In the Wake of the New Way

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Curious

Re-reading the document that begins this thread raises more questions for me. I see that it was written after the death o f WL, though it is a commentary on directions he initiated, (and towards the end, seems to have actually regretted).

That’s my theory that when ‘followers’ inherit leadership, they become harsher than their predecessor. I have the impression this is a true observation in the LC. It seems WL himself would have agreed with this document towards the end of his life, but not those who followed him.

Curious, as part of the LC's for 3 decades, and studying the system for 15 more years, WL liked to play both sides when it suited him. He could appear to be the most humble and the most orthodox or mainstream of Christians at times. And this is what makes his life and ministry so confusing for some to understand.

You may have read this story. After Lee passed in 1997, tensions increased off and on between the Blendeds in Anaheim and the regional center in Cleveland under Titus Chu. Both camps were always suspicious of each other. In the LC system of things, the two camps could never be peers. One must be in subjection to the other. When Anaheim wanted to buy their LaPalma Campus, things were good, and the Midwest donated ~$2K per family. Then things grew tense again. At issue was "what did WL really say about a variety of topics?" At the heart of this was the role and relationship between LSM and the LC's, or in a broad sense, between "the work" and "the church."

So TC had all the Midwest workers and full-timers read all of WL's books and copy pertinent quotes. We also covered the "blueprint," our supposed governing "vision," Nee's book The Normal Christian Church Life. Reams of documents were assembled. TC would hand carry them to the chief Blendeds, seeking honest fellowship. Nothing was accomplished, what a waste of time. The battle boiled down to WL's unedited ministry vs. his edited books. "Raw" Lee vs. "polished" Lee. WL in private vs. WL in public. Who was the real WL? Obviously, we in the Midwest were long deceived.

So was Steve Isitt, apparently. Initially, he was convinced that his fair and objective study of the "new way" movement of the late 1980's would benefit the Recovery. Didn't Lee himself suggest that? Everyone can learn from their mistakes, right?

Wrong! Not the elites at LSM. Any critique, any documents even from Lee's own books, any objective study of former members, any honest fellowship, any online websites, any anything, will always be viewed as a rebellion.