Similarities to the "local churches" (Witness Lee)
anonXian:
I've been reading this forum for awhile, and it has been very helpful to me. I used to meet with the "local churches," which are centered on the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. I now meet with a different Christian group for a variety of reasons.
I'd like to ask the following questions:
1) What specific similarities do former Assembly members see between the Assembly and the local churches?
2) What did George Geftakys and other leaders teach about Witness Lee and the local churches, if anything, since they were also located in Southern California?
3) What interactions did Assembly members and local church members have? Were there any cross-over members? Were there any direct conflicts?
Thanks very much.
anonXian
Oscar:
Quote from: anonXian on January 02, 2008, 07:41:45 pm
I've been reading this forum for awhile, and it has been very helpful to me. I used to meet with the "local churches," which are centered on the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. I now meet with a different Christian group for a variety of reasons.
I'd like to ask the following questions:
1) What specific similarities do former Assembly members see between the Assembly and the local churches?
2) What did George Geftakys and other leaders teach about Witness Lee and the local churches, if anything, since they were also located in Southern California?
3) What interactions did Assembly members and local church members have? Were there any cross-over members? Were there any direct conflicts?
Thanks very much.
anonXian
Anon,
Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and George Geftakys all had a background in the Plymouth Brethren movement. I believe that the Brethren that influenced Nee and Lee were exclusives. GG spent many years as a member of the Open Brethren.
This accounts for the high degree of similarity between the two movements. They shared a common view of Biblical interpretation, church polity, and mystical ideas such as having "the Lord's Servant" as their leader and the idea of a protective "annointing". GG de-emphasized the doctrine of "taking the church ground". He placed the emphasis on having the Lord's presence "in the midst" because of the purity and order of the assembly.
GG's way of dealing with the Nee/Lee movemnt was to point out that they had fallen into the old heresy of Modalism, as seen in Lee's teaching of out being "mingled" with God. Because the two groups were making essentially the same claim, to represent the pure expression of the Church in our times, there was a high degree of hostility towards the Local Church.
Since both groups emphasized campus evangelism, they frequently ran into each other. Local Church folks were not allowed to attend Assembly bible studies. If they came to public events they were asked to leave.
Back in the late 70's or early 80's George attempted to "sic" Walter Martin's anticult ministry on the local church. He wanted them to be labled as heretical. Martin sent John and Gretchen Passantino out to talk to Timothy Geftakys. Years later John told me that the more he talked to Tim the more he saw the Assembly itself as a problem group. They ended up labling the Assembly as an "abberant" church. By this meant that we were not heretical, but had some serious problems.
Blessings,
Tom Maddux
anonXian:
Thank you for your response, Tom.
Do you mind if I ask, do you agree that Lee's teachings are modalistic? This is something I have been struggling with. As you might know, he emphasized that the Father, Son, and Spirit were "distinct, but not separate." But he also emphasized the "economical aspect" of the Trinity, for example that the Son was the Father and Christ became the Spirit (using Isaiah 9:6, and 1 Cor. 15:45). Towards the end of his ministry Lee taught that we were "becoming God, in life and nature, but not in the Godhead." In essence he adopted the Greek Orthodox teaching of deification.
I'm not a theologian so I can't say whether this is heretical or not. In my experience I can say that eventually Lee's teachings were not helpful to me in following the Lord Jesus, because the Lord became depersonalized.
Probably the hardest thing for me is getting away from the "inner life" teachings. It's hard to know what aspects of those teachings are true and what are unhealthy. There is such a thing as the subjective experience of Christ, but seeking after this can also lead to morbid subjectivity and introspection. It's only after leaving the local churches and meeting with a new Christian group that I feel like I'm no longer under condemnation, and can rest in what the Lord has accomplished.
Thanks again for your fellowship.
- anonXian
Oscar:
Anon,
I have not given much thought to Witness Lee's theology for many years, so my opinions are based on memories of conversations I had and things I read a couple of decades ago. When I discussed this with middle-aged campus leaders from the Local Church back in the 1970's what they advocated was definitely modalism. They used the same verses you have referenced.
To me, the use Lee made of those verses showed just how unclear he was in his thinking. Isaiah 9 calls the Messiah a child, a son, a prince, a counsellor, and a father. Adam is the spiritual father of unregenerate mankind. Christ, the second Adam, is the spiritual father of regenerate mankind. All the saved received their everlasting life from him. For Lee to use this verse to reach the conclusion that the Son is the Father as to his personhood is a case of a theological error known as 'illegitimate totality transfer". It means that one has assigned one definition to a word when both the context and clear theological principles indicate that a different definition should be assigned.
Regarding the "Higher Life" teachings, I also struggled with those for years. One of the first clues I saw that the teaching was bogus was that I never met a single person who exemplified the state of spirituality that the teaching claims to produce. I have also read that many of the advocates of these teachings fell into sins that sure look a lot like "Lower Life" sins that the rest of us fall into.
One thing I know for sure. George Geftakys, Watchman Nee, and Witness Lee all fell into some pretty serious sin. As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
The Higher Life teaching denigrates the intellect and leads to a morbid subjectivism in those who really take it seriously. One is taught that they cannot trust their mind, but have to discern the inner motions of the Spirit within them. (And the Bible says that exactly where?)
A really good book about the spritual life that is based on a much clearer exposition of scripture is "Being Human" by Ranald Macaulay and Jerram Barrs, (Francis Schaeffer's sons-in-law). They point out that we are created in the image of God, and that the highest aspect of that image is that we, as is God, are rational beings. They also point out that the Higher Life teaching comes from a Platonic view of man, not a Biblical one.
Here are couple of links to articles that deal with the area of subjective guidance. I think they are by a Reformed fellow. Reformed authors have a tendency to be very strident in their views and are pretty hard on those who they criticize. Nevertheless I think the fellow is on the right track at least.
http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/articles/print_articles.asp?ID=115
http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/articles/read_articles.asp?id=116
Hope this helps some.
Blessings,
Tom Maddux
Mark C.:
Hi Dave K. !
You probably don't remember me, (Mark Campbell from the Valley) but I remember you from the early Fullerton Assm. days.
My recollections of you were formed by a campaign to discredit you by Assm. management and I apologize to you for my blindly accepting the smear campaign that was directed at you---- please forgive me for this.
As to Witness Lee: I often ran into members of this group at school, and at work (I worked with one of these guys at one job and also had an association via another job where they were contractors). They didn't want to talk about theology (such as their views of the Trinity) as that was disparaged as being, "in the mind." I recall Tom Mad's response to this: "are you out of yours?" ;D
I recall having to drop off some things at the work place of the contractors I mentioned above one day when about ten of them circled me and began to chant, "O' Lord Jesus", trying to get me to say that phrase so that a vacuum would be created in my heart that the Spirit could fill ???. I found out later that they based this teaching on the Rom. 10 verse re. "who confesses Jesus as Lord" will be saved.
This kind of thing seems to be heavily influenced by Eastern religious thinking, as does the other less wacko "inner life" kind of stuff that the Assm. was also into. As Tom points out, the fruit of these kind of teachings prove how close to God's will they really are--- elitist, hypocritical, inhumane, arrogant, and unreasonable!
Tom mentions that the ability to reason is what most closely demonstrates our being made in God's image, and I would agree with this. However, that intellectual ability must also be coupled with a moral sensitivity or our religion will lack God's heart.
Both of these groups, Witness Lee and the Assm., were out of sync with God not only because they had confused thinking, but because the groups were able to get members to ignore their own consciences. This led to the kind of abuses where members (like you) could get drummed out because of the false accusations they raised against them!
It was good that you had some previous Christian training and experience, but think of the many who now wander the Earth thinking they "tried that Christian thing" and as a result now have no enjoyment of God. There are those who can't step inside a church anymore as they fear what might happen to them! :'(
To me a cult is a cult (primarily) when it is more concerned with advancing the selfish interests of the leader/leaders, and the goals of the group, vs. building the faith of the individual member. Cults attempt to destroy any vestige of individual expression while true God inspired ministry seeks to "buildup" the individual believer in their faith. This is a danger any Christian group can get into and the reason Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc. constantly reminded us of this error.
This cultish attempt to violate personal boundaries can be performed while seeming to be very orthodox in ones teaching of the bible. All of the "cultishness" happens via subtle alternations and misuse of scripture--- as in: "brother, are you standing in unity with us or are you going to give place to the devil?" >:D
However, those that courageously challenge those who misuse authority in the church are the true servants of Jesus Christ; in a cult these will be forced out!
Good to hear from you. God bless, Mark C.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page