SPLIT THREAD - Control and Addiction in the Local Church

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by djohnson

Ohio in your post #39 you bring out an interesting point regarding Lee's behavior and those of his followers i.e. what and who did he really control? His claim that he controlled nobody is actually true in the literal sense. What did Lee actually make someone else do?

The issue of control is systemic to the LC's, beginning with WL, then the workers, leaders, elders, serving ones, saints, etc. Bad patterns were taught and duplicated throughout the program.

Here's a sad example of a story which occurred 10 years ago in the Cleveland hall #1 Lobby. An elder disagreed with a decision my wife and I made which affected a few saints. He knew of our decision well in advance, via prayer and much fellowship, yet disagreed with our decision. During break time, there was a short shouting match in a room filled with saints coming and going. At one point he shouted in my face, "can't you control your wife?"

Not being the fastest thinker afoot, I responded "it's against the law to control people." Fortunately, I was able to turn around and walk out the door before this little confrontation turned violent.

The point here is this: Define what control means. When is control ... control. Who sets boundaries for the word? Who determines when those boundaries are crossed? I could sit here and tell other more tragic stories of ones who felt they were controlled by leaders who would refuse to admit they controlled anybody. The LC lexicon for the word control obviously differed from that of the greater body of Christ.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

I define control as a person or person/s who can force you to do something against your will. Lee perhaps was perceived as such a person but in fact was not. In a free society very few people have that kind of power a/k/a "police power".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by djohnson

I define control as a person or person/s who can force you to do something against your will.

I'm not sure if this definition works. Now we need to define what the phrases "can force" and "against your will" really mean, and what healthy limits or boundaries are placed on these definitions. In some cases, dear saints never realized the controls upon them until they left the program and reflected years later.

When saints place trust in the authorities over them, all too often those in leadership to not serve them properly, as Peter says (IP5.2) "Feed the flock of God, taking oversight, not by constraint, not for filthy lucre, not lording it over them." How easy it is for immature leaders to "play god" with the saints lives, thinking they can do better than the Lord Himself.

[countmeworthy]

You guys need to google 'the spirit of Jezebel'. It's a controlling spirit obviously named after the wife of Ahab.

If you read up on that spirit, you'll find it's not a 'woman' spirit..it's a spirit running rampat in the church-universal church. It's a technique used by people..men & women alike. Sometimes the controlling technique is OBVIOUS and Blatant but the more dangerous one is the subtle one that sneaks up on an innocent person.

The RCC is notorious for having that spirit. It's exposed in Revelation 2. The church in Thyatira has the spirit of Jezebel. Why do you think Catholics are so resistant in leaving the RCC? The RCC doesn't care about their fornications, their adulteries, their sins...as long as you don't leave 'the one true church'.

How many threads/posts have we read about the similarities between Lee and the Pope? What do they have in common? Control-the spirit of Jezebel.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by djohnson

I define control as a person or person/s who can force you to do something against your will. Lee perhaps was perceived as such a person but in fact was not. In a free society very few people have that kind of power a/k/a "police power".

I understand. That is the reason that you got the kind of reception two years ago and you will probably get some of the same this time.

But control is not just forcing to act against will, but also to control the will so that it aligns with the controller and therefore does what it would not do before the change in will. It includes an altering of the will so that you willingly do what you would not do at some time in the past. Your analysis is presuming a strong will that sees, hears, and recognizes the attach upon it before it allows itself to be changed. But if we, and our wills, are not on guard, we can often be persuaded to change in very small ways. Then more small ways. Then even more. Eventually, our will is very different.

It is potentially easier to do in a religious context because we must presume that God does change our wills. So if the one who seeks control can convince you that his/her direction is consistent with God's will, then they can take you where you might not otherwise go.

I sort of see this happen without a control issue when people begin to realize that they must love their "neighbors" and they are mostly sinners. So how do you love a sinner but not his sin? Some unwittingly drop their strong stance against certain sins rather than simply dropping their hatred of the people who practice those sins. They take a wrong path toward a desired goal. The result may not be that they would actually engage in that sin, but they may become vocal advocates of accepting such sin into the church. Churches that reach out to the gay community have this issue all the time. Are they trying to bring them to Christ and ultimately repentance, or are they trying to bring a sinful lifestyle into a Christian social circle without any thought of changing it?

[OBW]

CMW,

I hate to say this, but I read the Jon Hamilton article on The Spirit of Jezebel again and had some of the same questions as I did before.

I admit that Jezebel was a wicked woman in the OT, and see that God referred to an influence in the NT as being from allowing Jezebel. But much of what Jon writes is his conjecture and add-ons. He adds one statement after another of what “a Jezebel spirit is,” yet only a few of those are from actual observations in scripture concerning the ways of the historical Jezebel, at least that are cited as such.

Then he goes on to state that this spirit is “the force behind” so many of the ills of American society. Yet Revelation is only concerned with what is being allowed into the church.

But the thing that is most troubling is the story concerning the Welsh revival and his version of the story of Evans Roberts and Jesse Penn-Lewis. Even if the chronological accounts are correct, the cast of evilness upon JPL is not substantiated. The reasons for the changes in Evans may have been true and spiritual.

It might have been that his leading of such a revival was more like phenomenon of the kid preacher (can’t remember his name) decades ago in the US. He could speak strongly and it wowed a lot of people. Many actually came to Christ as a result. But he had no actual conviction of his own — at least not one that would make him a viable preacher.

In any case, the character and reason for the events is stated as fact, yet there is no evidence that Jon has done more than cast his opinion about those events. Given that there is nothing more than an opinion about what happened and why it happened, it looks more like someone who has an ax to grind and can make his case by tricking us into believing his stuff as fact.

Even if there is some truth in the general premise of the article, the biggest problem I have is the kind of “watch out, there’s a snake under every rock” attitude that comes out. While we can argue that Satan is behind all the evils of the world, when you start to treat it as something about the spirit of the humans who practice the evil and some common denominator among them that must be avoided, it tends to make you want to run to the hills, build a private compound, stock up lots of food and water and retreat from all contact with them. It is the start of another separatism movement within Christianity. It will strike out at other Christians who do not see what they see. And having just read some of the other things on Jon's homepage, there is some hints at the truthfulness of that assessment. There's too much focus on the enemy. I will admit a prejudice of mine in saying that, in the contxt of the rest of what I read, the fact that he and his wife are homschooling their 8 kids adds to the picture that I suspected. (I have nothing specific against homeschooling except for some of the reasons given for doing it, expecially by people who have no business being the source of knowledge for kids that will need to know more than their parents know.)

We are to be wise. But we are also to be in the world, just not of it. Each day has enough evil for itself. If we start to put all the evil in the world into some huge interlinked web that is after us, ... well let’s just say that we don’t need to worry about the fact that all the world lies in the evil one. The scripture didn’t put this kind of fear into the believers about the world. Why should we accept it now. Surely Satan would try to destroy the church and our testimony. But that was true without a boogeyman in the form of a “Jezebel spirit.” Just don’t let it in the church.

I could be off with respect to the general message of the article, but what I see is to much of the things that I observe in some other "off the reservation" teachings, including Lee's.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by OBW

CMW,

I hate to say this, but I read the Jon Hamilton article on The Spirit of Jezebel again and had some of the same questions as I did before.

I could be off with respect to the general message of the article, but what I see is to much of the things that I observe in some other "off the reservation" teachings, including Lee's.

I had not heard of Jon Hamilton...so I checked him out before I replied to your post. You are correct he cast his own opinions on the Welsh revival and on JPL. I will also add, a person can go overboard and get paranoid that everyone in authority or leadership has a 'Jezebel spirit'.
As a personal observation..some of the characteristics of the Jezebel spirit are elements we experienced in the LC. I am listing a few:

A Jezebel spirit seeks control through manipulation.
It has a deep hatred of true spiritual authority, [I'm not sure what this actually means. I don't know if this is true or not]
It uses subtle persuasion to gain influence and get close to those in control.
It then uses this position to gradually dominate.

Were not the saints under Lee's ministry manipulated
Who did Lee answer to? Aside from 'God'. We 'know' he worked with Nee and a few others but by the time he was head of the 'local churches-that is 'the Lord's Recovery', he was 'the pope' and answered to no one to my knowledge.
He answered to no one but 'God' and correct me if I'm wrong, but did he ever take the fellowship of his 'co-workers' if they thought he was getting off the beaten path?

Though he is dead, it is LEE's ministry that lives on. Gosh, no one dares to be solely overlooking 'the Lord's Recovery' today. That's why the 'blendeds' are in charge.
Since we are mainly dealing with the Lee ministry on this forum and since I am a 'victim' of allowing myself to have been manipulated, I did a lot of personal research on controlling personalities.

I can be easily influenced and controlled if I'm not watchful and careful.
Growing up as a Catholic, I was 'afraid' to leave the RCC.
In the LC, I/we were told, the CHURCH-the LC church was God's MOVE on the earth. AGAIN a fear tactic.
In my personal journey, I attracted controlling personalities. UGH! And what a price I paid. So I had to figure out WHY these types of personalities were drawn to me or why I attracted these personalities.
That's how I learned about the Jezebel spirit. Jon Hamilton's opinions do not validate absolute truth. But there are elements to ponder. There are other websites that speak of controlling , manipulative personalities, the Jezebel spirit.

There is NO DOUBT in my mind we were controlled. I don't believe for one second "I" was the only one controlled!

It was/is obvious...the 'leading ones' all wear long sleeved white shirts with ties. No more skinny ties though.. (stores probably don't sell them anymore!) That look is a form of manipulation and control.
The Lingo that is exclusive to the LSM/LC from calling on the Lord in the LC tone to the 'amens'. It's all part of the LC control.
The books/messages/conferences/trainings....same look-same message.
--------------
The RCC-same mass all over the world. Don't matter if you're Japanese, Chinese, Indonesian, Caucasian, Nigerian. Every Catholic will feel right at home with the 'mass' no matter where it's being held...because it has 'the look' & the same 'message'.

Their message is once a Catholic, always a catholic. Why are Catholics who are raised in the RCC afraid to leave?...not afraid to sin...just afraid to leave the RCC.

The LSM/LC has the same spirit as the RCC. That's why there are forums like these to bring to light & help those who might be struggling to leave the LSM/LC. We did it...so can they.

In the Bible, Jezebel had a weak husband & she controlled him. Even Elijah was afraid of Jezebel!
The question to quote Ohio is that:

It's difficult for most of us "common folk" to understand the complexities of gifted, talented men, since they seem to possess enormous powers which, for the most part, are foreign to us.

The best answer I can offer is it's a 'spiritual' thing. (not in a good way.) But that's not to say every leader or person in authority has a controlling spirit on them!

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Ohio I think "can force" and "against your will" are not that difficult to understand: Did Lee put a gun to your head and make you do something you did not want to do? Doubtful.

His claim that he did not control anybody is valid. That people let themselves be controlled by him is another story altogether. And if the argument is taken further i.e. into the realm of involuntary mind control then we are taking about a cult aren't we?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by djohnson

Ohio I think "can force" and "against your will" are not that difficult to understand: Did Lee put a gun to your head and make you do something you did not want to do? Doubtful.

His claim that he did not control anybody is valid. That people let themselves be controlled by him is another story altogether. And if the argument is taken further i.e. into the realm of involuntary mind control then we are taking about a cult aren't we?

djohnson, your comments here are extremely naive. If some one held a gun to my head, then I die a victorious overcoming martyr, how glorious ...

OBW has done well in his recent post to identify the type of control that we are talking about. To put this in context, I remember discussing with other young brothers back in the mid 70's, how we can trust our lives in the hands of the older brothers, because they "cared for our souls" ... but ... some of these elders were barely 30 years old. The culture we lived in was different then, and many young people were vulnerable to immature elders. In the end, too much "fellowship," was really manipulation.

OBW: But control is not just forcing to act against will, but also to control the will so that it aligns with the controller and therefore does what it would not do before the change in will. It includes an altering of the will so that you willingly do what you would not do at some time in the past. Your analysis is presuming a strong will that sees, hears, and recognizes the attach upon it before it allows itself to be changed. But if we, and our wills, are not on guard, we can often be persuaded to change in very small ways. Then more small ways. Then even more. Eventually, our will is very different.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by djohnson

His claim that he did not control anybody is valid. That people let themselves be controlled by him is another story altogether. And if the argument is taken further i.e. into the realm of involuntary mind control then we are taking about a cult aren't we?

As djohnson and most of us are quite aware, there was something that Witness Lee dubbed "The Vision of The Church". Lee even called it "a controlling vision" which was to guide and motivate just about every aspect of a Local Churcher's life. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. This is how Lee controlled his followers. He didn't have to tell them where to move - the "vision" did. He didn't tell them who to marry - the "vision" did. He didn't have to tell them what to read and what not to read - the "vision" did.

But who controlled "the vision"? Witness Lee. Actually the vision was changed and updated by Lee many times over the past number of years. There were "flows" which came and went. The "New Way" was nothing more then just the final "flow" initiated and defined by Witness Lee. Since it was at the end of his life, of course it was the most important and most "God ordained" of them all. To this day this is the "flow" that controls most of what happens in the Local Church. Since Lee is dead and unable to initiate any new flow they are stuck. This is what "controls" them.

All this is a very refined and simplified answer to this issue of "control". There are many other intricate and involved issues, such as the matter of fear and addiction. These have been addressed and discussed at length over the past on these forums.

-

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The point here is this: Define what control means. When is control ... control. Who sets boundaries for the word? Who determines when those boundaries are crossed? I could sit here and tell other more tragic stories of ones who felt they were controlled by leaders who would refuse to admit they controlled anybody. The LC lexicon for the word control obviously differed from that of the greater body of Christ.

On the matter of control, one could say I don't control anybody. In a sense that is true, if you're not giving orders.
You could also say there's control indirectly via influence. By nature of relationships, there is indirect control when one's influence can impact another's decision making. This aspect of control can happen locally or extra-locally in church matters.

Terry

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

OBW it is interesting that you use Jonestown as an example. I have reiterated many times that in the case of a cult and/or addiction control of the will is quite possible. So we agree on both counts as far as I can tell. But you'll notice that members (of course) and also many who left the Lee church refuse to accept that they were engaged in either of these two possibilities. Most in this forum will admit neither.

Igzy has presented a third alternative reducing the idea of control to influence such as advertisers use to influence buyers. Never let is be said that Lee and his LSM are not master marketers! After all they convinced grown adults that he was God's sole oracle on the earth, his church was the only legit one and even had the gall to introduce a one publication policy. And surprise of all surprises the one publication publisher was none other than his very own LSM. A few people (thankfully only a few) people bought it lock, stock and barrel and created a captured exclusive market for his wares.

Should we blame the sellers of this fairy tale or the buyers? Personally I think at minimum 50% should go to the buyers for being so gullible and naive. After all if someone advertises that their dog can fly and you buy it for $500 are you likely to admit with your out loud voice that you got ripped off or will you save yourself the embarrassment and chalk it up as a life lesson?

[OBW]

DJ,

The talk is more reasonable now. But while in human terms I might quibble with you concerning which side of 50% the responsibility falls with respect to the people v the leaders and Lee, in spiritual terms I cannot accept that anywhere near 50% is the people and much more falls on the leadership.

Why? Why when some of Paul's and even John's writings seem to indicate that the Christian has responsibility concerning what he accepts? Because they also, along with Jesus, identified a higher responsibility on the leaders. Jesus did not condemn the people for following (or trying to follow) the heavy-yoke rules of the Pharisees. He condemned the Pharisees. And in 1 Cor 3, Paul clearly put a large charge on those who built (the builders) on the building of the church (the church in Corinth).

While it may seem in human terms that "we the people" have our own responsibility to revolt against bad teaching, that is not entirely true. It was primarily the responsibility of the leadership to refuse the bad teaching, and it was their "punishment" for building incorrectly. 1 Cor 3 said nothing about a "cost" to the Corinthians relating to the bad stuff that Paul, Apollos, or others "built" there. In those various words from Jesus and Paul, there a sense that it is expected that the people will follow those who are leading. We may be warned to watch out for ourselves, but I'm not sure that it is the same as the charge put upon the leadership.

[Cal]

I agree with Mike. Although there is responsibility on both sides, the leader has more because the nature of the relationship necessitates trust and thus vulnerability on the part of the follower. The leader, on the other hand, is not vulnerable in the same way.

If the follower needs to be vigorously skeptical of every directive of the leader, the one must ask why he is following him in the first place. In practice, there is a certain benefit of the doubt afforded the leader, or the relationship simply cannot work. So if the leader abuses this benefit of the doubt his sin is greater.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

I'll accept that leaders have more responsibility. Maybe the split should be 60/40. Nonetheless both parties are responsible. And for either side to argue how much the split should be is really moot because regardless of the exact number some of it is squarely on their shoulders.

If a leader and the yes men he surrounds himself with teach that he is God's one oracle on the earth today, his is the only legit church and his publications the only ones allowed then once this is accepted no further discernment on the part of the followers is required and the leaders are free to do whatever they want. (Contrary to this sick situation believer/followers are expected to exercise ongoing discernment e.g. the church in Ephesus and false apostles.) If this fairy tale is never accepted in the first place then leaders can be held accountable and protocols with checks and balances can be put in place that protects followers from abusive leadership.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by djohnson

I'll accept that leaders have more responsibility

Well that's good of you since after all it is a major biblical theme

...regardless of the exact number some of it is squarely on their shoulders.

Nobody is saying that people are not to blame for their actions (that's a biblical theme as well). Maybe part of the recovery process for ex members should be a cold, hard assessment of how it is they fell pray to this kind of control, maybe helping them and their loved ones to avoid such pitfalls in the future. I understand fully why ex members are kind of resistant to this kind of painful introspection...it ain't real fun, especially when you are going it alone. Of course this is part of the need and value of this forum here, and it is a big motivation to keep it going

...If this fairy tale is never accepted in the first place then leaders can be held accountable and protocols with checks and balances can be put in place that protects followers from abusive leadership.

Nice afterthought my friend, but that is a whole lot of water that has already passed under the bridge for a whole lot of people. In my view it is not going to do anybody much good to start estimating how many gazillion gallons of water have passed through, but rather just issue the wake-up call and maybe help some people get the heck off of the bridge.

In any event, it is more then obvious that there was/is a whole lot of control, abuse and addiction issues taking place in the Local Church of Witness Lee. One would have hoped that when Lee passed along things would have gotten a bit better in this regard....and, unfortunately, we now know that one would have been dead wrong about this. It just goes to show you that when the "personality" of a personality cult (sect if you like) dies, the cult (sect) does not necessarily pass away in turn. This also goes to show you that the Local Church is something much more then just a church or group of churches, it is a religion, or to be more technical, a religious system. This particular system is not only fueled by doctrinal error (a real biggie to be sure), it is fueled by all kinds of control, abuse and addiction, which are all aspects of the modern human condition I'm afraid.

-