (even labeling such discussion as being "in the mind" or "fleshly")? By contrast DCP writings are highly contentious and have a strong argumentative tone.

Why does the LC simultaneously encourage members to avoid contact with "negative ones", yet criticize them not making the effort to contact "backslidden ones"? How would members know if the so-called "backsliders" aren't also "negative"?

[bearbear]

Interesting observations brother Freedom. My thinking is these double standards are built on the foundational narrative of there being a "Lord's Recovery": that Witness Lee was the MOTA, the LCs represent the vanguard of what the Lord is doing on the earth, and the rest of Christianity is fallen.

If the LCs are ever struggling it represents a huge problem because it's up to the LC movement to save the rest of the world from fallen Christianity and bring everyone to see the light in Witness Lee's high truths and astounding teachings. Can you really call it the Lord's recovery if the movement is shrinking and after an exodus of Caucasians, is left with no one but Chinese? The result is tremendous pressure on everyone to make the Lord's Recovery happen even when it clearly isn't happening.

And who then is to blame? Never mind DayStar or Linko or all the purges of brothers who stood up to Philip Lee's abuse, It cannot be Witness Lee's fault because he's the mouthpiece of God from which all these profound teachings about God's economy and God man living come forth. The only people left to blame is everyone else. So people in the LC movement accept and are blind to double standards because it fits into their worldview of "the Lord's Recovery" with Witness Lee as their de facto proxy saviour.

Witness Lee put this blame into words in many of his later writings such as the ones related to fellowship concerning vital groups. I remember having to read sections where he assigned blame on everyone but himself for the lack of growth in the LCs escpecially among Caucasians. The tone seemed to be such that it was always someone else's fault but never inherently his own.

This mindset carries over even to the BBs which I recall and is also recounted in Meyer's "A future and a hope". During a semi annual training, Ed Marks expressed how ashamed he would feel if he were to meet Witness Lee in the after life for failing some expectations with leading the Lord's recovery-- as if he were to answer to Lee and not Jesus after death!

[aron]

Why could Witness Lee hold forth upon the shoulders of giants, but nobody is supposed to hold forth on his shoulders? Where's the next Andrew Murray in the Lord's Recovery? He's forbidden - because WL was the last apostle and seer of the divine vision of the present age. Nobody is supposed to get new light after he passed; the age of spiritual giants is over.

But why can't I pick through WL and WN, take the good parts (if any), mix them with other witnesses of Christ both new and old, and create my own version of God's present speaking, to present to the flock?

Again, where's the next Andrew Murray? What kind of ministry banishes gifted brothers (and sisters) as ambitious and divisive? If you have any gift, or talent, or leading from God, it must be "blended away" so that you become part of the featureless Hive. We all must be absolutely identical, per Our Brother.

The phrase "Witness Lee was the last spiritual giant; the age of spiritual giants is over" is quite telling because there's no Biblical support for such a notion that I'm aware of. Instead it seems to be a product of human culture. This point should be made repeatedly, because it's been so well hidden in their history: the LC is an Asian church. And it's in statements like that above, where the veneer of Biblical covering has been abandoned, that the roots of this movement are clearly seen. There's a brief opening, and suddenly we can see what's inside: human culture, with all of its fallen earthly values, expectations, and behaviors.

And this collective value is intrinsic to Asian culture - don't question the leader. Show respect for Chairman Mao/Brother Lee/Whomever. To criticize the leader is to rebel against the divinely arranged social order, and to separate yourself from society. So the leader gets a free pass to criticize everyone else, to make mistakes, and to call out everyone from the podium and expose them. Yet no one would dare to do likewise to Maximum Brother! Submission to this system and its leaders, both implicit and explicit, is what makes the machine well-oiled. In LC-speak it might called "practical oneness".

In fact, the leader(s) have an open invitation to abuse the system, and those under them, to show that the system works. Therefore, I could watch TC essentially grovel publicly before WL, even using the phrase "I am ashamed", and it didn't mean that WL was an evil overlord or TC was an incompetent bumpkin, but rather that the system was in good working order. WL and TC publicly demonstrated for all present that they had a close working partnership within the collective. This idea of "face" is an essential component to understanding Asian social enterprises. Any textbook examining human culture would probably say this.

I respect Chinese people, history, and culture. But this arrangement is not "normal" at all, contrary to what WN taught, but rather is of the gentiles. And Asian gentiles are no different from Western gentiles - both are fallen and in need of divine remediation. In this the LC was no better than Western churches it despised as "whores" and "daughters of the harlot" and "Babylon". It may even have been worse, because its foundation stone was judgment and separation, not forgiveness and "receiving all those whom God has received in Christ Jesus."

But we were taught about double standards: there was the story of a man praying, who was thanking God that he wasn't like the sinner praying nearby. But he was! In God's eyes, they both were sinners. Yet one's prayer judged the other and one's prayer repented of sin. Which went away justified? And a very clear story was about the guy asking forgiveness of his debts, but who wouldn't forgive those who owed him. He wanted two sets of rules: one for himself (mercy) and one for the other (condemnation). Doesn't work that way.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The phrase "Witness Lee was the last spiritual giant; the age of spiritual giants is over" is quite telling because there's no Biblical support ... in statements like that, where the veneer of Biblical covering has been abandoned, the roots of this movement are clearly seen. There's a brief opening, and suddenly we can see what's inside: human culture, with all of its fallen earthly values, expectations, and behaviors.

Another story was from the FTTT Taipei during the New Way, where the organizational scheme was presented, and one of the (American) brothers asked, "But, isn't that a hierarchy?", to which the (Chinese) brother replied, "If others do it, then it's a hierarchy, but if we do it, it's not a hierarchy."

This "When we do it it's good but when others do it it's bad" subjectivism of the LC isn't from the Bible, but is consistent with a human culture in which the collective is paramount. If we (the collective) are God's move on the earth, then our leader is God's apostle of the age, the Deputy God, and we do whatever he says even if it's contradictory, illogical, or unsupported by scripture. "Whatever Max Brother says is the law of the land" IS the law of the land. And because MaxBro is apparently so focused on building up the collective, everything he does and says is divinely sanctioned. Even when he's illogical he's logical, when he contradicts himself he's not, and when he's wrong he's right. Even if he skims the till for his family, and sacks his right-hand man for protesting, it's okay, because he's here for the Body.

When you look at it from the outside it looks nutty, but from the inside it's completely consistent because everything is "for the building of the Body." Double standards are okay because they're within one standard: to build up the collective. What did Lee say, "Sail on! Sail on!"

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Another story was from the FTTT Taipei during the New Way, where the organizational scheme was presented, and one of the (American) brothers asked, "But, isn't that a hierarchy?", to which the (Chinese) brother replied, "If others do it, then it's a hierarchy, but if we do it, it's not a hierarchy."

This "When we do it, it's good but when others do it, it's bad" rampant subjectivism of the LC isn't from the Bible, but is entirely consistent with a human culture in which the collective is paramount. If we (the collective) are God's move on the earth, then our leader is God's apostle of the age, the Deputy God, and whatever he says, goes, even if it's contradictory, illogical, or not supported by Scripture. "Whatever Max Brother says is the law of the land" IS the law of the land. And because MaxBro is apparently so focused on building up the collective, everything he does and says is divinely sanctioned. Even when he's illogical he's logical, and when he's wrong he's right. If he skims the till for his family, and sacks his right-hand man for protesting, it's okay, because he's here for the Body. The building needs MaxBro.

When you look at it from the outside it looks nutty, but from the inside it's completely consistent because everything is "for the building of the Body." Double standards are okay because they're within one standard: to build up the collective. What did Lee say, "Sail on! Sail on!"

Bro aron, google hoodoo. Check out wiki on it.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Another story was from the FTTT Taipei during the New Way, where the organizational scheme was presented, and one of the (American) brothers asked, "But, isn't that a hierarchy?", to which the (Chinese) brother replied, "If others do it, then it's a hierarchy, but if we do it, it's not a hierarchy."

Actually Aron, the brother's right. When others do it, it is hierarchy. Within the recovery, it's fellowship.

Here's another one, take the LSM fellowship of ministry and churches. It's been termed "an organism". When other do it (SBC), it's "an organization".

[Freedom]

A few more:
Why is it that Ron and Kerry could write a book in which they purported to "discern" a situation, yet when their analysis was put under the microscope, Ron hid behind the analogy of the two trees? Ron gets to "discern" what he perceives to be good and bad, but if anyone else does, it is characterized as being of the "wrong tree" and he might even call someone a "man of death".

Why is it that BFA, a non-profit corporation, needs to buy advertising on Facebook to distribute free literature? If a ministry is really that good, wouldn't people be happy to receive free literature without prompting? Wouldn't people also be willing to buy the books if it's that good?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by bearbear

If the LCs are ever struggling it represents a huge problem because it's up to the LC movement to save the rest of the world from fallen Christianity and bring everyone to see the light in Witness Lee's high truths and astounding teachings. Can you really call it the Lord's recovery if the movement is shrinking and after an exodus of Caucasians, is left with no one but Chinese? The result is tremendous pressure on everyone to make the Lord's Recovery happen even when it clearly isn't happening.

And who then is to blame? Never mind DayStar or Linko or all the purges of brothers who stood up to Philip Lee's abuse, It cannot be Witness Lee's fault because he's the mouthpiece of God from which all these profound teachings about God's economy and God man living come forth. The only people left to blame is everyone else. So people in the LC movement accept and are blind to double standards because it fits into their worldview of "the Lord's Recovery" with Witness Lee as their de facto proxy saviour.

Witness Lee put this blame into words in many of his later writings such as the ones related to fellowship concerning vital groups. I remember having to read sections where he assigned blame on everyone but himself for the lack of growth in the LCs escpecially among Caucasians. The tone seemed to be such that it was always someone else's fault but never inherently his own.

This mindset carries over even to the BBs which I recall and is also recounted in Meyer's "A future and a hope". During a semi annual training, Ed Marks expressed how ashamed he would feel if he were to meet Witness Lee in the after life for failing some expectations with leading the Lord's recovery-- as if he were to answer to Lee and not Jesus after death!

In the LC, one of the biggest points of frustration for me was the whole blame game that goes on. Because everyone is programmed to believe that "the Recovery" is the pinnacle of life, what happens when issues arise or the LC fails to meet expectations? No one can blame the system itself or any of the leaders, so the blame falls upon everyone else. Come to think of it, Lee's entire "new way" ministry was all a big blame game. Let's blame the failures of the LC on not having enough "vital groups", or blame it on members not being smart enough to learn from the JW's and practice door-knocking .

I remember being in a meeting one time where an elder was frustrated that there wasn't much increase with the college work. He told us "if you all aren't going to bring in new ones, why should we bother to open our homes for you?" I was a bit taken aback to hear that, but it helped to wake me up to see what was really going on. I realized that there was the need for leaders to "prove" themselves in terms of having some amount of success. Us small potatoes were just pawns and a means to an end. Ultimately, because of what members perceive the LC to be, it requires all kinds of nonsense to happen to promote the image of the LC.

There were other situations where I remember us small potatoes being blamed for whatever went wrong. We were always the ones who got blamed, but we were just doing what we were told - yet another double standard. That is why I previously mentioned how they criticize anyone taking initiative as being ambitious, yet they also criticize those who are"inactive" or "lukewarm". Which do they want? They can't have it both ways. It's a lose-lose situation for members. The reality is LCers are basically powerless to engage in any kind of activities that would provide benefit and maybe initiate a change for the better.