Mass Movement in the Local Churches

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But essentially there was absolutely no difference between Lee's thought/meaning and the thought/meaning of all the others through history who declared their thing to be the "one true" thing. Whether they called it church, or move, or flow or whatever, the error is exactly the same.

What is so amazing about the confidence trick involved here is how blatant it really is. The only thing holding it together is the willingness or need to believe. At its core it's little more than, "When others do it, it's "X", and wrong, but when we do it, it's "Y", and okay." The re-branding or re-labeling part wasn't sophisticated at all.

Therein perhaps lies its power - when you step back and look, how there's no "there" there. I mean, PT Barnum said you can fool some of the people some of the time, but really? So many people fooled, for so long, with so little?

Originally Posted by Freedom

At first glance, it might seem that WL simply failed to practice what he preached. However, given his history of acting in direct contradiction to what he taught, the inevitable conclusion is that all too often, he used what he taught as a cloak for what he wanted to practice. It's something that WL was very good at.

There's probably something to this. For example, WL warned often about ambition, which made us all assume that he must have none. But the exact opposite was the truth. He had so much ambition that he couldn't tolerate anyone else's! It's the classic sleight-of-hand distraction, where you wave one hand in the air to attract attention, while the other is manipulating in secret. And the thing that was moving in secret was usually the opposite of what was being waved. Coincidence? Doubtful.

And when you see the disparity between what was said at point A versus point B, or what was taught versus what was practiced, it is pretty blatant. It doesn't take an expert in forensics to notice. Just someone like Indiana to come along and point out what's probably obvious to any objective viewer.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

What is so amazing about the confidence trick involved here is how blatant it really is. The only thing holding it together is the willingness or need to believe.

And ever so willing are members to believe it. One generation gets clued into what's going on, they leave, and the next generation is already there waiting to take the place of their predecessors. That's what is so scary about the whole belief system that exists in the LC. It is devoid of all rational or common sense. It is a perpetual game of Simon Says.

Originally Posted by aron

There's probably something to this. For example, WL warned often about ambition, which made us all assume that he must have none. But the exact opposite was the truth. He had so much ambition that he couldn't tolerate anyone else's! It's the classic sleight-of-hand distraction, where you wave one hand in the air to attract attention, while the other is manipulating in secret. And the thing that was moving in secret was usually the opposite of what was being waved. Coincidence? Doubtful.

Lee was the master con man. He developed an entire system that allowed him to get what he wanted, virtually 100% of the time. The actual sleight-of-hand con that was talking place was so simple that we wonder how he got away with it. But more than anything else, WL knew how to play upon people's emotions. He knew what people wanted. He knew how to appeal to that. Take Max, for example. Max was a self-admitted ambitious young man. WL played upon that. WL used that to his own advantage. And when the time came, Max was disposed of.

Lastly, to address the darker side of Lee, I do believe that what he accused so many others of was his own psychological projection of his personality onto others. Ambition? Check. Manipulative? Check. Controlling? Check. But none of these things members would dare accuse Lee of. Those were problems attributed to anyone but Lee.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Lee was the master con man. He developed an entire system that allowed him to get what he wanted, virtually 100% of the time. The actual sleight-of-hand con that was talking place was so simple that we wonder how he got away with it. But more than anything else, WL knew how to play upon people's emotions. He knew what people wanted. He knew how to appeal to that. Take Max, for example. Max was a self-admitted ambitious young man. WL played upon that. WL used that to his own advantage. And when the time came, Max was disposed of.

If not a con, certainly a master manipulator. He could say did not control any churches. Disingenuously Witness Lee would say he doesn't determine meeting times, but all the same he manipulates brothers to be pawns in achieving desired results. Max for one, Benson another, and so on. Various ones are used to do his dirty work while WL's hands are reputed to be clean.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The re-branding or re-labeling part wasn't sophisticated at all. . . .Therein perhaps lies its power -

When you step back and get the tiniest bit of objectivity, the disparities appear quickly. At one point it's all about the local and autonomous assembly, then suddenly it's the "Jerusalem principle" and everyone's talking about consolidation, about "coordination" and "blending". So which is it?

Answer: whatever Leadership wants today. Yesterday's reality was "B", today's reality is "C", and Leadership is always right. That's the unchanging constant. Leadership must always be right. That, my friends, is the basis of Nee and Lee's "good order in the church."

Leadership can flatly contradict itself; just ignore what it said yesterday and give a hearty "amen" to today's speaking. "Forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to what is before". Leadership can say one thing and do another, but Leadership is always right - just compartmentalize the disparities and everything will be fine. Ignore any feelings of unease or dissociation, which are temporary and will fade in time.

Leadership can say that today's proposed activity is the move of the Lord, straight from the throne of God, while anyone else doing the exact same thing is criticized as a movement of men. Likewise, other teachings are dismissed as opinions of fallen men, while our Leadership's interpretations and inspirations are pure revelations from God.

Even the Bible can't escape the grip of this cultural vice: scripture that doesn't square with whatever Leadership is promoting today is held to be natural concepts. Today's speaking by Leadership, however, is always oracular - Leadership never has opinions, Leadership has revelations.

So if the Bible says, Remember the poor (Gal 2:10); Leadership can say, "We don't care for that", and guess who prevails? And if Jesus taught, "Give to those who cannot repay you" (Lu 14:12-14; cf Prov 22:9); and the FTTA trainer replies, "Don't waste your time", whose voice prevails? Paul twice encouraged the saints to sing Psalms, calling them the "words of Christ", yet if WL dismissed them as low and without merit, who won the day?

The one constant in all this flip-flopping and whip-sawing, the one solid rock in all these flows and moves and winds of teachings, is that Leadership must always be right. That's the culturally-derived constant that WN and then WL took as having unchallenged validity, truth, or reality. They weren't egomaniacs so much as simply assuming what they'd been culturally conditioned toward. The fact that Paul and other apostles didn't arrange themselves thus wasn't noted - it didn't square with the social construct. Turns out China wasn't virgin soil, after all; no, the gospel made its home there amongst fallen human culture, just as it had everywhere else.

Is it coincidence that if you publicly criticize Mao in China today, 40 years after his death, you'll lose your job? And that likewise anyone in the LC who publicly criticizes or questions WL will lose whatever standing they have, no matter their good character and/or years of faithful service? One simply can't criticize Leadership - it's a cultural imperative. If you break the cultural norm, you'll break the culture, the very fabric of society itself, and what's left? Chaos and darkness. So they choose the prison of culture. Because it's safe; it's all they know. Put a few Bible verses on top of it and nobody will know the difference.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

When you step back and get the tiniest bit of objectivity, the disparities appear quickly. At one point it's all about the local and autonomous assembly, then suddenly it's the "Jerusalem principle" and everyone's talking about consolidation, about "coordination" and "blending". So which is it?

Whatever is needed at the time. It's like politics. Say whatever you want, knowing your audience can't remember past last weekend.

Obviously "early-Lee" in the USA had a number of contradictions with "later-Lee." Another one became blatantly obvious during the GLA quarantines. "Early-Lee" is on record encouraging others to write and publish the "truths of the Lord's recovery to the ends of the earth." "Later-Lee" put the kibosh on that whole program, which has now become justification for all the quarantines of this century.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

What is so amazing about the confidence trick involved here is how blatant it really is. The only thing holding it together is the willingness or need to believe. At its core it's little more than, "When others do it, it's "X", and wrong, but when we do it, it's "Y", and okay." The re-branding or re-labeling part wasn't sophisticated at all.

First the confidence of the hearers has to be gained by giving them the real thing, which is the Ministry of Spirit and truth from the word of God. For many of us growing up in antiquated denominations, including myself in Catholicism, Lee's ministry was perhaps our first real "taste" of God, i.e. "Taste and see that the Lord is good." Even after decades of dry doctrines, the old-timers still recall those "glory days," and the "riches" in the ministry books.

Unfortunately, and this seems to occur far too often in the whole of Christendom, leaders then use this to keep their followers in tow, even after "driving the car into the ocean," as Lee himself has said. The lust for power consumes them, and predictably, corrupts them.