The LCS Factor [Archive] - Page 4 - Local Church Discussions

Peter Debelak

09-06-2008, 09:09 PM

Peter,

I'm not stuck on the idea that the "we're IT" factor was the only factor that initially drew people to the LC. With the outpouring of the Spirit going on and the thoughts which were not countered that the LC was the God's special move on the earth, it was part of the equation.

There were other things. I'm trying to draw out the ones that were not based solely on the truth and/or tended towards allowing a man (or men) to setup an idolatrous environment that started in a smaller way, but grew.

The other primary fact is that Lee wasn't in some better condition from the earliest days. He was dirty and wasn't listening to sound admonition from someone like TAS who was speaking soundly. This opened the door to the Enemy to be integrated into the environment from the beginning.

In regards to Lee, I believe the "ground" represented a means of establishing earthly control over other believers in the name of God, but not of God.

Matt

Matt:

I didn't think you were presenting it as the sole factor which brought people in. Nor am I countering the evidence you're bringing forth concerning "early Lee."

What I am interested in, in part, is what is was that attracted folks in the first place. There are varied answers to that question, but its answer is important. Rephrased, my question to LC members could be: "What was the foundation of your being in the LC." I do think this is an analogous inquiry to the one you are pursuing.

Its an important question. Because this initial "foundation" is what sustained people and perhaps caused them to remain. Certain teachings or practices that came in or they adopted later may be cause of concern, but if they were not the source of their reason for being in the LC - and especially if they were subsidiary to their presence in the LC - then I think it changes the "idolatry" discussion. This question also is applicable to all of us - even after being in the LC and in other groups. It treats our accoutability as being larger than whether we were or were not in an errant group.

As I said, there seem to me to be two conversations here:

1) Did Witness Lee adopt or create an idol out of "the ground"
2) Were you [mr or mrs LC person] idolatrous?

First, in this discussion where the definition of "idol" is not as crisp as in the OT (i.e. where the idol is actually another god with a name, etc...), no given object or idea is inherently an idol. Its people's relationship to it which makes it an idol. Thus, an idol to one is not to another. Secondly, the existence of an idol is one thing. But being in and around something that some treat as an idol does not itself make one idolatrous. Thus, I am interested in establishing the Scriptural criteria by which we can say any given individual has been idolatrous when in and around something that others, especially leaders, have idolized.

I would like to suggest a possible four categories of folks here, let me know what you think:

Those who created idols
Those who knowingly "ate food sacrificed to idols" because they thought it was the right thing to do (even if they didn't see it that way)
Those who did not know the food had been sacrificed it to idols and simply ate of it as food.
Those who recognized that the food had been sacrificed to an idol, but did not idolize, and thus whose conscience allowed them the freedom to eat

What are your immediate impressions of this rubric? The premise of the rubric is that, concerning idols, there are different standards of accountability, based on personal knowledge and conscience. If this seems like a workable rubric, onto what do you think these four categories should map in the LC? What's the "idol" and what's "food sacrificed to idols" etc...?

Thoughts?

Peter

AndPeter

09-07-2008, 06:26 AM

Dear Thankful:

I was not specifically addressing whether the ground of locality became an idol for some - if not all in the LC. I was addressing a much more specific claim made by Matt - that the idea that "we're IT" was a factor which intially attracted people.

It may be the case that those who stayed in the LC eventually learned and uplifted the "ground". But that is not what I'm addressing. I am questioning, as a factual matter, whether the "uniqueness" aspect of the LC was, in fact, what initially made people want to begin meeting there.

Regarding whether the "ground" did become an idol for individual members, I have some thoughts, which I will share soon. In that discussion, I think it is two separate matters: 1) did WL idolize the "ground" from the beginning and 2) did individual members idolize the "ground" and, if so, at what point and in what way.

The evidence concern WL in Taiwan does not inherently implicate a new believer who came in and stayed in the LC in the 1970s. It may, but not because of WL's idolatry, if there was any - but a different, individual, criteria - which I will try to flesh out soon.

In Him,

Peter

Dear Peter:

Let me take a stab at answering your inquiries. This is a precis of my perceptions. Time constraints do not allow for more. I realize now my blind trust caused me to overlook certain things that should have been alarm bells. But then we all know hind sight is 20-20.

I began to meet with the LC in March 1973. This was just post the hippie era in which my generation was seeking love, peace and an alternate way among other things. In the LC I saw the answer to these things.

There was at this time the definite uplifting of Christ and His Word. That is what attracted me. I saw the Word being used to explain the Word. There was also a paper put out called 'The Generation'. So there was the 'IT' factor as part of the package. We were the generation that was going to bring the Lord back. Specifically the LC people would because we were on the proper ground. Outside was only doom and gloom.

Problems did occasionally surface but most were kept below the surface and therefore I was not aware of them. Those that did pop up were explained away (Daystar, consolidation). There was, at least for me, a naive trust in the words of WL. After all, he had such a grasp of the bible and talked so much about his close walk with the Lord.

In the last few years I have come to realize an ideology can trump many things including allowing a work 'for the Lord' to come before a proper care of the Lord's people. I saw this in the last 2 years in Toronto in spades. The army comes before the flock. This is a paraphrase of what I was told directly by brothers from Anaheim.

The 'out there nothing but doom and gloom' picture has, to my realization in Toronto, now been proven patently false. We are seeing the Word of God being opened up and people spontaneously being empowered by it and by the Lord working in their lives. Hallelujah!

Steve

Thankful Jane

09-07-2008, 06:57 AM

... What I am interested in, in part, is what is was that attracted folks in the first place. There are varied answers to that question, but its answer is important. Rephrased, my question to LC members could be: "What was the foundation of your being in the LC." I do think this is an analogous inquiry to the one you are pursuing.

....What are your immediate impressions of this rubric? The premise of the rubric is that, concerning idols, there are different standards of accountability, based on personal knowledge and conscience. If this seems like a workable rubric, onto what do you think these four categories should map in the LC? What's the "idol" and what's "food sacrificed to idols" etc...?

Thoughts?

Peter

Peter,

I realize your are asking Matt your question, so I hope you don’t mind if I answer also.

First, let me say what attracted me in the beginning: For me it was being with other people who felt like I did about Jesus and were willing to talk about Him. I grew up in a time (at least in my environment) when people said their relationship to God was private and personal and they didn’t talk about it. My mother read her Bible behind closed doors (at least that is what she said she was doing) and never talked to us about it or God. God was very real to me from age 11 onward, and I was starved (though I didn’t know this) to hear from anyone else who felt like I did about Him. So, when my new husband and I entered George W.’s house in Denton, Texas for our first meeting, I was attracted. (I was also extremely uncomfortable because praying out loud, etc. was awkward and embarrassing for me.)

That said, I was not attracted by the ground of locality teachings or and idea of one man on the earth who was God’s deputy authority with lots of other little deputy authorities under him. These things ended up coming with the turf later. I readily embraced the ground of locality teaching because it was evident that something was wrong with organized religion. Having oneness sounded good. I had no idea what the Bible taught about oneness, so I was like a sponge (for another man’s teaching).

As to all your various questions related to accountability, here’s my thought. I don't think the Bible defines many varying levels of accountability with regard to idolatry. It just says flee it. I don't think we each will be judged by categories of idolatry. When it comes to judgment, I think there will be as many “categories” related to judgment as there are people. God will judge each one of us in our own category, based on what He knows about us, our environment, upbringing, choices, etc. His judgment will be fair to the uttermost.

It is good to discuss the idolatrous system just to understand where we went wrong and be protected from more of the same in the future, however, I don’t think we have to study it so we can determine categories of accountability. I believe our discussion is to help us become convicted that we need to flee idolatry in whatever form it is, to realize we are not immune, and to run to Him. (I can guarantee you when someone asks Him to expose his/her particular sins with regard to idolatry, that prayer will get answered.)

As believers, I think a question we can each ask ourselves is, “What is my relationship with Him like now? Did I have a relationship with Him at one time that I left?” If I did, then I need to repent and return to Him only. “Did I never have a relationship with Him other than initial salvation and have always followed others thinking that was God?” If so, then I need to repent for looking to others in this way and start learning to look to Him. Time is short. This is a time for bowing our knees and hearing Him.

2Ch 7:13-16 If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people;
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Now mine eyes shall be open, and mine ears attentive unto the prayer that is made in this place.

For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there forever: and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.

Today, we have been offered a new covenant relationship with Him where we each know Him from the little to the great! That is huge, huge, huge! When we each repent for our own sins and get into right relationship with God and one another, He will come and heal our land. This isn’t a promise to a small subset of God’s people, but to the whole family of God.

Heb 2:1 -13 Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.

For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward;

How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

....

Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honor, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

Thankful Jane

Ohio

09-07-2008, 07:12 AM

What I am interested in, in part, is what is was that attracted folks in the first place. There are varied answers to that question, but its answer is important. Rephrased, my question to LC members could be: "What was the foundation of your being in the LC." I do think this is an analogous inquiry to the one you are pursuing.

For me personally, the answer is simple, thru the meetings I was filled in spirit thru the singing, the speaking of the word, and the testimonies. My love for the Lord, His word, and His people was continually "recharged" to overflowing.

Looking back, there was a tremendous subduing effect of the Holy Spirit upon me, and my stubborn and naughty ways, which effect was NOT from man. I have long felt that I was at the tail end of the blessed period in LC history. Things changed soon after I arrived in the mid 70's. People no longer "just showed up" and "gave their all" to "Christ and the church." These changes were several -- growing internal issues, external pressures from books, and cultural changes -- the "Jesus Movement" was ending.

But, being honest here, definitely there were some leaders who took advantage of my submissive attitude towards the Lord. It became easy in that environment to "play God" with the lives of young people. Whether this was the effects of spreading "Chinese culture" or just just plain old "power grabbing" is hard to say.

As AndPeter has alluded to, all this talk of "God's army" was straight from hell. Many saints were hurt by "army strategies." I believe this became a direct insult to the Headship of Christ. With the "commander in chief" in Anaheim, and his loyal lieutenants in place, with all non-soldier types effectively purged, who needs God anyways?

Nell

09-07-2008, 08:03 AM

...What are your immediate impressions of this rubric? The premise of the rubric is that, concerning idols, there are different standards of accountability, based on personal knowledge and conscience. If this seems like a workable rubric, onto what do you think these four categories should map in the LC? What's the "idol" and what's "food sacrificed to idols" etc...?

Thoughts?

Peter

I have a thought, too :).

We are all individuals. God deals with us as individuals. As individuals we sin, and as individuals we are accountable.

I don't think a sinful man is in a position to think he can "figure out" his own accountability based on a reasoned approach. Would the purpose be to repent only to the extent of what we have reasoned or perceived we are guilty and no further? Would that be to make ourselves feel better that we were not perhaps as deceived as someone else?

We are dependant on the One against whom we sinned to enlighten us about our sin, either through His word or the Holy Spirit or both.

As in the Word, if someone sins against me, it is my responsibility to go to that person and enlighten them. Otherwise, they might not know about their sin against me. That's how people know about their sin.

We are convicted of our sin, either by the Word or the Holy Spirit. It's not based on reasoning or a rubric, unless of course, your rubric is the Word of God.

When we stand before Him one day, will He be looking at our rubric that we came up with for our guidelines of repentance to Him? "But Lord, I read it on the forum! I was only a category 5 idolator...don't you see?"

I like the "mercy seat" approach. I'm glad there is one, and that's where I want to be. I just want to depend on His mercy alone, because I need it real bad. Anything I come up with has been called "filthy rags."

Nell

Peter Debelak

09-07-2008, 10:07 PM

I have a thought, too :).

I don't think a sinful man is in a position to think he can "figure out" his own accountability based on a reasoned approach. Would the purpose be to repent only to the extent of what we have reasoned or perceived we are guilty and no further? Would that be to make ourselves feel better that we were not perhaps as deceived as someone else?

Nell

I agree that we cannot "figure out" or reason our accountability to God. Even as I have attempted to do this in the past, God has always been sure to smash my "reasoning" and pierce my "rubrics"... :) Insodoing, He is merciful.

In my post, which you quoted, I was making two points - first, that we are each accountable as individuals. I agree with what you have said on this point. But secondly, there is a lot on this forum - and in particular this thread - that is seeking to instruct and admonish/shed light/ etc... on certain teachings and practices in the LC for a presumed audience of LC and ex-LC members - and there is an implicit goal to assign accountability. I see what Matt as doing is to point out something that was made into an idol. This is an important inquiry. The next question then - about the system and for the reader - is what it means for each of us that there was (or could have been) a systematic idolization of something in the LC? For the reader who is just beginning to realize there were idols or tendencies to replace Christ as the focus, there should be for that reader, and for ourselves, a robust discussion of everything the Scripture has to say about the matter.

What I am bringing forth is a consideration of 1 Corinthians 8-13 and the extent to which it would apply here.

Clearly, for the folks in Corinth, idols were prevelent in the culture. So, how should the COrinthians have addressed "flee from idolatry"? Did it mean to leave the church in Corinth or even the city generally? Perhaps, but probably not. In fact, Paul's instruction was about how to be before God and our brethren even when idols are present. It goes without question that Paul would admonish us to recognize idols as idols and not to sacrifice to them ourselves - but rather to make Christ pre-eminent in all we do. But what if you care not for the idols, but are among folks who do sacrifice to that idol? What if these folks want to serve you up food sacrifed to that idol?

There was a time when I felt superior to other Chrisitians and felt the LC was "IT". I almost didn't know how to be Christian, except to be unique. I have repented for this and am learning by His grace and mercy. But there was also a time I lived and pressed on in Christ with saints, some of whom held Witness Lee and the ground of locality with an esteem that was too much. When I heard testimonies which quoted Witness Lee, as if that was the foundation of its truth, rather than the Scripture - I think you could say, as an analogy, that that I was being offered food sacrificed to an idol. Did that prohibit me from "eating" or appreciating the substance of what was being shared? That's not a rhetorical question. What applies here: "flee from idolatry" (i.e. stand up and walk out of the meeting or something and tell everyone that they should do the same) or appreciate it for its substance, to the extent it brought me to Christ and His word and continue to labor with my brothers and sister to seek only Christ and His word.

I am not being precise in what I am questioning here. Perhaps I could rephrase this whole thought/post by asking, does 1 Cor. 8-13 applie here and if so, in what way?

Grace to you,

Peter

P.S. Thankful, this post is immediately responding to Nell's post, but the thought is also a response to your post. I don't think there are necessarily "categories of idolatry." However, I do wonder what "fleeing" idolatry is supposed to look like to the outside observer. I wonder if there are many in the LC who "fled" idolatry but yet their very remaining in the LC makes you think that they haven't. Thoughts on that?

Matt Anderson

09-08-2008, 05:50 AM

Did that prohibit me from "eating" or appreciating the substance of what was being shared?

Peter,

I believe the need to "flee idolatry" is a call to the hearts and minds of the Corinthian believers, but not with each man operating in island mode. Rather, we are brothers and sisters in the Lord and can help one another just as we have done on some of these forums.

I think I understand some of where you are coming from. I would like to respond with two things which are not necessarily direct responses to all of your inquiry. I've been studying 1 Corinthians 10 pretty closely and even in connection to the whole issue of Balaam and Balak as we looked at it in Revelation 2:14.

Let me start with the verse from John that many are familiar with:

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

I believe it has been previously pointed out that the word "word" in the greek here is actually rhema, not logos. I believe this is relevant. Jesus Christ is saying that the words He speaks to you are spirit and they are life. In my life I have to agree with this. Sometimes the "words" that others speak to me, even if they are from the Bible itself are not spirit and not life to me. Why? Because the Lord did not give them to me. I'm not discounting knowledge of the Word or study of the Word. It is the study and knowledge of the Word keeping the Lord as my Lord that has allowed His Word to be spoken to me at various times. I have been caught in the trap at times of study and knowledge of the Word in such a way that I believe I have gained some measure of control over it. The Bible can be lifted over God himself in some cases (I believe we know one of them from our previous foruming) in how a man relates to the concepts in the Word.

Now moving to 1 Corinthians 10 for a minute.

Paul parallels the OT children of Israel who have just exited Egypt with us. He makes a very strong and surprising parallel. He tells us that the children of Israel were eating and drinking the very same spiritual meat and spiritual drink.

1Co 10:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; (2) And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; (3) And did all eat the same spiritual meat; (4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The spiritual meat and drink of the OT children of Israel was manna from heaven and water from the rock. It was Christ.

Personally, I believe there is a strong linkage to John 6:63 here in 1 Corinthians 10 and when you explore the rest of it.

1 Corinthians 10 shows us that we cannot have the table of the Lord and the table of demons. They don't go together. What is the Lord's table? Is it not the Lord coming to dine with us and us with him. I know that the LC emphasizes the whole "eating" thing. I'm not going off on that tangent, but I believe it is important to realize the significance of what is happening at the Lord's table. It is communion at table with the Lord. There are pictures of this in the OT that help to clarify this further.

So, what happens when a man comes to the table of the Lord and offers up "Brother Lee says..." in reverence to Lee? Or what happens when someone offers up "in the Lord's Recovery we have..." in reverence to a unique (and conceptually divided) portion of the Body of Christ?

What is happening here? Are we remembering the Lord for what He did on the Cross that would bring us all into one body with all believers? Or are we partaking of something else when we begin to "partake" of what this man has offered to his/her idol?

I believe that when this happens we begin to mix the wrong kinds of things together with the table of the Lord. God cannot stand it. He departs. We cannot have both. From what I have heard this did not happen instantly, but the Enemy introduced an "angel of light" who had much "knowledge of the Word", but was dirty. He (the Enemy) subtly replaced the table of the Lord with the table of demons. I know this will not come across well. Sorry. I'm continuing to be blunt, because it is time to move beyond ignorance on some of these issues.

Again, back to Corinthians 10. The idol is nothing, but if we know something is offered to an idol we are not supposed to accept it. It is not holy. It's not in communion with the Lord, but with something else.

Back to the point here, we are given manna from heaven. We have the Lord in our lives and we have His Word. We are able to partake without adding to or taking away from the meal He provides (Give us this day our daily bread). We can become aware of when others are making their offering to someone other than the Lord. It may not have been possible in the past because of the level of ignorance among God's children, but God has been faithful to provide and begin to help us see.

We are given much admonition and instruction in the OT, which many set aside and put under the title of "that's Old Covenant, i'm under the New Testament" without realizing how much God gave us in the Old Covenant for our protection. It is rich with so much that the Lord can use to help shine light in our hearts. It can lead us to Christ (as Paul says) and it can help us guard against idols.

There is no way to avoid our sins of ignorance when they are done in true ignorance. We must be faithful to repent when the light comes and count on the mercies of God. He is faithful. Having been given a measure of light, we seek to be diligent knowing that even in our efforts (and with knowledge) we will still fail. We must be faithful to repent and again, receive the mercy of God. He is faithful.

Remember Paul calls on the OT in 1 Cor 10 to instruct the Corinthians and tells not to be ignorant (Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant). We can become informed, but this alone will not protect us.

We have to receive our spiritual food from one source. The Lord. We must learn how to walk in obedience to Him with the full knowledge of how much he loves us and is a true shepherd over us even if we are wayward sheep because we can be so dumb at times. I know I need a good shepherd. I've been a real idiot on many more than one occasion.

Important Note: I have no thought or ideal that people should only read the Bible. The Lord has spoken ("rhema") to me in various ways. Almost all of it through or based on scripture, but the main thing is that it is from the Lord. I have come to realize that in my life I have received things from other sources (not God) which have lead me astray and as I realize it, I simply repent of it and return back to the Lord.

Matt

Thankful Jane

09-08-2008, 06:35 AM

P.S. Thankful, this post is immediately responding to Nell's post, but the thought is also a response to your post. I don't think there are necessarily "categories of idolatry." However, I do wonder what "fleeing" idolatry is supposed to look like to the outside observer. I wonder if there are many in the LC who "fled" idolatry but yet their very remaining in the LC makes you think that they haven't. Thoughts on that?Hi Peter,

Once light dawns for someone on "idolatry," he/she has to address his/her own part in it before the Lord with repentance. If he/she has hurt others as a result, obviously those persons should also be addressed. Repentance means a change in behavior. God says concerning Mystery Babylon the Great, whose evil characteristics the LC system has, "come out of her my people." The evil characteristics are mainly 1: An authoritarian leadership with one at the top being "God's representative on the earth today declaring the "true" meaning of God's Words and will to the faithful and 2) A definition of oneness that is not God's definition. (These have been elaborated up on in earlier posts.)

So, what does "Come out of her my people mean" practically? So, as far as the LC goes we need to "flee" an authoritarian leadership system with one person being the main voice whose burden everyone ends up following (even in an LC where there is a "plurality" of elders... that would be a "leading" elder who always has the final say type person). Each believer needs absolute freedom to not follow someone else's burden and yet still be fully received. We also need to "flee" any type of definition of oneness which is not God's definition and which results in improperly relating to other brothers in Christ. It is a complete and thorough and absolute coming out in heart and mind, first and foremost.

Does this mean we cannot meet with people who believe and practice 1 and 2 above? To this I would say that it's really about what God tells us to do. So, if He, for His reasons, tells me to stay and continue to meet and I am clear about that before Him, then I stay; however, there should be no compromise on 1 and 2 just mentioned or I become a part of "her." That means if I see insistence on either of these things, I must speak up. If I see abuse taking place because of either/both of these things, I must speak up, etc.

As for what others think about what we do, in this case (re: who we meet with), what others think about what we do means nothing. It is my intention in what I share on this forum to help others view things in the light of the Bible and to encourage them to come back to its Words for themselves. If the Bible exposes certain deeds and practices as evil, then we have to take that seriously and stop participating in such things. Where or who I meet with is no one's business but mine. I must, however, practice the truth of Jesus being my Lord (no one else) and I must receive all believers. I also must confront sin when I see it, these two in particular because they are fundamental pillars of the LC.

That's a pretty short answer but captures the kernel of my thought.

Thankful Jane

Nell

09-08-2008, 09:12 AM

...When I heard testimonies which quoted Witness Lee, as if that was the foundation of its truth, rather than the Scripture - I think you could say, as an analogy, that that I was being offered food sacrificed to an idol. Did that prohibit me from "eating" or appreciating the substance of what was being shared? That's not a rhetorical question. What applies here: "flee from idolatry" (i.e. stand up and walk out of the meeting or something and tell everyone that they should do the same) or appreciate it for its substance, to the extent it brought me to Christ and His word and continue to labor with my brothers and sister to seek only Christ and His word.

I'm going to begin my answer with a continuation of what TJ said:

"Once light dawns for someone on "idolatry," he/she has to address his/her own part in it before the Lord with repentance."

When the light dawned on me, the Lord led me out. It wasn't very much light and I know I was not equipped to help anyone. I could barely help myself out the door. I had just enough light to take that step. It was several years again before the Lord opened my eyes further and I began to understand what had happened to me, and even years later before the Lord began to put me into situations of helping others.

For me, I had to be totally out of the garlic room. Further, the garlic had to be out of me.

Interestingly, when I was still a Baptist, coming into the Local Church, the same questions were asked: can I not remain a Baptist and appreciate Witness Lee's ministry, to use your words, to the extent it brought me to Christ and His word and continue to labor with my Baptist brothers and sisters to seek only Christ and His word.

The elders/speakers, etc., shared strongly that we couldn't remain in the Baptist church and bring to it the reality of the "church life" we were seeing through Witness Lee. It wouldn't fit. The "church life" was the new wineskin and what we were experiencing was the new wine. To put the new wine into the old wineskin would cause the old wineskin to burst, and the new wine would be lost.

I think that is as true now as it was then, except that now, the Local Churches have become the old wineskin. The Local Churches cannot take anything but the ministry of Witness Lee, or it will burst.

Having said that, the Lord places us in His Body as it pleases Him. If He leads you to stay, then you obey.

...I am not being precise in what I am questioning here. Perhaps I could rephrase this whole thought/post by asking, does 1 Cor. 8-13 applie here and if so, in what way?

I'll have to do some reading on this one! Chapters 8-13...right?

...I wonder if there are many in the LC who "fled" idolatry but yet their very remaining in the LC makes you think that they haven't. Thoughts on that?

That's a good question. Speaking for myself, I assume that people who remain in the Local Churches are there because they are absolute for the ministry of Witness Lee and all the extreme loyalties that demands. I think fleeing idolatry and being absolute for the ministry of Witness Lee are mutually exclusive. I could be wrong.

Nell

SpeakersCorner

09-08-2008, 12:43 PM

I've got a question for y'all. How's come Aaron never got punished for making the golden calf?

I think this may be germane to the present discussion in several ways.

SC

TLFisher

09-08-2008, 01:11 PM

Interestingly, when I was still a Baptist, coming into the Local Church, the same questions were asked: can I not remain a Baptist and appreciate Witness Lee's ministry, to use your words, to the extent it brought me to Christ and His word and continue to labor with my Baptist brothers and sisters to seek only Christ and His word.

The elders/speakers, etc., shared strongly that we couldn't remain in the Baptist church and bring to it the reality of the "church life" we were seeing through Witness Lee. It wouldn't fit. The "church life" was the new wineskin and what we were experiencing was the new wine. To put the new wine into the old wineskin would cause the old wineskin to burst, and the new wine would be lost.

I think that is as true now as it was then, except that now, the Local Churches have become the old wineskin. The Local Churches cannot take anything but the ministry of Witness Lee, or it will burst.

Nell

Nell can't you have the reality of the church life not where you meet, but how you recieve and how the assembly you meet with recieve other Christians?

Terry

Cal

09-08-2008, 01:55 PM

I've got a question for y'all. How's come Aaron never got punished for making the golden calf?

I think this may be germane to the present discussion in several ways.

SC

Apparently the LORD heard the prayer of Moses for Aaron, but not for some of the others, because Deuteronomy 9:20 says the LORD was angry enough to destroy Aaron.

(Moses speaking)

18 Then once again I fell prostrate before the LORD for forty days and forty nights; I ate no bread and drank no water, because of all the sin you had committed, doing what was evil in the LORD's sight and so provoking him to anger. 19 I feared the anger and wrath of the LORD, for he was angry enough with you to destroy you. But again the LORD listened to me. 20 And the LORD was angry enough with Aaron to destroy him, but at that time I prayed for Aaron too.

I imagine it came down the hearts of the people. It's possible Aaron's heart was never really in worshipping that calf, he just make it to placate the people, whereas some of those people really were worshipping it.

I doubt it had anything to do with Aaron being spared because he was a leader, if that's what you are getting at.

Matt Anderson

09-09-2008, 03:58 AM

Here is what I have thought since the beginning of this thread.

A. The LC system was too big for any one person to believe that they would not be succumbed by it. The only way not to be overcome by it is to leave it.

B. All who remained bear some measure of responsibility. The only real distinction between leadership and laity is that leadership may bear more responsibility. The laity still bears responsibility, because we are all members of one body. We are all just brothers/sisters in Christ and we must love one another even when that means taking tough actions that may cost us reputation, standing, etcetera among our brothers and sisters.

I do not speak out of turn on this point (B). I face this now where I meet right now. I'm faced with one or more elders who are 'lording it over' the flock and blindly acting in a manner that may finalize the destruction of a marriage. I see it and I am there. Therefore, I will bear some measure of responsibility if my lips remain sealed (Lev 19:17-18).

C. There are some who feel that they have somehow escaped the strong influence of the LC system. This is not true. Once you willingly enter into an idolatrous type of system (whether you know it is idolatrous or not) you will be affected to some extent. No exceptions. The only preservation is to remain focused on the Lord. The truth is that there is almost no setting that doesn't have some idolatry. As such, the presence of it does not preclude someone from going where the Lord leads. However, when it is done at a systematic level and becomes pervasive to an entire grouping of christians then the call is probably to "come out of her my people", for this grouping has gone the way of Babylon.

E. God is not judging us unto condemnation, but unto mercy. He is full of lovingkindness and full of mercy for us. None of what I have said comes from a spirit of meanness towards anyone. Part of what I have said has come from a resistance against one who feels that somehow they were a leader in the LC system and yet was not affected the same way everyone else was. I believe this is not true and the willingness to reconfront the facts with the appropriate person(s) would prove this out. In attempting to carve out a particular locality as being somewhat better, I felt it was necessary to resist this strongly. I know differently. I know the system that was established by the Enemy of God compromised everyone. I know the locality in question was not better. There may have been some attempts to be better, but they did not take and those left to endure the environment experienced the same oppressiveness and 'lording it over' the flock as other localities. Even this person has admitted to this on a point by point basis. (Note: We can review the record if needed) The Midwest has had an object lesson in the past several years in just how forceful the Enemy will be through "men of God" in attempting to maintain control over the souls of the saints through an environment like the LC. This cannot be minimized.

I do not speak out of turn on this point (E) either. I face this kind of environment where I work right now. Work is not church, but the principles of hierarchy under bad leadership which only cares for itself are the same. Nothing I can do will change my work environment. I'm very good at producing change in a work environment and I've already tried everything I know (plus some). This includes risking my job by standing up against the 'powers that be' and confronting the situation. They cannot fire me, because the customer may fire them. I cannot leave until the Lord grants me release, but in the meantime I have to be faithful to resist the evil that is here even at the risk of my income and livelihood. It's not fun at all. This is what I have been doing while I have been moderating the other forum. I've been trying to survive the worst job I have ever had. God is faithful and is using this for my highest good.

F. Was there anything good in the LC? Yes. Christ among the believers. Nothing of Him is lost. Nothing. The outworking of the Holy Spirit in the lives of many of the Lord's little ones happened, but they were as sheep set for the slaughter and in many cases the slaughter came at the hands of other brothers who thought they acted on behalf of the Lord. The Enemy established a mixture from the very beginning. This influence cannot be ignored. There are no "glory days" in which the Enemy was not working and had already planted the elements (certain wolves among the sheep) that have gone undetected for many, many years.

G. In the words and spirit of Joseph, "God meant it for good". Remembering the words of Amos, let us not forget the "affliction of Joseph". Many whose pasts are tied to the LC and have suffered at the hands of the LC have come to know the affliction of Joseph. (Note: Some may not get my reference to these verses... Sorry.)

Amos 6:1-7 (NASB95)
1 Woe to those who are at ease in Zion And to those who feel secure in the mountain of Samaria, The distinguished men of the foremost of nations, To whom the house of Israel comes. 2 Go over to Calneh and look, And go from there to Hamath the great, Then go down to Gath of the Philistines. Are they better than these kingdoms, Or is their territory greater than yours? 3 Do you put off the day of calamity, And would you bring near the seat of violence? 4 Those who recline on beds of ivory And sprawl on their couches, And eat lambs from the flock And calves from the midst of the stall, 5 Who improvise to the sound of the harp, And like David have composed songs for themselves, 6 Who drink wine from sacrificial bowls While they anoint themselves with the finest of oils, Yet they have not grieved over the affliction of Joseph. 7 Therefore, they will now go into exile at the head of the exiles, And the sprawlers’ banqueting will pass away.

G. My personal point of view: Do not be deceived by any person, leader or ex-leader who comes to you with enticing words. The Lord is your God. Listen to Him. Follow Him only as He will never lead you astray. Study the scripture and be convinced in your own mind. Consider the fact that the tasty delights that come from men's ministries can be leavened and you don't even know it until you have enough of your own grounding in the Word to challenge their ministry. Eat what the Lord feeds you because the meals He prepares for you are what you need to do all the good works He has prepared for you.

I'm going to add Ezekiel 34 to the record in my next post. I believe it fits.

Final Note: Although I have referenced one particular individual in my post, I must be clear. I am very grateful for this person. His willingness to dialogue as an ex-leader demonstrates his humility. This cannot be properly appreciated. I acknowledge my open resistance to some of what he has shared. I do not resist him because I dislike or disrespect him. I do it for the very opposite reason. I like him and I respect him. In addition, there are some other ex-leaders (and even some current Midwest leaders) who have been willing to dialogue. I am personally grateful because the dialogue is much needed for the healing that the Lord wants for each of us. He is restoring our soul(s). He is the true Shepherd that can do it properly.

If you consider that I have gone too far in what I have said about idolatry, then I am sorry. I'm not beating anyone over the head with it, but in the face of any attempts to recover the unrecoverable I feel responsible to establish on the table in front of everyone some important and grave facts about the history of the LC and Witness Lee. The deeds speak loudly of problems from even before Lee and the "system of the LC" entered the United States. Many were caught unaware.

Matt

Nell

09-09-2008, 04:03 AM

Nell can't you have the reality of the church life not where you meet, but how you recieve and how the assembly you meet with recieve other Christians?

Terry
Terry,

Yes. Anything can happen. Does what you describe that fall within the definition of "absolute for the ministry of Witness Lee"? This is first and foremost in the Local Churches. Even the term "reality of the church life" is Witness Lee's terminology. It means something specific. Who else talks that way? It's all part of the program and really describes something that "only happens" under Witness Lee's ministry.

I don't see how a person can flee idolatry and remain in such a restrictive program. I'm not saying it can't happen though, I just see it as being mutually exclusive.

Nell

Matt Anderson

09-09-2008, 04:07 AM

Note: This does not apply to any particular person. It does apply to the system of leadership that sprang up among the LC. After reading my last post it is possible that some might misconstrue my intent for these verses, so let me clearly state that it does not apply to Hope in my mind. Based on looking straight into his eyes, I believe the intent of his heart in being on this forum is for the sake of others.

Ezekiel 34 (NASB95)
16 'I will seek the lost, bring back the scattered, bind up the broken and strengthen the sick; but the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them with judgment. 17 'As for you, My flock, thus says the Lord God, ‘Behold, I will judge between one sheep and another, between the rams and the male goats. 18 ‘Is it too slight a thing for you that you should feed in the good pasture, that you must tread down with your feet the rest of your pastures? Or that you should drink of the clear waters, that you must foul the rest with your feet? 19 ‘As for My flock, they must eat what you tread down with your feet and drink what you foul with your feet!’ ' 20 Therefore, thus says the Lord God to them, 'Behold, I, even I, will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. 21 'Because you push with side and with shoulder, and thrust at all the weak with your horns until you have scattered them abroad, 22 therefore, I will deliver My flock, and they will no longer be a prey; and I will judge between one sheep and another. .

Nell

09-09-2008, 06:04 AM

Apparently the LORD heard the prayer of Moses for Aaron, but not for some of the others, because Deuteronomy 9:20 says the LORD was angry enough to destroy Aaron.

(Moses speaking)

18 Then once again I fell prostrate before the LORD for forty days and forty nights; I ate no bread and drank no water, because of all the sin you had committed, doing what was evil in the LORD's sight and so provoking him to anger. 19 I feared the anger and wrath of the LORD, for he was angry enough with you to destroy you. But again the LORD listened to me. 20 And the LORD was angry enough with Aaron to destroy him, but at that time I prayed for Aaron too.

I imagine it came down the hearts of the people. It's possible Aaron's heart was never really in worshipping that calf, he just make it to placate the people, whereas some of those people really were worshipping it.

I doubt it had anything to do with Aaron being spared because he was a leader, if that's what you are getting at.

I dunno Igzy. God knew Aaron's heart and He was angry enough to destroy him. It looks to me like Moses' prayer for Aaron saved his bacon.

Nell

Cal

09-09-2008, 08:01 AM

I dunno Igzy. God knew Aaron's heart and He was angry enough to destroy him. It looks to me like Moses' prayer for Aaron saved his bacon.

Nell

Yes, but apparently Moses prayed for others who were still not spared. What was the difference do you think?

Nell

09-09-2008, 11:03 AM

Yes, but apparently Moses prayed for others who were still not spared. What was the difference do you think?

Don't know...but there's Exodus 33:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=33&verse=19&version=9&context=verse)b "...and [I] will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy."

Nell

Shawn

09-09-2008, 03:09 PM

Here is what I have thought since the beginning of this thread........

Hi Matt, a little statement and rebuttal, if you don't mind.

Do you concede that there are true believers in the Roman Catholic church? Can some not love the Lord and his word yet sit in the midst of all the idols surrounding them?

I think they can.

I wish that you could show some of the mercy and compassion that you have referenced in point E. Some of the churches have grown through and out of the LSM way of doing things, if your point were true, every single member of the LC would still have a rabid loyalty to WL. Then and only then could you point the finger of all being usurped by idolatry.

Today I meet and fellowship in a church that had its roots in the LC/LSM and has since been growing out of it. I find your black and white portrayal to be baseless and troubling.

Your fixation on idolatry seemed to be locked in the 70's and 80's condition of the church at that time. You make accusations based on events that go back 20 or 30 years; a time when all LC's were either towing the line as one group. I hope in the next posts you might consider the conditions then and now and recognize the difference.

Thanks,
Shawn

Hope

09-09-2008, 03:22 PM

Matt,

I have a few minutes before closing the office for the day. I have a couple of questions for you. Why is it so critical in our discussion of the lc, WL and WN etc. to make everyone and every place the same?

Here are a few quotes from one of your posts.

Here is what I have thought since the beginning of this thread.

A. The LC system was too big for any one person to believe that they would not be succumbed by it. The only way not to be overcome by it is to leave it.

Matt, if after one has left the system, how long before they can assume they are no longer subdued. I have been out for over 20 years. Long enough? Is there some mia culpas required or some formal recanting or confessions? I have not read any WL since at least 1986 and that was critique reading of the elders books. What else is needed?

Part of what I have said has come from a resistance against one who feels that somehow they were a leader in the LC system and yet was not affected the same way everyone else was. I believe this is not true and the willingness to reconfront the facts with the appropriate person(s) would prove this out. In attempting to carve out a particular locality as being somewhat better, I felt it was necessary to resist this strongly. I know differently. I know the system that was established by the Enemy of God compromised everyone. I know the locality in question was not better.Matt, do you know differently in principle, in details, in some cases, in all cases and all persons at any time without exception? For example: How were George Whitington and Ray Graver the same? Were they different in anyway? How many of the members or leaders had a thought they joined the LC system? Could there be any other dynamics at work?

but in the face of any attempts to recover the unrecoverable. Matt, could you make it a little clearer what falls under the category of “unrecoverable?” Were there any experiences or relationships in say the church in Dallas that are worth preserving or recovering? Are any of the people in the church in Dallas with their functions in the Body of Christ worth recovering?

My personal point of view: Do not be deceived by any person, leader or ex-leader who comes to you with enticing words.Matt, could you be a little more specific about what enticing words you have in mind? Are there some particular deceptions that you have in mind? Please share some specific examples.

Consider the fact that the tasty delights that come from men's ministries can be leavened and you don't even know it until you have enough of your own grounding in the Word to challenge their ministry.Did you have any specific men’s ministries in mind?

Can you share about your experiences of challenging someone’s ministry? What was the outcome?

In Christ Jesus,

Hope, Don Rutledge

Matt Anderson

09-09-2008, 05:03 PM

Hi Matt, a little statement and rebuttal, if you don't mind.

Do you concede that there are true believers in the Roman Catholic church? Can some not love the Lord and his word yet sit in the midst of all the idols surrounding them?

I think they can.

I concede there are. Yes, some can love the Lord in the midst of all the idols surrounding them.

And yes. They are in an environment that is in bondage and under the strong control of a hierarchy that is not of the Lord. I believe the RCC is less controlling than the LC has been in the past 20 years, but it is heavily leavened. This is clear to all.

Would you encourage any believer in the Lord that you know to join the RCC? Why not?

[COLOR=blue]I wish that you could show some of the mercy and compassion that you have referenced in point E. Some of the churches have grown through and out of the LSM way of doing things, if your point were true, every single member of the LC would still have a rabid loyalty to WL. Then and only then could you point the finger of all being usurped by idolatry.

Today I meet and fellowship in a church that had its roots in the LC/LSM and has since been growing out of it. I find your black and white portrayal to be baseless and troubling.

Sorry if I am not properly demonstrating these attributes. For clarity, mercy is only granted under repentance by the Lord. I'm not the Lord so I'm not in a position to grant anyone mercy on these issues because idolatry is not a personal offense against me. It is an offense against the Lord. He is in the position to grant mercy. Part of the challenge of this thread has been that there was disagreement about the fact that idolatry came in very early on. I went back 50 years as a starting point.

As for compassion, I believe that I have demonstrated this over a very long period of time by the suffering I went through to moderate on the other forum allowing all to have their voice and point their guns at me as they felt it appropriate or necessary. If you choose to measure me because of the content of this one thread, then I would have to agree with your assessment.

I assure you that each one of us has been guilty of idolatry. No exceptions. Our hearts are dark. However, the points I have been making on this thread are about the systematic idolatry introduced and propogated by Lee. Be assured that some of it still exists, including in your locality. I know of at least one example there that is quite clear within your leadership.

It was by the mercy of God that the Midwest broke free from the LSM. Do you believe that the Midwest would have gotten free if the LSM did not quarantine Titus Chu? This was the everlasting lovingkindness of God. If this had not happened, your locality would still be further under the sway of the LSM/LC.

That's not about 20 or 30 years into the past. It's very close to the present.

Do you realize how devilishly the LSM/LC has behaved to try to maintain their control over the localities in the Midwest? It is something to consider closely. Just because a number of localities ended up siding with Titus and this caused them to "schism" off of the LSM/LC does not make these localities suddenly healthy. It puts them on a better path. If they return to old habits then you end up right back where you were, just different names at the top of the list.

My emphasis has always been on encouraging and exhorting everyone to return to the Head. That's it.

Your fixation on idolatry seemed to be locked in the 70's and 80's condition of the church at that time. You make accusations based on events that go back 20 or 30 years; a time when all LC's were either towing the line as one group. I hope in the next posts you might consider the conditions then and now and recognize the difference.

I'm not fixated on the past. I am using the past to supply objective facts that counter the specific thoughts of some that the LC went from some glorious status to a degraded status.

I already recognize the difference in the Midwest. I've travelled through Pittsburgh and have been to a meeting there. I've travelled to other areas of the Midwest and have seen that there is a new found freedom in various localities. There is also still a lot of confusion and the leadership is not clear. I can be specific on this issue. I agree that the break from the LSM was a huge step in the right direction. When an addict is in recovery, they have to confront facts and be thorough. The same is true for us in regards to deception.

In closing, I know the points I have made on this thread have been strong. They have been strong enough to cause a reaction from many directions. I do understand where you are coming from and I don't have a hard heart or mean spirit towards you.

Matt

Peter Debelak

09-09-2008, 11:04 PM

Matt:

I have many thoughts and I have not fully digested your many posts, which obviously have much thought behind them. I will post more thoroughly my responses and thoughts, but here I want to present what I see as a conundrum for me that your take on idolatry presents.

1 Corinthians 5:

11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

I agree with you, that by a definition that can be healthy for allowing the Lord's light to shine on us personally, each and every one of us should be convicted as idolatrous. It is not explicit in the Word, but in humility and under His light, each of us should be convicted. The Lord knows I have.

The question presented on this thread, however, is not just how we interact ourselves before the Lord - but rather what the Word tells us about interacting with others. Your speaking here, it seems to me, is geared toward three points: 1) to cause each of us to be transparent and honest before the Lord (this is good and healthy); 2) to convict others that they are idolatrous; 3) to establish a proper response once idolatry is recognized.

If we all adopted your take, that each and every person in the LC is idolatrous by the definition that Paul spoke so very strongly about, then - at least for me - there are many meals and invitations to dinner by LC members I must decline. According to the Word of God and your definition of idolatry (as rooted in the Pauline definition), don't you agree I should decline these invitations to dinner? I have to tell you, even if I can't articulate why, it would violate my conscience to decline such invitations. And I don't believe I would be violating Paul's word in 1 Corinthians 5:11 by accepting them.

I am approaching this subject matter from several directions, I know. It may appear that I am scattered on this. I am not - well, not for myself, as I have had to have many nights of repentence before the Lord for replacing Him as the pre-eminant one. But my lack of clear articulation is not an indication of grasping for straws. There is something that just does not sit well with me in your presentation. I read and re-read your explications and I nod often. Yet something does not sit well. Tonight, I read this portion from 1 Corinthians, and the tension within me about this topic hit me again: what of my dear brothers in sisters in Christ, who love Christ, who live for Christ and for their neighbors - and also read a lot of Witness Lee (perhaps even uplift him too much): they may be unhealthy, but as idolators, do I have to decline the invitations to dinner??? I am not being sarcastic with that question...

In Love,

Peter

P.S. Really, Matt, I appreciate not only your thoughts, but your carefulness and thoroughness in what is obviously something you are burdened about. I recall taking BrentB to task very harshly for his characterizations which I felt were not grounded in the same thoroughness, precision and care that your study and presentation has had. Despite my immediate uncomfortable reactions to some of what you have said, I have taken it seriously and taken it seriously before the Lord and as opportunity to dive back into His word. So take my challenge in that light, for what its worth, brother.

P.P.S. (post-post addition) It has occurred to me that you may make a distinction between someone who has been "idolatrous" and someone who is an "idolator." Thing is, since I agree with you that idolatry, by your definition, is a matter of heart, I really can't see the distinction between the two. Perhaps further explanation of the distinction, if you believe there is one, would help.

Ohio

09-10-2008, 05:10 AM

A. The LC system was too big for any one person to believe that they would not be succumbed by it. The only way not to be overcome by it is to leave it.

B. All who remained bear some measure of responsibility.

C. There are some who feel that they have somehow escaped the strong influence of the LC system. This is not true. Once you willingly enter into an idolatrous type of system (whether you know it is idolatrous or not) you will be affected to some extent. No exceptions. The only preservation is to remain focused on the Lord. The truth is that there is almost no setting that doesn't have some idolatry.

Much has been said concerning idolatry in Israel, and we all could find many O.T. scripture to build a case, but I still have a gnawing question -- why did the Lord never address idolatry in the gospels. The Lord rebuked the Jewish leaders severely, even calling them "snakes" to their face, but never brought up the word "idol" or its many variants. This troubles me.

The Lord did address many serious heart matters repeatedly, such as hypocrisy, loving traditions of men, lording it over others, stubbornness, unbelief, etc. but He never once mentioned idolatry in Israel, when He walked the earth. Why is that? Did He forget? In fact, the N.T. is dead silent on idolatry until Stephen brought up Israel's history in Ac 7.41-43.

The Lord also nearly put no responsibility on the sheep. He placed it all squarely and pointedly and repeatedly on their leaders, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, fools, serpents, blind hypocrites!"

When the N.T. finally confronted idols for the first time, it was circa A.D. 50, at the Acts 15 council, which was supposed to be all about circumcision and the way of salvation. Since James et. al. were overwhelmed by the testimonies of Simeon and the plain truths of scripture, James decided to divert their attention to "abstain from things sacrificed to idols." Talking about changing the subject! It was Jewish pride and religious prejudices in Jerusalem which first introduced the topic of idolatry to the church. Interestingly, when Paul did finally travel to Europe, and confronted the rampant Greek idolatry in Athens and Corinth, he played down the matter of "abstaining," and instead instituted the first "don't ask, don't tell" policy (I Cor 10.25).

Ohio

09-10-2008, 05:43 AM

I believe the RCC is less controlling than the LC has been in the past 20 years, but it is heavily leavened. This is clear to all.

This is not "so clear" to me. Have you been to Mexico? or Brazil? or to a traditional Italian family? May I suggest that life in the FTTAnaheim is similar to life in Rome, and life in the American LC's is similar to American RCC's.

Sorry if I am not properly demonstrating these attributes. For clarity, mercy is only granted under repentance by the Lord.

There are far too many verses about mercy, which do not mention repentance, for this to be "clear." Here's a few ..."Blessed are the merciful, they shall obtain mercy.
"I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.
"He who shows mercy in cheerfulness ...
I assure you that each one of us has been guilty of idolatry. No exceptions. Our hearts are dark. However, the points I have been making on this thread are about the systematic idolatry introduced and propagated by Lee. Be assured that some of it still exists, including in your locality.

Now you are making idolatry synonymous with sin. "All have sinned and come short ..." The aching question for me is simple, if all Christians are guilty of idolatry, then why is this an LC/LSM matter? This is like trying to convince all LC folks of sin. We know! You don't have to tell us.

I know of at least one example there that is quite clear within your leadership.

This is serious. Care to elaborate?

Matt Anderson

09-10-2008, 06:26 AM

If we all adopted your take, that each and every person in the LC is idolatrous by the definition that Paul spoke so very strongly about, then - at least for me - there are many meals and invitations to dinner by LC members I must decline. According to the Word of God and your definition of idolatry (as rooted in the Pauline definition), don't you agree I should decline these invitations to dinner?

Peter,

First of all, I always appreciate what you have to say regardless of whether we are in agreement in our thinking. You are very thoughtful and provoke others to consider things carefully.

I only saw one question in your post, so I am addressing it. If I missed something please point it out to me.

I was not talking about a physical dinner. I was talking about spiritual food. When a diehard LCer says to you, "Brother Lee taught me this and brother Lee taught me that" in reverence to Lee and then begins to share with you the things that they are appreciating from Lee's ministry isn't your conscience offended?

This isn't about eating physical food. It's about partaking of things offered to idols. The parallel that Paul sets in 1 Cor 10 shows that the children of Israel who ate the manna and drank water from the rock were partaking of Christ (spiritual food). We partake of Him through His Word to us. If we partake of His Word from another man after He has offered it to his idol then there is a problem. This is the core of what Paul was addressing.

Due to the fact that in Paul's time there were still physical idols it was easier for him to paint this picture. Paul made it clear that the object (the idol) was nothing. It was the fact that it had been offered to an idol. It was the act of idolatry on the part of another that made it a problem for those of the House of God to partake.

I've been invited to dinner by the main LC elder in my current locality. By God's amazing arrangement me, my wife and my mom went to their house for dinner. I was free to do this before the Lord. No idolatry. However, there was one portion of our fellowship in which this elder went on a Lee-tangent. He began praising Lee for how he had brought truths into the Body of Christ. He almost quoted portions of the historical progression that you find in the little book called "History of the Local Churches". This was offensive to me. We all sat silently until he finished and then we moved on. I did not receive what he was saying and I was offended inside by it. The rest of our time was good and we had fellowship about other things that were completely unrelated to LC.

Looking back I have thought about whether or not I should have spoken up and let him know that I could not receive what he was speaking about Lee. I am not 100% clear.

However, I am clear he was offering something up to his idol and in my heart I knew it was wrong.

Does this explanation clarify what I am talking about?

Matt

P.S. You mentioned LCers as idolaters in your post. Personally, I have tried to be careful not to use that label. I am pointing at the sin of idolatry. I believe we are justified in Christ and must view each other in this light. However, this does not extend to ignoring sinful deeds. We are asked to confront sinful deeds in sincerity and truth with a right heart towards one another and the Lord. I know my addressment of this subject has brought me into question on this point (my heart towards others). I can't really defend myself on that issue.

Matt Anderson

09-10-2008, 06:59 AM

Ohio & Hope,

I am going to take a week to respond. This is due to two things.

1) Work
2) I need to spend time composing my responses to both of you. I need to be substantive in my response and not quick.

In between now and then, I will go mostly silent.

Hope,

I have previously asked you some questions which you have failed to respond to. I know you are busy and will remain busy into next month. I will bring the key questions of concern back forward and request a reply when I reply to all of your questions.

Ohio,

You have brought up some very good points which I both appreciate and am glad to see that you have decided to return to challenging this issue based on the Word. For a while there you were on the attack against my person. I know we have a strong disagreement here and I know you believe that I am just wrong. This hasn't changed the fact that I respect you as a brother in the Lord. I do. I have not appreciated some of your attack directed beyond what I am saying and at me personally.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that some of your primary objections here are rooted in your belief that the "leadership" messed up, but the flock is innocent. Is this correct?

I also realize that you simply do not agree with some of what I am sharing about idolatry in general. I'm not discounting this fact, but I want to see if you are able to acknowledge one of the key aspects of your position.

Note about my question: I have tried to make the basis of my thought well known (as much as possible), so I am not asking for something that I haven't already tried to share from my point of view.

Matt

Ohio

09-10-2008, 08:09 AM

Ohio,

You have brought up some very good points which I both appreciate and am glad to see that you have decided to return to challenging this issue based on the Word. For a while there you were on the attack against my person. I know we have a strong disagreement here and I know you believe that I am just wrong. This hasn't changed the fact that I respect you as a brother in the Lord. I do. I have not appreciated some of your attack directed beyond what I am saying and at me personally.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that some of your primary objections here are rooted in your belief that the "leadership" messed up, but the flock is innocent. Is this correct?

I also realize that you simply do not agree with some of what I am sharing about idolatry in general. I'm not discounting this fact, but I want to see if you are able to acknowledge one of the key aspects of your position.

Yeah Matt, take your time. The pace was far too fast here before.

I never intended to bring "attack against your person." Apologizes to all those, especially you, who got that impression. Throughout this thread and the forum in general, I have only attempted to bring balance to what I feel are extreme views, whether they come from the promoters or the demoters of the LC's. I do not believe, for the most part, that you are "just plain wrong," only that some of your more serious judgments should be reserved for certain leaders and their misbehavior, rather than some application for every member.

I do agree with many of your comments on idolatry, when spoken in the same context they were written. When they are applied indiscriminately upon on N.T. believers, then I have to speak up. Our assessment of idolatry should only go as far as the N.T. authors went. Why even mention idolatry, if all equally bear responsibility? That's like proving all LC'ers are still sinners. Isn't that called "straw man."

Concerning whether the "flock is innocent," the situation is far too complex to say whether all are guilty or only leaders are guilty, (and of what they are guilty of.) That's why I protest generalizations, they spawn prejudices and critical attitudes. They are easy to learn and hard to be cleansed of. I am rejecting both the ones I received inside the LC, and the ones from outside against the LC. I have never been persuaded that stereotypes are positive, whether they be about men in general (or women :)), or races, or cultures, or religions.

Peter Debelak

09-10-2008, 08:59 AM

Peter,

You mentioned LCers as idolaters in your post. Personally, I have tried to be careful not to use that label. I am pointing at the sin of idolatry. I believe we are justified in Christ and must view each other in this light. However, this does not extend to ignoring sinful deeds. We are asked to confront sinful deeds in sincerity and truth with a right heart towards one another and the Lord. I know my addressment of this subject has brought me into question on this point (my heart towards others). I can't really defend myself on that issue.

Matt:

I think I wasn't clear. I mentioned "eating" only because Paul mentioned "not to even eat" with idolators - meaning, I think, not to even spend time with them.

I wasn't addressing your points about eating, I was addressing the fact that Paul specifically told the Corinthians that if there were idolators among them, they should not even eat (i.e. spend time with) such ones - they should, in fact, cast them out. That is, Paul defined idolatry in such a way that necessitated severe action. Does your definition of idolatry require the same severe action? The logic of your definition together with Paul's admonition would require me to refuse to sit down with anyone from the LC.

Secondly, I will challenge you on the "idolatrous"/"idolator" distinction. I am all for being careful not to confuse the person and the sin. But Paul's word in 1 Corinthians 5:11-12 was to Christians, each of which had been justified in Christ. In fact, he said that you don't need to necessarily stay away from unbelievers who are idolatrous (v. 10) - but you must refuse/cast out believers who are idolatrous.

How does one get from being "idolatrous" to being an "idolator"? I'd say, if they perpetuated idolatrous behavior unrepentantly even after being warned of their behavior, they've crossed into "idolator" territory. Thus, if the behavior in the LC is "idolatrous," then I think you skirt the issue by not saying they are "idolators" and all that goes with that. If we are going to be serious about idolatry, then we pursue it to its logical and scriptural conclusions. If the behavior you speak of is idolatry - the same idolatry that Paul was witnessing in Corinth - then we must not even sit down at a table with someone from the LC. Definitions have consequences. Defining something as "idolatry" has this consequence, according to the Word.

At one point, Thankful mentioned certain behavior being "in the principle of idolatry." Given that our response to real idolatry must be so stark (i.e. cast out the idolators), I think it is real dangerous to begin talking about the "in the principle of idolatry".

Does that clarify the point I was trying to make?

Peter

Paul Cox

09-10-2008, 09:53 AM

Peter,

What I like about the truth is that it is simple. The Lord didn't put it out of reach of those who aren't so "smart." You have nailed it in a simple way, and that should put the whole "idolatry" thing to rest. But somehow I know it won’t. "Theologians" love to opine.

When Paul told the Corinthians that they shouldn't eat with idolaters, he simply meant not to eat with people who literally worship idols. We must keep the historical context in mind, always, when we read these dated writings.

There were those who literally worshiped graven images, and even offered up their food to these idols. You are right. He meant don't spend time with those who literally bow themselves to idols. It’s not any more complicated than that. Witness Lee had a knack for taking simple teachings in the Bible and blowing them up into mushrooms of “truth.” I think that’s what’s going on here.

If Paul would have had Matt's definition of idolatry in mind, his word about not eating with idolaters would have effectively disbanded the whole church.

According to his definition, those who said they were of Paul, were guilty of worshiping him as an idol. Those who said they were of Apollos, likewise, would have been guilty of idolatry, and so on. The very few in the church in Corinth who didn't engage in "idolatry," would have been forbidden from eating with those who say they are of whomever. Isn't the problem with the Living Stream Church that they basically say: "I am of Lee."

As members of His Body, joined to Him as our ascended Head, we are indeed called upon to extend His mercy and grace to all the brothers and sisters, while at the same time discerning the system. A consciousness of the Body of Christ (and I don't mean "the baaaaaaaahdy") is indeed one of the wonderful things that we have inherited from the teachings of Sparks, Nee, and even to a degree Lee. It balances our selfish tendency to only focus on "Jesus and me."

Branding all the brothers and sisters who remain in the Local Church as “idolaters” it totally without His mercy. The word is clear that if we are harsh and merciless to others, we can expect the same from the Father.

Roger

Matt Anderson

09-10-2008, 10:17 AM

But somehow I know it won’t. "Theologians" love to opine.

Roger

Is your comment pointed at anyone else but me? If so, please state, for the record, who it is pointed at...

I'm tired of your jabs. Who would ever claim that I was a "theologian"? I wouldn't claim it. Do I think about things. Absolutely, yes. Why? Because my parents raised me in a sect (some say, cult) of Christianity and I've been forced to really think to clear all the crud out of my head.

I'll respond substantively to Peter, because he is bringing forward some very good things for consideration.

Branding all the brothers and sisters who remain in the Local Church as “idolaters” it totally without His mercy. The word is clear that if we are harsh and merciless to others, we can expect the same from the Father.

For the record, I haven't done this and I wouldn't do it (branding all as "idolaters"). Did you ever once see me call anyone on the last forum a "cultist"? No. I rarely used the word cult.

I agree with you about mercy, but God is not slack with his mercy. You have to know that he is both holy and full of mercy. The two fit together. If you only focus on the mercy, then you err. If you only focus on the holiness, then you err.

Sorry, but I am going to start calling you out personally on some of your comments from now on.

Matt

P.S. I don't mind your substantive comments. You have a very bad habit of focusing things personally. I put up with it on the other forum as moderator out of care for you. I took a lot of heat for it. Let's call a spade a spade. You misbehaved there. You're doing it again.

Matt Anderson

09-10-2008, 10:43 AM

I do agree with many of your comments on idolatry, when spoken in the same context they were written. When they are applied indiscriminately upon on N.T. believers, then I have to speak up. Our assessment of idolatry should only go as far as the N.T. authors went. Why even mention idolatry, if all equally bear responsibility? That's like proving all LC'ers are still sinners. Isn't that called "straw man."

Ohio,

Thanks for your comments to me, personally. I know I have frustrated a number of people and they are speaking out of some frustration.

I just did in my last post to Roger.

You are correct that the issue of idolatry shouldn't be applied indiscriminately upon N.T. believers.

Fact: The Local Churches of Witness Lee are a very, very small minority of the Body of Christ. For me to apply comments to the whole of the LC is actually to talk about a small piece of the Body of Christ. It's like talking about a portion of the humorous bone in the arm.

Final Question: Did you or did you not give your allegiance to the "the vision of the church" or "christ and the church" (intentionally or unintentionally)? If I didn't get it quite right, please tell me what you did give your allegiance to. Can you honestly say that you only gave your allegiance to Christ? This is what I am talking about. Right now, I'm asking about you. After you answer this, then begin to ask yourself who did not do this?

Matt

P.S. I'm not trying to make you out to be a bad person through my last question. You are not a bad person. You have a great heart towards others. I'm asking you to bear a true and solemn witness.

Paul Cox

09-10-2008, 11:11 AM

Is your comment pointed at anyone else but me? If so, please state, for the record, who it is pointed at...

I'm tired of your jabs. Who would ever claim that I was a "theologian"? I wouldn't claim it. Do I think about things. Absolutely, yes. Why? Because my parents raised me in a sect (some say, cult) of Christianity and I've been forced to really think to clear all the crud out of my head.

I'll respond substantively to Peter, because he is bringing forward some very good things for consideration.

For the record, I haven't done this and I wouldn't do it (branding all as "idolaters"). Did you ever once see me call anyone on the last forum a "cultist"? No. I rarely used the word cult.

I agree with you about mercy, but God is not slack with his mercy. You have to know that he is both holy and full of mercy. The two fit together. If you only focus on the mercy, then you err. If you only focus on the holiness, then you err.

Sorry, but I am going to start calling you out personally on some of your comments from now on.

Matt

P.S. I don't mind your substantive comments. You have a very bad habit of focusing things personally. I put up with it on the other forum as moderator out of care for you. I took a lot of heat for it. Let's call a spade a spade. You misbehaved there. You're doing it again.

Matt,

You can call me out all you want to. I'm not scared of you. When you try to dominate a thread with your personal views, with volumes and volumes of posts, you come across as a "theologian."

I thought it reasonable that you start an idolatry thread. You insist that you would rather make idolatry the main focus of abuse in the Local Church. Many here don’t agree with that view, but your barrel ahead anyway.

Over at the Bereans forum you could shut me down and lock my threads whenever you wanted to. Over here you can probably effectively do the same. Go for it. I don't care. You want to talk about misbehavior on the other forum, your hands are not clean. You struggled hard to stay moderator over there, now there is almost nothing left to moderate.

Roger

Matt Anderson

09-10-2008, 11:42 AM

You don't have to be afraid of me. However, I don't have to put up with your misbehavior when it is directed at me. I can call you out on it and tell you that I think it is wrong.

I never claimed to be clean. I've had to repent on a number of occasions. I don't paint myself white. It's not appropriate. I treated you well on the other forum and you know it. Moderating you was the exception and not the rule.

Matt

Hope

09-10-2008, 11:49 AM

Dear Matt,

You asked a poster,

"Final Question: Did you or did you not give your allegiance to the "the vision of the church" or "christ and the church" (intentionally or unintentionally)? If I didn't get it quite right, please tell me what you did give your allegiance to. Can you honestly say that you only gave your allegiance to Christ? This is what I am talking about. Right now, I'm asking about you. After you answer this, then begin to ask yourself who did not do this?

I think this is one of the questions you asked me or something like it. (I have lost track of Matt's questions for me and have asked him to PM me with his list. I will try to answer.)

The key word is allegiance. I always considered my allegiance to be to Christ. On the other hand, there is 2 Cor 8:5, and this, not as we had expected, but they first gave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God. NASB
At times we will join with others in our service to the Lord. We are not Lone Rangers but rather members one of another.

We all should have some vision regarding the full counsel of God, Acts 20:27, For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. NKJV

As far as what we are doing as a believer in Christ, our Christian service and work needs to be with a clear view or vision.

1 Cor 3:10-15,
10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how he builds upon it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. 14 If any man's work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire. NASB

We cannot claim our allegiance is only to Christ and then conduct ourselves without regard to the Will of God.

Col 4:11-12
12 Epaphras, who is one of your number, a bondslave of Jesus Christ, sends you his greetings, always laboring earnestly for you in his prayers, that you may stand perfect and fully assured in all the will of God. NASB

Heb 10:36
36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised. NASB

1 Peter 4:2
2 so as to live the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for the lusts of men, but for the will of God. NASB

1 John 2:17
17 And the world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God abides forever. NASB

Also consider the following passage:
2 Thess 3:4-5
4 And we have confidence in the Lord concerning you, that you are doing and will continue to do what we command. 5 And may the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the steadfastness of Christ. NASB

While we are seeking to have our allegiance to Christ alone, it is okay to be open for fellowship. But our ability to fully follow the Lord and be pleasing to Him depends on our being willing to be directed by the Lord Himself. But to be directed by the Lord Himself does not mean we never listen to anyone else or receive wise counsel from another saint or have no guiding principles. For example, I would never accept someone declaring they are following only Christ and that Christ has led them to abandon their children.

In Christ Jesus there is Hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

Cal

09-10-2008, 12:53 PM

Final Question: Did you or did you not give your allegiance to the "the vision of the church" or "christ and the church" (intentionally or unintentionally)? If I didn't get it quite right, please tell me what you did give your allegiance to. Can you honestly say that you only gave your allegiance to Christ? This is what I am talking about. Right now, I'm asking about you. After you answer this, then begin to ask yourself who did not do this?

Matt,

This is really a non sequitur. Even if Roger answers in the affirmative it doesn't prove anything.

The Bible tells us to love one another. Some have given themselves to love others. The Bible tells us to preach the gospel. Some have sold out for the gospel. The Bible tells us to cleave to what is good and delight in the truth. Many do these things. Are these people then idolaters because their allegiance is to "something other that Christ?" No, they are simply doing what they feel the Bible tells them to do. To cleave to a vision one feels the Bible gives is not wrong. Certainly a person can get imbalanced by emphasizing something too much, but it hardly amounts to idolatry.

The Bible gives us a vision of Christ with his Church. To argue against this is to simply say you haven't read the Bible. Is it all the Bible talks about? No. But it is a big factor. Some love that vision. The vast majority don't love it for itself, but because they feel it is what the Lord loves and has commanded them to carry out.

Trying to make that seem like idolatry is simply barking up the wrong tree.

Matt Anderson

09-10-2008, 01:36 PM

UntoHim

09-10-2008, 02:23 PM

Upon reviewing many of the posts in this thread, and considering what are the practical implications of idolatry in the Local Church movement, I was reminded of the Lord’s own words in Matthew 5:28
“but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart”
(now don’t ask me why this verse all of the sudden popped into my silly mind…I guess I was thinking about how the Lord many times equated and connected one sin with another more serious sin – in this case he likened the simple act of looking with the very serious sin of adultery)

Originally, I went to check further on this word “committed”, and to my surprise, I found that the Lord Jesus used a certain Hebrew idiom here (translated “has committed adultery”). Above and beyond the obvious meaning, many sources give the following for this word “Moicheuō”
“A Hebrew idiom, the word is used of those who at a woman's solicitation are drawn away to idolatry, i.e. to the eating of things sacrificed to idols”

Now don’t get mad at me guys…I’m not the one who linked yet another sin to idolatry – that was done by the Lord Jesus himself and that was confirmed by several scholars of the biblical languages!

Look, most of us have been Christians and have been reading the Bible for many years. We know very well that every sin is not a sin of idolatry, and idolatry is not the basis of every evil in the Christian church or in the lives of most Christians. But we are not here discussing “most churches” or “most Christians” now are we?

My contention here would be very basic and very simple. (as if UntoHim is capable of more:p) Many, if not most, Local Churchers idolized the man Witness Lee. Many, if not most, idolized just about everything that came from this man’s mouth. Many, if not most, even idolized the “vision” that Lee and his co-workers so passionately and forcefully related to us day in and day out. Soon we found ourselves idolizing the religion of the Local Church that spring forth from this vision. Some of the teachings and practices of this religion were good and biblical, many were arguably harmful and unbiblical. The main point here would not be the percentage of good to bad or biblical to unbiblical, but that fact that the teachings and practices themselves were idolized.

Did we bow and worship the man Witness Lee? No, I never saw it. Did we literally bow down at the alter of the Life Studies and other speakings/writings of Nee and Lee? No, not literally. Did we climb to the top of a smoldering volcano and sacrifice our family members, spouses and children? No, I never saw it.

Now let me do some equating of my own and take us back to the sobering declaration of the Lord in Matthew 5:28… “but I say unto you that everyone who looks…has already committed..” – Sorry my dear brothers and sisters…we looked. Then we looked some more, then we looked some more. Now, from what I have seen and heard coming from the Local Church movement lately they are still looking...big time.

Cal

09-10-2008, 02:27 PM

Igzy,

I was asking Ohio, not Roger. I'm not practicing the art of argumentation for the sake of winning an argument on this thread. I am making an entreaty. As such, I do not expect to prove anything to anyone's satisfaction.

In the realm of proving something, I have already made plenty of headway regardless of whether anyone agrees with my personal conclusions or viewpoint. However, this wasn't and still isn't my goal.

Matt

My point was whether you are trying to make a entreaty or are trying to prove something either way your reasoning is faulty. Buying into "the vision of the church" isn't idolatry, anymore than buying into Campus Crusade's vision of evangelizing American colleges is idolatry. They are both visions of Christian service based on the Bible. Just because people are zealous for them and emphasize them does not make them idols.

The main problem in the LC is not idolatry. The main problem is the pressure to conform based on a warped vision of authority. The pressure probably leads people to cheerlead "Christ and the Church" in an imbalanced way, because that is what the authoritry figures demand. But that doesn't make the cheerleading idolatry. The problem is much more complex than that. It's a system of psychological checks and barriers which convinces LCers that they have no choice but to (1) stay in the movement and (2) obey the leadership. What needs to be dismantled is that system which holds them there. I doubt many LCers stay in the movement just so they can hold onto idols.

YP0534

09-10-2008, 03:58 PM

Originally, I went to check further on this word “committed”, and to my surprise, I found that the Lord Jesus used a certain Hebrew idiom here (translated “has committed adultery”). Above and beyond the obvious meaning, many sources give the following for this word “Moicheuō”
“A Hebrew idiom, the word is used of those who at a woman's solicitation are drawn away to idolatry, i.e. to the eating of things sacrificed to idols”

Now don’t get mad at me guys…I’m not the one who linked yet another sin to idolatry – that was done by the Lord Jesus himself and that was confirmed by several scholars of the biblical languages!

Can you please cite those scholars?

I wasn't aware that there was a Hebrew idiom preserved here in the Greek New Testament but it certainly does warrant further investigation if true.

Matt Anderson

09-10-2008, 04:01 PM

My point was whether you are trying to make a entreaty or are trying to prove something either way your reasoning is faulty. Buying into "the vision of the church" isn't idolatry, anymore than buying into Campus Crusade's vision of evangelizing American colleges is idolatry. They are both visions of Christian service based on the Bible.

That's sounds reasonable enough if the analogy is an equivalency. It's not equivalent.

1. The "giving" of oneself to the "vision of the church" was far more than the what happens in Campus Crusade.
2. Campus Crusade has proven itself to be an organization with high integrity. They are not like the LC.

I think you've made the logical error of a false analogy.

The main problem in the LC is not idolatry. The main problem is the pressure to conform based on a warped vision of authority. The pressure probably leads people to cheerlead "Christ and the Church" in an imbalanced way, because that is what the authoritry figures demand. But that doesn't make the cheerleading idolatry. The problem is much more complex than that. It's a system of psychological checks and barriers which convinces LCers that they have no choice but to (1) stay in the movement and (2) obey the leadership. What needs to be dismantled is that system which holds them there. I doubt many LCers stay in the movement just so they can hold onto idols.

I'm not ranking the problems and I actually think that in almost all idolatrous systems there is a coupling of bad concepts and practices of authority with false teachings. They are not separate concerns.

When I have been in sin of a more serious and fundamental sort, I haven't been quick to acknowledge what I am doing or have done. I like to shape it into something other than what it is. Eventually, the Lord gets through. Thank the Lord.

Where do you find "psychological barriers" in the Bible? Or to what do you equate it in the word?

Matt

Ohio

09-10-2008, 04:53 PM

Final Question: Did you or did you not give your allegiance to the "the vision of the church" or "christ and the church" (intentionally or unintentionally)? If I didn't get it quite right, please tell me what you did give your allegiance to. Can you honestly say that you only gave your allegiance to Christ? This is what I am talking about. Right now, I'm asking about you. After you answer this, then begin to ask yourself who did not do this?

Matt, what does this mean: "give your allegiance"? Please provide some level of detail so that I can answer adequately. Obviously this question is not a simple one, and is potentially "loaded" to say the least. Hope has already mentioned some scriptures, and I can think of others that had an impact upon me. Maybe it would be wise to differentiate what is "healthy" allegiance and what is "unhealthy" allegiance.

Those Christians, whom I have known over the years, who claimed to only have "allegiance" to Christ, were immature loners, prideful and judgmental. Some had been burnt pretty badly by religion, and could see hypocrisy in every church, hence would never commit themselves to anything.

Btw, what did you think about my earlier comments on idolatry?

UntoHim

09-10-2008, 06:04 PM

Can you please cite those scholars?

I wasn't aware that there was a Hebrew idiom preserved here in the Greek New Testament but it certainly does warrant further investigation if true.

YP, not that this was the crux to my post, I'll indulge your inquiry

From:
www.BlueLetterBible.Org (http://www.BlueLetterBible.Org)
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3431&t=kjv

Lexicon Results for moicheuō (Strong's G3431)
Greek for G3431
μοιχεύω Transliteration
moicheuō

Root Word (Etymology) from G3432 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3432&t=kjv)

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to commit adultery
a) to be an adulterer
b) to commit adultery with, have unlawful intercourse with another's wife
c) of the wife: to suffer adultery, be debauched
d) A Hebrew idiom, the word is used of those who at a woman's solicitation are drawn away to idolatry, i.e. to the eating of things sacrificed to idols

-----------------------------------------------------------
From:
Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

Adulterer (-ess), Adulterous, Adultery
A1. Adulterer (-ess), Adulterous, Adultery [Noun]
moichos denotes one "who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another," Luke_18:11; 1_Cor_6:9; Heb_13:4. As to James_4:4, see below.
A2. Adulterer (-ess), Adulterous, Adultery [Noun]
moichalis "an adulteress," is used
(a) in the natural sense, 2_Pet_2:14; Rom_7:3;
(b) in the spiritual sense, James_4:4; here the RV rightly omits the word "adulterers." It was added by a copyist. As in Israel the breach of their relationship with God through their idolatry, was described as "adultery" or "harlotry" (e.g., Ezek_16:15ff; Ezek_23:43), so believers who cultivate friendship with the world, thus breaking their spiritual union with Christ, are spiritual "adulteresses," having been spiritually united to Him as wife to husband, Rom_7:4. It is used adjectivally to describe the Jewish people in transferring their affections from God, Matt_12:39; Matt_16:4; Mark_8:38. In 2_Pet_2:14, the lit. translation is "full of an adulteress" (RV, marg.).
A3. Adulterer (-ess), Adulterous, Adultery [Noun]
moicheia "adultery," is found in Matt_15:19; Mark_7:21; John_8:3 (AV only).
B1. Adulterer (-ess), Adulterous, Adultery [Verb]
moichao used in the Middle Voice in the NT, is said of men in Matt_5:32; Matt_19:9; Mark_10:11; of women in Mark_10:10.
B2. Adulterer (-ess), Adulterous, Adultery [Verb]
moicheuo is used in Matt_5:27,28,32 (in Matt_5:32 some texts have moichao); Matt_19:18; Mark_10:19; Luke_16:18; Luke_18:20; John_8:4; Rom_2:22; Rom_13:9; James_2:11; in Rev_2:22, metaphorically, of those who are by a Jezebel's solicitations drawn away to idolatry.

There are a couple of other references that I can't seem to find right now.

Now, can I talk you into actually addressing the main theme of my post?

YP0534

09-10-2008, 07:07 PM

The citations given are inadequate and it does not say what was posted. Sorry.

The Blue Letter Bible reference is merely a poor rewording of the Thayer's Lexicon entry. Read that entry in the original volume to understand what it's supposed to mean. They have taken the original defintion out of the full context with references and it makes no sense now. That defintion refers to the use of the term in Rev. 2:22, where it IS used in that fashion. W.E. Vine clearly is also referring to the same particular use of the term, rather than making any assertion about the Greek word itself being a "Hebrew idiom" which is just purely nonsensical. Aristotle and Plato used this word. It is no "Hebrew idiom."

As to the substance of the post otherwise, I think the exploration about the topic of idolatry as addressed in 1 Corinthians and as spoken of recently in brief by our brothers here is by far more enlightening than anything I have seen posted on this interminable thread in attacking the LC members, present or past, in the name of a crusade about the supposed and exaggerated "idolatry" of that, that or the other.

In 1 Cor. Paul never labeled either the partisans nor the tongues-uplifters as idolatrous in that letter which also directly addresses the topic of idolatry. There was partisanship, there was a lack of love, there was disorder in the meetings, there was idolatry, there was heresy regarding resurrection, there was a whole laundry list of problems. Paul did not glom all these things together with the sort of lack of discernment paraded about boldly here. There is simply no New Testament basis for the entire premise allegedly being explored. According to my appreciation, some here desire to be law teachers without understanding what they are talking about and this thread is mere vain speaking.

But I know how to use the reference books, so, I just had to pipe up there.

I'm back to lurkdom now, I'm afraid. There's just simply nothing to engage here, but I do encourage those who have the gift of sufficient grace to continue if they feel to plant seed and water. Regardless, we do all need to take heed how we tend God's farm and build.

Grace be with you all.

Hope

09-10-2008, 07:41 PM

I have been considering the recent direction of the forum. Consider this passage.

1 Cor 1:10-13, 10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree, and there be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." 13 Has Christ been divided? NASB

I have been considering this question of only having allegiance to Christ and that anything else is idolatry. It seems that the “you must have allegiance only to Christ” while sounding very good is similar to the “I of Christ” division.

Put the above passage with Ephesians 4. Eph 4:1-4, I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, entreat you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing forbearance to one another in love, 3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body … NASB

There has been a lot of discussion about the alleged “we are it” factor in the lc. It has been pointed out that this is divisive and rightly so. Some have assumed that this was the appeal to many in why they joined in with a lc. I can never remember this being a point to persuade someone to be a part of the lc. But unfortunately eventually this became one of the prevailing mind sets. Had WL stressed Eph. Chapter 4 and having a worthy walk in humility and gentleness etc rather than “the one church one city” we would have had a different outcome. Making an effort to point out the errors of others does not fit “with all humility and gentleness.”

It seems to me that perhaps the mindset of “I of Christ” could be the most divisive since it certainly is saturated with the “we are it” attitude. It also seems to be a slippery slope toward pride and obsession with the errors and short comings of other believers.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

Ohio

09-10-2008, 07:45 PM

Where do you find "psychological barriers" in the Bible? Or to what do you equate it in the word?

Matt

One scripture is 2 Cor 10.4-5

UntoHim

09-10-2008, 07:56 PM

YP, I've got no problem with you trying to school me on references (I'll take Mr. Strong and Mr. Vine up against Thayer - none of them were around when the Lord Jesus spoke these words, nor were they around when Matthew wrote his gospel in biblical Greek) Besides, I already warned you that all the minutia surrounding the wider definition of "committed adultery" does not make or break the main contentions of my post.

If you want to say that the average Local Churcher does not "idolize" Witness Lee and his speaking, and that they are not now "idolizing" his ministry, and have not formed and virtually idolize a religious system built around this ministry, well then all I can say is that you are "out of the loop" when it comes to the Local Church of Witness Lee movement. Furthermore, simply pointing out that such things are happening within a group of wayward Christians is not "attacking" them as individuals.

I just attended a couple of the Labor Day "blending conference" meetings, at which a well known "blended brother" was the speaker. At the beginning of both of the meetings they "pray-read" part of the outline...that's right, NOT the holy Word of God...the outline...the mere words of a mere man...There was also a lot of exalting (I would say idolizing) of Witness Lee himself (as usual). There was also a lot of bragging and exalting (I would say idolizing) of the little sect of the Local Church of Witness Lee (as usual)

Again:
...Soon we found ourselves idolizing the religion of the Local Church that spring forth from this vision. Some of the teachings and practices of this religion were good and biblical, many were arguably harmful and unbiblical. The main point here would not be the percentage of good to bad or biblical to unbiblical, but that fact that the teachings and practices themselves were idolized

Cal

09-10-2008, 09:42 PM

That's sounds reasonable enough if the analogy is an equivalency. It's not equivalent.

1. The "giving" of oneself to the "vision of the church" was far more than the what happens in Campus Crusade.
2. Campus Crusade has proven itself to be an organization with high integrity. They are not like the LC.

I think you've made the logical error of a false analogy.

Matt,

Far more what? Are you saying more zealousness constitutes a difference in kind?

As to your point about integrity, I'm not talking about the intentions of leadership. I'm talking about the heart of the rank and file. Their giving themselves to the vision of the church is usually a matter of high integrity. They might be misled, but in general I don't recall their devotion to the vision of the church being motivated by a lack of integrity. Quite the opposite in fact, part of the problem is too much integrity of a somewhat naive kind.

I'm not ranking the problems and I actually think that in almost all idolatrous systems there is a coupling of bad concepts and practices of authority with false teachings. They are not separate concerns.

When I have been in sin of a more serious and fundamental sort, I haven't been quick to acknowledge what I am doing or have done. I like to shape it into something other than what it is. Eventually, the Lord gets through. Thank the Lord.

Where do you find "psychological barriers" in the Bible? Or to what do you equate it in the word?

Matt

You've heard of mind strongholds, right? The concept of barriers is the same. It's a lie in the mind that prevents the truth from setting someone free.

4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. 2 Corinthians 10:4-5

Cal

09-10-2008, 10:34 PM

Matt, et al,

I've been thinking about this idolatry issue and here's the problem I have with it.

If there is idolatry in the LC system it's a symptom, not a root cause.

LCers don't think Lee is the minister of the age because they idolize him, they idolize him because they think he's the minister of the age. This may seem at first like an empty distinction, but I believe it is crucial.

Because of the dynamics of the LC view of authority and oneness, LCers generally believe what they are told to believe. They don't obey unquestioningly because they are idolaters, they do so because they believe in a false system of authority and oneness, and fear the consequences of resisting it. This warped system more or less pushes them into something that appears like idolatry, but this something is still a symptom of that mindset.

In fact, I think the LC adulation of Lee and the features of his ministry is in many cases a reaction somewhat similar to what's known as the Stockholm Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome), the phenomenon which occurs when hostages begin to show loyalty to their captors, even in the face of grave danger. When someone has immense power over a human being, the human mind tends to begin to give the person in power the benefit of the doubt, in order to make itself feel better about the situation it is in, and thus deal with it better. Better to be controlled by a saint than an ogre, and since the subordinate is controlled either way, the situation is much easier to swallow if the subordinate thinks of his controller as a saint. This is a "defense mechanism of identification"*, i.e the controlled identifies with the controller to achieve reassurance that he's not threatened.

Now some, (I'm thinking SC) are probably chortling in their glasses of milk right now, but I think I have a point. LCers are first taught that Lee is the minister of the age. Since they feel (due to their extreme set of beliefs regarding authority and oneness) that they have no choice in the matter, and since they cannot exist in their society without going along with this, it is much easier to embrace and even champion Lee's special standing than it is to truly think critically about it. So the idolizing, if it exists, is a symptom, a result of a mind trapped in a set of beliefs in which the only way to find wholeness is either to reject the beliefs outright or embrace them to the nth degree.

So Matt does has some points to make. But I think he is attacking a symptom, not a cause.

Igzy

* Wikipedia

Suannehill

09-11-2008, 05:34 AM

Very good points by all.
As to idolatry being a symptom and not the cause...
If you will notice, most medication is for the "symptom" and not the cause. So, it is not wrong to treat a symptom, but we must not forget the cause...Because the symptoms will return.
Sue

Matt Anderson

09-11-2008, 05:49 AM

Matt, et al,

If there is idolatry in the LC system it's a symptom, not a root cause.

Igzy,

I read your whole post, but I believe that you have made an error in reasoning in this one sentence.

Sin is the root cause. Idolatry is a sin as are other things.

Paul gives some indication that "covetousness" is a root cause of idolatry. Coveting is also a sin.

Can you share with me what you believe the root cause is in terms of sin as God defines it. Otherwise your shifting the target and possible moving to a symptomatic root cause that does not match what is in God's mind.

God is the standard, not our conceptions of things.

Your other thoughts about the root cause are shifting the focus away from sin. We have to be faithful (and careful) to look from God's point of view. Sometimes it is harder to understand things from His point of view, but His Word endures forever. These other concepts and issues that you bring forward do not endure forever.

To the best of my ability I am addressing root causes from God's point of view. The best objective reference I have for that is His Word.

Your introducing modern conceptions of men that are not built upon solid ground or a firm foundation. Sorry, but I have to call that out.

Matt

Matt Anderson

09-11-2008, 06:13 AM

Matt,

Far more what? Are you saying more zealousness constitutes a difference in kind?

As to your point about integrity, I'm not talking about the intentions of leadership. I'm talking about the heart of the rank and file. Their giving themselves to the vision of the church is usually a matter of high integrity. They might be misled, but in general I don't recall their devotion to the vision of the church being motivated by a lack of integrity. Quite the opposite in fact, part of the problem is too much integrity of a somewhat naive kind.

This is correct with one exception. Let's take Paul as the example. He was the most zealous Jew. He put his heart wholly on what he believed to be true. Judaism. It led him to be party to the murder of Stephen.

Once Paul was converted he became a most zealous Christian. This characteristic of Paul's was still there. What was different?

Truth vs. Deception. Before his conversion his zeal was used in ignorance. After his conversion he began to use his zeal in coming to a full knowledge of God through Christ Jesus.

What did Paul do when he realized he was deceived? He repented and went out and searched the scriptures to dig down on the truth.

The same is true with those of us who are zealous. We have to add another one of Paul's concepts here. The flesh versus the spirit. Many chased after spiritual things "in the flesh". We see that outcome today in many LSM/LC's. In their pride they cling to it. We also see those who could not continue and fell out of the LC's. They passed through a kind of "death", but God was faithful to "resurrect" them back to life. Now it is time to purge out the leaven.

My point here is that misguided zealotry is very serious. We cannot look at the heart of the rank and file as an indicator. We have to observe the deeds. Murder is murder. Paul knew it. He was chief among Jews, but the least among christians. Why? Because he had been party to one of the most heinous sins.

Paul's response to misguided zeal was repentance, not defensiveness.

You've heard of mind strongholds, right? The concept of barriers is the same. It's a lie in the mind that prevents the truth from setting someone free.

4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. 2 Corinthians 10:4-5

Yes, I have heard of "mind strongholds". What is the weapon against these strongholds? Truth.

The truth is that idolatry (even systematic idolatry) and it's impact on all participants in the LC is one of the factual elements of truth that must be confronted. There were few, if any, that did not give themselves (in ignorance) to something that was idolatrous. Our ignorance does not protect us from the consequences of our sin.

There are attempts being made to say, "let's not lose the positive things" of the LC. The fact is that each person (which includes everyone on this forum that I know of) has held onto Christ. He has been faithful to you. This is the positive thing. He has set many of you in a family of believers in your respective locations after you were lost. We have fellowship with one another. This means we have not lost the positive.

After being faithful to purge out all of the leaven, then let's talk about the "positives". I take this approach because this is the approach God takes. My life and my testimony stand witness that the leaven needs to be purged before you begin to praise yourself for your involvements in a regime that was leavened by the Enemy and whose practices were formulated in hell.

Matt

Matt Anderson

09-11-2008, 06:16 AM

Btw, what did you think about my earlier comments on idolatry?

Ohio,

I don't have time to reframe my question just yet about "allegiance". I'm not trying to "trap" you. I am looking for what you can honestly acknowledge that you did when you "gave" yourself to "Christ and the church" in the context of the LC.

1. What can you share about that? I'm asking for a solemn witness which means I am not asking for any positive or negative spin. Share what you understood your "pledge"/"commitment"/"giving of yourself" to be at that time.
2. Looking backwards at that commitment today, would you do it any differently today knowing what you know now? If so, what would be the difference? (Note: this 2nd question is a little broader than just your reconsideration of your original act of commitment to the LC vision.)

Hope, since you responded I'd like to hear your answer to those questions to.

My time is up for this morning, but your (Ohio) points about idolatry were very good. It is going to take me into the weekend to be able to respond. You've hit an element of history that I believe is "echoing" from further into the past. I want to present the previous element in history that I believe may be what establishes the "echo" you have pointed out.

Remind me again if I don't respond in a timely manner. I am not ignoring it. It's just going to take me a good 3-5 hours to pull the materials together to present.

Matt

Overflow

09-11-2008, 06:39 AM

Matt Anderson

09-11-2008, 06:41 AM

I think its completely off base to compare LC with Campus Crusade. The complete and total focus of the ministry of Campus Crusade is loving, knowing and sharing Jesus. That's it...nothing else and no one else! I definitely think its very off base to try and clump Crusade together with a group that focuses very little on Jesus! I'm insulted!!!

Thank you Process. That was my point written in a more analytical manner. Comparing the zeal of Campus Crusade participants to LC participants is a false analogy.

Matt

Ohio

09-11-2008, 06:57 AM

The main problem in the LC is not idolatry. The main problem is the pressure to conform based on a warped vision of authority. The pressure probably leads people to cheerlead "Christ and the Church" in an imbalanced way

Igzy, I sure agree with you here.

And to continue your thought ... much of the problem developed over time using a corruption of semantics.

Originally, when I thought of "Christ and the church," my heart fell in love with the Spirit living in the other believers. That was very attractive. That was very Biblical. And that was worth getting excited about! And I did ... and, yes ... maybe I was far too radical for this great "ideal." (Notice I did not say "vision," because that's now a "bad" word. :) )

Eventually, "Christ and the church" became no more just the brothers around me, but those brothers in the ministry -- what are they doing and saying. As I have stated before, this change in Ohio occurred dramatically circa 1985. That's not to say there were no personal leadership issues before that -- I have a number of complaints too -- very serious ones -- which could all be summarized as "lording it over" the flock.

As time progressed, our vocabulary changed, not so much in the words themselves, but in their meanings -- semantics, a corruption of semantics. Words had "loaded" meanings. We had one definition for "insiders" and one definition for "outsiders." I for one just got tired of all the "word games." A notable example was the scope of LSM -- for outsiders it was just a publisher, but for insiders 'twas a whole nuther story. I think Apostle Paul confronted these same word games and in frustration declared "let your yes be yes and your no be no."

Words are a great way to manipulate people. Whether it be "oneness" or "the body," LSM has corrupted the meanings with the purpose of controlling churches and saints. The BB's have all become "Word-Smiths" -- masters of word meanings. Any kind of positive blessing which LSM once provided has long been gone.

This is part of the reason why, when we discuss the topic of abuse, there are so many "agreers," and when we talk idolatry, there are so many "disagreers."

Ohio

09-11-2008, 07:26 AM

I read your whole post, but I believe that you have made an error in reasoning in this one sentence. Sin is the root cause. Idolatry is a sin as are other things. Paul gives some indication that "covetousness" is a root cause of idolatry. Coveting is also a sin.

Can you share with me what you believe the root cause is in terms of sin as God defines it. Otherwise your shifting the target and possible moving to a symptomatic root cause that does not match what is in God's mind. God is the standard, not our conceptions of things.

Your other thoughts about the root cause are shifting the focus away from sin. We have to be faithful (and careful) to look from God's point of view. Sometimes it is harder to understand things from His point of view, but His Word endures forever. These other concepts and issues that you bring forward do not endure forever.

To the best of my ability I am addressing root causes from God's point of view. The best objective reference I have for that is His Word. Your introducing modern conceptions of men that are not built upon solid ground or a firm foundation. Sorry, but I have to call that out.

Let me just say ... in my view ... that this post elevates the poster as the one who alone can define "what is in God's mind," what are "modern human conceptions," what is "God's standard," and what is "God's point of view."

It is better for us to just present our views, with scripture if possible, than to tell others that we are defining God's way. Let the reader decide how much God "endorses" our posts. That sounds a little too much like the "ministry" we have left.

Matt Anderson

09-11-2008, 07:36 AM

Let me just say ... in my view ... that this post elevates the poster as the one who alone can define "what is in God's mind," what are "modern human conceptions," what is "God's standard," and what is "God's point of view."

It is better for us to just present our views, with scripture if possible, than to tell others that we are defining God's way. Let the reader decide how much God "endorses" our posts. That sounds a little too much like the "ministry" we have left.

Let me just say, that in my view, when I say "to the best of my ability" it is a acknowledgement that I do not have God's mind.

Thanks for your view and I am glad you are not willing to be easily swayed as you were in the past. We should each be persuaded in our own minds.

Matt

P.S. I must admit for the first time on this thread, I find your post personally offensive. We should speak in person. I will call you.

Cal

09-11-2008, 07:52 AM

Igzy,

I read your whole post, but I believe that you have made an error in reasoning in this one sentence.

Sin is the root cause. Idolatry is a sin as are other things.

Paul gives some indication that "covetousness" is a root cause of idolatry. Coveting is also a sin.

Can you share with me what you believe the root cause is in terms of sin as God defines it. Otherwise your shifting the target and possible moving to a symptomatic root cause that does not match what is in God's mind.

God is the standard, not our conceptions of things.

Your other thoughts about the root cause are shifting the focus away from sin. We have to be faithful (and careful) to look from God's point of view. Sometimes it is harder to understand things from His point of view, but His Word endures forever. These other concepts and issues that you bring forward do not endure forever.

To the best of my ability I am addressing root causes from God's point of view. The best objective reference I have for that is His Word.

Your introducing modern conceptions of men that are not built upon solid ground or a firm foundation. Sorry, but I have to call that out.

Matt

Matt,

It goes without saying that our sin nature is the source of all pathological human behavior. But specifically sinning is not necessarily the source of a problem. A person can suffer from the consequences of our sinful nature and the warped thinking it produces without having specifically sinned in the area they are being affected.

There is nothing modern about what I'm introducing. Since the fall, human nature has always been human nature. People behave the way they've always behaved because they have always been human.

Yes, our nature is affected by sin, and sin is the source of all pathological behavior. And Jesus Christ is the solution to sin. Yes, we know that. But simply saying "Jesus Christ is the solution for sin" or "you need to repent" may not be enough to get someone out of a destructive behavior pattern. People often need wisdom and counseling on the specifics of how human nature operates to avoid the pitfalls which accompany it.

For example, I'm sure you'd agree that understanding the differences between men and women is a key to marriage success. Would you argue that sharing such insights is "something modern" and therefore inadmissible to Christian fellowship? Proverbs if full of insights into human nature. It doesn't just say "don't sin." It gives insight into specific things to avoid and into how humans tend to react in certain situations. Knowing what to expect is a characteristic of wisdom.

The tendency to eventually identify with oppressors is an observable phenomenon which has happened over and over in history. It is not a theory. It's a characteristic of our fallen nature. This characteristic is, I believe, at work in the minds of some LCers. Bringing it to light is not out of bounds nor a side issue. Yes, sin is the ultimate source of this, but sinning may not be. A person can be innocent and still subject to the pitfalls of human nature.

Cal

09-11-2008, 08:00 AM

My point here is that misguided zealotry is very serious. We cannot look at the heart of the rank and file as an indicator. We have to observe the deeds. Murder is murder. Paul knew it. He was chief among Jews, but the least among christians. Why? Because he had been party to one of the most heinous sins.

I agree. But you keep saying the problem is that LCers are idolatrous.

I say that rather the problem is they are misguided and that something resembling idolatry is the symptom of that misguidedness, which specifically is giving too much authority to men and thinking oneness means ignoring any problems.

Cal

09-11-2008, 08:15 AM

After being faithful to purge out all of the leaven, then let's talk about the "positives".

Matt,

I encourage you to read the last chapter of "The Torch of the Testimony" by John Kennedy, a book your mother has recommended. There Kennedy makes the very important point that the testimony of the Church is mainly a testimony of positive truth, not a testimony of exposing evil.

As I've said before, this is one of the problems of a forum such as this. It tends to get us on the track of exposing evil. Our main testimony should be to the Person of Christ. That should be our focus.

I'm sure you have encountered self-appointed "error exposing" ministries on the Internet. Don't they seem a bit contentious and weird to you? Once one starts to think one's calling is to expose every error (as one sees it) one has gotten off track. Our main focus should be to bring people to Christ. Yes, we sometimes reprove, but reproving shouldn't be the meat of our ministry.

Besides, I doubt all the leaven is purged out of your or anyone else's life. But we still have to get along as best we can. We don't wait to be perfect before we the praise the Lord.

SpeakersCorner

09-11-2008, 08:34 AM

It's been interesting to me to watch the normal LC detractors rise up against Matt in his claim that that LC is systemically idolatrous. I agree with those who are arguing against Matt's thesis, but I actually think Matt has a legitimate point. That point is that there was an element of idolizing Lee in the LC from as far back as I can remember. I recall a brother telling me in 1975 that W. Lee had a color TV ... just for watching the news. This was shocking since the saints around me at the time had cast out television. So here was a brother showing me just how above it all Lee was, having an evil TV but using it in a spiritual way.

I hated that kind of Lee rationalization then and I hate it now.

I also recall how I myself used to begin so many testimonies with, "Brother Lee said ..." I did that to give honest credit to my source, but it got so bad I was called on it by a sometimes attender of our meetings.

I recall how when Lee died, I received a tape from an Anaheim meeting in which saints came to the mike one by one and told glowing stories of him, one of them saying something like, "And just before he died his face shone like that of an angel." I almost vomited when I heard that.

So, yes, there was an element -- a strong element -- of Lee-dolatry in the Lc and I was party to it.

But here's where I differ with Matt: it wasn't displacing Christ. During my most fervent days in the "recovery" I found myself in the Word more, musing on Christ more, praying more, preaching the gospel more than any other time in my life. Lee was a servant who pointed me to Christ. My mistake -- and that of many others -- was to overly embrace this servant much as someone hugs the man who hands him the Publishers Clearinghouse Sweepstake check.

I have now put away that small idol. I still appreciate and respect the ministry of Witness Lee very much but I no longer quote him incessantly, no longer think he was just about 1 helium molecule away from float-off-into-heaven rapture. He was a man, flawed like all of us, who had a ministry which pointed people to Christ.

Matt is wrong to spend so much time trying to diminish this man.

SC

Cal

09-11-2008, 08:57 AM

SC,

Well-stated post. (Always, the devil's advocate, eh?)

However, I believe that which encourages idolatry is systemic in the LCS. That is, the system which gives men more authority than they should rightfully have, the doctrine of absolute submission.

If your goal is to free people from the LCS, this should be your target, IMHO.

Thankful Jane

09-11-2008, 09:48 AM

Matt,

I encourage you to read the last chapter of "The Torch of the Testimony" by John Kennedy, a book your mother has recommended. There Kennedy makes the very important point that the testimony of the Church is mainly a testimony of positive truth, not a testimony of exposing evil.

As I've said before, this is one of the problems of a forum such as this. It tends to get us on the track of exposing evil. Our main testimony should be to the Person of Christ. That should be our focus.

I'm sure you have encountered self-appointed "error exposing" ministries on the Internet. Don't they seem a bit contentious and weird to you? Once one starts to think one's calling is to expose every error (as one sees it) one has gotten off track. Our main focus should be to bring people to Christ. Yes, we sometimes reprove, but reproving shouldn't be the meat of our ministry.

Besides, I doubt all the leaven is purged out of your or anyone else's life. But we still have to get along as best we can. We don't wait to be perfect before we the praise the Lord.Dear Igzy,

Just a quick note before I'm gone for much of the day. The testimony of the church to the world is a "positive" one preaching and lifting up Christ. However, if there is evil (leaven) among believers, it must be purged out or there will be no testimony to the world of who He is. He is holy. The lump must be also. Purging out leaven is not one person's job, but all of ours. God will hold us all responsible for leaven in our midst. We all should be looking at the scriptures and measuring our beliefs by them. He gave us the capacity and the tools to do this.

The Bible refutes a system of hierarchy that lords it over Gods people. It also refutes the idea of our submitting to dark authority. It refutes the idea of one man's ministry being "the" ministry all should follow. It also condemns establishing a oneness definition that is smaller than the whole Body of Christ which excludes real believers. These things are leaven.

We participated to varying degrees in this leaven while participating in the LC. The changes that occurred in our hearts' attitude as a result of being involved in all these things do not evaporate somehow. Our heart is healed as we purge them out of ourselves. We need to let God expose every remnant in us of thinking and practice that came from such leaven. We need to help each other do this also.

Thankful Jane

Ohio

09-11-2008, 10:44 AM

Let me just say, that in my view, when I say "to the best of my ability" it is a acknowledgement that I do not have God's mind.

Thanks for your view and I am glad you are not willing to be easily swayed as you were in the past. We should each be persuaded in our own minds.

Matt

P.S. I must admit for the first time on this thread, I find your post personally offensive. We should speak in person. I will call you.

Sorry, Matt, I had no intention of personally offending you.

Please read your post to Igzy again. You implied in several places that Igzy did not express "what is in God's mind," and instead he was using "modern human conceptions," not reaching up to "God's standard," and properly displaying "God's point of view." The tone of the post implied that you did.

Actually, Igzy's comments were helpful to me. People who live in an abusive context (whether family, church, job, or even prison) often to go into a kind of "survivor mode." Whether it is only a display or not is hard to tell. Remember that movie "Cool Hand Luke"? He "idolized" the warden ... that is until his next chance to escape prison. Books on topics like co-dependency have even helped many a child of God.

When I hear comments from some who say we should just speak up or stand up to an abusive bully, as if that is our God-given duty, don't have a clue what they are talking about.

.................................................. .................................................

Meeting with another local congregation, I often hear things like "Did you hear what pastor said?" or "Pastor G. is so funny!" or "I just loved Pastor's message today! or "Pastor asked me to take charge of this, and it took me so much time." Do you think they all are guilty of idolatry? They talk about Pastor G. more than my LC talked about WL or TC. What does that mean when I was "easily swayed in the past"? Have I joined one more idolatrous church? This church even has xmas trees in December, which I hate, based on Jer.10.

Does any one meet with a congregation / assembly which is completely free from idolatry? Since I went from the RCC to the LC, obviously I have little discernment for idols.

Cal

09-11-2008, 11:23 AM

Dear Igzy,

We participated to varying degrees in this leaven while participating in the LC. The changes that occurred in our hearts' attitude as a result of being involved in all these things do not evaporate somehow. Our heart is healed as we purge them out of ourselves. We need to let God expose every remnant in us of thinking and practice that came from such leaven. We need to help each other do this also.

Thankful Jane

Dear Jane,

Your point is well-taken.

But I would add that our testimony to each other should also be as positive as we hope it is to the world. A testimony which is chirpy to the world, but beats its own up in private is creepy. As a rule, we should preach the positiveness of Christ to each other, that's part of being gracious.

It's not that there is anything wrong with pointing out sin in others if one feels compelled to do so and does it humbly, always considering "there but for the grace of God go I." It's just a matter of degree and emphasis. You can look at your face in the mirror and see it as a whole being reasonably attractive, or you can look for the flaws and see only the ugliness. Then you can focus to a pathological level on fixing the flaws and end up with a face like Michael Jackson's.

There are serious errors in the LC mindset and I don't mind pointing them out. I don't mind your doing it either. But if I myself focused on those and never saw or commented on the positive, well, I hope no one ever does that to me.

John Nelson Darby, as Kennedy points out in TTOTT, was a seriously flawed leader. He had a mental stronghold of perfectionism that needed overthrowing and apparently never was. As Kennedy wrote, Darby would rather destroy the church than give in on a principle he thought was right. Lee had a similar problem, which led to a similar intolerance. Both of them probably thought they were just trying to purge out leaven, too.

Let's just be careful, that's all I'm saying. As Waylon Jennings sang, what goes around comes around.

Paul Cox

09-11-2008, 11:37 AM

It's been interesting to me to watch the normal LC detractors rise up against Matt in his claim that that LC is systemically idolatrous. I agree with those who are arguing against Matt's thesis, but I actually think Matt has a legitimate point.

Speaker,
I know when you talk about "normal LC detractors," you can't possibly be talking about me...er...right? :p

Anyway, I agree that Matt has a legitimate point; but not THE legitimate point - which has been MY point all along. This thread talks about abuse in the Local Church. Many of us have suffered abbuse to some degree or another, and we all have different perspectives on what was the cause of that abuse.

Personally, I think peer pressure and culture are a far more profitable line to consider, in consideration of trying to help current members understand what is going on with them. How many will be convinced that they are engaging in idolatry simply by being a member of the Local Church? Matt did say that. That's of no help at all.

Roger

Matt Anderson

09-11-2008, 01:12 PM

Anyway, I agree that Matt has a legitimate point; but not THE legitimate point - which has been MY point all along.

Roger

Roger,

Where did I say I had THE legitimate point? Please quote me. I have spoken strongly to establish the fact that there was widespread, pervasive idolatry in the LCS that affected every locality and almost every person. I've said the LCS is an idolatrous system.

Maybe the strength of what I have said makes you think I think it is THE ONLY legitimate point, but that never entered my mind.

I know you reacted to my use of the word 'idolatry' and likened it to the use of the word 'cult' on the other forum. The difference is this. Idolatry is a Biblical subject that is very important to God. Labeling a group as a 'cult' or 'not-a-cult' is not shown to be very important to God.

What I believe is that it (idolatry) was "a factor" and yes, a serious one from God's point of view. I may even have said a "key factor", but never THE factor.

I never said that simply being a member forced you to commit idolatry. What I said was that being a member caused most to stumble in regards to idolatry. There is a huge difference between these two.

If you are in an environment that is full of a certain kind of problem and everyone is saying, "the water is fine, jump in, it feels great". What do most do? They jump in.

Ohio,

When I say God's point of view, I am talking about learning His language (I don't mean Hebrew) and His viewpoint as demonstrated through many stories in the OT. Paul recommends this approach and therefore my statements about it are about me taking Paul's good advice. It's not about thinking I stand in the position of God because I am trying to look at it from His point of view.

I will still call you to clear the air on this matter.

Matt

Ohio

09-11-2008, 04:11 PM

I will still call you to clear the air on this matter.

Matt

I really don't like to argue on cell phones. I have never won. :o

Can we do emails instead. :)

Besides, methinks Brutus may get whooped on Saturday too, and that would be too much for me to take.

Toledo

09-11-2008, 04:22 PM

I never said that simply being a member forced you to commit idolatry. What I said was that being a member caused most to stumble in regards to idolatry. There is a huge difference between these two.

How about Post #152...?
2. I am pointing my guns at the fact that the LC was idolatrous and every single soul who went into the LC and loved it at any stage of their experience there was entering into a level of idolatry. Some more or less than others. The leaders/ex-leaders are more guilty of the idolatry than the commoners.

Note: Now that's a broad generalization! Keep in mind that I consider myself to have committed idolatry based on the Biblical standard of it and don't overreact just because of your ignorance on the matter.

3. If someone is going to come along and try to paint one locality more "white" because they were there then I am going to bring as many examples out of the woodwork as I am able to do to help confront the fact that no locality was "white". They were all interlinked into an idolatrous system and party to the idolatry.

I don't have to be a first-hand expert at the LC to see that it was an idolatrous system. I can prove the idolatry based on the Word of God and many aspects of the system.
"Every single soul"...? That's more than simply "most".

So far you have not made your case. Perhaps that's why there is so much resistance. You started with "the fact that the LC was idolatrous and every single soul who went into the LC and loved it at any stage of their experience there was entering into a level of idolatry." However, though there were and are undeniably serious problems in the local churches, you have yet to establish that idolatry is a "fact". Rather it remains only your personal assertion.

Toledo

09-11-2008, 04:49 PM

LCers don't think Lee is the minister of the age because they idolize him, they idolize him because they think he's the minister of the age.
Sorry, I must disagree. I never heard the expression "minister of the age" until WL's funeral (that's not to deny that it may have been used, I simply cannot recall either the phrase or the concept).

Even so, I did not idolize Brother Lee. I thought, and continue to think, that he was a terrific bible teacher.

Because of the dynamics of the LC view of authority and oneness, LCers generally believe what they are told to believe.

Again, sorry, I must disagree. I strongly tended to take WL's directions on the scripture, but I always tried to find out for myself how he proved his points. What I read from WL drove me to the bible, not to endless repetition of LSM phases.

I suppose what I am objecting to here is your term "LCers generally". The difficulty I have with many of the posts on this forum is that there is a common assumption that "LCers generally" conform to a certain mold. I am frankly astonished at many of the testimonies that I read here. Not that I do not accept them, but that I had not seen the like before. In the desire to lump all the local churches together and brand them all as equally evil and culpable, posters here tend to minimize or ignore significant differences that existed and still exist among the various local churches and regions. The seven churches in Revelation were all different -- Philadelphia was not Pergamos; Thyatira was not Laodicea.

They don't obey unquestioningly because they are idolaters, they do so because they believe in a false system of authority and oneness, and fear the consequences of resisting it.
1) I do not, nor have I ever, obeyed unquestioningly. Even as an infantry officer I never obeyed those in authority over me in such a way. Only lawful commands need be obeyed. Following an unlawful command makes me as guilty as the one giving it.

2) I do not believe the eldership is a "false system of authority". It is clear in the scriptures that there are to be elders appointed in every church, and that we are to obey them:

Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves for they watch for your souls as they that must give account that they may do it with joy and not with grief for that is unprofitable for you. ~ Hebrews 13:17

However, I do not agree that there is any authority higher than that of the local elders. We do not submit to Anaheim nor to Cleveland or anywhere else.

Toledo

09-11-2008, 04:54 PM

The "church life" was the new wineskin and what we were experiencing was the new wine. To put the new wine into the old wineskin would cause the old wineskin to burst, and the new wine would be lost.

I think that is as true now as it was then, except that now, the Local Churches have become the old wineskin.

Yes, and this is why I read here. How do we go on?

Paul Cox

09-11-2008, 06:08 PM

Roger,

I never said that simply being a member forced you to commit idolatry. What I said was that being a member caused most to stumble in regards to idolatry. There is a huge difference between these two.

If you are in an environment that is full of a certain kind of problem and everyone is saying, "the water is fine, jump in, it feels great". What do most do? They jump in.

Matt,

I will have to wade through your volumes and volumes of lengthy posts to find it, but you did say something to the effect that just remaining in the group means you commit idolatry, or maybe are somhow associated with idolatry. I will find it and post it. But if you are softening your approach now, I applaud you.

BTW, cultic activity and idolatry can very easily be proven to be one and the same. But for the record, I don't ever recall saying that the Local Church is an outright cult. What I have always insisted is that it is a sect of Christianity with cultic tendencies.

Okay, so idolatry is an important thing to the Lord in the Bible. But so is adultery. How many times in the Old Testament does the Lord talk about Israel (the Church) going a whoring after strange gods? The case can be made, I suppose, that the Local Churches have gone a whoring after LSM.

So then does that mean that just by being in the group, genuine seeking Christians who happen to find themselves there are guilty of spiritual adultery? I don't think so; and I don't think we can take that kind of black and white approach to the saints who remain there.

I have been one of the most harsh critics of the Local Church, for what it's worth. But I cannot bring myself to say that all the saints who find themselves there are engaging in idolatry. This is not a matter of everybody being in a pot of hot water. It's a matter of individual saints being dealt with on an individual basis.

Those hypocrites who sit on their thrones over on LaPalma deserve to be exposed for all that they are. They are Witness Lee bobble heads, and they refuse to know anything else. Yes, they are true idolaters.

There is little doubt that there is widespread idolatry in the Living Stream Churches. But many of us know too many saints personally to just paint them with the broad brush of "idolatry." This is not the Old Testament where the Lord just opens up the earth and swallows all who bowed before the golden calf. This is the age of grace.

While we must learn from the examples of the Old Testament, I find that many who rely too heavily upon the Old Testament examples become harsh and judgmental. Did this not happen in the Local Church? Every time they want to judge you, they break out with the Old Testament examples. Did we not recently engage in a discussion about a leprous house and the need to re-plaster the walls? What a mockery of Old Testament usage that was!

I still say there are many seeking Local Church members who are starting to eye the exit with favorability. They want to understand what is happening to them. There is psychological manipulation, peer pressure, cultural pressure and a whole host of things. These are the matters they need to become clear on. These are the things that started the lights to go off in me when I was at that point.

If someone had come to me and blasted me with “IDOLATRY,” I’m not sure that would have mattered a hill of beans to me. But group dynamics, now there is something that is very easy to see.

Roger

PS I had posted this before reading Toledo's post. He has already quoted Matt in the matter of painting all Local Churchers with the broad brush of idolatry. So I can avoid that homework.

finallyprettyokay

09-11-2008, 06:41 PM

I still say there are many seeking Local Church members who are starting to eye the exit with favorability. They want to understand what is happening to them. There is psychological manipulation, peer pressure, cultural pressure and a whole host of things. These are the matters they need to become clear on. These are the things that started the lights to go off in me when I was at that point.

If someone had come to me and blasted me with “IDOLATRY,” I’m not sure that would have mattered a hill of beans to me. But group dynamics, now there is something that is very easy to see.

I agree, for myself, with this. I know when my husband and I left the church, we didn't really have very many people we could talk to about these issues -- and really no one to talk to that had already been through that experience. So much of what we did was just sort of floundering to find our way. Now, no doubt that is somewhat true in most or all cases of people leaving -- in one way, it is a personal, solitary journey. Still, every hard experience can be made easier with a shoulder to lean on.

On the other hand, I am a pretty subjective kind of person and the things you write about in the first part of this quote are exactly the kinds of things that are interesting to me, and the knowledge that I needed when leaving the LC. But my husband --- now, he is a different duck from me. The discussion on idolatry would be very interesting to him, and would have been helpful to him while we were in that leaving process.

So maybe both discussions are valuable. I would love to see lots more threads about the psychological manipulation, peer pressure, cultural pressure and group dynamics. I won't be on the forum much in the next 6 months, so sadly these threads will miss my wise additions. :cool: But go for it, you guys.

Seeing you until Saturday, probably not much after that,

finallyprettyokay

-

Ohio

09-11-2008, 06:42 PM

Speaking for myself, I assume that people who remain in the Local Churches are there because they are absolute for the ministry of Witness Lee and all the extreme loyalties that demands. I think fleeing idolatry and being absolute for the ministry of Witness Lee are mutually exclusive. I could be wrong.

Nell

I literally have known hundreds of precious, loving saints who do NOT "remain in the Local Churches because they are absolute for the ministry of Witness Lee and all the extreme loyalties that demands." They do remain for a number of reasons, but primarily out of commitment to the Lord and the ones around them. That was my life for 30 years.

TLFisher

09-11-2008, 10:47 PM

I'm not trying to "trap" you. I am looking for what you can honestly acknowledge that you did when you "gave" yourself to "Christ and the church" in the context of the LC.

Matt

Matt,
I've my twosense to add. This allegiance you mention is different to many brothers and sisters. In my experience giving myself to "Christ and the Church" is not a pledge or an oath of allegaince. It was a matter of comitting my life to the Lord and my time to the locality I lived in.
Other's might view Christ and the Church equalling Witness Lee's ministry. That was not my case. I have an appreciation of Witness Lee's ministry just as I do for Watchman Nee, Stephen Kaung, GH Pember, T. Austin Sparks, etc.
If there's a suggestion brothers and sisters meet in the local churches because of Witness Lee's ministry. That is a misconception. That might be the case for a select minority, but not the majority.
Brothers and sisters in the local churches would get offended if it was insinuated or flat out told they're better off meeting elsewhere if you're not here for Witness Lee's ministry. Most meeting in the local churches do have an appreciation for Witness Lee's ministry, but that's not why they're meeting in the local churches. It's because of Christ foremost and because of the need for a practical expression on the earth.
Quite frankly Matt, the local churches don't need Living Stream Ministry in order to have a normal Christian church life. There is always the Bible.

Terry

Matt Anderson

09-12-2008, 07:04 AM

How about Post #152...?

"Every single soul"...? That's more than simply "most".

So far you have not made your case. Perhaps that's why there is so much resistance. You started with "the fact that the LC was idolatrous and every single soul who went into the LC and loved it at any stage of their experience there was entering into a level of idolatry." However, though there were and are undeniably serious problems in the local churches, you have yet to establish that idolatry is a "fact". Rather it remains only your personal assertion.

Toledo, I will never make the case on this issue at the level of extreme that I have presented it. At the same time, I have made enough of the case...

I knew there would be a lot of resistance to what I said and that few would buy it at the level I have been presenting it. Only God knows what is the right level at which we should estimate it.

I'm going to do some thinking and see if I can clarify what I was saying in a clearer fashion without losing substance, but let me do a little lawyeresque fine-slicing from your quote of me for now...

I said, "every single soul who went into the LC and loved it at any stage of their experience there..." The word it refers to the LC, not the Lord. If you fell in love with the LC then you went into a level of idolatry. The reason I say this is because the LC was almost never (except in the very early 60's) just the "church in your locality". It was a system of interconnected churches across many localities. It was interconnected by a particular ministry (Witness Lee's).

We are not to worship the Body of Christ. We are to worship God. We are called to love the members of the Body, not the Body as a concept. This is part of what has happened in the LC. The Body of Christ has been worshipped on par with God. We see it in it's extreme form among the Blended's, but it was/is present in lesser forms among many, many more from the LC.

I totally agree that my statement went to the extreme and I acknowledged that with my note on point #2 in post #152.

Also, in post #152 I clearly stated that I did not consider myself an authority even though I was speaking strongly.

In closing, I am no authority. I am just one voice. I'll speak and if you want to try to call me an authority to try and put me in my place go ahead.

In closing on this note, let me say that I do understand everyone's reaction to this subject and to my presentation of it. I am not blind to the level of emphasis I have brought to this subject nor am I blind to the level of pushing I have done. I never expected sweeping agreement. I expected the opposite and I got it. At this stage, I'm defending the fact that this issue belongs on the table in front of everyone. The pervasive effect of the LC system (an idolatrous one) on the lives of many needs to be fully examined and the leaven should be purged.

I've done what I have done on this thread knowingly and in good conscience before the Lord. Any personal offense I have caused I will clear up. I don't believe I have attacked anyone personally, although I will admit to giving Hope a hard time on some occasions and pushing back on a few others when they have come after me. When and if Hope thinks I've crossed the line with him personally, I am willing to address it.

Peter Debelak introduced 1 Cor 5:11-12 as part of a question to me which I have not responded to yet. If you have a minute re-read 1 Corinthians 5. Take the context of the chapter in. There is serious sin in the midst of the Corinthians and Paul knows it needs to be dealt with. When I re-read to address Peter's question, I saw a verse I hadn't seen before.

I've bolded it. It's one of my central concerns when it comes to this desire to highlight the "positives" from the past. No one thinks we should set Christ aside, but I've heard much glorying in the past of the LC in my travels around the Midwest and elsewhere. We even have a phrase that we have heard on these forums. It's the "glory days".

1 Corinthians 5:4-7
in the name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, (5) to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (6) Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? (7) Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ:

A decent amount of my resistance has been to Hope and his desire to try and balance out the "negatives" with the "positives". Cleaning house based on past events is about focusing on the "negatives". Jesus Christ will take care of the positives by His Spirit. He will bless us with His presence when we are faithful to repent! :hurray:

I've made the strong point that right in the midst of the "glory days" you (collective you) were being leavened by an worker whose heart was not set totally on the Lord. Yes, Witness Lee. His deeds demonstrate a lot of seeking filthy lucre and selfish gain.

Matt

P.S. to SC - I've only been harping on Lee because the position he holds in people's heart. We have to confront some facts that are little known. I don't hate Lee. He had serious issues that he foisted on top of many believers and was allowed to get far too much power among the saints. The fact is that he is dead, but those left with him too high in their hearts need to confront the deeds of his past even before the US. If someone has fully confronted his deeds and still wants to read some of his material, then go for it. However, I strongly believe his writings would be a stumblingblock to a young believer because of the leaven in them. In my opinion, they should not be promoted to the uninformed.

Matt Anderson

09-12-2008, 07:07 AM

Matt,

In my experience giving myself to "Christ and the Church" is not a pledge or an oath of allegaince. It was a matter of comitting my life to the Lord and my time to the locality I lived in.

Terry

Because of what I know of you... I believe you. At the same time, I believe you know that the system of leadership that was developed in the LC was constructed to get your commitment to something more. If you remained pure in your heart, then you were safe. However, few have this kind purity in the face of a system like what was constructed in the LC.

If you go into the LC in your locality, I believe you know that you are not free to speak according to your conscience.

Matt

Matt Anderson

09-12-2008, 07:14 AM

1) I do not, nor have I ever, obeyed unquestioningly. Even as an infantry officer I never obeyed those in authority over me in such a way. Only lawful commands need be obeyed. Following an unlawful command makes me as guilty as the one giving it.

2) I do not believe the eldership is a "false system of authority". It is clear in the scriptures that there are to be elders appointed in every church, and that we are to obey them:

Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves for they watch for your souls as they that must give account that they may do it with joy and not with grief for that is unprofitable for you. ~ Hebrews 13:17

However, I do not agree that there is any authority higher than that of the local elders. We do not submit to Anaheim nor to Cleveland or anywhere else.

Toledo,

I think you may already know this, but...

Be sure to make note of the point Hope brought out in regards to the word "obey" in this verse. Study it in the Greek. It means to "be persuaded". It applies when a believer is in sin and needs to be convinced of their error and change their behavior. It also applies when it comes to being persuaded of something related to the truth. It does not apply in the case of "lordship" in things that are optional. In those things, each believer's freedom to follow the Lord directly without the involvement of "elders" should be upheld (yea, even fiercely defended).

Elders (and I mean true elders) have to know their boundaries. They have to know how to support the pre-eminence of Christ in the lives of each believer. This includes being willing to suffer for the sake of one who is younger so that the Lord is established in their life.

It's not top-down leadership like the military. It's bottom-up like in the bottom of an ancient ship. The boat is moving in the right direction because of the labor of those who lead by example. The people on the deck of the ship have the freedom to move about and live their lives.

This is the kind of example Jesus set and taught for "leadership". This was/is different than "Leedership" as taught in the LC.

Matt

Matt Anderson

09-12-2008, 07:35 AM

There is little doubt that there is widespread idolatry in the Living Stream Churches. But many of us know too many saints personally to just paint them with the broad brush of "idolatry." This is not the Old Testament where the Lord just opens up the earth and swallows all who bowed before the golden calf. This is the age of grace.

I know Roger and I agree with your sentiments (especially on over-utilization of the OT even if that does not appear to be the case on this thread) and I know how personal this is for everyone. It's personal to me. You've only heard a small piece of my story (just as I know little of yours). We are warned that the age of grace is not any freedom to sin. I know you know this already. I know we won't be swallowed up as a group. We won't even be condemned for our bad deeds, but we will be judged and suffer loss if we are not faithful to repent.

2 Corinthians 6:16-7:1
And what agreement hath a temple of God with idols? for we are a temple of the living God; even as God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (17) Wherefore Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, And touch no unclean thing; And I will receive you, (18) And will be to you a Father, And ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (7:1) Having therefore these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Even in the "age of grace" we cannot lose a proper/healthy fear of God and His holiness. The Corinthians did.

I also know that most LCers need a big helping of love.

Matt

Paul Cox

09-12-2008, 09:21 AM

Because of what I know of you... I believe you.

Exactly! Because of what you know of Terry, you believe that he was not a participant in idolatry. Am I understanding you correctly?

So many of us, Matt, know so many more like Terry.

Roger

Paul Cox

09-12-2008, 09:41 AM

It's been interesting to me to watch the normal LC detractors rise up against Matt in his claim that that LC is systemically idolatrous.

Speaker,

I thought to let this go the other day, but it keeps coming back to my consciousness. Brother, you seem to like to segregate yourself from "normal LC detractors;" as if you are not one of them.

Guess what, brother? The only difference between you and I is the degree to which we detract. Believe me, just based upon what you said in the above quoted post, you are not only considered to be a detractor by the Blendeds, but an outright "opposer." Let’s see, you are under “quarantine” now, right?

Actually, you took the wrong message from my so-called rising up "against Matt." In spite of all the criticism I have leveled at Witness Lee, the Blendeds, and all that is associated with them, my heart aches for the innocent saints who are duped.

Many of them have no clue what is going on in the upper echelons of that sick organization. The Blendeds have done an excellent job of information control, and promoting a false image of the ministry and its churches. This whole thing that's going on with Hank handy graft right now is not about gaining "new ones;" it's about fooling those who are in the LC into believing that everything is okay with them and "Christianity."

As I say this, names and faces flash before me. This is not just me opposing Matt. I know without the shadow of a doubt that these precious saints are not engaging in idolatry. Neither do they deserve to be thrown into that pen with the diehard zealots who know better.

But I can also see names and faces of long time fringe followers who have as much as admitted that they know what is going on, but refuse to leave. We can very easily see how their blind devotion to a man’s ministry might be idolatry. But even there we should tread carefully.

I don't object to Matt's thesis on idolatry. He has done a thorough job, and obviously he has given this a lot of thought, going all the way back to when he was an even younger man. What I object to is roping all these little ones in with the Scribes and Pharisees.

Roger

SpeakersCorner

09-12-2008, 12:57 PM

Speaker ...Brother, you seem to like to segregate yourself from "normal LC detractors;" as if you are not one of them ... Guess what, brother? The only difference between you and I is the degree to which we detract. Believe me, just based upon what you said in the above quoted post, you are not only considered to be a detractor by the Blendeds, but an outright "opposer." Let’s see, you are under “quarantine” now, right?

Roger,

I'm glad you posted this because I have considered retracting a bit of my last post. I had the thing all written but wasn't clear whether or not to publish.

Anyway, you are correct in your point about the difference in detraction being just a matter of degree. I'll tell you where the line is. I do not think Witness Lee was anything other than a minister of God. I know about his failures. They don't change my view on his being a minister of God. I think most of the negative stuff written about him is mostly just a criticism of his leadership style, one which admittedly really chafes North Americans. My most severe critique of him is that he allowed the Blendeds to move into place and he allowed the exaltation of himself to go unchecked. Huge mistake there.

But so much of what he ministered still speaks richly to me. Maybe he got it from someone else, maybe I need to read more people, I don't know, but it still speaks to me. For instance, the matter of God being "processed." I know that offends the heck out of a lot of people, but it really feeds me to see God in this way. Most people I know view God in a multitude of ways -- powerful, a Santa Claus, nebulous, aloof, whatever -- but no one I have ever spoken to outside of the "recovery" has ever talked about the Architect God with the elaborate, amazing plan which would involve He Himself actually going through changes in order to accomplish the plan, even dying. God dying! Shocking. (DJohnson just blew a gasket.) But I have lived over half a century, all of it talking with other Christians and I don't believe I have had a single conversation with another believer who mentioned this aspect of God.

I remember when Lee talked about the infinite God being limited to the size of a human fetus, hidden away in the womb of a woman. How marvelous. How amazing. Remember the song that offended all the non-LCers: How Small Thou Art? Well, what a great song. Who ever thinks of God that way, as minutely tiny so that He can be ingested by human beings?

You are right, brother, that I am the offscouring of the LSM society. That used to hurt, but no more. My thirty plus years in the LC helped me develop callouses to help with that.

As far as what I wanted to adjust in my last post, I feel I went too far in giving Matt credit concerning idols in the LC. I really find his whole argument tedious, offensive, and counterproductive. But I allowed that there possibly were idols within the LC because of the way we exalted Lee. I would now state simply that we over-exalted Lee. Let God judge whether or not it was an idol.

Sorry for the rambling response. I do appreciate what you've been saying in defense of the saints within the LC. I agree with you.

SC

Cal

09-12-2008, 01:40 PM

SC,

I think if you had spent more time in a region under the sway of a Benson Phillips-type LSM zealot you would probably be using terms that sound less like euphemisms than "leadership style" and "chafe."

Igzy

Cal

09-12-2008, 02:11 PM

Nell

09-12-2008, 02:27 PM

The "church life" was the new wineskin and what we were experiencing was the new wine. To put the new wine into the old wineskin would cause the old wineskin to burst, and the new wine would be lost.

Yes, and this is why I read here. How do we go on?

Toledo,

I think a good place to go, at least start to go, is in these paragraphs:

(1) I believe that it is POSSIBLE for a Christian to be deceived.
(2) It is possible for ME to be deceived?
(3) I AM deceived.
(4) WHY am l deceived?

...
Just as there are various degrees of deception, so there are degrees of deliverance. Deliverance from deception is based on the understanding of the believer, and his WILLINGNESS To FACE ALL THE TRUTH ABOUT HIMSELF, and all the ground given to the enemy.

In doing this the believer needs to recover the ground in mind and body which he has ignorantly yielded to the foe. The deceived believer himself must ACT to get rid of passivity. He must revoke his CONSENT given to deceiving spirits to enter. By his own volition the believer must reject and revoke the gound (Ephes. 4: 27) the enemy has taken by deceit.

God will not act for believers in regaining lost ground, nor will He exercise His choice for the man. Man must himself stand on the ground of the victory of Christ on the cross and claim his freedom.

Assuming, then, that the believer has discovered that he is a victim of deception, what are the subjective steps in the path of freedom? Briefly,
(1) acknowledgment of deception;
(2) refusal of ground;
(3) steadfast fight against all that deception means;
(4) being on guard against excuses;
(5) the detection of all the effects of deception; and
(6) a discerning of the result of these actions.

When I was still meeting with the LC, I took the position that it was not possible for me to be deceived, because I was in "God's best". It was beyond my wildest dream that Christians could even be deceived. Other Christians maybe, but not me.

We do a lot of back and forth on these forums, and even on this thread. The thing that opened my eyes, more than all the back and forth in the world, was remembering all the doubts I had stuffed under my mattress. I'll use the example of idolatry. I didn't deny that I was an idolator. I asked the Lord to show me my idolatry.

Or, put another way, rather than assume I was in God's best, I had to acknowledge a very basic premise: my true condition.

THE BASIC FACT OF THE FALL
The primary fact to be recognized by every human being is the complete and utter ruin of the first creation at the Fall, when the First Adam admitted the poison of the serpent, which permeated and corrupted his whole being beyond repair. This fact of the utter corruption of the human race as a consequence of this is unmistakably declared in the New Testament:

"The old man, which waxeth corrupt after the lusts of deceit." (Eph. 4: 22 R.V.)
"Being darkened in their understanding; alienated from the life of God." (Eph. 4: 18).
"We all once lived in the lusts of the flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as the rest." (Eph. 2: 3).

Thus the Apostle described the whole race of man, Gentile and Jew, Pharisee and Publican--in all, he said, "the prince of the power of the air" wrought, as "the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience."
These facts declared by the Word of God, and the reality of the blinded mind (2 Cor. 4: 4), and ruined condition of every human being, is the ONLY BASIS UPON WHICH THE TRUTHS WE ARE CONSIDERING ... CAN BE UNDERSTOOD, AND PROVED TO BE TRUE, IN EXPERIENCE AND PRACTICE.

From this position, we have nowhere to go but UP.

Nell

PS: These paragraphs in blue are from the writings of Jesse Penn-Lewis.

Toledo

09-12-2008, 02:38 PM

I have a question for you, SC, and anyone else who cares to answer.

If you were the older sibling of a child who was damaged by an abusive father, would you spend most of your time in discussion with your sibling telling him or her all the good points of your father?

In other words, what would be more important to you, salvaging your father's reputation, or helping your sibling find healing?
I'm not sure I particularly read anyone here as endeavoring to "salvage" WL's reputation However, it is apparent there are many who seek to damage WL's reputation.

I suppose that may be a valid issue with many, but I am not interested. Brother Lee was a good bible teacher, but not a very good leader. Continuously beating up on him for whatever errors there were in his life and ministry holds no interest for me. I've got plenty of errors in my own life. Without the blood of Christ to cleanse me, I would never dare to show my face in any christian circle.

It is the "most of the time" in your question that intrigues me. What is it that I want to be discussing "most of the time"?

I come here, among saints who have had experience with the local churches, looking for a way to go on. Nell has pointed out that the local church life, as it is currently practiced, has become an old wineskin. My questions have to do with finding a practical way to follow the Lord from here, and how to take the saints on now that the church life is falling down around our ears.

I would hope there could be more suggestions of how one is able to pursue. I've visited the various denominations and the currently popular free groups. The singing is pretty good, but I've not been impressed with either the depth of spiritual life there, or the quality of biblical understanding. Meanwhile, I'm left with the care of a number of brothers and sisters who want to follow the Lord...

Toledo

09-12-2008, 02:45 PM

Toledo,

I think a good place to go, at least start to go, is in these paragraphs:

(1) I believe that it is POSSIBLE for a Christian to be deceived.
(2) It is possible for ME to be deceived?
(3) I AM deceived.
(4) WHY am l deceived?

Okay, I'm open (or at least as open as I know how). I can answer "yes" to points 1 and 2 with no problem. Points 3 and 4 are more problematic. I don't think it has yet been established that I have been deceived.

You can tell me all about the terrible things WL did or may have done, but how does that apply to me? I never thought he was the Vicar of Christ on Earth. That belongs to the LSM brothers.

For me WL was a bible teacher, and a frankly pretty good one. But my experience in the church life revolved around Christ, and the saints who were with me. What is it that I am supposed to be deceived about...?

I very much appreciate Ms. Penn-Lewis, but I am not sure how to apply this portion of her ministry to my life.

Best,

finallyprettyokay

09-12-2008, 02:54 PM

I have a question for you, SC, and anyone else who cares to answer.

If you were the older sibling of a child who was damaged by an abusive father, would you spend most of your time in discussion with your sibling telling him or her all the good points of your father?

In other words, what would be more important to you, salvaging your father's reputation, or helping your sibling find healing?

Good point/question, Igzy.

I would share with him/her that the same thing happened to me, that he/she is not alone. Knowing that you are not the only one it ever happened to helps ALOT in healing.

EVENTUALLY, MAYBE it would be time to try to understand the whys behind the abuse -- why the father was an abuser, understand his story. Eventually, maybe. And maybe never.

And to Nell -- about being deceived. After I finally was open to God in the LC aftermath, I prayed so much that God would protect me from ever being deceived again -- by anyone or anything --- and that I would never deceive myself. Boy, I was clear by then that I had been SO deceived. Eventually, those prayers were answered and now I have a relationship with Jesus and with His people. It took me a really long time to trust.

Side note: on a personal level, as my husband and I prepare for our snow-birdness, we leave our younger son here. He's 26, not a baby (I
do know that), but I miss him so much while we are gone. And he is so sad for us to go. So, while it is good to go -- the cold here just kills us these days --- I am having a sad day. Just thought I would stick that in here. Admin, if you need to delete it, I understand. I'm sad.

not that okay today.

Cal

09-12-2008, 03:08 PM

It is the "most of the time" in your question that intrigues me. What is it that I want to be discussing "most of the time"?

I come here, among saints who have had experience with the local churches, looking for a way to go on.

Well, how to go on is really not the subject of this thread (then again it may be since it's been all over the place). I would say briefly that if you want singing like you are used to then you are probably looking for the wrong thing. But in general I would say you might start by asking yourself what would you do if you wanted to start a church from scratch. Would you pray? Yes. Would you be desperate to really get to know the Lord? Yes. Would you learn to discern ministering from being dogmatic? Yes, because you will only attract jerks and fools otherwise. Find a group of Christians who love the Lord and begin to serve them. Think like a pastor. You'll find a way, brother. (That's the short answer, not meant to trivialize.)

Back to my question to which you replied, my point was that I know there are a lot of people who aren't going on with the Lord anymore because they were damaged by Lee-inspired/LSM-enacted dogmatism. Many may be lurking on this board. Telling those people over and over that Lee was really a great guy simply trivializes their suffering and condition. It makes it seem like they deserved what they got.

Besides, they probably all know Lee was a fine teacher. That's part of the problem. If he had been a total creep it would be easy to discount his opinion. It's the fact that he was on the one hand good and on the other so abusive (like Darby was) that is confusing to his "children." "Daddy was a great man. So if he said I was a bad person he must have had a reason."

I'm not saying it's wrong to praise Lee. So long as you don't trivialize the damage he inflicted or inspired on others. It's not fair to them.

Paul Cox

09-12-2008, 03:09 PM

Good point/question, Igzy.

I would share with him/her that the same thing happened to me, that he/she is not alone. Knowing that you are not the only one it ever happened to helps ALOT in healing.

EVENTUALLY, MAYBE it would be time to try to understand the whys behind the abuse -- why the father was an abuser, understand his story. Eventually, maybe. And maybe never.

And to Nell -- about being deceived. After I finally was open to God in the LC aftermath, I prayed so much that God would protect me from ever being deceived again -- by anyone or anything --- and that I would never deceive myself. Boy, I was clear by then that I had been SO deceived. Eventually, those prayers were answered and now I have a relationship with Jesus and with His people. It took me a really long time to trust.

Side note: on a personal level, as my husband and I prepare for our snow-birdness, we leave our younger son here. He's 26, not a baby (I
do know that), but I miss him so much while we are gone. And he is so sad for us to go. So, while it is good to go -- the cold here just kills us these days --- I am having a sad day. Just thought I would stick that in here. Admin, if you need to delete it, I understand. I'm sad.

not that okay today.

The Lord be with you in a special way while you are away from your son. I have an idea of how you must feel.
Roger

SpeakersCorner

09-12-2008, 03:55 PM

Telling those people over and over that Lee was really a great guy simply trivializes their suffering and condition.

You got someone in mind who's doing this, Ig?

SC

Paul Cox

09-12-2008, 04:32 PM

You got someone in mind who's doing this, Ig?

SC

SC
I know you and I have been around the block a few times on this one, so I don't really want to belabor the point. But I agree that Witness Lee was a good teacher. Some of his teachings can be argued over, but he was an excellent teacher.

However, I agree with what someone said, maybe you. He was not a good leader. And therein lays the problem. Perhaps he should have just stuck to teaching and not leading. Stephen Kaung is a good example of someone who does this.

We certainly shouldn't bash Lee for bashing Lee's sake. But I think we can examine where things went wrong, and perhaps know how to avoid the problems that arise in our hearts. Because, in a sense, we are no different from Witness Lee. As one brother from Texas used to say: "We are all cut out of the same hunk of cheese."

And I am aware of your good credential in the arena of Christian groups. But I still say there is probably a lot more going on "out there" than you might think.

Roger

Cal

09-12-2008, 05:07 PM

You got someone in mind who's doing this, Ig?

SC

I asked my question first.

SpeakersCorner

09-12-2008, 05:29 PM

SpeakersCorner

09-12-2008, 05:53 PM

On second thought, forget my question. It really doesn't matter.

SC

finallyprettyokay

09-12-2008, 06:24 PM

Thank you, Roger. That meant a lot to me. It did.

SC wrote: I would look for a creative solution, a way to help the sibling without destroying the father. Actually, the father needs as much help as the sibling, maybe more.

SC, with all respect, I understand what you are saying about this fictional father. It's true -- he would need help. But sometimes he should also go straight to prison.

I am not sure how to translate that into the LC/WL situation, but I see it as fitting. I'm just not sure how. But it does, oh it does. ;)

I don't think WL should go to prison, obviously. But I hold no soft spots for him at all. Not as a good teacher, not as anything. There you have it. The cat is out of the bag. Nothing good to say about him. The stuff about the history, going all the way back to the very beginning, and seeing that he always practiced spiritual abuse, always followed money and excused immorality when it was convenient for him --- wow.

It would be the fictional father having kids just to abuse them. Setting it up from the very beginning.

fpo

-

Shawn

09-12-2008, 08:01 PM

I said, "every single soul who went into the LC and loved it at any stage of their experience there..." The word it refers to the LC, not the Lord. If you fell in love with the LC then you went into a level of idolatry. The reason I say this is because the LC was almost never (except in the very early 60's) just the "church in your locality". It was a system of interconnected churches across many localities. It was interconnected by a particular ministry (Witness Lee's).

We are not to worship the Body of Christ. We are to worship God. We are called to love the members of the Body, not the Body as a concept. This is part of what has happened in the LC. The Body of Christ has been worshipped on par with God. We see it in it's extreme form among the Blended's, but it was/is present in lesser forms among many, many more from the LC.

Hi All,

I would like to use this point to first, show the word dancing that is going on in trying to prove a point. Again, there is a very small minority that may fit this position, but we were mostly Christians loving the Lord and loving the brothers and sisters (the church). This matter of worshipping the church I think, began materializing late in the game for some who did not want to see the glory days of yesterday fade away, so they created a doctrine and quarantined any who would not follow; interestingly enough, using the leading ones perceptions of idolatry to scare any who would not follow their twisted way.

But let me get to my main point; We each have our own idols that we must deal with, when we point fingers at others idols we are stepping over a line we were never intended to cross.

Let me use some general examples. Have you ever tried to help a recovering substance abuser? As the Lord delivers him from his addictions he is finding grace to overcome his demons, but for one inexperienced in this matter, who is trying to help him see his idol, it usually ends poorly because you just don't know what that person is going through. This is not to say you have to become an substance abuser before you can treat one, but the most effective teachers are the ones have been there, and know how to bring others through it.

The missing element is experience and I think this is what is most lacking from your well constructed doctrine. If I can use your own experiences as an example, you could make very clear how the Lord has exposed idols in your life and I'm sure that your conclusions would not be questioned, because your very own experience supports it. But when you try to build a case of others idolatry you seem to be fighting a losing battle, for it runs up against others experience and in the end is found lacking in validity.

This is not a "mind your own bussiness" post, only a suggestion that you should stick to presenting truths founded on your own personal experiences. If your conclusions do not have the support of the ones who have a direct experience, Do not discount them as Too blind to see what you see, for the truly blind one is the one lacking in experience.

Is this not what came into the LC, leading ones who helped others see what the leading ones percieved as their "Idols?" Then using their authority to enforce what they saw and not what the ufortunate saint saw?

I feel scripture is very clear, that we each are responsible for our own life and in dealing with the sin, flesh and idols that come with it. I cannot deal with your sins, flesh and idols, but I can help you by encouraging you to pray for our Lord to expose the dark, hidden things in your life, that by His light and in the power of His grace the dark things can be confessed and washed away in His cleansing blood.

Shawn

Ohio

09-13-2008, 06:25 AM

Ohio

09-13-2008, 07:36 AM

Brother Lee was a good bible teacher, but not a very good leader.
I agree with this statement, in that it differentiates teachings from actions. It sounds innocuous enough, but on closer examination, it's kind of like, "Do what I say, not what I do."

As I left the LC's, the pattern of bullying was glaringly evident on every level. This so-called "leadership style" was taught and learned on every level. Sure ... some were affected more than others, but the disease was systemic. Most of the sad stories on these forums have to do with abusive patterns of "leadership" learned either directly or indirectly from WL himself.

These patterns have also been seen in the GLA far too often. I have seen too many precious saints leave, and who is left to "go on" with?

I am not here to bash anyone, especially the dead. But the living sometimes need to understand "what happened." For years I asked myself inwardly, "how could something so good become so bad." I watched "love for the saints" transmute into "zeal for a program." I watched the word of life become systematized doctrines. After the "new way" fizzled out, even the so-called "great teacher" began to entangle all of us in complicated, extra-biblical, esoteric, lifeless theology -- much of it designed to bring all the LC's under his controls. And if that, in the end, was his real goal, then in fact he really was a "great leader."

finallyprettyokay

09-13-2008, 07:56 AM

Ohio wrote: concerning abuse ... I was ... and I am also an older sibling

Ohio:

Me too. And younger sibling. I have often wondered how many of us ended up in the LC, looking for a family.

My husband was looking for a family after his (1st marriage) ended and his kids were 2,000 miles away.

I thought I had found a family that would be safe. It makes the resulting disapointment all the more terrible.

But now I do have a family, and a lot of elements in it. My family (of course), friends that love me and time has proven that love, and a really really nice church that has lots of love and from all ages of people, with no one trying to control anyone or even get into each other 'bizness' -- pretty cool.

fpo

Cal

09-13-2008, 08:41 AM

Okay, I'll answer your loaded question.

I wouldn't allow the father to continue to abuse the sibling. I would look for a creative solution, a way to help the sibling without destroying the father. Actually, the father needs as much help as the sibling, maybe more.

SC

The father is dead, SC. He can't be helped. I was talking about trying to help his reputation. So you really didn't answer my question. Do you think it's more important to save the dead father's reputation or to help the living who were abused. It's a pretty simple question that can be answered in about two words.

There. I answered your question. Now you mine. And if you've forgotten, it's: Who are you talking about when you describe people who turn a blind eye to problems by saying Lee was a great guy? If it was me, sorry, but I guess you haven't been paying attention to the nub of my general argument.

I wasn't implying anything, SC. I simply asked a question that you haven't answered yet. I'd really like to know. I have no clue as to what your answer would be. That's why I asked it.

SpeakersCorner

09-13-2008, 08:52 AM

For years I asked myself inwardly, "how could something so good become so bad." I watched "love for the saints" transmute into "zeal for a program." I watched the word of life become systematized doctrines.

Ohio,

Couldn't the children of Israel have asked the same?

Look, we need to find a new way to look at our experiences in the church life. This good/bad dichotomy doesn't work. Actually, it's just another form of eating from the tree of knowledge, a binary way of looking at the world.

Instead I recommend looking at it from the "life" point of view. We had experiences, tons of them, some good, some bad, but all real, deep, textured human experiences which have enriched our souls no matter what we may think.

Igzy brought up the abuse scenario. It kind of applies. And so what do you do if you feel you suffered spiritual abuse in the church life? I say you allow that experience to enrich you ... in understanding how to forgive and forget, in developing empathy, in realizing that this whole human life isn't just a big Hallmark film, in developing callouses (good ones), in finding out how to deal with people you don't like, that is, really learning what love is. The bad experiences are like a June drought which can send the roots of the corn stalk deeper to protect it from the real droughts of July and August.

I know too much pain can kill you. And I'm definitely not opposed to ibuprofen. I don't justify the pain-givers. They need to be dealt with by the Lord. But if all we can do is step out of the game and lick our wounds, we will have missed truly golden experiences.

Titus Chu once said in answer to a question from a sister (I can't recall the question, just the answer) that we need to learn to look at things from a different angle. This is wonderful spiritual advice. That's my advice to LCers, present and former, who are looking back on the last thirty years of their lives wondering what just happened. Find a way to look at it from above it, not laterally. Transcend it. Spin it into gold.

The twelve spies who went ahead on the scout mission were blessed with forty years of real experience of the Lord. Still, ten of them could only see giants, could only see themselves as grasshoppers. Two looked at the situation entirely differently. I suspect they had a gleam of irony in their eyes as they said, "They are food for us." So too is our last number of years in the church life. It is food for us. Food for thought and food for action.

SC

Cal

09-13-2008, 09:01 AM

Igzy, concerning abuse ... I was ... and I am also an older sibling. In fact, I am currently reading a book about making peace with one's father. To answer your question, of course, the goal is healing, but that doesn't come by hating him more. Understanding and differentiating the good and the bad ... with the grace of God ... seems to be the best course. This is why I prefer to address details rather than to generalize ... and this also seems to exactly be the course of this thread.

I raised the issue of abuse in the context of the father being deceased, as Lee is. All that is left are the child's wounds and the father's reputation. Some observers, though they even acknowledge some abuse, seem to think it's much more important to defend the rep of a dead man than to heal the soul's of the living. I don't understand that thinking and I like someone to explain it to me if anyone is up to it.

Cal

09-13-2008, 09:07 AM

Let me add that I think the extreme of developing hatred for the dead abusive father is just as bad as blaming oneself for the father's abuse. We have an instinct to love our fathers and anyone who hates his father probably to some degree will end up hating himself, too. So the "trash Lee to gain freedom" instinct is a wrong reaction as well. We've seen that on display on these forums, too.

Ohio

09-13-2008, 10:37 AM

I raised the issue of abuse in the context of the father being deceased, as Lee is. All that is left are the child's wounds and the father's reputation. Some observers, though they even acknowledge some abuse, seem to think it's much more important to defend the rep of a dead man than to heal the soul's of the living. I don't understand that thinking and I like someone to explain it to me if anyone is up to it.

Igzy, we're talking about the same thing here. Abuse issues remain even after the abuser has passed away.

Real healing does not involve cover ups or attacks. Real healing does include discussions of wrongs, with sympathy and compassion and trust, but also leads to understanding and forgiveness, but not "forgetting." Discussions help to sort thru the mess, especially when things have been bottled up for years. Abused ones tend to feel isolated, without any support, which never helps.

I don't think anyone is in denial here, rather at times, I do find my posts limiting just how much we "heap on the hate." I find extreme views to be very unproductive. The alternative is, for sure, more difficult. We are left with the task of properly discerning the "good from the worthless." This I have found to be far more profitable.

Let me give an example of a comment which helped me personally. It was very balanced and therefore profitable. The brother commented about TC, "I appreciate all the work he has done for the Lord, but the way he treats people, I will never agree with that."

Paul Cox

09-13-2008, 10:51 AM

Speaker,

I think I remember you mentioning something on the other forum about you believing that the day would come when Witness Lee would take his proper (proper in your view) place in Church History. I think at the time I stated something to the effect that my view is that that proper place would be a speck, hardly noticeable to the human eye.

At any rate, you have made similar statements over the years. Maybe that is what has led some to believe that you are overly concerned with preserving Witness Lee's reputation.

Personally, I believe that not only Witness Lee, but all those who have gone before us should certainly be honored for whatever positive contribution they have made, while at the same time we should not spare any of them the critical eye. This is how we learn for the future.

I will give you an example. In my whole time in the Local Church the image of John Nelson Darby presented to me was nothing less than heroic. Of course, it had to be that way, because he was named in a long line of "Apostles for the age," Witness Lee himself being the most recent. Any criticism of Darby would have certainly opened the door for examination of Lee himself. Can't have any of that, you know.

I was delighted, yes delighted, to find out what a crumb JND could be. Actually, I shouldn't say delighted, but rather relieved. I no longer have to hold to the Apostle for the Age, succession thing. I can consider any of these brothers against any of their peers.

One of JND's peers who was never introduced to us in the Local Church was Robert Chapman. If you put his life against that of Darby, considering the matter of humility and brotherly love, it's clear that Darby should have been sitting at his feet.

Please forgive me for saying so, but sometimes it does indeed seem that you are a little overly concerned about preserving the reputation of Lee. But we must remember that that reputation is an illusion created by him, and expanded by the hero worshiping Blended Brothers. Shine the light on Luther, Darby, Chpman, Nee, Kaung, Lee and anybody else, and let the chips fall where they may.

One other thing: I don't know about you, but I didn't suffer the degree of abuse that has been described by some on this forum. I wouldn't dare tell them that we just need to move on and learn how to be stronger for having had the experience. While that may be true on some level, it displays a sort of insensitivity to their plight.

I can tell you personally of a dear couple I know who couldn't have been more gung-ho and absolute for the "Recovery," and in a very real way I can say, without mentioning the brother's name, that he was a crucial part of the backbone of the whole "Recovery," on the whole Earth.

Now they are gone, because of abuse, and even are having doubt as to Jesus being the Messiah. How do you tell them that they just need to dig deeper and learn to be stronger because of that experience?

My wife and I sat and prayed with this couple over the years. Our first-born are almost the same age. I worked with him for a time, and there is no doubt in my mind that he knows the Lord, and had a burning spirit that I haven’t seen among any of the LSM pretenders. No one can say that they are where they are because they never really knew the Lord. I haven't the least doubt that they are where they are because of their direct involvement with a brother who worshiped the ground that Witness Lee walked on.

One more, "other thing." Brother Speaker, I have to balance all that by saying that I have appreciated your thick skin over the time that we have been together on these two forums. Many times it is your thick skin that has left me without words. Now dats saying supum. Thick skin comes with age and experience. And I guess being the object of examination by classrooms full of teenagers over the years hasn't hurt either.

Roger

Cal

09-13-2008, 11:09 AM

Igzy, we're talking about the same thing here. Abuse issues remain even after the abuser has passed away.

The issue remains, but the way you deal with it might differ slightly.

For example, you wouldn't have to worry about hurting the father's feelings or status by saying certain things you might not say otherwise.

Some people, it seems to me, talk about Witness Lee as if he were still alive and they still have to kiss up to him. He's gone to his reward and now it's time to deal, frankly and honestly, with the mess he left behind.

I just don't understand Witness Lee's rep being someone's top priority. History is going to decide about him anyway. All the propaganda of the Exclusive Brethren doesn't change the way history has judged Darby, and all the propaganda of LSM or anyone on this board isn't going change the way Lee will be judged.

Lee's gone. We can't help him. What's left is the people alive with us today who we might be able to help by ministering to them on this board with a little more discernment than just trying to defend or dismiss Lee in order to win an argument.

Ohio

09-13-2008, 11:33 AM

Ohio,

Couldn't the children of Israel have asked the same?

Look, we need to find a new way to look at our experiences in the church life. This good/bad dichotomy doesn't work. Actually, it's just another form of eating from the tree of knowledge, a binary way of looking at the world.

Instead I recommend looking at it from the "life" point of view. We had experiences, tons of them, some good, some bad, but all real, deep, textured human experiences which have enriched our souls no matter what we may think.

I am looking for a new way to view the church life ... though I am surrounded by failed marriages, broken friendships, useless doctrines, controlling leaders, deadening programs, etc. (I have decided to leave out the bad things.)

It's kind of like going thru a painful divorce, everything looks so bleak ... that is until another special girl (or guy) comes along to help us forget the past.

Is that too binary?

Btw, nice to hear you and your wife singing together, but it made me a little moody ...

SpeakersCorner

09-13-2008, 11:48 AM

Roger,

Thanks for mentioning my "thick skin." I'm actually an overly-sensitive guy to the max. I like to say it's because I have a "keen spirit." But, trust me, even after 33 years of dealing with high schoolers, they still could crush the butterfly in me at times.

On the forum I have the benefit of time. I can't tell you how many fiery rejoinders I haven't sent. Once in a while I post hastily and, if it's in the heat of the moment, almost always regret that I did.

Concerning my over-protective stance on Lee, I think a lot of it is to balance out the other side that voices concerns here. I have no interest in exalting him as I once did. But when I read how terrible he was, that his theology was heretical, etc., I feel the need to provide a counterpoint to the discussion.

I do not want to diminish the hurt of anyone who has gone this way. Those scars are real, real, real. I've got a few myself, some that are still tender. But like every kid in a bragging contest about his injuries, I treasure those scars. Scars are miniature storybooks. A person with none has no stories to tell (well, at least not injury stories).

This goes to the heart of my entire present view of life: it is a grand story, one which we each play an individual part. I teach literature and have read a lot about plot development over the years. I've boiled it down to this:

Hero faces obstacle, tries to hurdle it instinctively, apparently succeeds but then discovers he not only failed but the obstacle got bigger, tries again with more thought but still without revelation, again thinks he succeeds but quickly discovers the cycle has repeated, cycle continues until the obstacle gets so huge there is no way to overcome it except by looking at it from a different perspective. In other words, by getting some revelation. The revelation may save his life or it may come too late, but it does save his soul.

Well, that's our lives. I believe the local church experience for many is a complete tale. And for a lot of us, we've been trying to hurdle the obstacles in too natural a way, unwilling to get real revelation. I'm not sure what that revelation is -- for everyone it's likely different -- but I think continuing to try instinctive solutions doesn't work. That's why I promote trying to see this LC thing from a different perspective, that actually it all has value.

Anyway, my apologies to any who think I tread lightly over their hurts. I know the hurts are real and I know it's hard to deal with them. As Red Green famously (actually, not so famously) said, "We're all in this together. We're rooting for you."

SC

SpeakersCorner

09-13-2008, 12:00 PM

I am looking for a new way to view the church life ... though I am surrounded by failed marriages, broken friendships, useless doctrines, controlling leaders, deadening programs, etc. (I have decided to leave out the bad things.)

It's kind of like going thru a painful divorce, everything looks so bleak ... that is until another special girl (or guy) comes along to help us forget the past.

Is that too binary?

Btw, nice to hear you and your wife singing together, but it made me a little moody ...

Ohio,

Nah, it's not too binary. Pray to meet that special guy or girl that helps one to forget the past. But don't look for that special guy or girl (in this LC analogy) in a predetermined way. Be open to the Lord to surprise you.

Hey, who said that was my wife and me on the song? It's just "some guy and his wife," okay! Sorry it made you moody, but that's a good response I'd say. It was a lamentation.

SC

aron

09-13-2008, 01:05 PM

We need to find a new way to look at our experiences in the church life. This good/bad dichotomy doesn't work. Actually, it's just another form of eating from the tree of knowledge, a binary way of looking at the world.

Instead I recommend looking at it from the "life" point of view. We had experiences, tons of them, some good, some bad, but all real, deep, textured human experiences which have enriched our souls no matter what we may think.

...we [can] to learn to look at things from a different angle. This is wonderful spiritual advice... Transcend it. Spin it into gold.

The twelve spies who went ahead on the scout mission were blessed with forty years of real experience of the Lord. Still, ten of them could only see giants, could only see themselves as grasshoppers. Two looked at the situation entirely differently. I suspect they had a gleam of irony in their eyes as they said, "They are food for us." So too is our last number of years in the church life. It is food for us. Food for thought and food for action.

SC

I agree. Amen. It is food for us. We went through what we went through for a purpose, for God's purpose. God's hand was there, and His hand is still here, guiding us forward. I don't reject the past. Nor do I cling to it. I move on; it is "food" for me. There are lessons there for me, deep lessons if I would be still a moment and hear the voice of the Master. Then the balm that heals my wounds becomes a salve also to others. The nourishing food that restores flesh onto my dry bones passes into my speaking, reaching others, and also supplying them. God put me through what He did for a reason.

kisstheson

09-13-2008, 02:27 PM

I agree. Amen. It is food for us. We went through what we went through for a purpose, for God's purpose. God's hand was there, and His hand is still here, guiding us forward. I don't reject the past. Nor do I cling to it. I move on; it is "food" for me. There are lessons there for me, deep lessons if I would be still a moment and hear the voice of the Master. Then the balm that heals my wounds becomes a salve also to others. The nourishing food that restores flesh onto my dry bones passes into my speaking, reaching others, and also supplying them. God put me through what He did for a reason.

Amen, dear brothers. I agree as well. Our God is our loving heavenly Father and He put us through what He did for a reason. He surely knows what is best for all His children. One of the the worst possible outcomes of our time in the LC would be to have suffered all that we have been through, only to remain full of bitterness and anger for the rest of our lives. There very well may be an initial period of bitterness and anger, and that is most likely a very healthy reaction for a time; but, how desperately we need God to be merciful and shepherd us through this period of time. May we remain close to Him and allow His loving, tender heart and His gentle healing touch to bring us through to the other side. May we "complete our tale", as SC says. May God save us from "getting stuck" in a negative place. O Lord, dear Lord. Do have mercy on us all. Amen.

On the other forum, dear brother Steve I. posted a letter from someone who had suffered greatly at the hands of the leading ones in the LC and who has passed through to the other side to find real inner peace and to find mercy and grace to forgive WL and the brother around him. This excerpt touches me very much and has been known to bring a tear to my eye:

"Brother Steve, if you have any questions, I shall be most happy to reply. If you sense anything out of balance or unethical, please advise me. I believe the Lord has given me much mercy and grace to forgive WL and the brothers around him, even to the point of enjoying real inner peace. Yet I went through much suffering and agony for several years. As I mentioned to you over the phone, I was in a mourning that lasted several years. However, one time I read something that encouraged me: 'It takes a diamond to cut a diamond, and the dust of diamonds to polish a diamond.' So it takes brothers, even the failures of the Lord's best servants, to deal and transform brothers. We will all one day worship and praise God for all of the ways He uses to conform us to the image of Christ. May the Lord richly bless you as you come to Him, take His yoke, and learn of Him (Matt. 11:28-30)."

Nell

09-13-2008, 09:28 PM

Okay, I'm open (or at least as open as I know how). I can answer "yes" to points 1 and 2 with no problem. Points 3 and 4 are more problematic. I don't think it has yet been established that I have been deceived.

You can tell me all about the terrible things WL did or may have done, but how does that apply to me? I never thought he was the Vicar of Christ on Earth. That belongs to the LSM brothers.

For me WL was a bible teacher, and a frankly pretty good one. But my experience in the church life revolved around Christ, and the saints who were with me. What is it that I am supposed to be deceived about...?

I very much appreciate Ms. Penn-Lewis, but I am not sure how to apply this portion of her ministry to my life.

Best,

Toledo,

I don't know whether or not you are deceived. I was answering your question "Where do we go from here?" My suggestion was to go to the Lord and inquire of Him as to what He would say about our spiritual condition. To me, its not about Witness Lee. It's about me. A point JPL made was that we can be deceived and not know it (the definition of deceit I suppose) and our need is enlightenment.

As long as Witness Lee's ministry is a sticking point; as long as folks have to make a decision about Witness Lee's ministry, pro or con, how much or how little, etc., I think there is a problem. As long as the Lord's people need a forum like this one, there is a problem. As long as Christians believe they "need" to read something from WL's ministry on a daily basis, in place of the Bible, there is a problem, and I believe deception is at work.

Whatever is of eternal value in WL's ministry is in the Bible. WL's ministry is full of leaven. He was a pretty good Bible teacher as long as he stuck to the Bible. When he began to think more highly of himself than he ought, he opened the door to deceit in his own life through pride. (My opinion through observation.)

I haven't read Lee for 20 years, at least not without taking a dose of Pepto first. Why read Lee when you can read the Bible? Why not cut out the middle man? I just think it's a good idea to check to see if there is deception in your/my life. I go through a check on a regular basis, and I think it's a healthy thing to put everything on the table and let the Lord show me if and where I may have a wrong thought about Him.

Eve was beguiled or deceived in the garden...paradise no less! There were 2 humans on a magnificent planet...and they were soon deceived. I think we should all assume we are deceived until proven otherwise.

Nell

Shawn

09-14-2008, 07:13 AM

I have felt the direction SC offered in the last several posts has been what I have tried to sugest in the past on the other forum,but have always been perplexed at the responses, that have cast me in the role of the abuser; a place I never intended to be in.

What I have found is the very same counsel that can benefit a brother or sister to have a deeper walk with the Lord, is the same consel offered by the leading ones to denegrade those under them to not rock the boat of the "program." The difference is in what outcome is desired by the offerer; to help the seeking one to grow through the trial, or to keep the false agenda of the program from being exposed by the honest quest for the truth.

It seems that the Lord saw this when he warned those who would stumble the children concerning their believing, that it would be better for a millstone to be hung around their neck and be drowned. For it seems to me, to use a teaching that was intended to help ones to know our Lord in a deeper way now causes them to be stumbled, it spoils the help they could have received in gaining something eternal and instead can result in damage that cannot be recovered from.

Cal

09-14-2008, 11:27 AM

Matt Anderson

09-15-2008, 06:26 AM

But let me get to my main point; We each have our own idols that we must deal with, when we point fingers at others idols we are stepping over a line we were never intended to cross.

Let me use some general examples. Have you ever tried to help a recovering substance abuser? As the Lord delivers him from his addictions he is finding grace to overcome his demons, but for one inexperienced in this matter, who is trying to help him see his idol, it usually ends poorly because you just don't know what that person is going through. This is not to say you have to become an substance abuser before you can treat one, but the most effective teachers are the ones have been there, and know how to bring others through it.

I agree with your sentiments about dealing with someone who has acknowledged they are a drug abuser. Your statements are correct. However, is that what we are dealing with here? No. I am talking about those who have not acknowledged "drug abuse".

Question: If you have a friend who is a drug abuser, do you tell them you think they are abusing drugs? Or do you say nothing? <-- This is where your argument breaks down.

Note: I recognize that some have acknowledged their "drug abuse". Others have not. I am especially concerned about those in leadership who have not been able to acknowledge their "drug abuse". If these ones regain prominence and/or influence while still holding on to portions of their "old habit", then they make others sick. The ones who have not acknowledged their drug abuse have basically said, I haven't and don't take drugs. In some cases, this may be true. This is where concrete evidence comes in. You have to have evidence of the abuse.

I did not introduce the "drug abuser" example, you did. I used it, but no one should come back at me in response. I am primarily pointing out the flaws in your thinking using your own analogy.

On the subject of this thread there has been discussion about "Christ plus something." One of the key responses has been to justify that "Christ plus something" is okay.

2Co 11:1-4
Would that ye could bear with me in a little foolishness: but indeed ye do bear with me. (2) For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy: for I espoused you to one husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ. (3) But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ. (4) For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or if ye receive a different spirit, which ye did not receive, or a different gospel, which ye did not accept

This more heavily applies to the leadership (current and ex), but it also applies to the commoner in the LC. I can tell you from my own experience that even though my parents didn't teach me to "disdain" other christians outside the LC it was still integrated into me through the strong influence of the LC environment. I knew I was better than other Christians. It was built into me implicitly by the fact that I had grown up in the LC. "We" had all the knowledge of Lee (<-- This is one of the drugs) and therefore could sit atop the mountain and look down on "poor, poor Christianity". I didn't have to choose to be in the group. I just grew up there and I got infected with this "bad habit".

It has been proven that Lee was operating in a false manner, so we know his teachings are leavened.

To the ex-Leaders/Midwest Leaders: What was the leaven of Lee? Are you clear about it? Is it as Hope says, primarily "Delegate Authority"? What about the underpinnings of "Delegate Authority", which was Nee's "Spiritual Authority". Is it correct? What is the leaven in his teachings?

To anyone who is an ex-leader or a current leader in the Midwest. Tell me what was wrong with Lee's teachings? Do you know? Do you see it clearly? Hope posits that it was A) Delegate Authority.

I feel scripture is very clear, that we each are responsible for our own life and in dealing with the sin, flesh and idols that come with it. I cannot deal with your sins, flesh and idols, but I can help you by encouraging you to pray for our Lord to expose the dark, hidden things in your life, that by His light and in the power of His grace the dark things can be confessed and washed away in His cleansing blood.

Shawn

What you expressed in your final paragraph is unbiblical. It is correct that we are responsible for our own life, but it is not correct that we have no responsibility for the sins of another brother/sister in Christ if we see their sin.

This has been established before from the Word of God and can be established again for your benefit.

We cannot "fix" someone else. This is where a lot of leadership oversteps. We are to be faithful to point out sin, but it is so that our brothers/sisters can go to the Lord. It has not been my attempt to "fix" others, but it has been my attempt to point at sin.

Matt

Shawn

09-15-2008, 07:12 AM

Thankful Jane

09-15-2008, 12:11 PM

Hi Matt,

The Drug abuser was only an example; my point was the lack of experience that is leading you to conclusions that are lacking substantiation, as evidenced by the abundance of counterpoints to your arguements from LC'ers.

Your response has been to address the example and not the 800 pound gorilla, of lack of experience that are weakening your argument.

I never said one does not treat the drug abuser, only that drawing from the experiences of one who has been there is the most effective way.
Dear Shawn,

In what I have bolded above, it seems you are adding to the “Matt does not have enough experience to speak as he has done on this thread” theme.

I feel I should speak to Matt’s "experience" since that argument seems to keep coming up. I think it is better for me to do this than for Matt to have to continue to stand up alone to the 800 pounds worth of "counterpoint" punches that he has received on this thread.

I'd like to respectfully point out that Matt does not have a lack of experience when it comes to the topic of spiritual abuse in the Local Churches, which is reason for this thread. In brief he is qualified to speak because he is a 2nd generation LCer (this thread is about those from the 2nd generation) who is now an adult survivor of spiritual abuse carried out by an idolatrous, abusive LC leadership. And he didn't just survive, I might even venture to say, he overcame in this matter.

Today He is a fervent lover of Jesus and of every member of the body of Christ including those still in the LSM/LC. He has a heart that is open and willing to fellowship with any and all, at any time. He also loves the Word of God word for word. He is in a position to see the LC in terms of idolatry, having been sacrificed on one of the altars of Lee. He cares enough about those who did this to him and to many of his friends, to share with them what he learned in the process of recovering. He reads the Bible outside the Lee garlic room now. You would be astounded to hear the things God has shown him in the Old Testament, and not just about idolatry. He has shared very little on this forum of what he has learned there--in the Scriptures (O.T.), which, by the way Paul told Timothy were able to make him wise unto salvation.

I note that the punches have mainly been made against his person and experience, not against his biblical arguments or the historical facts he has presented about Lee’s history. One of the striking things missing against Matt's biblical presentations has been solid biblical refutation. I admit that there has been some, but it is worthy of note that this was done mainly by Peter Debelak, who is also a 2nd generation LCer.

Matt may not have experience as an LC leader who is saturated with the teachings of Lee and is qualified to abuse, but he most definitely has experience of being on the receiving end of such. If you and others are trying to say he didn't know Lee's teachings well enough to speak to them, them you have no basis to say that, not knowing the facts.

Matt has a high capacity for absorbing information. He has been like that since early childhood. He grew up in an environment where Lee’s teachings were the main diet. He heard them day after day in his own home, which he shared with the small army of sisters who lived with us over the years. When we left, I encouraged him to read life studies and I even read them to/with him, hoping they would help him. After we were out, we spent a number of years working through family problems that forced us to face our past and dig down to the level of our wrong beliefs and find what lay at the root of them. We had to rethink Lee's teachings and discover what the Bible actually teaches about what he said. We (including Matt) had many, many discussions about Lee’s teachings among ourselves and with other ex Local Churchers, using the Bible as our guide through them. The Lord brought brothers like Bill Mallon and John Ingalls for extended visits to our home a number of times and Matt had fellowship with them one on one, especially with Bill.

I’d like to ask just what experience do all the counterpointers have to be able to speak about this topic? Maybe the 800 lb. gorilla is their inexperience with regard to understanding 2nd generation abuse. How many of them have had the experience of being sacrificed on Lee's altar? (I don’t have the time here to share about how this happened to Matt, but maybe I will later.) How many of them have taken the time to follow up with 2nd generation LCers or to help them recover? How much time have they spent studying the Scriptures on their own, without the Lee veil? So, again, maybe the 800 lb. gorilla is their inexperience, not Matt’s.

Matt mercifully did not end up in one of the categories introduced in the opening post of this thread, as many of his friends did. As I said, I suspect he may have more right to speak here than many of those who have been doing so. He has helped other 2nd generation LCers recover. Have any of the naysayers here done that?

Honestly, Shawn, when I saw some of the posts accusing Matt that he was acting like WL as the oracle, I felt deeply ashamed that any one would speak this way to a young man who survived their 1st generation-created system and yet loves them enough to be here dialoguing with them. I can assure you he has a real life outside of this forum with enough involvements with family, job, and other Christians to fill his hands. I would not be surprised to see him leave here. In fact, I think I would recommend it. I am considering doing the same and allowing all of you to have your chats with one another and remember the glory days of old until Jesus comes, without having to think about possible explanations for our past that are uncomfortable. I haven’t asked the Lord about that yet, so I don’t know if He will let me leave, but I am going to be asking.

I have wept over what happened among us. I have seen others do the same. Shouldn’t we be weeping at the broken down walls of God’s house (family) and the heaps of rubble (His wounded children) left behind? Shouldn’t we be weeping in response to realizing how much abuse and destruction took place among us?

Shouldn’t we all humble ourselves and ask the Lord to have mercy on us. Shouldn’t we all repent for what happened among us because we all played a part in creating an environment that opened the door for abuse. If God is weeping, shouldn’t we join him?

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane

09-15-2008, 12:42 PM

I wrote this a few weeks ago in response to a post by Terry, but decided not to post it then. Today, I think I should. It is l-o-n-g, which some complain about, so I please forgive. There is no short way to tell the story included in this. I also think my writing style is in my DNA, so it's hard to change. If long is bad to you, then I suggest you just don’t read this!!!

Jane, when I learned of your story, blessD's, Bill W's, and who knows how many more, I have empathy. When one member of the Body suffers, we all suffer. I have.Thank you, Terry. What you said brought back the memory of an experience that I had a few years ago that I think I should share.

First, let me say that I appreciate your gentle heart. To have genuine empathy for others and to express how we feel in words of comfort is the normal response when we learn about people who have been hurt by people in places of power. It shows we have a compassionate heart like His. Because I have been so thoroughly helped by God and so healed by His love, I honestly don’t think I need others to feel sympathy for me and am not seeking sympathy whenever I mention what happened to me. However, God has taught me that it is very good for us as members of His family to strongly express our feelings of love and care for one another and also to accept such expressions of love.

In January 2006, about 3 months after our book was published, I had a very, very unusual experience with the Lord which I will never forget. It gave me a very personal and real look at His heart of love for us.

One day, I was at home sitting at my computer writing with no travel plans in mind and three or four days later I was in Anaheim on a whirlwind visit of 4 days. I felt like I had been picked up by the Spirit and transported there. I won’t share how this came about, but it had the handiwork of God stamped all over it, as did the whole trip. My son, Matt, was with me. From the time our feet touched the ground until the time we departed, we were carried by the Spirit from one heaven-made appointment to the next. The Lord set the agenda as the days unfolded, and we hardly had time to eat, sleep, or change clothes.

What I want to share is about the experience I had with 4 different brothers on that trip and what God showed me as a result.

The first brother is one that I met 35 years ago and had not seen since that time. While Matt and I were with him and with two others having breakfast in a restaurant, the Lord appeared. I won’t share particulars of what happened there in our fellowship, but the Spirit was so awesomely present for a period of time that even the waitress and people near by were stopped and listening. Afterwards, Matt and I attended a very dry, dull, and dead Christian meeting with the first brother. After that meeting he stopped me and said, “Jane, before you get away, I have to say something ....” Tears welled up in his eyes and he said, “What happened at that restaurant was .... INCREDIBLE!” I said, “Yes, it was!” We both knew the Lord had been there. (And we also both knew that the meeting we had just suffered through had the Lord no where in sight.) He continued to shake his head and show great emotion. He said a little more, the essence of which was that the experience in the restaurant had been a reminder of what it was like to have the Lord present in fellowship. It had moved him to tears. He wanted me to try and tell another brother (an elder among them) what had happened at the restaurant, and he called this elder over to where we sat. I tried to say something to him, but quickly realized this brother had no interest. He was clearly pre-occupied with his own things and service to God and hurried away. The 35-year-ago brother wanted him to know that he had just been with Jesus in a way reminiscent of the past, but there simply were no ears to hear.

Now to the second brother. After lunch that day, another brother came and introduced himself to me. He was an ex-LC elder that I had seen, but never met before. He had disappeared off the radar many years before and I never knew what happened to him. He said a few things to me, left, returned, said a few more things, left, returned, and said more things. Each time he returned, he was becoming more emotional until the third time we were both standing there crying. (Remember we had never met before!)

He told me that someone had given him and his wife a copy of my book and he had been trying to read it, but it was very hard for him. By the third return, he had managed to tell me that he had been hurt by very strong women in his life. He thought that the fact that I had written a book meant I was probably just another strong woman. This was the reason he was having a hard time trying to read it. He told me how much it had helped him to meet me in person and that our meeting had taken that thought completely away. As he shared more he began to cry, and I did also. The Lord’s presence was very strong as we stood there talking and crying. I still have that picture in my mind as clearly as if it had happened yesterday. I had never experienced anything like that before.

Here’s the picture: a man, a Christian brother, who had been deeply wounded by women during his lifetime (both relatives and Christian women), standing before me, a Christian sister, who had been deeply wounded by men in my life (both relatives and Christian men). We were both crying and the Spirit was palpably there crying with us. I felt like we were being given a foretaste of the powerful work of the Spirit to heal every wound and to wash away every hurt and even to remove the memories of all the harm people had inflicted on one another. It was like a miniature of the whole body of Christ with men and women being washed and made whole and restored to one another by the Spirit. I just don’t have the words for it was like, but I knew the Lord was showing me something of His work to come.

Now to the third brother. After this we went to the home of a brother and sister who had invited us to come and visit with them. I had never met either of them before, but had heard the brother’s name before. They had received a copy of my book and had read it. That is why we were invited. We had some small talk, mostly us asking them questions about themselves. Then, the brother turned the conversation to us. He said he had something he wanted to say. He opened his mouth to speak and couldn’t. He looked at me and much to my surprise, he burst into tears. His whole body shook as he wept. I was stunned, as was Matt. He wept a minute or so then he finally spoke. “Sister, what they did to you! I want to tell you how very sorry I am!” He proceeded to vocalize his sorrow for my experience and continued to weep. He was not just crying, he was sobbing and weeping and shaking. I didn’t know what to say or how to respond. I tried to comfort him, saying, “Brother, it’s okay. I am okay. I am thankful for everything.” He said, “No, I need to say it. It was terrible. I am so very, very sorry!” He shed more tears.

Afterwards, as I reflected on what had happened, the Lord showed me that He was using this very caring and tenderhearted brother to show me His own heart. This was how God feels about those who are abused. I will never, ever, ever, forget that experience.

And lastly, the fourth brother. The next day, Matt and I were invited to the home of this brother, whom we had never met before. He had contacted me via email after reading my book. As we sat in his living room and talked a little, all of sudden he stopped talking and began to weep and sob just as the third brother had done. He said (paraphrased to the best of my memory), “What the brothers have done to so many. What they did to me. They just don’t know. The Lord’s heart is so grieved and breaking.” Matt and I began to cry with him. We all sat on the couch together and cried. We prayed together for our Father to forgive those who had hurt others and heal us all.

I’m sharing all this to show what I saw through these experiences about the heart of God towards all of us. Like the first brother, God is grieving for what we have lost that is rightfully ours: His prevailing and powerful presence. Like the picture God gave me in my experience with the second brother, God wants to and will wash and heal and restore us one to another, both male and female, as we communicate and confess our faults one to another. Like the third brother, He is in agony of heart for the wounded and abused. He loves them so deeply and has hurt with them. Even though they couldn’t see it at the time, He was afflicted with them. Like the last brother, He is full of sorrow over those who have done such damage to their own brothers.

The impression made on me during this trip by these godly brothers who let me see the Lord in the deep feelings of their heart, has remained. I felt I had been given a look into the very heart of love of our longsuffering God.

Right now its hard to type because the memory is also making me cry again. Terry, your post reminded me that God is weeping over us.

He let us see His tears for His people through Jeremiah. At the same time, God also spoke hard words through Jeremiah, because whom He loves He rebukes and chastens. His correction is His love and mercy. His words of warning in the Bible that expose our idolatrous hearts should bring us to our knees with tears of repentance.

....continued in another post ...

Paul Cox

09-15-2008, 01:20 PM

He has helped other 2nd generation LCers recover. Have any of the naysayers here done that?

Jane,

I can't speak for the other "naysayers" here, but I have helped 1st and 2nd generation LCers recover, and continue to do so by phone, email, and in person. I pray with ex-local church members on a weekly basis for those dear members. But I would never assume that my experience is anything other than a part of the whole, and I know that there are others who are doing far, far more than I am doing.

I was the one who compared Matt to Witness Lee. I certainly didn’t mean it in every respect. It had to do with his insistence upon saying that all who are in the Local Church are engaging in idolatry. He has been quoted on this when he asked for proof. It had to do with what seemed to be an unwillingness to be balanced by the rest of the members here.

Sorry, but I don’t hesitate to mention Matt’s youth. With youth there must be a certain amount of inexperience. It’s only common sense. Watchman Nee, for example, I think, was far too young to be taken too seriously when he wrote the Spiritual Man at only 26. He was a brilliant man, but the work was mostly cerebral.

Jane we were all there. When one man came forth and insisted that what he was saying was the only correct viewpoint, we were all called "naysayers."

Roger

Former LC member

09-15-2008, 02:06 PM

Dear Jane,
I am so sorry to hear of your past experience in the LC. There seems to be a lot of hurt people here. And when people are hurt, they have many wounds which when touched, can cause them pain and reactions towards those who touch them. I have not read all this post as I am quite busy. I am thankful also that I have not had such a bad time in the LC as many here in this forum. [We in NZ are a bit removed and I think a bit preserved because of this.] But I do think that members on the forum should speak softly to each other and bind each others wounds. Think of this place as being like a hospital clinic with Jesus as the Great Physician.:)

Thankful Jane

09-15-2008, 03:54 PM

... continuation of post #872 (moved here because the other was too long)

It’s been an hour or so since I wrote the above and I need to add a little epilogue to this last post (and make it even longer, sorry) because of something that just happened. When I started to write the above, I had it in my head that there had been 5 brothers that cried. Every time I have remembered that event, I have thought that there were 5 brothers. Writing this, I went through the events in my mind and every time I could only come up with 4. I went back and found the account in my journal and sure enough, there were only 4, so I set aside my thought that there were 5 brothers who had shed tears and just wrote about the 4. Why am I sharing this now?

Because very shortly after I finished writing the above, I received a phone call from an old brother who was around during the earliest days in California. He has no internet connection and spends much of his time praying. He has been out of the LC for many years. I think this was the 3rd time I have talked to him on the phone over the last few months. I had never met or talked to him before this, but he had written me a letter after he read my book.

When he called, I had just finished reading the post by Hope about Benson jumping to conclusions and acting on them, and I was feeling very sad about the brothers allowing Benson to operate with wrong information without telling him. Surprisingly, this brother was calling to ask me to stand with him in prayer for Benson who was particularly on his heart at the time. His prayer was very heartfelt and moving. As he prayed, he began to cry, and I started crying, too. He stopped and asked me to pardon him that he just had such intense feeling about this. We both cried as we finished praying.

This brother told me that in the not too distant past (months I believe) he had a vision in which God was weeping through him over Witness Lee. In it, he said there was another man who was wielding a cane which he understood to be Witness Lee’s authority. He didn’t know who that man was at the time, but later God showed him it was Benson Phillips. Since that time he had been praying for Benson. He said that the Lord had shown him that these brothers had been caught up in idolatry and had committed spiritual fornication. Yet, God still loved them intensely. The brothers, however, that God had put around them, had not loved them.

As he shared, I sat there thinking over and over, “How could this be happening?” On the day I decided to write about the 5 “weeping” brothers, and come up short one brother, the Lord sends the 5th weeping brother?! And that after I had just read a post about Benson that made me feel like crying.

Through the last minute and uncannily timed appearance of the 5th tearful brother God reminded me that He is not sleeping. He is very much present and very much involved in all we are doing, even posting on this forum.

So God used the 5th brother’s tearful prayers for Benson, whom I had just read about on the internet before the brother called, to show me that He has watchman on the walls who are not holding their peace day nor night and who are interceding for all His children, and especially for those who are the most egregious of sinners.

Thank you, again, Terry for your post that took me on this little journey. I was exceedingly comforted and encouraged by all of this, so I’m sharing my encouragement with you and with anyone else who made it through another of my long posts J.

Thankful Jane

Hope

09-15-2008, 04:11 PM

Hello Matt,

By the way the term was not delegate authority but deputy authority. This was not the exclusive problem. Add to it the concept of "the Work," as a parallel entity to the church and a wrong concept of "oneness." These teachings opened the door to many errant practices.

Hope, Don Rutledge

Thankful Jane

09-15-2008, 04:34 PM

I was the one who compared Matt to Witness Lee. I certainly didn’t mean it in every respect. It had to do with his insistence upon saying that all who are in the Local Church are engaging in idolatry.
He has been quoted on this when he asked for proof. It had to do with what seemed to be an unwillingness to be balanced by the rest of the members here.

Roger, there was no biblical balance offered. All I heard was people's dislike of what Matt said. He did not insist that you agree with him and even acknowledged the disagreements. He didn't shoot the messengers speaking to him, as you all did him. He put a shield on against the punches and stayed at the table. Again, where is the biblical argument you set forth against what Matt said?

Everyone has been screaming about a broad brush. Have you read your O.T. recently? The biggest broad brush user is God when it came to idolatry. He wanted all his people to face the question because they stumbled again and again in their blindness. The LC system was idolatrous to the core having become like Mystery Babylon the Great. God addressed that system in Rev. with with a broad brush, "Come out of her my people." Tell me how the LC system was not like Mystery Babylon? Was Mystery Babylon idolatrous?

No one comes out of the LC unscathed by the idolatrous practices. Are their some who innocently participated? Of course. No one wakes up one day and says, I think I will practice idolatry today. They stumble in the dark. Does ignorance remove guilt? No.

Only one thing can break the back of the devil and the hold he gained over us and that is repentance. What will help people who were damaged and are so deadened they don't even care any more? Thorough repentance by those who built, supported, perpetuated, loved, defended the LC and who still care.

Sorry, but I don’t hesitate to mention Matt’s youth. With youth there must be a certain amount of inexperience. It’s only common sense. Watchman Nee, for example, I think, was far too young to be taken too seriously when he wrote the Spiritual Man at only 26. He was a brilliant man, but the work was mostly cerebral.

Jane we were all there. When one man came forth and insisted that what he was saying was the only correct viewpoint, we were all called "naysayers."

RogerI'm not talking about Matt's youth. I was talking about his experience.

BTW, he is 35 not 26. He hasn't written a book on authority and a movement hasn't sprung up around him with his book governing the leadership of it. He isn't WN and he isn't WL. Saying so in anyway is just plain mean.

Also, I didn't hear any naysayers when I was there. I heard nothing. Weren't you a part of that deafening silence?

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane

09-15-2008, 05:26 PM

Thankful Jane

09-16-2008, 04:42 AM

Here is an excerpt from an article I received this past weekend written about Poul Madsen. I can make the whole article available if any are interested:

Poul Madsen versus Witness Lee

In early 1957, Madsen travelled to Taiwan and India with his wife and Austin-Sparks. He characterized this visit as a disappointment.36 In Taiwan he met, among others, Witness Lee. Lee held gigantic meetings where some 5000 believers would gather for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. During the six weeks they spent in Taiwan, the Madsens grew increasingly surprised and perplexed.

During one specific gathering, Lee suddenly turned towards Madsen, enquiring: “What is the local church?” Madsen responded that the local church is the total sum of all genuine Christians within a certain geographical area. Lee then “corrected” him in public by reeling off 10 criteria which had to be fulfilled in order for a local church to be rightly constituted. One of these criteria, Lee asserted, was rightly appointed elders. Madsen immediately countered: “I totally disagree!” Madsen felt more and more that Lee, instead of leading a Christian church, had established an organization ruled with a rod of iron and characterized by exclusiveness.

If we ignore the typical culture shock which most first-time visitors to the so-called Third World encounter,37 the tone in the letters he sent back to Denmark was chiefly positive - “Everywhere, however, we have been received with a heartfelt sincerity which has truly touched us.”38 Even Madsen’s observation of the “spiritual training” within the church with the newly converted ones seems to be positively taken - “personal desires, inclinations and peculiarities had to be put aside in favor of the much larger goal of serving the whole, i.e., serving Christ in His Body.”39 It was much later when Madsen’s anxiety came to the surface:
As previously mentioned, many of the assemblies in Taiwan have gone through schism. They have been through painful struggles. Much is still going one which causes grief and sadness. This is evident, in particular, with the large work connected with Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Everywhere in the Far East, these assemblies struggle with serious internal difficulties.40
Later Madsen observed that Witness Lee had moved from Taiwan and relocated to the U.S.:
This talented man now follows a new line of thought. Many have a hard time accepting his teaching. He needs much prayer so that his gifting and energy will be used in the best way possible for the Lord. He wants to serve the Lord with his whole heart. However, Watchman Nee’s name is now connected to things which many feel he would not approve of if he knew about it.41
In spite of an earlier respectful reference to the Chinese leaders, Madsen’s anxiety is specified every time these very same individuals are mentioned in Mod Målet:
Witness Lee and Stephan [sic] Kaung have received American citizenship. They are very energetic and attract hundreds of people. I feel a deep anxiety when I reflect on their work. They have been entangled in something fatally exclusive and sectarian, in spite of their rich giftings. We must keep them in our prayers.42
After having studied Nee’s book The Normal Christian Church Life Madsen thought (in hindsight) he was able to detect a seed of the exclusivity he witnessed with Witness Lee’s work in Taiwan. After Lee moved to the U.S. and became even more extreme, Madsen asserted this was a direct result of Lee rigidly following the principles laid out by Watchman Nee.43 Madsen observed that Nee’s teachings had a positive impact in many places which gather around the message of the Cross and its significance for the individual believer. However, Madsen believed he saw a danger in an overemphasis on the subjective. The church-oriented books, in turn, according to Madsen have had harmful effects.44

Paul Cox

09-16-2008, 08:40 AM

Roger, there was no biblical balance offered. All I heard was people's dislike of what Matt said.

I have to respectfully disagree. I went back over the thread and reviewed it as much as time would permit me. Post after post included verses to refute what Matt was saying. Actually, it was not a matter of disliking what Matt said, but rather disagreeing with what he said.

Here is a bibilically balancing view that I am still waiting for Matt to answer:

from Roger
If Paul would have had Matt's definition of idolatry in mind, his word about not eating with idolaters would have effectively disbanded the whole church.

According to his definition, those who said they were of Paul, were guilty of worshiping him as an idol. Those who said they were of Apollos, likewise, would have been guilty of idolatry, and so on. The very few in the church in Corinth who didn't engage in "idolatry," would have been forbidden from eating with those who say they are of whomever. Isn't the problem with the Living Stream Church that they basically say: "I am of Lee."

Roger

bookworm

09-16-2008, 08:45 AM

Yesterday I heard a brother with his wife as witness to the truth of what he said, tell about the trip to Taiwan in 1968 by 142 (I think) brothers and sisters from the U.S. He confessed that about half way through that trip he realized they were all being used by W. Lee to demonstrate to the folks in Taiwan that the Lord was blessing him in the U.S. He wasn't sure what to think of that, but has a clear memory of realizing it. He also remembers seeing some "opposers" picketing outside the meeting halls with signs and shouting some things.

Also, he told about an experience on that trip that where silence speaks volumes. He said they were in some kind of public transportation station. WL told Bill Mallon how to line every one up. Bill did so, but had misunderstood and did it wrong. When WL saw what Bill had done, he went ballistic and yelled at Bill for a few minutes for not doing exactly what he had told him, humiliating hiim in front of everyone. Guess what everyone said when that happened?

Nothing.

Anyone posting on this forum remember that?

That was clearly a time to speak. How many more things happened that were answered with silence? Are the silent guilty? Or, were they just innocently loving the Lord? When decades later good, innocent people silently bowed to the decrees of W. Lee concerning John I, Bill M, etc. decrees which were clearly against the body of Christ and the teachings of the Bible about how to treat brothers, were the silent ones just innocently there loving the Lord when they agreed to break fellowship with those brothers? Were they bowing to the demands of God or of Lee? If not God, then wasn't that idolatry?

Thankful Jane

How convenient it was for Witness Lee to take the young Americans on a so-called “tour” of the “church life” in Taiwan, when none of them could speak or read Chinese to be able to get a clear picture of the situation in Taiwan, and in turn Witness Lee could “show off” his success in the U.S. My impression as a member of the LC was that these people who actually visited Taiwan had “truly seen the light.” They had seen the real fruit of teachings regarding the LC, Witness Lee’s teachings specifically, and had the assurance that this was truly the way to go to touch reality and to “build the church.” Of course, they had seen only what Witness Lee wanted them to see and then were used to convince others of the veracity of his teachings and the “local church movement.”

I remember from the first time I visited an LC meeting in Houston how adamant each member was regarding not only the reality of the scriptures (which greatly appealed to me) but on the other hand also their vehemence regarding THE Local Church. It is like you could not have the one without the other. This was a real “hook” for capturing others for this movement: genuine love of the Lord and the scriptures and good intentions to give ourselves for the building of the church, the REAL bride of Christ. The amazing thing is all along Witness Lee kept preaching “only Christ.” We were told never to add anything when in reality the movement was “Christ and THE church.”

I agree with Thankful Jane that strict adherence to directives of Witness Lee surely was/is idolatry as it interferes with one’s seeking the Lord Himself.

bookworm

Cal

09-16-2008, 08:59 AM

Roger, there was no biblical balance offered. All I heard was people's dislike of what Matt said. He did not insist that you agree with him and even acknowledged the disagreements. He didn't shoot the messengers speaking to him, as you all did him. He put a shield on against the punches and stayed at the table. Again, where is the biblical argument you set forth against what Matt said?

Everyone has been screaming about a broad brush. Have you read your O.T. recently? The biggest broad brush user is God when it came to idolatry. He wanted all his people to face the question because they stumbled again and again in their blindness. The LC system was idolatrous to the core having become like Mystery Babylon the Great. God addressed that system in Rev. with with a broad brush, "Come out of her my people." Tell me how the LC system was not like Mystery Babylon? Was Mystery Babylon idolatrous?

Dear Jane,

I did introduce a biblical balance. I said that the Bible does give us ground to be "for" things which in the extreme might not be Christ. We can be for the truth, the gospel, for loving others, for helping children, for discipleship, even for the "vision" of Christ and the Church," that is if we are for Jesus Christ first and we see being for these things as a pure expression of our love for him and (and here is the test) we don't let being for any of those things or any others come between us and other believers.

Matt seemed to be saying that if you are for "the vision of Christ and the Church" you are ipso facto probably in idolatry. I can see how you could be because many who are for these things let them divide. But it ain't necessarily so. Matt seemed to be saying it was necessarily so.

One question is, Is idol the right word? For example, is baptism an idol to the Baptists? Is predestination an idol to the Calvinists? Is tongue-speaking an idol to Pentecostals? If you say these people are into idolatry too then I'll respect your argument because then I'll understand it. But it's possible your first reaction will be "it depends," which is exactly what the counter-argument to you and Matt is here.

I will concede, however, that the LC system plainly set its members up to easily fall into idolatry, by emphasizing things to the point of making them a basis of fellowship, e.g. the local ground, the "ministry," the "recovery," etc. Just about everything that they claimed they had that no one else had or possibly even could have without their help, permission, blessing, franchise rights, whatever.

Thankful Jane

09-16-2008, 09:18 AM

I have to respectfully disagree. I went back over the thread and reviewed it as much as time would permit me. Post after post included verses to refute what Matt was saying. Actually, it was not a matter of disliking what Matt said, but rather disagreeing with what he said.

Here is a bibilically balancing view that I am still waiting for Matt to answer:

-from Roger
If Paul would have had Matt's definition of idolatry in mind, his word about not eating with idolaters would have effectively disbanded the whole church.

According to his definition, those who said they were of Paul, were guilty of worshiping him as an idol. Those who said they were of Apollos, likewise, would have been guilty of idolatry, and so on. The very few in the church in Corinth who didn't engage in "idolatry," would have been forbidden from eating with those who say they are of whomever. Isn't the problem with the Living Stream Church that they basically say: "I am of Lee."

Roger
Thanks, Roger for this example. I missed this argument before, my bad. I did not review everything but was speaking from my general impression. I guess I didn't read this one closely enough at the time to grasp the point you were making.

Let me restate what you are saying here. You are saying that according to your understanding of Matt's definition of idolatry those who said they were "of" certain ones were idolaters. Later Paul says not to eat with idolaters, so then you say that Matt's definition would mean the whole church needed to disbanded.

Matt can speak for himself, but I don't see that this example fits what I heard Matt define. I wouldn' say that what was going on in Corinth related to saying "I am of" was the same as what we did in the Local Churches. There was someting happening in Corinth in seed form that was headed the wrong direction. If those with Apollos had put out everyone else, or had broken away and formed their own group saying they would submit absolutely to Apollos and whoever did not do this was not the true church and would not be received, then then Matt's definition might fit.

In the event that Appollos's followers had become exclusive and insisted on everyone following Apollos as God's man, the "not to eat with" directive would probably work out easily because I doubt Apollos's bunch would want to eat with the rest.

I think there is a difference between the situation in the Local Churches and that in Corinth. Corinth looks good by comparison.

TJ

Ohio

09-16-2008, 11:23 AM

Much has been said concerning idolatry in Israel, and we all could find many O.T. scripture to build a case, but I still have a gnawing question -- why did the Lord never address idolatry in the gospels. The Lord rebuked the Jewish leaders severely, even calling them "snakes" to their face, but never brought up the word "idol" or its many variants. This troubles me.

The Lord did address many serious heart matters repeatedly, such as hypocrisy, loving traditions of men, lording it over others, stubbornness, unbelief, etc. but He never once mentioned idolatry in Israel, when He walked the earth. Why is that? Did He forget? In fact, the N.T. is dead silent on idolatry until Stephen brought up Israel's history in Ac 7.41-43.

The Lord also nearly put no responsibility on the sheep. He placed it all squarely and pointedly and repeatedly on their leaders, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, fools, serpents, blind hypocrites!"

When the N.T. finally confronted idols for the first time, it was circa A.D. 50, at the Acts 15 council, which was supposed to be all about circumcision and the way of salvation. Since James et. al. were overwhelmed by the testimonies of Simeon and the plain truths of scripture, James decided to divert their attention to "abstain from things sacrificed to idols." Talking about changing the subject! It was Jewish pride and religious prejudices in Jerusalem which first introduced the topic of idolatry to the church. Interestingly, when Paul did finally travel to Europe, and confronted the rampant Greek idolatry in Athens and Corinth, he played down the matter of "abstaining," and instead instituted the first "don't ask, don't tell" policy (I Cor 10.25).

Roger, there was no biblical balance offered. All I heard was people's dislike of what Matt said. He did not insist that you agree with him and even acknowledged the disagreements. He didn't shoot the messengers speaking to him, as you all did him. He put a shield on against the punches and stayed at the table. Again, where is the biblical argument you set forth against what Matt said?

There is enough "Biblical balance" in this one recent post of mine, to meet all your requirements.

Martin Luther, in the early 16th century, as he was facing all the power of the Pope at the Diet of Worms, said that he would not budge unless convicted by "plain reason or the scriptures." Both have been offered here in abundance. Neither has been heard.

Paul Cox

09-16-2008, 11:55 AM

Thanks, Roger for this example. I missed this argument before, my bad. I did not review everything but was speaking from my general impression. I guess I didn't read this one closely enough at the time to grasp the point you were making.

Let me restate what you are saying here. You are saying that according to your understanding of Matt's definition of idolatry those who said they were "of" certain ones were idolaters. Later Paul says not to eat with idolaters, so then you say that Matt's definition would mean the whole church needed to disbanded.

Matt can speak for himself, but I don't see that this example fits what I heard Matt define. I wouldn' say that what was going on in Corinth related to saying "I am of" was the same as what we did in the Local Churches. There was someting happening in Corinth in seed form that was headed the wrong direction. If those with Apollos had put out everyone else, or had broken away and formed their own group saying they would submit absolutely to Apollos and whoever did not do this was not the true church and would not be received, then then Matt's definition might fit.

In the event that Appollos's followers had become exclusive and insisted on everyone following Apollos as God's man, the "not to eat with" directive would probably work out easily because I doubt Apollos's bunch would want to eat with the rest.

I think there is a difference between the situation in the Local Churches and that in Corinth. Corinth looks good by comparison.

TJ

I can see your point, Jane. But let me ask a further question. It is clear from the book of Galatians that those who "came down from James," perhaps had indeed taken their preference of an apostle to the same extreme as those who are devoted to Witness Lee. Would you say that they were engaging in idolatry? Was the idol James, or was it the Old Testament Law?

Not a trick question. They are beyond my ability to concoct. Just wondering.

Roger

PS I am the chief of those who speak from “my general impression.” Thanks for helping me to be more thourough.

Toledo

09-16-2008, 03:43 PM

... their preference of an apostle to the same extreme as those who are devoted to Witness Lee.

And the "broad brush" complaint still applies: Not everyone in all the local churches were/are devoted to Witness Lee. For many of us he was (and remains) a valued bible teacher and no more.

Paul Cox

09-16-2008, 05:13 PM

And the "broad brush" complaint still applies: Not everyone in all the local churches were/are devoted to Witness Lee. For many of us he was (and remains) a valued bible teacher and no more.

I can remember being in a series of meetings where Witness Lee was "training" us in the matter of touching the Lord. This was on the West Coast, during the late seventies when the young people had all gone out to there to be trained by him. My thirty-something child was in diapers at the time.

I can remember what a burning his words caused in my being. He told us to go home and deal with our consciences before the Lord. We went home and did so. I had no feeling at the time that I was doing it out of loyalty to "The Ministry." In my heart I was getting help on exercising before the Lord, and what I was doing when I went home was anything but idolatry. I, and most others, were genuinely touching the Lord. His presence was too real.

Of course, at the time there was a lot I didn't know about Witness Lee, and eventually I came to understand that even in the matter of touching the Lord on an individual basis the group agenda was always lurking. Nevertheless, my heart was clear before the Lord at the time, and there is no way I could have been accused of idolatry.

There are many saints in that system today who are having similar experiences. Bottom line is: You can’t paint everybody in the Living Stream Churches as having some involvement with idolatry. It’s just not a righteous view.

Roger

Peter Debelak

09-17-2008, 12:34 AM

Thanks, Roger for this example. I missed this argument before, my bad. I did not review everything but was speaking from my general impression. I guess I didn't read this one closely enough at the time to grasp the point you were making.

Let me restate what you are saying here. You are saying that according to your understanding of Matt's definition of idolatry those who said they were "of" certain ones were idolaters. Later Paul says not to eat with idolaters, so then you say that Matt's definition would mean the whole church needed to disbanded.

Matt can speak for himself, but I don't see that this example fits what I heard Matt define. I wouldn' say that what was going on in Corinth related to saying "I am of" was the same as what we did in the Local Churches. There was someting happening in Corinth in seed form that was headed the wrong direction. If those with Apollos had put out everyone else, or had broken away and formed their own group saying they would submit absolutely to Apollos and whoever did not do this was not the true church and would not be received, then then Matt's definition might fit.

In the event that Appollos's followers had become exclusive and insisted on everyone following Apollos as God's man, the "not to eat with" directive would probably work out easily because I doubt Apollos's bunch would want to eat with the rest.

I think there is a difference between the situation in the Local Churches and that in Corinth. Corinth looks good by comparison.

TJ

What were the Corinthians doing that Paul said: "Do not even eat with such a one..."?

Is everyone in LSM-abiding churches doing something equivalent?

If so, should I turn down meal invitations?

If not, is there something other than affiliation with an "LSM-church" which determines whether the "idolatry" is so bad that, as in Corinth, I should refuse and reject certain believers?

Peter

Thankful Jane

09-17-2008, 05:18 AM

Just a quick note to say that I was able to read the recent posts for the first time this morning, and I plan to respond as soon as I can. I have a packed week and will be out of pocket (away from a computer) for most of it. Thanks for your patience, and thanks for your good responses and questions.

Thankful Jane

Shawn

09-17-2008, 10:26 AM

Nell

09-17-2008, 02:20 PM

Sorry for the 800 pound gorilla remark, it was a little too colorful and off base, I will try to avoid uneeded hyperbole in the future.

I would say that the LC was not devoid of healthy teachings, I have heard quotes that 80 percent of the teachings of WL were founded in the brethern movement. Therefore, on the basics Christ was recognized as the preeminient One. This was clear in my understanding of the teachings of Witness Lee.

Do I need to write in 18 font to make the point that WL was not the minister of the age and is not perfect, but there was the element of experiencing Christ that is in his ministry and as such, can lay the ground work for a healthy practice of the church.
18 Font again, Many used his teachings and eventually brought him into an unhealthy exclusive understanding and practice of the church.

Do you remember he wrothe the book "Experiencing Christ?" he didn't write "Eexperiencing the Church" and if you look at that book there are ample references to knowing the Lord Jesus, that can be used in any Sunday School class to have a better understanding of how to know and live Jesus.

Today, there are many problems, that had their start early on in his ministry, but to ignore some of the teachings that were helpful will only cause the adjusting to go on to counter statements like "all who have attended are decieved, or the ministry was influensed by Satan. Sorry, I don't have the direct references and I have to run, please correct if I'm wrong.

Grace to you!

Shawn

Shawn,

Can out of the same mouth come blessing and cursing?
With the tongue (can) we Bless God and curse men?
Does a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
Can the fig tree bear olive berries?

Witness Lee's ministry is the epitome of blessing and cursing; bitter and sweet, as you have clearly noted above. Can such a thing be? How do you justify your position?

16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. 17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

No one denies the dark side of Witness Lee's ministry, so how can darkness and light coexist? You're going to need more than a bigger font ....

Nell and James (Ch. 3)

Ohio

09-17-2008, 02:41 PM

Can out of the same mouth come blessing and cursing?
With the tongue (can) we Bless God and curse men?
Does a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
Can the fig tree bear olive berries?

Witness Lee's ministry is the epitome of blessing and cursing; bitter and sweet, as you have clearly noted above. Can such a thing be? How do you justify your position?

History is filled with many, too many, gifted Christians, even great men of God, who both "blessed and cursed." Luther, Darby, and Lee come to mind. Just because James asked "How can it be?" doesn't mean it never was, nor never will be. James' word is more of a godly challenge than a statement of fact.
Luther spoke poorly of Jews and the Swiss reformers, like Zwingli.
Darby heaped more condemnation on Muller than any normal man could bear.
WL smeared the reputation of Ingalls et. al."These things, my brothers, ought not to be so." -- James 3.10

Amen, brother James! Lord, be merciful to us all.

Cal

09-17-2008, 03:27 PM

I've seen some things pretty close to cursing on these boards, and blessing from the same mouths (fingers?). I would hate to think that someone would say of me that because I was harsh with some at times in my life (and who hasn't been?) that means I've never blessed anyone either.

James isn't saying that blessing and cursing cannot come out of the same person, he's saying it should not. Otherwise we're all doomed.

Paul Cox

09-17-2008, 04:41 PM

Yes, and every church in the world, and every minister in the world is doomed. Could it be that the Lord has, because of the words of James, totally discarded His Church?

Roger

Nell

09-18-2008, 04:15 AM

Silly me. What was I thinking?

Nell

YP0534

09-18-2008, 05:04 AM

The mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Rom 8:1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
Rom 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God {did:} sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and {as an offering} for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
Rom 8:4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
Rom 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able {to do so,}
Rom 8:8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Paul Cox

09-18-2008, 06:28 AM

Yes, and every church in the world, and every minister in the world is doomed. Could it be that the Lord has, because of the words of James, totally discarded His Church?

Roger

Sorry, let me put it a little differently. As we survey the globe, is it possible to find a church or group of churches who it cannot be said of them that that both "blessings" and "cursing" come from them?

Someone has brought up different ministers from the past. But let's just take Witness Lee, for example. We were all there testifying of how blessed we were from the words spoken during his open ministry. Yet, at the same time, he was quick to "curse" those who disagreed with him.

I put the words blessings and curse in quotes because both words can be open to interpretation. When Witness Lee opened his mouth to condemn people like John Ingalls, it was clearly a curse, but to many it was a kind of a blessing.

So I guess that brings up a question. How do you define blessing, and how do you define cursing? Someone said that they heard cursing come from this board. I don’t think so.

To bless someone is to speak well of them and ask God’s favor upon what they are doing. So to curse someone must mean to ask God to hinder and foil someone or even to condemn them.

I have been cursed by some in the Local Church before. It was prayed that things would not go well in my life, and whenever anything did go wrong, it was said that the reason was because I was “against The Ministry” (The Lord did vindicate in the end). I don’t think I’ve seen that kind of thing here.

Maybe I’m all wet, but I think you have to view James’ words in light of what we see happening around us. Otherwise, as soon as we find out that a minister has had cursing coming from his mouth, then we would have to totally discard everything we were blessed with from him before.

I don’t think this is off-topic. Being cursed by someone in the Local Church is a terrible abuse.

Roger

Nell

09-18-2008, 09:53 AM

If Witness Lee had repented for his sins against the Lord's brothers while he was leading a "worldwide" Christian organization, and changed his ways, you all might have a point. He did not. How do we know? Because those who followed him in leadership have expanded and multiplied the sinful leadership practices begun by Lee, and in many ways, the remaining organization of a publishing company and its franchise "churches" are worse. The fruit of unrighteousness remains.

As long as people are willing to compromise and tolerate unrepentant sin and appreciate "the good works" of the sinner, sinful behavior will continue. Why repent if none are willing to hold you accountable? This is hypocrisy. This is leaven. This is meat sacrificed to idols. This is bad fruit. It really doesn't matter who does it. It's wrong. Sin is sin...call it what it is. God does not tolerate sin. He sent His Son to pay the price for our sinful behavior. What an affront to that ultimate sacrifice. What an affront! Does God drink of the guilded cup of the "good Witness Lee" with Lee's works of darkness inside? I don't think so. Whatever is holy and clean is of God. Witness Lee's righteousness is as filthy rags. So is mine. So is yours.

Why did God send Adam out of the garden if all he did was get a little deceived along the way? Chill, dude. Didn't Adam name all the animals? Look at all the good things Adam did. Adam was numero uno! The MAN. It wasn't his fault anyway...it was hers.

Nope. I don't buy it.

17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

Nell

bookworm

09-18-2008, 10:03 AM

History is filled with many, too many, gifted Christians, even great men of God, who both "blessed and cursed." Luther, Darby, and Lee come to mind. Just because James asked "How can it be?" doesn't mean it never was, nor never will be. James' word is more of a godly challenge than a statement of fact.
Luther spoke poorly of Jews and the Swiss reformers, like Zwingli.
Darby heaped more condemnation on Muller than any normal man could bear.
WL smeared the reputation of Ingalls et. al."These things, my brothers, ought not to be so." -- James 3.10

Amen, brother James! Lord, be merciful to us all.

Pardon me, but it appears that this thread has deteriorated to the smoke and mirrors kind of maneuverings most often seen with lawyers and certain prominent politicians who point out, “it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.”
How about letting the Word of God speak to us instead of our trying to manipulate it?

If there were to be a forum for those whose ancestors were abused by Martin Luther or by Darby, let those persons speak. But don’t shoot them down because of what they are sharing just for the sake of argument and on the false pretense of “presenting a balanced view.” Let the truth be stated.

bookworm

Cal

09-18-2008, 10:13 AM

Dear Nell,

The point is not that Lee or anyone else doesn't need to repent of sins. The point is that you said because he cursed some therefore he never blessed any, or because he didn't repent (to your satisfaction) any blessing he might have rendered is invalidated. My point is that either point is an extreme and incorrect view.

This issue is not how Lee will be judged. We don't know that. The issue is you seem to be saying he did nothing pleasing to God.

Nope. I don't buy it.

What, exactly, don't you buy?

Nell

09-18-2008, 10:23 AM

What are you talking about? :confused:

Read it again, Igzy. I didn't say any of that. I made 1 statement agreeing with Shawn, I quoted some verses and asked some questions. You have totally misrepresented my post.

Nell

Cal

09-18-2008, 10:26 AM

Okay, please help me to understand by telling me what you don't buy? Because I think you are misunderstanding me, too.

Nell

09-18-2008, 11:26 AM

I don't buy the whole idea that Witness Lee's ministry is an issue in the life of any Christian, to the extent lobbyists promote the "good" parts and a "sorry about the bad stuff but the good stuff makes it all worthwhile."

I don't buy that Christians need "Lee's ministry" AT ALL. Whatever is of eternal value or "good" about Witness Lee's ministry is in the Bible and we don't need Witness Lee to validate it. Witness Lee was not the source. He received a portion, but he also manufactured a portion. In fact, there is too much unrepentant sinful behavior associated with Lee to make this man an issue.

Was I blessed by God as a result of Lee's ministry? Yes. I've said so many times. Was Lee the source of the blessing? No. God was. Have I been blessed as a result of anyone else. Certainly. Do we need Lee's ministry? Others have given their lives to Lee's ministry and believe there is no other way to "go on", etc.

I don't buy it.

Nell

Cal

09-18-2008, 02:08 PM

In fact, there is too much unrepentant sinful behavior associated with Lee to make this man an issue.

What do you mean here by "an issue?" Do you mean a significant Christian in church history? If not, what exactly do you mean?

Ohio

09-18-2008, 02:59 PM

As long as people are willing to compromise and tolerate unrepentant sin and appreciate "the good works" of the sinner, sinful behavior will continue. Why repent if none are willing to hold you accountable? This is hypocrisy. This is leaven. This is meat sacrificed to idols. This is bad fruit. It really doesn't matter who does it. It's wrong. Sin is sin...call it what it is. God does not tolerate sin. He sent His Son to pay the price for our sinful behavior. What an affront to that ultimate sacrifice. What an affront! Does God drink of the guilded cup of the "good Witness Lee" with Lee's works of darkness inside? I don't think so. Whatever is holy and clean is of God. Witness Lee's righteousness is as filthy rags. So is mine. So is yours.
Nell

Whoa ... Nelly!

Yes, we need accountability, repentance for wrongdoings, rejection of the leaven of hypocrisy, but to liken my posts to "eating meat sacrificed to idols" is totally absurd.

Pardon me, but it appears that this thread has deteriorated to the smoke and mirrors kind of maneuverings most often seen with lawyers and certain prominent politicians who point out, “it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.” How about letting the Word of God speak to us instead of our trying to manipulate it?

If there were to be a forum for those whose ancestors were abused by Martin Luther or by Darby, let those persons speak. But don’t shoot them down because of what they are sharing just for the sake of argument and on the false pretense of “presenting a balanced view.” Let the truth be stated.

Am I now under attack for attempting to be fair and balanced, puttings events into perspective? Bookworm, are you now the one who alone can "state the truth"? Since when has “presenting a balanced view” become a "false pretense." Am I now a "smoke and mirrors" magician, since I brought some church history into the picture? Am I now the one who "parses words" like a former president of ours? Am I now compared to crooked politicians?

Does anyone else feel this way about my posts?

Shall I become as nasty as those who disagree with me?

That would be easy.

YP0534

09-18-2008, 03:13 PM

Shall I become as nasty as those who disagree with me?

That would be easy.

Please don't.

bookworm

09-18-2008, 03:26 PM

Am I now under attack for attempting to be fair and balanced, puttings events into perspective? Bookworm, are you now the one who alone can "state the truth"? Since when has “presenting a balanced view” become a "false pretense." Am I now a "smoke and mirrors" magician, since I brought some church history into the picture? Am I now the one who "parses words" like a former president of ours? Am I now compared to crooked politicians?

Does anyone else feel this way about my posts?

Shall I become as nasty as those who disagree with me?

That would be easy.

I was simply pointing out the fact that those who do make statements that are in line with the subject matter of this thread in the Spiritual Abuse Forum should not be jumped on for stating what occurred. I did not personally attack you. I just noted how sad it is that persons making statements regarding spiritual abuse in the LCS have been subjected to barbs from those who do not care to face these facts and for some reason feel compelled to defend the LCS.
I respect the word of those who make these statements. I do not feel the need to question them or to question the scriptures they share. You will note I have not made that many statements on this thread; therefore I am in no way insisting that “I alone can state the truth.”

aron

09-18-2008, 04:17 PM

Pardon me, but it appears that this thread has deteriorated to the smoke and mirrors kind of maneuverings most often seen with lawyers and certain prominent politicians who point out, “it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.”
How about letting the Word of God speak to us instead of our trying to manipulate it?

If there were to be a forum for those whose ancestors were abused by Martin Luther or by Darby, let those persons speak. But don’t shoot them down because of what they are sharing just for the sake of argument and on the false pretense of “presenting a balanced view.” Let the truth be stated.

bookworm

I have been abused by Luther. Some of his writings are terrible! Seriously. He fulminates in what he supposes to be some 'holy rage', or something. He writes with neither charity nor any other christian spirit.

Yet he has written words which brought the light of salvation to my view which I have rarely seen outside the Bible.

Luther could be narrow, pinched, crabby, miserable, and mean. Judgmental, horrible, nasty stuff. But at the same time God used him mightily.

I have read some of Lee's writings, some of the FPR characterizations of the 'rebels' come to mind, that are as nasty and unchristian as any you could imagine. I don't recommend reading it. It is really unchristian stuff. And I don't mind calling him on it. At the same time, some of his writings brought me light.

I think christian teachers and christian leaders can be capable of both good and bad. Luther never repented of his vituperations of others, as far as I know. Only God knows where he, Lee, or anyone else stands.

Paul Cox

09-18-2008, 06:49 PM

Whoa ... Nelly!
Yes, we need accountability, repentance for wrongdoings, rejection of the leaven of hypocrisy, but to liken my posts to "eating meat sacrificed to idols" is totally absurd.
Am I now under attack for attempting to be fair and balanced, puttings events into perspective? Bookworm, are you now the one who alone can "state the truth"? Since when has “presenting a balanced view” become a "false pretense." Am I now a "smoke and mirrors" magician, since I brought some church history into the picture? Am I now the one who "parses words" like a former president of ours? Am I now compared to crooked politicians?
Does anyone else feel this way about my posts?
Shall I become as nasty as those who disagree with me?
That would be easy.

You're A Okay in my book! :thumbup:

Ohio

09-19-2008, 06:28 AM

I was simply pointing out the fact that those who do make statements that are in line with the subject matter of this thread in the Spiritual Abuse Forum should not be jumped on for stating what occurred. I did not personally attack you. I just noted how sad it is that persons making statements regarding spiritual abuse in the LCS have been subjected to barbs from those who do not care to face these facts and for some reason feel compelled to defend the LCS.
I respect the word of those who make these statements. I do not feel the need to question them or to question the scriptures they share. You will note I have not made that many statements on this thread; therefore I am in no way insisting that “I alone can state the truth.”

I have not seen a single post where "one was jumped on for stating what occurred." Nor have I read one post where a victim of abuse was "subjected to barbs from those who do not care." I saw that on the other forum, but not here. I seriously protested these ones also.

What does bother me are the sweeping, condemning generalizations which result. I am only being consistent here -- rejecting the extremes from both sides, and attempting to stick to the facts of the matter. That's why I am so surprised to hear your comment that I "do not care to face these facts and for some reason feel compelled to defend the LCS." I have never diminished bad behavior. I do defend the many precious saints I have known over the years.

I am one also who does feel the need to ask questions of those who have been abused. Facts are important. Asking questions is not wrong, nor does it negate the pain of the abused ones. It is only a fairhearted attempt to be accurate, and doesn't need to be interpreted as an "interrogation."

bookworm

09-19-2008, 07:53 AM

Once again I will state that I have not personally attacked Ohio. Perhaps he takes it this way because I quoted him on post #899. In that post I followed up on his noting that Martin Luther and Darby had abused people. My point in that post was to point out that persons should be free to share their experiences of abuse without being put down for doing so. I was merely pointing out how in my opinion this thread had digressed due to people not wanting to face the facts of abuses that have occurred in the LC and feeling compelled to defend the LC.

Ohio

09-19-2008, 09:26 AM

Bookworm, I, and all others I'm sure, agree wholeheartedly that "persons should be free to share their experiences of abuse." I also have some sad stories of my own to tell, but some are just too personal, and this becomes compounded by the fact that I am no longer as "anonymous" as I once was. The flip side to anonymity is the issue of credibility -- how can the details be verified. But ... news outlets do this all the time, quoting "sources who spoke only on the condition of anonymity."

Once again, I will say that I have not seen any here who were "not wanting to face the facts of abuses." This statement is just not fair. To ask questions in order to "get to the bottom of things" is not denial, but a quest for the truth. It is also the just prerogative of all those involved, is it not?

When it comes to "defending the LC," try to see this from another perspective. Have you heard of "guilt by association?" There are tens of thousands of Christians involved in this statement. They all are as different as the posters on this forum. Nobody is "just like me" or are they "just like you." When I read "sweeping, condemning generalizations," I am forced to speak up, and that appears to some like you that I am "defending the LCS." In actuality, I am only protesting prejudices and stereotypes.

Peace

Nell

09-19-2008, 11:39 AM

...Yes, we need accountability, repentance for wrongdoings, rejection of the leaven of hypocrisy, but to liken my posts to "eating meat sacrificed to idols" is totally absurd.

I didn't single you out, Ohio. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Am I now under attack for attempting to be fair and balanced, puttings events into perspective? ... Since when has “presenting a balanced view” become a "false pretense." ...

Since when has "fair and balanced" become scriptural?

This is what Jesus said about leaven: Matt. 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Is that fair? Is that balanced? Do you think he whispered "betware"? I don't.

This is what Jesus said to the hypocrites about their hypocrisy:
Matt. 23:26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Was that fair? Was that balanced?

What about this? Is this fair?
Mark 11:15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; 16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. 17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves. 18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.

Please provide me some scripture verses that prescribe the Christian's responsibility to be "fair and balance". Define "fair". Fair according to what standard: political correctness, moral relativism, or the truth of God's word?

Nell

Nell

09-19-2008, 11:43 AM

What do you mean here by "an issue?" Do you mean a significant Christian in church history? If not, what exactly do you mean?

I think I've provided enough context for Lee as an issue. Lee's place in church history is a non-issue to me.

Nell

Paul Cox

09-19-2008, 02:30 PM

To say that all saints in the Local Church are indulging in idolatry, just by virtue of the fact that they are there is an unbalanced view.

To admit that there are many who do engage in idolatry, but that there are also many who do not; that is "fair and balanced."

Roger

Ohio

09-19-2008, 07:10 PM

Nell: I didn't single you out, Ohio. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Nell, I didn't put words in your mouth. You put them in your post and I quoted you. Are you now retracting your words?

Since when has "fair and balanced" become scriptural?
There are hundreds of verses I could quote. Read your Bible. Here's a good one: Phil. 4.5 Forbearance is "fair and balanced."

This is what Jesus said about leaven: Matt. 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. Is that fair? Is that balanced? Do you think he whispered "beware"? I don't.
The Lord's word was very fair and balanced. I like it. He condemned those whose actions deserved it. The Lord did not condemn every single Israelite who ever went into the temple.

This is what Jesus said to the hypocrites about their hypocrisy: Matt. 23:26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. 27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Was that fair? Was that balanced?
The Lord was very "fair and balanced" here. He spoke of the hypocrisy of those who pretend righteous actions. The Israelites loved the Lord because He rebuked their rotten leaders. But not all were rotten, there were a few like Nicodemus. Praise the Lord for that.

What about this? Is this fair? Mark 11:15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; 16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. 17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves. 18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.
The Lord was very "fair and balanced" here also. He exposed evil and unrighteousness in His Father's house. The Lord never treated the sheep of God cruelly. He went straight to the source of corruption. Isn't He wonderful!?!

Please provide me some scripture verses that prescribe the Christian's responsibility to be "fair and balance". Define "fair". Fair according to what standard: political correctness, moral relativism, or the truth of God's word?
You could start with the Beatitudes. :)

blessD

09-19-2008, 11:11 PM

After I left the local churches, I spent time (20 years) visiting and becoming involved in all types of churches (not all at once). I was seeking to find the truth on many points.

I don't see much similarity, really, between Witness Lee and the local churches and these various Christian teachers and groups. I have never seen the same level of arrogance, pride, exclusion, leader-worship, error in teaching, etc. as I saw come from Witness Lee and the local churches. Effective preachers/teachers are pretty humble. Most Christians are open to reaching out to any other Christian regardless of the church they attend. They reach out without motive of bringing them into 'the fold'. Some are reading their Bibles regularly and seeking the Lord in their everyday life, but they don't take the view they are superior to others. These usually avoid putting too much emphasis on a human preacher/teacher knowing worship belongs to Jesus, the King of Kings.

Therefore, I just don't get the attempt to validate the wrong-doings or abuses of Witness Lee and the local churches by saying there is similarity between other Christian teachers or groups. They (other preachers and groups) aren't touting they are the one true church and have 'the light' on the earth today.

So, to me, it doesn't pass the Duck Test: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I would call it a duck.

Surely, I cannot be alone in my 20 year Duck Test and conclusion that it doesn't walk or quack like a duck.

Nell

09-20-2008, 04:45 AM

...Surely, I cannot be alone in my 20 year Duck Test and conclusion that it doesn't walk or quack like a duck.

You're not alone, BlessD. :)

Nell

Nell

09-20-2008, 04:46 AM

kisstheson

09-20-2008, 08:34 AM

Hello dear sister BlessD,

I have not been away from the LC nearly as long as you have, but like you I have received much mercy from the Lord and He has granted me a seeking heart. (How I need to fall on my face before Him and thank and praise Him!) Since leaving the LC, I have fellowshipped with a good number of Christians from several home churches, community churches, and free groups. I also still occassionally get together with a few brothers from the LC. Besides all this fellowship from many sources, our dear Lord has greatly blessed me by opening my eyes to the riches which can be found in the writings and speakings of many dear ministers of Christ besides Nee and Lee.

Having been through all this, and having considered all this before the Lord, my basic conclusion remains: In the LSM-loyal LC there is a visible, tangible, lack of both a spirit of repentance and a spirit of love, and this lack continues to grow over time. In the place of a spirit of repentance and a spirit of love, there exists a terrible spirit of religious jealousy. I love so many there, but over time the LSM system continues to grow further and further away from the Lord. So many dear ones don't know anything else and don't know what to do. This saddens me and grieves my heart to no end. :verysad:

May God be merciful to them and may he continue to be merciful to all of us.

Thankful Jane

09-20-2008, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Ohio
Much has been said concerning idolatry in Israel, and we all could find many O.T. scripture to build a case, but I still have a gnawing question -- why did the Lord never address idolatry in the gospels. The Lord rebuked the Jewish leaders severely, even calling them "snakes" to their face, but never brought up the word "idol" or its many variants. This troubles me.

The Lord did address many serious heart matters repeatedly, such as hypocrisy, loving traditions of men, lording it over others, stubbornness, unbelief, etc. but He never once mentioned idolatry in Israel, when He walked the earth. Why is that? Did He forget? In fact, the N.T. is dead silent on idolatry until Stephen brought up Israel's history in Ac 7.41-43.

Dear Ohio,

The O.T. Scriptures are for our learning. God did not fill the O.T. with warnings about idolatry just to fill the pages with print. According to the Bible, whatever is there is for our learning. The Bible says:

Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

(Note: both of these passages are referring to the O.T. because it was the only “scriptures” they had when Paul wrote these words.)

Are you suggesting that if Jesus didn’t mention something that is clearly mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, His words, to the exclusion of others in the Scriptures, should become a standard for our understanding the Word of God? This strikes at something very fundamental in what we believe, which is that all Scripture is God-breathed. I don’t believe the red letter verses are more the Word of God than others, do you?

If the standard for understanding the Word of God is “Did Jesus mention or not mention something?” then you can reduce your Bible to the red letters and whatever passages in the O.T. they refer to, and be done with it. To say that Jesus didn’t say something is not a biblical argument.

Does it “gnaw” at you if people talk about other things in the Bible that Jesus did not mention? I don’t remember him talking about Adam and the garden of Eden. I am sure we could think of other things in the O.T. that he didn’t talk about when he was on earth.

Also, we shouldn’t forget that the New Testament speaks about spiritual realities. The O.T. was given to help us understand concepts that are not easy to understand. We no longer have animal sacrifices and all the various offerings literally, but they help us understand the sacrifice of God's son and what that means spiritually. It is the same with idolatry. There is a spiritual application.

Jesus may not have said the word “idolatry” but he clearly expresses the idea when he says we cannot serve two masters and when he says we should love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, strength, referring to the ten commandments. What will you do with I Cor. 10:14 where Paul clearly told us to flee idolatry, after pointing back to the idolatry of the children of Israel. (BTW, this is a passage that you could use to argue that God doesn’t judge all ... because he said “some” repeatedly. I’m all for biblical discussion, even if I argue the other side a bit. It's always a good thing if we are handling the Word of God ourselves. J)

Originally Posted by Ohio
The Lord also nearly put no responsibility on the sheep. He placed it all squarely and pointedly and repeatedly on their leaders, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, fools, serpents, blind hypocrites!"

Your use of “nearly no” referring to the sheep and then “all” referring to the leaders is confusing. Which is it? We know that He puts responsibility on us as sheep for our own actions because we will have to give account in that day for the things done in our body. I think this means we should be careful not to try and lay blame that is ours elsewhere. I do agree, however, that the lionshare of blame goes on the leaders. Jer. 23 and Ez. 34 make that clear. This does not absolve us for submitting to bad leaders when they were in violation of the word of God, because we were commanded to serve God only.

Originally Posted by Ohio
When the N.T. finally confronted idols for the first time, it was circa A.D. 50, at the Acts 15 council, which was supposed to be all about circumcision and the way of salvation. Since James et. al. were overwhelmed by the testimonies of Simeon and the plain truths of scripture, James decided to divert their attention to "abstain from things sacrificed to idols." Talking about changing the subject! It was Jewish pride and religious prejudices in Jerusalem which first introduced the topic of idolatry to the church. Interestingly, when Paul did finally travel to Europe, and confronted the rampant Greek idolatry in Athens and Corinth, he played down the matter of "abstaining," and instead instituted the first "don't ask, don't tell" policy (I Cor 10.25).

I don’t have time to look into this now. You are only speculating about why James did what he did. I don’t agree that this was the first introduction to the church of the topic of idolatry. The Jewish people understood idolatry quite well having under their belt the history of the Babylonian captivity which took place when God judged them for their idolatries. This was not a foreign topic. Also, there were people who had practiced idolatry before, who were coming to Christ and being admitted to the church. Their past way of life would easily be a topic. (That’s some of my speculation.)

Originally Posted by Ohio
Martin Luther, in the early 16th century, as he was facing all the power of the Pope at the Diet of Worms, said that he would not budge unless convicted by "plain reason or the scriptures." Both have been offered here in abundance. Neither has been heard.

No, Ohio,scriptural arguments have not been offered in “abundance.” I think that’s exaggeration. So is your statement that “neither has been heard.” I once heard a counselor say not to mix up “hearing” with “agreeing.” It would be more true to say “neither has been agreed with or accepted.”

There is enough "Biblical balance" in this one recent post of mine, to meet all your requirements. I’m sorry for hastily saying there was no biblical balance offered. So far you and Roger have brought forth two posts with biblical arguments. So, yes, there was a some, but I believe these were greatly outweighed by the volume of responses without biblical argumentation. My statement was probably influenced by the fact that I have put out numerous biblical arguments on this thread that no one has responded to, except for Peter D. who responded to one of them. Care to respond to what I wrote in post # 750?

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane

09-20-2008, 11:44 AM

I can see your point, Jane. But let me ask a further question. It is clear from the book of Galatians that those who "came down from James," perhaps had indeed taken their preference of an apostle to the same extreme as those who are devoted to Witness Lee. Would you say that they were engaging in idolatry? Was the idol James, or was it the Old Testament Law?

Not a trick question. They are beyond my ability to concoct. Just wondering.

Roger

PS I am the chief of those who speak from “my general impression.” Thanks for helping me to be more thourough.

Dear Roger,

Yes, general impressions seem to rule the day here on both sides of arguments. Sigh.

To answer your question about James and his followers, I don’t think we have enough information to make the comparison to Lee and his followers. We know plenty enough about Lee and his followers to make statements about how their beliefs and practices compare to idolatry. I doubt seriously James was like Lee. Maybe Diotrophes was. Also, James was willing to make concessions later. That doesn’t sound like Lee.

Roger I don’t think that “devotion” is the only test for idolatry. Who/what we serve and obey more than God is a better test and one we can measure because we can see deeds done that are disobedient to God. We can’t measure “love” or “devotion” because they are feelings of the heart. I actually agree with the argument that idolatry is far reaching (outside of the LC.) I really don’t have a problem calling it what it is, wherever it is, even when it fits me. The LC idolatry goes beyond just loving some things. They fight to protect these things as God’s very truth and are willing to exclude others based on their own definition of what is true. This takes it to another level of seriousness.

What I don’t get is why it seems so important to avoid applying the idolatry shoe to all feet that it fits. Isn’t forgiveness only a few breaths of confession to God away? Do we need to defend our own or others works as righteous? According to the Bible, our best, even if it seems defensible to us, is but filthy rags to Him.

Why do we need to protect people from hearing something they might not like to hear? Shouldn’t every person be given information to evaluate and reach their own conclusion? Do we really need to “protect” people from hearing certain arguments. In my opinion, part of the sickness in the LC today is a result of just such “protection.” People weren't allowed to develop discernment by experience and exercising their senses to know both good and evil. People don't develop strong immune systems without exposure to germs. They get antibodies this way. The LC folks are defenseless because they have not been allowed or encouraged to think for themselves.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane

09-20-2008, 11:49 AM

And the "broad brush" complaint still applies: Not everyone in all the local churches were/are devoted to Witness Lee. For many of us he was (and remains) a valued bible teacher and no more.

If the broad brush doesn’t apply, it doesn’t apply. I still don't see anything wrong with broad brush observations, definitions, or applications. If people’s deeds cause them to fit under the picture that brush paints, then they apply to them. If they don’t fit, then they don’t apply.

I am assuming from what you say that you never submitted to any demands made by Witness Lee, but only appreciated his teachings. Am I correct about this?

Toledo, if a believer willingly submits to and obeys the demands of someone who tells them to do something that is against God’s word, isn’t such serving of someone else other than God an act of idolatry?

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane

09-20-2008, 12:00 PM

I can remember being in a series of meetings where Witness Lee was "training" us in the matter of touching the Lord. This was on the West Coast, during the late seventies when the young people had all gone out to there to be trained by him. My thirty-something child was in diapers at the time.

I can remember what a burning his words caused in my being. He told us to go home and deal with our consciences before the Lord. We went home and did so. I had no feeling at the time that I was doing it out of loyalty to "The Ministry." In my heart I was getting help on exercising before the Lord, and what I was doing when I went home was anything but idolatry. I, and most others, were genuinely touching the Lord. His presence was too real.

Of course, at the time there was a lot I didn't know about Witness Lee, and eventually I came to understand that even in the matter of touching the Lord on an individual basis the group agenda was always lurking. Nevertheless, my heart was clear before the Lord at the time, and there is no way I could have been accused of idolatry.

There are many saints in that system today who are having similar experiences. Bottom line is: You can’t paint everybody in the Living Stream Churches as having some involvement with idolatry. It’s just not a righteous view. Roger
Dear Roger,

I would never say that people can or do not have experiences of the Lord in the LC. It is possible to experience the Lord anywhere.

For a view to be a righteous one, it must be true. So, we have to test the truth of the claim that all in the LC have some level of involvement in idolatry. Staying with my definition, which is to obey someone other than God in violation of God's Word, do you believe there are some in the LC who have submitted to the demands of the Blendeds in the present or who have not submitted to the demands of Lee in the past? Remember that silent assent is submission, and it is also sin if the demand is against God’s word. You can go a long way towards winning the argument with me that all were not involved in idolatry at least to some degree if you can prove to me that those who remain there are not submitting to dictates by men that are against the Word of God. If they are serving God only (not committing idolatry), they will not bow to unrighteous dictates, even if it costs them everything.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane

09-20-2008, 12:30 PM

What were the Corinthians doing that Paul said: "Do not even eat with such a one..."?

Is everyone in LSM-abiding churches doing something equivalent?

If so, should I turn down meal invitations?
If not, is there something other than affiliation with an "LSM-church" which determines whether the "idolatry" is so bad that, as in Corinth, I should refuse and reject certain believers?

Peter

Dear Peter,

This verse by Paul is very specifically applied to people who are established to be such ones—ones for whom this is a way of life. If someone becomes involved in fornication or adultery and will not repent and stop the behavior, then they can be judged to be such a one. If a fellow believer habitually obeys dictates from someone that are clearly against the plain teaching of the Bible, and they will not repent when confronted with this, then they can be considered "such a one." This doesn't just apply to fornication, as I thought in the past. The Bible says clearly that one who practices coveting as a way of life is an idolater, and a brother who is an idolater is in the list of those with whom we should not eat.

Would I refuse meal invites? It would depend on the situation. If it had not been clearly established that someone was "such a one," I would not decline an invitation to eat. However, if it had been clearly established that someone was "such a one," then I would decline. This doesn’t mean I could never talk to them. It just means that I would not be able to enjoy close, intimate, family interactions and fellowship with them around the table. My unwillingness to eat at the table with them is a reminder to them that something is wrong. The purpose in this is to help them not forget their sin and to help them come to repentance. Note that I said "if this is established." This can't be done on a whim or as a result of gossip you have heard. There must be a proper process of having established what is really true which involves them, meaning Matt. 18 steps of communicating. If you just decide you think someone is an idolater and stop eating with them without communicating why, that would be wrong.

I have been put in this position in my life with people I love very much and am having to walk in it currently. I feel the loss keenly, but I have God’s peace that passes understanding and I believe He is working to convict of sin. I remember vividly a time in the past when the Lord gave me the verse "with such a one no not to eat" just before I was about to invite a sister to lunch, so I didn't. Later the Lord told me to ask her if she was involved in fornication. I did and she was, much to my surprise. When she refused to repent, I told her that the Bible did not allow me to have a nice social relationship with her as long as she continued this way of life because she was a sister in Christ. She chose to go her way for a few months, but later returned to tell me she had repented. Our fellowship was restored. She thanked me for having taken a clear stance with her about this. She had not been able to forget it.

I know this sounds hard to think about practicing. It isn't easy to write about it either. We love people, but sometimes true love is to do the hard thing in love. Often, the hardest thing is honest communication. It's always easier just to avoid it.

This is my view. I leave you and any one else to reach their own conclusion about what these verses mean in practice.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane

09-20-2008, 12:59 PM

Since when has "fair and balanced" become scriptural?
There are hundreds of verses I could quote. Read your Bible. Here's a good one: Phil. 4.5 Forbearance is "fair and balanced."

Sorry for so many posts in a row. I'm taking advantage of some time I have today to answer past posts. This is the last one.

Forbearance does not mean fair and balanced.

Forbearance means patient, tolerant, self controlled, not responding to provocation. Fair and balanced refers to the fair presentation of facts without any bias; presenting facts in an even-handed manner, taking in account all sides without prejudice or favoritism; objective. (Not many can do this; not even Fox news.)

That definition rules out the majority of us on this thread. Bias is clearly here on both sides of this discussion. The Bible’s standard is not fair and balanced. The Bible’s standard is truth. I choose not to use fair and balanced as a standard for communicating, but the Bible’s.

What are some more of those hundreds of verses that you say show "fair and balanced?" The ones you gave so far show that truth was the standard Jesus used. He very frequently started his statements with "I tell you the truth (truly, truly; verily, verily)."

So the question is what is true? Some here believe that there are some in the LCs who are not guilty of practicing idolatry. Some here believe that all are to some degree. What do the facts show?

If a believer habitually obeys the words of someone other than God and does things that God Word says are wrong, is not this to serve another other than God, and is not this idolatry? If people are aware that brothers in Christ like John I, Bill M, and Titus C have been cut off or quarantined by the dictates of leadership and they have not investigated this and have just gone along with the dictates to cut off fellowship with these brothers in Christ by silently assenting to something that can be proven to be against the words of the Bible, isn't this idolatry? Their silence is assent. I will agree that there may be some in the LC that are new and have yet to hear of the quarantines, etc. So, I would agree at least in this case that it is possible that not "all" are guilty. When someone who is new, however, is presented with the opportunity to agree with quarantining and if they don't question this but just go along, they become guilty.

If people in the LCs don’t realize or understand the seriousness of what they are doing, then shouldn’t someone tell them so they can repent and say that they disagree with this practice? Even those in the LCs who have stopped obeying the Blendeds in the present, have obeyed them and Lee in the past. Shouldn’t they repent and state that what they did in the past was wrong because they submitted to someone other than God? If they don’t, aren’t they still guilty?

Thankful Jane

Toledo

09-20-2008, 01:07 PM

If the broad brush doesn’t apply, it doesn’t apply. I still don't see anything wrong with broad brush observations, definitions, or applications. If people’s deeds cause them to fit under the picture that brush paints, then they apply to them. If they don’t fit, then they don’t apply.

So it's okay to make a general slur and insult on a wide group of people, then claim it doesn't apply to some of the individuals you included...? I'm sure you didn't mean this as ungraciously as it sounds.

I am assuming from what you say that you never submitted to any demands made by Witness Lee, but only appreciated his teachings. Am I correct about this?

To be fair, I was very much a young brother while WL was still alive. I had very few dealings directly with him. Except for keeping the rules of his various trainings, I cannot say that he ever made any particular demands on me.

And, yes, I appreciated his teachings, even as I appreciated the teachings of Lewis Sperry Chafer that were remarkably similar.

Toledo, if a believer willingly submits to and obeys the demands of someone who tells them to do something that is against God’s word, isn’t such serving of someone else other than God an act of idolatry?

You make two points here. I shall try to answer both:

1) I cannot recall ever being asked to do anything against God's word. However, I realize that time is both a balm and an anesthetic -- maybe I have forgotten or have hidden away some lapse of conscience. Do you, perhaps, have an example that may refresh my memory. I am not at all sure of what you mean.

2) "{I}sn’t such serving of someone else other than God an act of idolatry?"

Idolatry has to do with the worship of idols. The "such serving" to which you refer would seem to be more of an act of disobedience. Eve ate an apple (whatever...), submitting to the serpent against God's word, yet the bible never calls her an idolater.

I'm not saying that you haven't put your finger on some very serious offenses in the local churches. Rather that calling it idolatry is forcing a definition that simply does not fit. As much as Cinderella's step-sisters tried, they could not get their feet into Prince Charming's glass slipper.

At the beginning of this thread djohnson kept referring to "Leeaholisim", a made up term, and Matt corrected him -- there is no such thing as "Leeaholism". Unfortunately, calling the problem idolatry doesn't fit any better (then insisting that everyone who ever met with the local churches bought into idolatry fits even less).

Toledo

09-20-2008, 01:09 PM

In the LSM-loyal LC there is a visible, tangible, lack of both a spirit of repentance and a spirit of love, and this lack continues to grow over time. In the place of a spirit of repentance and a spirit of love, there exists a terrible spirit of religious jealousy. I love so many there, but over time the LSM system continues to grow further and further away from the Lord. So many dear ones don't know anything else and don't know what to do. This saddens me and grieves my heart to no end.

Amen and amen

Ohio

09-20-2008, 07:04 PM

No, Ohio,scriptural arguments have not been offered in “abundance.” I think that’s exaggeration. So is your statement that “neither has been heard.” I once heard a counselor say not to mix up “hearing” with “agreeing.” It would be more true to say “neither has been agreed with or accepted.”

I’m sorry for hastily saying there was no biblical balance offered. So far you and Roger have brought forth two posts with biblical arguments. So, yes, there was a some, but I believe these were greatly outweighed by the volume of responses without biblical argumentation. My statement was probably influenced by the fact that I have put out numerous biblical arguments on this thread that no one has responded to, except for Peter D. who responded to one of them. Care to respond to what I wrote in post # 750?

Thankful Jane

TJ, some of your comments are too obvious to respond to. I do not necessarily need to quote a verse to speak the word of God, in fact, all too often verses quoted neither support nor refute the point proffered. If I say that we should not categorically condemn all God's people as idolaters, how many scripture do I need?

Btw, post #750 is just too long for me to comment on.

And, also btw, "fair and balanced" can be well described by the word "forbearance." It is an excellent virtue of Christians. That's why it should be made known to others. In this godly virtue, the Lord is near. Some of the extreme views I have read here I would not want anyone to hear or know.

TJ, we can talk about this forever and get no where. The matter is simple. The N.T. does not support the extreme views on idolatry in all the LC's that are promoted by some on this thread. I personally feel, as I posted, that if the matter was that urgent for Israel, then the Lord would have addressed it while on earth, but he did not. Considering the breadth of topics covered in the gospels, this is legitimate.

You are entitled to your views also. Peace.

Nell

09-20-2008, 09:26 PM

... I do not necessarily need to quote a verse to speak the word of God, ...

Uh...yeah...I think you do. Maybe you'd better 'splain this one. As a minimum, whatever you must agree with scripture. Is that what you mean?

Nell

Thankful Jane

09-20-2008, 10:22 PM

So it's okay to make a general slur and insult on a wide group of people, then claim it doesn't apply to some of the individuals you included...? I'm sure you didn't mean this as ungraciously as it sounds. Hi Toledo,

Would you mind quoting the general slur [speaking in an insulting or demeaning way] and insult [rude or insensitive or contemptuous comment] that I made on a wide group of people. Maybe I did this, but I don’t remember doing it.

To be fair, I was very much a young brother while WL was still alive. I had very few dealings directly with him. Except for keeping the rules of his various trainings, I cannot say that he ever made any particular demands on me.
And, yes, I appreciated his teachings, even as I appreciated the teachings of Lewis Sperry Chafer that were remarkably similar.

You make two points here. I shall try to answer both:

1) I cannot recall ever being asked to do anything against God's word. However, I realize that time is both a balm and an anesthetic -- maybe I have forgotten or have hidden away some lapse of conscience. Do you, perhaps, have an example that may refresh my memory. I am not at all sure of what you mean.

Did you go along with the quarantining of John Ingalls and Bill Mallon? I think it is clear now that this was in violation of the Word. The Bible tells us to receive all whom Christ has received. Witness Lee unrighteously labeled them and put them out. His followers were told to do likewise. Maybe you weren’t there then, but that would be one example.

2) "{I}sn’t such serving of someone else other than God an act of idolatry?"

Idolatry has to do with the worship of idols. The "such serving" to which you refer would seem to be more of an act of disobedience. Eve ate an apple (whatever...), submitting to the serpent against God's word, yet the bible never calls her an idolater.

I'm not saying that you haven't put your finger on some very serious offenses in the local churches. Rather that calling it idolatry is forcing a definition that simply does not fit. As much as Cinderella's step-sisters tried, they could not get their feet into Prince Charming's glass slipper.

At the beginning of this thread djohnson kept referring to "Leeaholisim", a made up term, and Matt corrected him -- there is no such thing as "Leeaholism". Unfortunately, calling the problem idolatry doesn't fit any better (then insisting that everyone who ever met with the local churches bought into idolatry fits even less).I think Matt used the term idolatry because it was a biblical term whose meaning contains the idea behind “Leeholism.”

Part of the problem we are having on this thread is understanding what idolatry is and if it has any application to believers. Do you think the Bible teaches that it is only applicable to literal idol worshippers, meaning heathen that bowed down to wood or stone or molten idols?

I find that many misunderstandings and stalemated arguments occur because of failure to have a common understanding of terms being used. What explanation or definition do you find in the Bible? If you could give me verses I would appreciate that.

Have you ever really studied this topic before? I just started seriously looking at it this year. Idolatry is everywhere in the Old Testament, especially among God’s people. I think we are foolish if we don’t consider seriously the possibility that it has application to us today. I don’t believe that idolatry just went away and as believers we don’t need to be warned by its dangers.

Heb 2:1-3 Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.

For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward;

How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

Heb 4:11 Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

Since we can fall into the same example of unbelief as the children of Israel, it seems prudent that we should study and understand their failures. When I try to do that, I find idolatry everywhere. This tells me I need to seek to understand how idolatry applies to us as believers. Paul seemed to think it applied.

I have been surprised to discover how much God equates idolatry with unfaithfulness to Him and with fornication and even whoredoms, both in the Old and the New Testaments. When the children of Israel fell into idolatry he often called their actions harlotry. He was very jealous over them. Paul tells us God is also jealous over us. Studying idolatry has helped me understand that He wants to relate to each of us directly as a husband and doesn’t want anyone or anything to come between us and Him. The second commandment says, “For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God ...” Understanding the perils of idolatry, and realizing that I unknowingly fell into it, has helped me want to walk in the light of His intense love and jealously and zealously guard my relationship with Him.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane

09-20-2008, 10:28 PM

TJ, some of your comments are too obvious to respond to. I do not necessarily need to quote a verse to speak the word of God, in fact, all too often verses quoted neither support nor refute the point proffered. If I say that we should not categorically condemn all God's people as idolaters, how many scripture do I need?Ohio,
I never said all God’s people should be condemned as idolaters. Your misquoting is getting old. Sorry you find some of my comments "too obvious" to be worthy of a response. I try to respond to your comments out of respect without labeling them as unworthy in some way, but I’ll be happy to stop responding to them. Please be so kind as to stop responding to mine if you don’t want to have actual dialogue.Btw, post #750 is just too long for me to comment on. Sorry. I forgot how much you don’t like my long posts and that you have frequently complained about that, or I would not have pointed to this post. It has real content in it to which I was hoping someone would reply. Silly me for thinking you might. Sorry I couldn’t condense it into a few long catchy phrases. I prefer not to insult people’s intelligence and like to provide solid food for thought. I don’t know what makes me think that on a discussion forum people might not mind reading a page of material.

The Bible is kind of long too. It takes effort and time to get into that also. I guess pre-digested and leavened are a better way to go for some people.And, also btw, "fair and balanced" can be well described by the word "forbearance." It is an excellent virtue of Christians. That's why it should be made known to others. In this godly virtue, the Lord is near. Some of the extreme views I have read here I would not want anyone to hear or know.Forbearance doesn’t mean that in any dictionary I find. Words have meanings. Neither does my Bible list fair and balanced as a godly virtue. The Lord is not near unto those that are fair and balanced but unto those who have clean hands and a pure heart.TJ, we can talk about this forever and get no where. Right. It takes two willing people to have a real conversation before a conversation can go somewhere.The matter is simple. The N.T. does not support the extreme views on idolatry in all the LC's that are promoted by some on this thread.
It is not an “extreme view” to say idolatry is being practiced by members of a very small group of believers (a very small percentage of the whole body of Christ) who got fixated on one man’s teaching and practices to such a degree that they could speak poorly of all other ministries and even exclude their real brothers from fellowship and never feel one pang of conscience when they did so. I agree with BlessD that this is far from the norm in most Christian circles. You did not escape this sin when you were in the LC any more than I did.
I personally feel, as I posted, that if the matter was that urgent for Israel, then the Lord would have addressed it while on earth, but he did not. Considering the breadth of topics covered in the gospels, this is legitimate. You can restrict your beliefs to the red letters if you want. I think I’ll keep my whole Bible. I know it’s long, but God must have thought we could handle that.You are entitled to your views also. Peace. Likewise.

TJ

Timotheist

09-21-2008, 02:21 AM

PR 11:1 A false balance is an abomination to the LORD,
But a just weight is His delight.

YP0534

09-21-2008, 05:37 AM

The Lord is ... near unto those ... who have clean hands and a pure heart.

I'm having trouble finding this delightful verse.

Can you show it to me so that I may give my Amen?

Thank you.

Ohio

09-21-2008, 05:48 AM

I do not necessarily need to quote a verse to speak the word of God, in fact, all too often verses quoted neither support nor refute the point proffered.

PR 11:1 A false balance is an abomination to the LORD,
But a just weight is His delight.TJ, here is an example of looking into a concordance and quoting a verse which "neither supports nor refutes the point proffered." What does "fair and balanced" have to do with a "false balance?" Obviously, my phrase "fair and balanced," in the context of Solomon's retail exchange, is the same as a "just weight," which is "His delight."

No offense to Timotheist, maybe he was supporting my point, I don't know.

Long ago I became disgusted with the practice of "verse wars." They were played too often. I just have not seen any scripture which provides the sweeping judgment of idolatry upon all who ever sat in a LC meeting. The scripture I have seen required huge stretches of inference. Toledo said it well here, "Rather that calling it idolatry is forcing a definition that simply does not fit. As much as Cinderella's step-sisters tried, they could not get their feet into Prince Charming's glass slipper."

Ohio

09-21-2008, 06:10 AM

It is not an “extreme view” to say idolatry is being practiced by members of a very small group of believers (a very small percentage of the whole body of Christ) who got fixated on one man’s teaching and practices to such a degree that they could speak poorly of all other ministries and even exclude their real brothers from fellowship and never feel one pang of conscience when they did so. You did not escape this sin when you were in the LC any more than I did.

No, this bothered me. I had pangs of conscience long ago. That's why I separated myself from "the ministry." To be prejudiced and judgmental against other believers is wrong, but it cannot be used to support the crusade for the definition of idolatry.

Isn't it a little unfair to say that I believe only "red letter" words, when my real comment was just this: If the case against idolatry in God's people was so great, don't you think that the Lord would have mentioned it while on earth? Can we both be "fair and balanced?"

Cal

09-21-2008, 09:30 AM

The Bible’s standard is truth. I choose not to use fair and balanced as a standard for communicating, but the Bible’s.

I don't agree with this way of putting it. Otherwise the implication is that the Bible is unfair and unbalanced.

Anyone who presents Truth (not just facts) is automatically fair and balanced. Fair means just; balanced means giving everything its just due. The truth by its very nature does that, otherwise it wouldn't be truth.

The meaning of "fair and balanced" can be twisted, and has been in our time. News commentators are expected to shy away from making moral judgments, and so sometimes ridiculously ascribe moral ambiguity where no normal person would. For example, calling terrorists "freedom fighters," or banning the word "terrorist" because it is judgmental. This isn't fair and balanced, it's disengagement from reality.

I don't think people here are alluding to that kind of "fair and balanced." So I think it's safe to say God, therefore God's word, is fair and balanced.

That said, I think Jane makes a strong point in arguing that undiscerning obedience to leaders can issue in a kind of idolatry. This is why I said idolatry is a symptom not a cause. No one joins the LC to be an idolator, and few if any would remain in idolatry if they thought they had a choice. The whole problem with LSM/LCers is they don't think they have a choice.

The root cause of it all is the inappropriate mandate of obedience and oneness that necessarily leads people to place leadership above the Word, their consciences and even the Holy Spirit. That's the reason for the moral ambivalence.

This is the local church's chief flaw.

Ohio

09-21-2008, 01:00 PM

The root cause of it all is the inappropriate mandate of obedience and oneness that necessarily leads people to place leadership above the Word, their consciences and even the Holy Spirit. That's the reason for the moral ambivalence. This is the local church's chief flaw.

Igzy, you make a good point. The history of the RCC shows us that distorted oneness is a root of evil, opening the door for all kinds of rottenness. They did not begin with idols, these came in much later. They began with oneness, a noble ideal at first. But with distorted oneness comes submission and obedience to a "program." How else are diverse opinions silenced? Distorted oneness always operates thru fear. For sure, many godly men saw things deteriorating over time, but distorted oneness prevailed. When all opinions are quenched, even the voice of the conscience is muffled within. God's word becomes secondary to church teachings and practices of the oneness church. The RCC may have a ~1,800 year head start, but the beginnings are similar.

Timotheist

09-21-2008, 05:23 PM

TJ, here is an example of looking into a concordance and quoting a verse which "neither supports nor refutes the point proffered." What does "fair and balanced" have to do with a "false balance?" Obviously, my phrase "fair and balanced," in the context of Solomon's retail exchange, is the same as a "just weight," which is "His delight."

In the context of the chapter, the balance is referring to a man's character, a balance of pride and humility.

Toledo

09-22-2008, 09:26 AM

Hi Toledo,

Would you mind quoting the general slur [speaking in an insulting or demeaning way] and insult [rude or insensitive or contemptuous comment] that I made on a wide group of people. Maybe I did this, but I don’t remember doing it.
Dear Jane,

I was replying to your remark that a broad brush is okay. I mentioned it because I thought it sounded much more ungracious than I would expect from you. I did not mean to imply that you had made such a slur. I apologize if I gave that sense; it was not at all my intent. However, I do not agree that it is okay to generally tar a wide group of people, then to simply say, if the shoe doesn't fit...

Did you go along with the quarantining of John Ingalls and Bill Mallon? I think it is clear now that this was in violation of the Word. The Bible tells us to receive all whom Christ has received. Witness Lee unrighteously labeled them and put them out. His followers were told to do likewise. Maybe you weren’t there then, but that would be one example.
Excellent! Thank you. This is the sort of specific question to which I am able to respond.

I agree that this non-biblical (extra-biblical?) term "quarantine" is utterly contrary to the scripture. Paul advises that there is a way for us to deal with unruly brothers in a locality -- "put away the wicked man from among yourselves". However, I do not at all see how this would apply to any of the brothers who have been falsely "quarantined".

Nor do I see how a group of brothers can demand that all localities refuse to receive certain saints. In trying to do such a thing, they make themselves into a hierarchy and a headquarters. There is no such thing in the New Testament.

However, to be fair ("fair" is still okay, isn't it?), I had no idea that John Ingalls or Bill Mallon or John So or Don Rutledge had been "quarantined". I was told that the first three had rebelled and left, and I knew that Don had moved from Dallas, but that was the extent of my knowledge. In the area where I lived and served, I never heard the matter discussed. As far as I know, none of the churches in the midwest refused to receive the quarantined brothers.

I knew Don Rutledge personally and prayed for him regularly for the past many years. A bit less than a year ago, I got to see him again. He asked me what I thought about his being quarantined. I replied that I had never heard about it (which does not all set aside the possibility that I might have betrayed him if I had had the opportunity...).

I write all this as a reply to the "broad brush" that has been applied in this thread. Not all localities were the same, nor did all regions practice the same sort of controls.

I think Matt used the term idolatry because it was a biblical term whose meaning contains the idea behind “Leeholism.”

Part of the problem we are having on this thread is understanding what idolatry is and if it has any application to believers. Do you think the Bible teaches that it is only applicable to literal idol worshippers, meaning heathen that bowed down to wood or stone or molten idols?

Yes, pretty much. I recall reading the comment many years ago that Catholics worship idols of stone while Protestants worship idols of doctrine. I think that may be helpful. However, this thread has repeatedly insisted that anyone who ever was in the local churches bought into idolatry (present company excepted, of course...).

I find that many misunderstandings and stalemated arguments occur because of failure to have a common understanding of terms being used. What explanation or definition do you find in the Bible? If you could give me verses I would appreciate that.
Sorry, though I mentioned the remark about Catholics and Protestants above, I confess that I cannot find any reference in the bible about idols, except those which refer to graven images of metal or stone. Aaron's golden calf comes to mind...

Have you ever really studied this topic before? I just started seriously looking at it this year.
No, not really. I've never considered it to be much of an issue except for Catholics and the idol worshipers I met in the Far East.

Idolatry is everywhere in the Old Testament, especially among God’s people. I think we are foolish if we don’t consider seriously the possibility that it has application to us today. I don’t believe that idolatry just went away and as believers we don’t need to be warned by its dangers.
You make an interesting point -- one that I do not care to dismiss lightly. However, types and shadows are something of the Old Testament; the New Testament provided the anti-types and clear language. If it were intended that idolatry represent something more than the worship of stones, I would expect that the Lord Jesus, or Paul, or Peter, or James, or someone would have mentioned it.

Since we can fall into the same example of unbelief as the children of Israel, it seems prudent that we should study and understand their failures. When I try to do that, I find idolatry everywhere. This tells me I need to seek to understand how idolatry applies to us as believers. Paul seemed to think it applied.

Perhaps, though Paul could be remarkably clear on most things, yet he did not seem to bother claiming idolatry to be anything more than what was presented in the Old Testament. Consider his points in I Corinthians about meat offered to idols. He wasn't talking about anything more than pagan animal sacrifices.

Your argument for making idolatry something more than the worship of stones would carry more weight, perhaps, if idol worship did not continue to be a pervasive fact of life even in this age. Europe and Asia and Africa are full of stone idols that continue to be worshiped until this very day. North and South American as well are filled with Catholic idols. The worship of stones has not passed away, and we would do well to be aware of it.

I have been surprised to discover how much God equates idolatry with unfaithfulness to Him and with fornication and even whoredoms, both in the Old and the New Testaments. When the children of Israel fell into idolatry he often called their actions harlotry. He was very jealous over them. Paul tells us God is also jealous over us. Studying idolatry has helped me understand that He wants to relate to each of us directly as a husband and doesn’t want anyone or anything to come between us and Him. The second commandment says, “For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God ...” Understanding the perils of idolatry, and realizing that I unknowingly fell into it, has helped me want to walk in the light of His intense love and jealously and zealously guard my relationship with Him.
Again, you make some interesting points -- well worth pondering. However, it is still a long way away from proving the charge that everyone (or even most) in the local churches were and are still guilty of idolatry. I, for one, never worshiped a stone. Nor did I worship Witness Lee.

I am only just now finding out some of the more sordid things about the LSM. I cannot blame anyone for finding fault with such a sinful situation as apparently existed (and for all I know may still exist). While I regret to learn of such weaknesses, moral errors, and sins on the part of WL and his closest followers, that cannot take away from the help I received in the bible from this earthen vessel. I learn only too late that WL was not practicing the things which he taught.

All this leaves me to wonder which portions ought to be preserved and which portions ought to be abandoned. After much consideration, I am still left with the question of baby and bathwater.

Ohio

09-22-2008, 10:42 AM

Yes, pretty much. I recall reading the comment many years ago that Catholics worship idols of stone while Protestants worship idols of doctrine. I think that may be helpful. However, this thread has repeatedly insisted that anyone who ever was in the local churches bought into idolatry (present company excepted, of course...).

One striking difference between the LSM/LC's and a few more "contemporary" congregations is the emphasis on worshiping God in song. The LC's would say that these songs are "too objective," and I do admit that at times I do miss singing some of the old LC hymns. This was one of the first items that I faced when I no longer could meet regularly with the LC's and "ventured" out into the greater body of Christ.

Yesterday I heard something in the assembly from a book that corresponded to Toledo's comments here. Something like: "Everybody worships something, and if it's not God ..." It struck me as kind of "broad brush," because of all the recent posts here that are have been on my mind. Then the speaker gave a little "worship" test, "follow their time and the money..." In other words, where someone spends all their time and money indicates what their heart worships.

I'm not saying I agree with this. Think about the busy mother overwhelmed by several small children who spends all her time and money on them. Is she worshiping her kids? How about those who work long hours to make ends meet. Are they worshiping their jobs?

But ... it is another point of view that some may espouse concerning the worship of idolatry by the children of God.

aron

09-22-2008, 11:22 AM

Nor do I see how a group of brothers can demand that all localities refuse to receive certain saints. In trying to do such a thing, they make themselves into a hierarchy and a headquarters. There is no such thing in the New Testament.
Sorry, though I mentioned the remark about Catholics and Protestants above, I confess that I cannot find any reference in the bible about idols, except those which refer to graven images of metal or stone. Aaron's golden calf comes to mind...

... If it were intended that idolatry represent something more than the worship of stones, I would expect that the Lord Jesus, or Paul, or Peter, or James, or someone would have mentioned it.

All this leaves me to wonder which portions ought to be preserved and which portions ought to be abandoned. After much consideration, I am still left with the question of baby and bathwater.

Toledo, Regarding the NT & idols, John ends his first epistle with the cryptic, and to me pregnant phrase, "Little children, guard yourselves from idols." I think it is highly significant. John must have felt 1) that idol worship was going on, and 2) it needed to be especially addressed. So he ends not with a blessing, but a warning. His word to stay away from idols was the highest blessing he could bestow upon his spiritual children. But what was he referring to?

Regarding your "baby and bathwater" comment, I have often gone back and forth on that one. Still am, I suppose. I refuse to pretend a good chunk of my christian walk was worthless, that it was a big mistake, that I should have said "No" when someone invited me to a meeting, or turned on my heel the first time something dumb got said or did in my presence. If I walked out of every christian meeting when someone said something dumb I'd never finish any of them! I admit there is a pattern of stuff in the LC's, both teaching and practice, that violates both letter and spirit of God's word, & common sense to boot. But there were, & are, some good things that I still ascribe to God.

So I enjoy the 'sorting' process here on the forum. I just try to remember that all the LSM folks are going to meet me at the throne, & have a say, and so are the folks here on the "LCD" (Localchurchdiscussions-dot-com). I find it awfully tempting to thow out my 'expert opinion' at times, but the Lord reminds me that I am responsible for every word...

Peace, and thanks for your portion. aron

YP0534

09-22-2008, 11:39 AM

Even as scathing as the Lord was against the scribes and Pharisess, He also at least once commended them to us:

Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat:
Mat 23:3 all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, [these] do and observe: but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not.
Mat 23:4 Yea, they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.
Mat 23:5 But all their works they do to be seen of men: for they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders [of their garments],
Mat 23:6 and love the chief place at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
Mat 23:7 and the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called of men, Rabbi.
Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren.
Mat 23:9 And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, [even] he who is in heaven.
Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, [even] the Christ.
Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
Mat 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.
Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye enter not in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering in to enter[.]
Mat 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, even while for a pretence ye make long prayers: therefore ye shall receive greater condemnation.
Mat 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is become so, ye make him twofold more a son of hell than yourselves.

Shawn

09-22-2008, 11:40 AM

Hi All,

Sorry I seem to be going weeks without having opportunities to view the forum, I hope I'm not to out of touch with the current topics....

I did want to clarify, the book I was refering to was "The Secret of Experiencing Christ," a book that I used as a reference point when I first began to consider if the LC was "cultic." I found this book very helpful in defining how to have a living, vital relationship with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

This book and others, like, "The Experience of Life" are not discussed much on this forum as others, such as "The Economy of God," have others had help in being a Christian from these books?

I am not negating the warped direction that LSM et al has taken and not championing the cause of Witness Lee; only looking for others thoughts concerning the benefits/hardships that have been encountered during their practice of the local churches and the ministry that was studied during this time.

Nell,

I think that maybe rephrasing your comments might help me and others to understand where you are coming from.

Grace to all,

Shawn

Shawn

09-22-2008, 12:24 PM

As I said, I haven't seen the forum for a few weeks and my last response was based on the third page of this thread, that I thought was the latest response; sorry for missing the latest comments!

I do think that there can be an understanding offered to TJ and Matt in Toledo's experience (which was my experience also) that we all were not in the inner circle choosing who stays and who goes.

We also were not asked to go against God's will in commands from WL; we were pretty much just reading the material. If the ones who keep asking were we for or against the quarantining of John Ingalls and the others would just consider most of the LC's were reading the ministry of WL and attending (sometimes) trainings when possible.

Yes, there were encouragements to attend every training wherever possible, but when some didn't, it wasn't the end of the road for them (I was only able to make it for one live training: Daniel Zech.) and the rest: video trainings, when I could.

As such we were mostly like other Chrisitian groups who carried the "we are it" assumptions a little too far and are now learning how to recieve our brothers and sisters with grace and not superiority over them. Yet I cannot discard some of the helps I have received and am now in the process with your help, in redefining the ministry I have received and how I can apply this ministry to the benefit of others.

Shawn

Toledo

09-22-2008, 01:24 PM

I do think that there can be an understanding offered to TJ and Matt in Toledo's experience (which was my experience also) that we all were not in the inner circle choosing who stays and who goes.

I should make two points here:

1) That is not an excuse that I can use;

2) I cannot recall any sort of discussion regarding who should stay or who should go. It was not our practice to ban or "quarantine" or forbid anyone from coming to our meetings in any of the midwest churches.

We had a significant number of brothers who were happy to bring dissension into our meetings, yet we tolerated them. We even welcomed them, and tried to accommodate them as best we could. Those who eventually divided themselves off usually did so of their own accord, and even so, were often encouraged to return. Only rarely were brothers at long last asked to cease and desist, and even then it was only after the most egregious offenses.

If you read Norm's thread regarding Detroit over on the Bereans forum, you may recall how tender and solicitous he was with regard to the divisive and dissenting brothers, and how careful he was to document the efforts to resolve any difficulties. In Columbus and in Mansfield, despite the conniving of LSM to produce parties among us, we made every effort to restore the divisive brothers.

It was not our practice to put anyone out of the meetings without serious cause. In most such cases we were simply recognizing the choice of the dissenting ones to divide themselves off.

Thankful Jane

09-22-2008, 03:29 PM

I'm having trouble finding this delightful verse.

Can you show it to me so that I may give my Amen?

Thank you.

Hi YP5034,

Sorry I'm so slow answering! I'm just too busy these days.

Here are the verses I was thinking of. I wasn’t giving an exact quote.

Psa 24:3 Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?
Psa 24:4 He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.
Psa 24:5 He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.

Another good verse is:

Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Maybe I should have quoted them and substituted in fair and balanced to make my point. “Who shall stand in His holy place? He that is fair and balanced...” or “Let us draw near with a fair and balanced heart.” :)

Also, I saw your post about Matthew 23. I read a few commentaries about verse 3, which say this was referring to the law of Moses that they were supposed to be teachers of, not to any perversions of it. The Concordant Literal translation says, “All then whatever they should be saying to you, do ....”

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane

09-22-2008, 03:45 PM

No, this bothered me. I had pangs of conscience long ago. That's why I separated myself from "the ministry." To be prejudiced and judgmental against other believers is wrong, but it cannot be used to support the crusade for the definition of idolatry.Dear Ohio,

I didn’t use the words “prejudiced and judgmental.” I used the word “excluded.” That was a nice way of saying “cut off” or “rejected.” Those who assented to the rejection of Bill and John, were bowing down and serving someone other than God and were disobeying God’s word which says to receive all whom Christ has received. If they had been serving God, they would not have rejected these brothers.

Isn't it a little unfair to say that I believe only "red letter" words, when my real comment was just this: If the case against idolatry in God's people was so great, don't you think that the Lord would have mentioned it while on earth? Can we both be "fair and balanced?"I told you already that I am not using fair and balanced, as commonly understood today, as a standard.

I chose to use “red letter words" as an abbreviated way to communicate my thought because “long” bugs you so much. The point I was making is that you seem unwilling to let the body of evidence weigh in that is found in the Old Testament which warns us of the dangers of bowing down and serving other gods. You seem to be unwilling to seriously consider its application to us just because Jesus didn’t mention “idolatry.” I told you that He did mention the concept when he said we could not serve two masters, and when he said we were to love God with 100% of our being. You didn’t respond to that. I am capable of participating on this thread without mentioning idolatry and still saying the same thing I am saying. It would just be a lot longer.

I hope I didn’t introduce any new material into this post and just responded to yours, so you won’t feel the need to respond to me again. I accept your position and do not wish to continue to dialogue directly with you about this. I feel I am wasting both your time and mine. Peace.

TJ

Shawn

09-22-2008, 03:49 PM

Hi Toledo,

I wanted to recognize my distance from California and Texas concerning any participation in the quarantining of the brothers in that locality, but your mentioning of how you practiced in your locality the long suffering of ones who were disorderly was also how I observed the care for these ones in Pittsburgh.

The disruptions usually resulted in their decision to distance themselves from what they saw as problems with Witness Lee and any who would continue to receive his ministry, but I never witnessed a disfellowshipping or removal from mettings; with an open door offered to return if they so desired.

I only began to meet with the saints around this time, so my position was more of an observer than in any decision making process.

Shawn

Thankful Jane

09-22-2008, 03:52 PM

I don't agree with this way of putting it. Otherwise the implication is that the Bible is unfair and unbalanced.

Anyone who presents Truth (not just facts) is automatically fair and balanced. Fair means just; balanced means giving everything its just due. The truth by its very nature does that, otherwise it wouldn't be truth.

The meaning of "fair and balanced" can be twisted, and has been in our time. News commentators are expected to shy away from making moral judgments, and so sometimes ridiculously ascribe moral ambiguity where no normal person would. For example, calling terrorists "freedom fighters," or banning the word "terrorist" because it is judgmental. This isn't fair and balanced, it's disengagement from reality.

I don't think people here are alluding to that kind of "fair and balanced." So I think it's safe to say God, therefore God's word, is fair and balanced.

Hi Igzy,

I understand your explanation of fair and balanced and don't disagree, however, that is not the common understanding today. I personally choose to avoid using or responding to the plea to be “fair and balanced” in a biblical discussion because most do not understand it as you explained it. Some here may just be asking for truth when they request others to be "fair and balanced," but it doesn't come across that way. So, why don't we just make a plea for truth?

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane

09-22-2008, 05:22 PM

Hi Toledo,

Please forgive me for not responding to your post #940 yet. I want to spend some time on it and I'm short on time right now. I do want to thank you for your kind, reasonable, and thoughtful response. I will reply as soon as I can. If some time doesn't open up in the next few days, it may be next week. Our ladies retreat starts in a few days and I have a lot to do to get ready for that.

I have two questions in the interim.

1) Did you read or see the Fermentation of the Present Rebellion that was put out in 1990? Was that book circulated in the GLA?

2) Why is it so important that the word "all" not be used when talking about idolatry in the LC? The constant drum beat from a number of posters here is that all were not guilty. I don't believe I have ever said all were, in a blanket or generic fashion. I think I qualified it with some explanation of what I believed idolatry was, but again, why is this such a big deal?

When I talk about idolatry, I am mostly interested in understanding what it is and how it applies to believers, because at this point, I believe it does apply. I am not interested in trying to rope everyone into some definition in order to condemn them. I currently believe that many of the abuses that took place in the LC are tied to idolatry, but as yet I haven't clearly explained why I think that.

But back to my question--the way I look at it is that we all (there is that word again) should be ready and willing to examine ourselves regarding the possibility that we could have been involved in "idolatry" and have offended the Lord, or that we could become involved in the future if we don't guard ourselves. Don't we need to take responsibility for this if it is true and have a thorough repentance?

John warned us to keep ourselves from idols. I'm not ready yet to believe he meant only those of wood and stone.

So this is my basic attitude toward the topic. I think your response shows you have a similar desire to evaluate the truth of this in the light of the Bible. When I hear the upset over the use of "all," it sounds somewhat to me like a group of people being upset when they are told that they may have been exposed to some fatal disease and need treatment. Instead of being thankful for the warning and welcoming an examination and antidote, they resist saying that not all of them were exposed and not all have the disease. Why not just accept the possibility and apply the remedy?

In our case the remedy is only a few breaths away. “Father, forgive me if I have bowed to someone other than you and disobeyed you. Forgive me for silently assenting to what was done to Bill and John and others. Please shine your light on me and show me if, in anyway, You see me serving other gods.”

So, if you can, please tell me what is the reason for the upset about the "all" word? This really puzzles me.

Thankful Jane

Toledo

09-22-2008, 06:36 PM

1) Did you read or see the Fermentation of the Present Rebellion that was put out in 1990? Was that book circulated in the GLA?

Yes, I saw that book. It was place on every seat during a conference I gave with another brother in Willoughby, Ohio. I read the first few pages and determined that it was not something I would care to have the saints read. I thought the tone of the remarks was awful. So we boxed them all back up and put them away. I'm not sure whether any of the saints ever saw them or not.

I didn't look at that book again until a few days ago. I had seen it mentioned so much I thought I should read it. My assessment has changed: it is not simply that the tone was awful; its very content was awful. No wonder you saints have been bothered.

2) Why is it so important that the word "all" not be used when talking about idolatry in the LC? The constant drum beat from a number of posters here is that all were not guilty. I don't believe I have ever said all were, in a blanket or generic fashion. I think I qualified it with some explanation of what I believed idolatry was, but again, why is this such a big deal?
You may indeed have qualified your remarks. However, others have not. The bible is fairly strong about bearing false witness. Asserting and repeating that "all" are guilty when "all" are not guilty is serious, unfair, unrighteous, and wrong.

Not all churches are the same; not all sinners are the same. When I sin, I have the blood of Christ. When I have not sinned, I do not take the accusation. The accuser of the brethren is cast down.

When I talk about idolatry, I am mostly interested in understanding what it is and how it applies to believers, because at this point, I believe it does apply. I am not interested in trying to rope everyone into some definition in order to condemn them. I currently believe that many of the abuses that took place in the LC are tied to idolatry, but as yet I haven't clearly explained why I think that.
Very good! I shall be interested in the results of your study. However, for the moment I must agree: you have not as yet clearly explained why you think that.

But back to my question--the way I look at it is that we all (there is that word again) should be ready and willing to examine ourselves regarding the possibility that we could have been involved in "idolatry" and have offended the Lord, or that we could become involved in the future if we don't guard ourselves. Don't we need to take responsibility for this if it is true and have a thorough repentance?

We surely need to take responsibility for any sin we have committed. So far, however, my conscience seems to be clear in this matter. I have no inner sense at all with regard to idolatry, nor have I been convinced from the bible.

John warned us to keep ourselves from idols. I'm not ready yet to believe he meant only those of wood and stone.
I had considered mentioning that verse in my earlier post. I regret that I did not.

aron also referred to that verse in John. It says simply "keep yourself from idols". There is no hint there at all that in any way implies that idols mean anything more than they mean in every other mention in the bible. Perhaps you may well be able to convince me from the results of your study that idolatry typifies something in our modern lives, but even if you are able to do so, it won't be from that verse in John.

So this is my basic attitude toward the topic. I think your response shows you have a similar desire to evaluate the truth of this in the light of the Bible. When I hear the upset over the use of "all," it sounds somewhat to me like a group of people being upset when they are told that they may have been exposed to some fatal disease and need treatment. Instead of being thankful for the warning and welcoming an examination and antidote, they resist saying that not all of them were exposed and not all have the disease. Why not just accept the possibility and apply the remedy?
I once was with a group who may have been exposed to hepatitis. The remedy was a hefty shot of gamma globulin that was to be given in proportion to bodyweight! The doctors were very careful NOT to inoculate anyone who hadn't been proven to have been exposed. The cure was difficult and painful; it was not to be taken lightly.

You (and others) keep demanding that I (and others) repent for sins that so far have not been proven. Nor have they even been reasonably ascribed according to our current understanding of the bible.

Do please have the least little bit of faith in the Holy Spirit Who indwells me. I have no doubt that should the time come that I need to repent, He will be well able to convince me of sin and of righteousness and of judgment.

In our case the remedy is only a few breaths away. “Father, forgive me if I have bowed to someone other than you and disobeyed you. Forgive me for silently assenting to what was done to Bill and John and others. Please shine your light on me and show me if, in anyway, You see me serving other gods.”
Amen, even so, Father. Shine in our hearts. Save us from a hardened conscience. Bring us to be ever obedient to Your will and to Your word. We are not ignorant of the wiles of our enemy. Do keep us clean and pure.

So, if you can, please tell me what is the reason for the upset about the "all" word? This really puzzles me.
As I wrote above: at least so far, the charge seems to be baseless, and the broad brush unfairly applied.

SpeakersCorner

09-22-2008, 07:10 PM

So, if you can, please tell me what is the reason for the upset about the "all" word? This really puzzles me.[/COLOR][/FONT]

TJ,

I must butt in here. The word "all" means "all." There is no wiggle room with such absolute terms.

When a group of over ten people is described about just about anything, the word "all" seldom works. When the group is over a thousand, I would be tempted to say it never works ... but I don't use such absolute terms so loosely.

I'd advise you to drop the faux surprise at the response you and Matt have gotten from your endorsement of that term. It hurts your argument.

SC

Ohio

09-22-2008, 07:35 PM

Psa 24:3-5 Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.

Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Maybe I should have quoted them and substituted in fair and balanced to make my point. “Who shall stand in His holy place? He that is fair and balanced...” or “Let us draw near with a fair and balanced heart.” :)

TJ, all these are precious verses for sure, but I'm not understanding the sarcasm you continue to fling my way ever since I made a general comment about our posts needing to be "fair and balanced." To be exact, the verses you quoted only speak of "drawing near," while the verse I initially referred to stated "the Lord is near," following Paul's exhortation to "let your forbearance be known to all men." -- Phil 4.5

My point at the time was that forbearance could be described as "fair and balanced." It seems really strange to me that you have made my simple expression the center of attention. Are you now going to play with all scripture by inserting my little expression? My introduction of "fair and balanced" was only to be a catch phrase for poster interactions, it was never intended to replace the "full assurance of faith" or a "pure heart" towards the Lord.

A thousand insertions like this don't negate my original point. Quoting verses like this is not speaking the word of God, but rather the playing of games. I do believe these things are far below the standard of a person of your stature. We have had a friendly relationship for three years now, and it's quite troubling to watch it deteriorate over this matter of idolatry.

Thankful Jane

09-22-2008, 08:06 PM

Quoting verses like this is not speaking the word of God, but rather the playing of games

You are right. I'm sorry. I'll say no more about fair and balanced.

I do believe these things are far below the standard of a person of your stature. We have had a friendly relationship for three years now, and it's quite troubling to watch it deteriorate over this matter of idolatry.I don't have a stature, Ohio. I'm just a sister who loves Jesus, no more, no less. I do not feel unfriendly toward you. I just don't want to banter back and forth about the validity or method of discussing idolatry any more. I really want to talk with others about what the Bible says about it and be persuaded by that. If no one wants to do that, that will be fine. I'm sorry for being abrupt with you about this.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane

09-22-2008, 08:25 PM

TJ,

I must butt in here. The word "all" means "all." There is no wiggle room with such absolute terms.

When a group of over ten people is described about just about anything, the word "all" seldom works. When the group is over a thousand, I would be tempted to say it never works ... but I don't use such absolute terms so loosely.

I'd advise you to drop the faux surprise at the response you and Matt have gotten from your endorsement of that term. It hurts your argument.

SCSC, please quote me where I made the used the word "all" loosely or "endorsed" it. If you can't you should retract your statement.

Also, why do you feel it is necessary to falsely accuse me of something? Please tell me how you can know whether my puzzlement is real or not? You may not like what I write, but such an accusation is over the line.

Thankful Jane

SpeakersCorner

09-22-2008, 08:38 PM

SC, please quote me where I made the used the word "all" loosely or "endorsed" it. If you can't you should retract your statement.

Also, why do you feel it is necessary to falsely accuse me of something? Please tell me how you can know whether my puzzlement is real or not? You may not like what I write, but such an accusation is over the line.

Jane,

I have neither the time nor interest in poring back through your many lengthy posts to prove whether or not you used the word "all" or not. Matt used it and you have endorsed his argument from the beginning. Even on this page you wrote:

Why is it so important that the word "all" not be used when talking about idolatry in the LC? The constant drum beat from a number of posters here is that all were not guilty. I don't believe I have ever said all were, in a blanket or generic fashion. I think I qualified it with some explanation of what I believed idolatry was, but again, why is this such a big deal?

Here you give implicit endorsement to the idea that all were guilty of idolatry. But this all seems a diversionary tactic. Why not state plainly where you stand on this all or nothing matter?

Let me put it to you plainly: Do you think "all" who met in the Lord's Recovery for any length of time were guilty of idolatry?

If you say no and draw a clear line at the level on the all or nothing continuum where you believe idolatry was practiced, I'll retract my previous post.

SC

SpeakersCorner

09-22-2008, 08:48 PM

Also, why do you feel it is necessary to falsely accuse me of something? Please tell me how you can know whether my puzzlement is real or not? You may not like what I write, but such an accusation is over the line.

TJ,

These two sentences which you directed at Toledo -- "So, if you can, please tell me what is the reason for the upset about the "all" word? This really puzzles me." -- don't ring true to me.

Anyone would know why a tar and feathering of an entire group would be offensive, particularly to people who were in (and maybe still somewhat in) that group. You're smart: you'd understand that.

Of course I can't say what's in your heart. I may be interpreting you wrongly. If so, I apologize.

I will now disappear into the night. This topic bores me immensely and I am sorry I jumped back in.

SC

UntoHim

09-22-2008, 09:30 PM

Just as there are spiritual realities to the positive things typified and exemplified in the Old Testament (Christ as our living water, our bread, our rock, etc..) I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to say that there are spiritual realities to “negative” things as well. One such negative thing would be idolatry, I believe. Now, I don’t think you would find any people here in the 21st Century taking off their jewelry, melting it down and forming it into a golden calf, so just what could we expect that God might consider the modern version of idolatry among some of his wayward people in the here and now?

My thoughts from a previous post….My contention here would be very basic and very simple. Many, if not most, Local Churchers idolized the man Witness Lee. Many, if not most, idolized just about everything that came from this man’s mouth. Many, if not most, even idolized the “vision” that Lee and his co-workers so passionately and forcefully related to us day-in-and-day-out. Soon we found ourselves idolizing the man-made religion of the Local Church that spring forth from this vision. Some of the teachings and practices of this religion were biblical and good, many were arguably unbiblical and even harmful. The main point here would not be the percentage of good to bad or biblical to unbiblical, but that fact that a mere man and the teachings and practices themselves were idolized. Did we bow and worship the man Witness Lee? No, I never saw it. Did we literally bow down at the alter of the Life Studies and other speakings/writings of Nee and Lee? No, not literally. Did we climb to the top of a smoldering volcano and sacrifice our family members, spouses and children? No, I never saw it.

I am reminded by something John Myer wrote in the first chapter of “A Future and a Hope”: “They react to challenges with platitudes that do not really answer anything. These folks cannot be convinced by any logic. Truth is frightening to them – not doctrinal truth per se, since they allegedly love it, but truth as it relates to the real state of things”

Believe you me brothers and sisters, there is no doubt that this is definitely a very serious and frightening matter. I don’t think anybody would say otherwise. Yet, what is the “truth as it relates to the real state of things” when it comes to this matter of the idolatry of a mere man and his so-called ministry in the Local Church? Some (many?) have stated that, to them, Witness Lee was nothing more then a “good Bible teacher”(paraphrase). Sorry, but my personal experience and close observation over the past 30+ years tells me that the vast, VAST majority of LC members view Witness Lee as something much, much more then a “Bible teacher”. I don’t think Ron Kangas was thinking of Lee as a mere Bible teacher when he proclaimed “we only accept the one minister with the one ministry for the age”. I will spare you all the many other outrageous and absurd statements made by leaders over the years that plainly and strongly indicate that there was some form of insidious idolatry taking place.

Frankly, in listening to Andrew Yu and Chris Wilde kowtowing before “the Bible answer man”, and even in reading some of the posts on this very forum, there seems to be quite a bit of skirting the truth as it relates to the real state of things – at least as it relates to the past and present in the Local Church of Witness Lee. Andrew and Chris sounded somewhat frightened (in their case, frightened that Hanegraaff might actually ask them a tough question), and now some here seem frightened to admit that there was/is some form, and some level, of idolatry in the LC. Of course no current (or even former) Local Churcher wants to readily admit that such a serious deviation of truth and practice has taken place among a group of Christians, but again, to deny this is to deny the truth as it relates to the real state of things I believe.

What I am talking about here is a very, very strong and pervasive dynamic (atmosphere) among a group of people. When one is immersed in such an atmosphere, it is virtually impossible for it not to affect one in many aspects of their life and even affect their relationship with God. What I am hearing from a lot of you dear brothers out there is that you think you went for a swim in the pool but didn’t get wet. Sorry, but this kind of claim certainly defies all logic and reason. Nobody here is claiming that any of you filled the pool with water, or even forced anybody to jump in. (I think we all know who did that). Let’s just not try to fool each other about what we are really dealing with here.

Thankful Jane

09-22-2008, 10:14 PM

Yes, I saw that book. It was place on every seat during a conference I gave with another brother in Willoughby, Ohio. I read the first few pages and determined that it was not something I would care to have the saints read....Thanks for your answers and your good prayer. I say amen to it. I do have a lot of faith in the Spirit's ability to convict when conviction is needed. I also have no doubt you would repent if you were convicted.

I think that part of the problem we all have regarding this topic is lack of education. I doubt it's been the subject of many sermons given to believers :). This may be because it isn't a worthy or applicable subject, but it could also be because we haven't seen it in His light. I think I remember WN or WL's teaching about the conscience, that it works in conjunction with its being taught or educated. It would make sense that if we don't understand what the spiritual application of idolatry is for us, that our conscience would not be able to function to convict us with clarity if we were guilty.

Well, this day is over according to my clock. Until I have more time ...

Thankful Jane

Ohio

09-23-2008, 05:20 AM

You are right. I'm sorry. I'll say no more about fair and balanced.

I don't have a stature, Ohio. I'm just a sister who loves Jesus, no more, no less. I do not feel unfriendly toward you. I just don't want to banter back and forth about the validity or method of discussing idolatry any more. I really want to talk with others about what the Bible says about it and be persuaded by that. If no one wants to do that, that will be fine. I'm sorry for being abrupt with you about this.

Thankful Jane

Dear sister Jane,

Thank you for your kind post. I appreciate this, and should extend the same apologizes to you for any offensive comment on my part.

Btw, you do have some measure of stature. You are very well respected. You handled yourself quite well in that interview, I might add.

Ohio

09-23-2008, 05:52 AM

Some (many?) have stated that, to them, Witness Lee was nothing more then a “good Bible teacher”. Sorry, but my personal experience and close observation over the past 30+ years tells me that the vast, VAST majority of LC members view Witness Lee as something much, much more then a “Bible teacher”. I don’t think Ron Kangas was thinking of Lee as a mere Bible teacher when he proclaimed “we only accept the one minister with the one ministry for the age”... What I am hearing from a lot of you dear brothers out there is that you think you went for a swim in the pool but didn’t get wet.

Looking back over time, I guess there is a valid reason that the GLA was always considered "not in the flow" and that we had a "different taste." We were always looked at with suspicion since the earliest days.

Perhaps TC said it best when he testified, "I always viewed WL as a man, while the BB's viewed WL as god."

Possibly the growing chasm between LSM and the many other CB's was not merely a "difference of opinion" repackaged for sale as "teaching differently," no! Maybe idolatry was in the undiscussed root of those disagreements. After all, we did get quarantined over what many thought was nonsense.

I would also add that Ron Kangas doesn't necessarily speak for all the current members of the LC's. Let's differentiate between BB speakers and LC members. I know many LC folks who never make it to the feasts, and rarely hear a LSM message. They are there for various reasons, but no one would say they have idolized a man. The program just is not as homogenized as sometimes it is portrayed here. It would serve our discussion well if we substituted the BB'S for the LC's. If the BB's promote some form of idolatry, let's identify that, rather than including lots of people we may know nothing about.

Thankful Jane

09-23-2008, 06:28 AM

Dear sister Jane,

Thank you for your kind post. I appreciate this, and should extend the same apologizes to you for any offensive comment on my part.

Btw, you do have some measure of stature. You are very well respected. You handled yourself quite well in that interview, I might add.Apology accepted. Thanks.

Thankful Jane

09-23-2008, 06:51 AM

Looking back over time, I guess there is a valid reason that the GLA was always considered "not in the flow" and that we had a "different taste." We were always looked at with suspicion since the earliest days.

Perhaps TC said it best when he testified, "I always viewed WL as a man, while the BB's viewed WL as god."

Possibly the growing chasm between LSM and the many other CB's was not merely a "difference of opinion" repackaged for sale as "teaching differently," no! Maybe idolatry was in the undiscussed root of those disagreements. After all, we did get quarantined over what many thought was nonsense.

I would also add that Ron Kangas doesn't necessarily speak for all the current members of the LC's. Let's differentiate between BB speakers and LC members. I know many LC folks who never make it to the feasts, and rarely hear a LSM message. They are there for various reasons, but no one would say they have idolized a man. The program just is not as homogenized as sometimes it is portrayed here. It would serve our discussion well if we substituted the BB'S for the LC's. If the BB's promote some form of idolatry, let's identify that, rather than including lots of people we may know nothing about.
Dear Ohio,

I agree that blame primarily rests with the BB type leaders, but I don't think the rest of us can claim innocence because of this. The story of Ai in Joshua 7 comes to mind. When there was sin in the camp, all Israel suffered, and God seemed to consider that all the children of Israel were guilty of the sin (Josh 7:11). All Israel had to submit to examination until the source of the sin was nailed down. It appears that all witnessed the discovery and the judgment. That's more of the sense I have about all of this. The way God alerted them that there was a problem in the first place was by letting Israel be defeated before their enemies. I think we've had major clues of such defeat for many for years, but those who should have done as Joshua did and rent their clothes, hit the dust, and then tracked down the problem failed to do so:

Jos 7:11
Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I commanded them: for they have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuff. [italics added by me]

There was only one who had brought an accursed thing into the camp, but God said "they," referring to Israel, had sinned. I offer this gently as food for thought. No hammer in hand.

I'm gone for the day.

TJ

Cal

09-23-2008, 08:02 AM

Let me interject that some of the misunderstanding probably comes in from the manifestedly different way things were done in the GLA (where Toledo, Ohio and SC are from) and Texas (where Jane and I were from).

I've been really shocked at some of the things the GLA elders have admitted to doing. Toledo spoke of watching movies and playing chess with brothers, and removing LSM's Fermentation book from a meeting he was leading.

Texas elders would have never done anything like that, especially the removing the LSM books part. So it's really foreign to me and probably to Jane to think of an LC segment which actually practiced freedom in Christ (Texas never really did, we all knew exactly what was permitted and what wasn't) and autonomy.

Let me emphasize that most Texas elders would have eaten a box of broken glass before any of them would have taken any action suggesting a book put out by LSM was inappropriate. None of them played sports, watched movies, read fiction or took part in any kind of "worldly activity" except perhaps "on the sly" or when visiting family.

All the members of the Texas churches were expected to behave the same way. Although there was a little sports among young brothers in the early 70s, by the late 70s all that was erased. We were expected to go to meetings, read the ministry, pray and pray-read, preach the gospel, serve, work or go to school, eat and sleep. Period.

I recently asked a current Texas elder if he ever watched entertainment on the TV he admitted to owning. He said no, for fear of "replacing Christ." So you can see the strict mindset endures.

So when Jane says "all," she's operating from that prism of complete order and conformity we saw in Texas. Obviously things were quite a bit different in the GLA.

Both you guys and Jane need to keep this in mind when talking about "all the LCs." Obviously there are some significant differences from region to region.

Cal

09-23-2008, 08:39 AM

Dear Ohio,
I agree that blame primarily rests with the BB type leaders, but I don't think the rest of us can claim innocence because of this.

Again, you have to consider the moral dilemma some LCers are under due to their strong belief in maintaining oneness and submission.

If it is a sin to break oneness and to not submit, and it's also a sin to sue other Christians, quarantine over trivialities, or insist on one ministry, then which set of sins is worse? There's a damned if I do or don't dilemma at work. LCers are taught that almost nothing is worse than breaking oneness, or defying deputy authority. Many may recognize that sins are being committed by leadership, but do not think those sins "rise to the level" of allowing defiance or splitting away. Expecting an LCer to split from their leaders and church is like expecting a fish to breath air. It's totally against their breeding.

Is that in itself idolatry? Well, I guess you could call it that. I call it an imbalanced view of leadership and oneness which is bound to eventually issue in degradation by restricting the speaking and moving of the Holy Spirit.

Then again, perhaps calling it idolatry is the only way to convince people it's worse than breaking oneness.

Ohio

09-23-2008, 11:53 AM

Dear Ohio, I agree that blame primarily rests with the BB type leaders, but I don't think the rest of us can claim innocence because of this.
I am more and more convinced that this matter of "guilt by association" has no merit in the age of grace. Israel is a pattern for our admonition, but the N.T. provides no basis for this. We are no longer judged by our parents bad behavior.

The story of Ai in Joshua 7 comes to mind. When there was sin in the camp, all Israel suffered, and God seemed to consider that all the children of Israel were guilty of the sin (Josh 7:11). All Israel had to submit to examination until the source of the sin was nailed down. It appears that all witnessed the discovery and the judgment. That's more of the sense I have about all of this. The way God alerted them that there was a problem in the first place was by letting Israel be defeated before their enemies. I think we've had major clues of such defeat for many for years, but those who should have done as Joshua did and rent their clothes, hit the dust, and then tracked down the problem failed to do so:

I still see no judgment upon all of Israel for the sin of one. This story is similar to Corinth. The whole church suffered thru the sin of one, but Paul's admonition was to purge out the old leaven, via godly fellowship with the offender, who did repent and was restored. Joshua was forced to examine Israel, and the idolator was judged by fire. Let's be careful not to misapply this type. If we judge all Israel because of the sin of one, then all Israel should be burnt with fire. If we judge all the church in like manner, will there be enough firewood in the world?

This matter of "guilt by association" frankly scares me, and that's why I have protested repeatedly. History is replete with martyrs slain by well-intentioned religious folks who felt they were serving God. I know this seems extreme, but an O.T. story was cited which ended in holocaust. (see Joshua 7.15) The RCC has used this same story to justify their diabolical schemes via slaughter of whole villages and prison inquisitions. How far do we carry out O.T. stories?

Let me propose another thought for this story, based on the patterns of the N.T. All prospering congregations of believers have healthy oversight by elders. One of their roles at times is to examine the church in prayer and fellowship and seek the Lord for any reason that they are short of the Lord's blessing. Just as Joshua sought the Lord in prayer, the Lord may wait until some do this before He exposes some matter. Our Lord has a heart of love and blessing towards His people, but neither is He mocked.

The tragedy of the LC's for decades was to look to Anaheim for the way of blessing and for the reasons for which there was no blessing. This has robbed the Lord of His rightful place as the Head of the church and the Son of Man walking in her midst. Anaheim became a rival to God's own Son. The "ministry" became a rival to His word. Hence, very little blessing exists in the LC's, to the point that some would even say there is a kind of curse upon them.

UntoHim

09-23-2008, 01:42 PM

Perhaps TC said it best when he testified, "I always viewed WL as a man, while the BB's viewed WL as god."....Maybe idolatry was in the undiscussed root of those disagreements.In what little I have heard from Titus, I think his view of Witness Lee falls somewhere between the two (as does the BB's I think). Furthermore, the root of the disagreements between Chu and BB have little to nothing to do with their over-all view of Lee. The BBs simply want Chu to "do Lee" their way and present Lee their way....Titus has always chosen to do Lee and present Lee in his own way. I don't believe that they disagree on the end, just the means to that end. In some respects all I see from Titus Chu is a "re-packaging" of Lee's ministry with a little bit of personal spin to make it his own. This apparently infuriates the BBs and other non GLAers...why I don't know because Chu is one of the most close imitators of Witness Lee I have ever seen...and I have seen a lot.

After all, we did get quarantined over what many thought was nonsense.And aren't you thankful for that now?

I would also add that Ron Kangas doesn't necessarily speak for all the current members of the LC's. I never said that he did...but many of his public proclamations are certainly reflective of the general attitude that most members have held towards the person and work of Witness Lee. You say things are different in the Midwest...fine, but I must say that during my tenure in the Local Church I observed no such difference. I had occasional contact with a number of those from the Midwest (at trainings and conferences, including 10 day hospitality stints) and I don't recall any real noticeable difference...I guess things have changed over the past decade or so!

Let's differentiate between BB speakers and LC members.Well, you can if you want to, no problem. I will differentiate between the two at times, but at other times I may not. The BBs are the official leaders of the Local Church movement. Those LC members who chose to stay in the group are under their leadership and under their "ministry". In most places in the Free World this is a choice. Nobody is holding a gun to their head. They can get up and walk away, and I suggest that they do just that ASAP.

I know many LC folks who never make it to the feasts, and rarely hear a LSM message. Huh? Then what do they do at the meetings? Do they sing contemporary worship songs and read outlines by John MacArthur? Really, I'm curious, because what makes them "LC folks" if they are not hearing "LSM messages"?

They are there for various reasons, but no one would say they have idolized a man. The program just is not as homogenized as sometimes it is portrayed here. Ok, now you got me, I'm lost. What "program" are they in then?

It would serve our discussion well if we substituted the BB'S for the LC's.No, I don't think this would serve our discussion well at all. In fact it would have a tendency to confuse our discussions. I think by now we all know who is who and where they stand, and there is no need to substitute anybody for anybody else. If somebody's position or standing has been misrepresented, they can say so and then give a word of clarification. This is what discussion forums are all about!

If the BB's promote some form of idolatry, let's identify that, rather than including lots of people we may know nothing about.I think the BBs have been promoting the same form of idolatry that has existed and been promoted by Witness Lee and the Local Churches for decades. It seems that it has not been promoted to the same degree in different regions. We don't need to know anything about the individual members to make an assessment of a movement that has existed for many years. If any individual or any individual church chooses to remain associated with the LC movement and/or the LSM, then they stand the chance of falling under the umbrella of that assessment. This is not guilt by association, but rather a person or a group of people choosing to remain associated with a certain group that teaches and practices in a certain manner.

Arizona

09-23-2008, 04:12 PM

All,

I have been following this banter regarding idolatry in the LC with some interest and would like to offer my own opinion on the subject (as I am wont to do).

First, as has been previously mentioned, I believe the major problem here is that a clear definition of "idolatry" has yet to be offered. Do the LC saints really idolize W Lee or his vision concerning the church? Or is it more a question of overexaltation,,, or hero worship,,,,, or maybe misplaced veneration? Many groups in the history of christianity have fallen into a somewhat similar pattern,,,, ie Wesley and the Methodists or Darby and the Brethren, and maybe Zinzindorf and the Moravians.

To my thinking, idolatry is a serious matter that concerns our very relationship with God. The OT speaks to wood and stone; gods created by man's own hand. These are false gods,,,, representations of the gods of our imagination, our own thoughts. In today's world we are surrounded by people who have created their own "image" of God. Americans are more subtlely deceived by their christian religious traditions in that many actually hold their culture as god instead of the true God as revealed through the scriptures and in the person of Jesus Christ.

The teachings of the inner-life saints, particularly in the late 1800's, brought us a more sophisticated concept concerning idolatry. I think we can realize that "images" can be held in our mind that are not according to the revealed truth of God's word. But I do think that these images must be concerning God Himself, ie His nature, His character, His love, His righteousness, etc. I do not know that we can classify over-appreciation as idolatry.

On the other hand, I dont have a problem with saying that any group, including the LC, is more than likely permeated with the personality; the spirit, the thought and concepts, of any one teacher that holds a predominate position. It is inevitable. W Lee certainly believed he was creating a new culture; a new language, new traditions, new dress, etc
The real question is whether this culture is the works of man's own hands, and does it really rise to the level of "idolatry".

Finally, I would say that the bottom line, for me, concerning idolatry, is that it is really man worshiping himself, as Lucifer looked at himself, and he was impressed with what he saw. Pride. The perversion of God's creation.

I have many opinions, but little time. May be God's mercy to you all.

Much grace.

Arizona

Ohio

09-24-2008, 05:38 AM

A forum reader recently wrote me this:

The fundamental problem on this thread is the definitional difference.

1. Most people understand that idolatry means the worship of idols. This is clearly idolatry by participation. It is the act of "doing" idolatry.

2. Many people are willing to extend the definition to mean the unbalanced uplifting of something above God, idol or not, within our hearts. I'm personally not so sure about this definition's utility but it is at least a common enough definition to not be outrageous. Some have pointed out the Lord's words regarding adultery and lusting in this context as proof of concept. Again, I'm not so sure. But I'd refer to this definition as idolatry by imputation. It is the act of "being accounted as" idolatry.

3. Some posters here want to extend a definition that extends even further to apply to those who are merely in association with people who are "guilty" of having committed the sin of idolatry by imputation. I'd call this idolatry by association. There is some slight ground for it. All the Israelites died in the desert, except that Joshua and Caleb didn't. They were among the idolaters but, they were not condemned as idolaters themselves.

It is also important to read the entire context of Hebrews 3 and 4. The clear warning is that the believers who become hardened by the deceitfulness of sin will be excluded from the Sabbath rest. I don't think I've ever heard any of these posters arguing for this idolatry by association definition state that the problem is that you might lose the enjoyment of the kingdom reward. This is what the Bible could theoretically be extended to say.

Instead, these posters are wholly focused on the present relationships between the believers and insist that if you have been guilty of consorting with those who have the idolatry by imputation, you must repent of your own idolatry by association and "turn away" from them who can be accused of idolatry by imputation.

The loose and truly ignorant Bible interpretations are driving the issue. (It is just not ironic that a recent post concluded a citation with Heb. 4:11 without continuing to verse 12.)

Quote: Heb 4:11 Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

Since we can fall into the same example of unbelief as the children of Israel, it seems prudent that we should study and understand their failures.

Regarding this quote, I'd just say, the Bible does NOT SAY that "we can fall into to the same example of unbelief" and the inability to rightly divide the Word is manifest. It does not say we can fall "into" an "example" because that doesn't even make sense. It say we can fall AFTER the example, which means, in a manner similar, not IDENTICAL, to, the example. (Not to say we can't also fall identically, but that's not what the passage discusses.) The result of such a falling is to miss God's rest.

Has one of these idolatry by association advocates EVER mentioned this scriptural truth even once in ALL of this useless talk? I could have missed it, but I do not think so.

It is because nothing being said is true at all. These posters have claimed again and again to only be concerned for the truth but they do not know truth a bit.

Don't shoot me I'm only the messenger.

Toledo

09-24-2008, 06:35 AM

So the implication is imputed idolatry by association?

Yeah, that's pretty solid. Let's burn them all at the stake...

Ohio

09-24-2008, 06:44 AM

So the implication is imputed idolatry by association?

Yeah, that's pretty solid. Let's burn them all at the stake...

Not as solid as those abs of yours. :)

Cal

09-24-2008, 10:27 AM

So the implication is imputed idolatry by association?

I think Jane means it is idolatry by submission.

But let's drill down on that a bit (as my pastor likes to say). LCers are expected to submit to their elders, who are expected to submit to the ministry. Let's suppose for a moment that the ministry teaches something which encourages what could be called idolatry.

Now transfer that scenario to a husband and wife. The wife is expected to submit to her husband, especially as a Christian. Say this is an Asian couple, the wife is saved and the husband worships idols, statues, false gods.

Now what is the wife expected to do to not partake in the husband's sins? Should she publically renounce idols? Should she remain quiet but refuse to participate in the idol worship? Should she leave her husband? What should she do?

LCers believe they are for all practical purposes as closely tied to the ministry as a wife is to her husband. What should they do?

As you can see, I'm still making the case of the problem being misplaced authority, not idolatry per se.

Ohio

09-24-2008, 01:03 PM

...As you can see, I'm still making the case of the problem being misplaced authority, not idolatry per se.

Misplaced authority? Sounds a lot like cultural issues introduced to unsuspecting Americans. That has more to do with "most favorable nation" status than it does with idolatry.

Peter Debelak

09-24-2008, 07:40 PM

I think Jane means it is idolatry by submission.

But let's drill down on that a bit (as my pastor likes to say). LCers are expected to submit to their elders, who are expected to submit to the ministry. Let's suppose for a moment that the ministry teaches something which encourages what could be called idolatry.

Now transfer that scenario to a husband and wife. The wife is expected to submit to her husband, especially as a Christian. Say this is an Asian couple, the wife is saved and the husband worships idols, statues, false gods.

Now what is the wife expected to do to not partake in the husband's sins? Should she publically renounce idols? Should she remain quiet but refuse to participate in the idol worship? Should she leave her husband? What should she do?

LCers believe they are for all practical purposes as closely tied to the ministry as a wife is to her husband. What should they do?

As you can see, I'm still making the case of the problem being misplaced authority, not idolatry per se.

Hmmm...

I've always seen the human arrangements ordained by God as being more absolute and rigid than spritual realtionships. The very fact that Paul admonishes slaves to submit to their masters entails that submission to sovereieng human authorities is absolute, not conditioned on the "rightness" of the "master".

So, the first question would be whether God-ordained human authorities are to be followed rigidly.

The second question is whether spiritual authority should follow the same pattern as Ceasar, masters, parents and husbands.

Witness Lee used the analogy of parents, husbands etc... as a pattern. Is that right?

Peter

Ohio

09-25-2008, 05:33 AM

In what little I have heard from Titus, I think his view of Witness Lee falls somewhere between the two (as does the BB's I think). Furthermore, the root of the disagreements between Chu and BB have little to nothing to do with their over-all view of Lee. The BBs simply want Chu to "do Lee" their way and present Lee their way....Titus has always chosen to do Lee and present Lee in his own way. I don't believe that they disagree on the end, just the means to that end. In some respects all I see from Titus Chu is a "re-packaging" of Lee's ministry with a little bit of personal spin to make it his own. This apparently infuriates the BBs and other non GLAers...why I don't know because Chu is one of the most close imitators of Witness Lee I have ever seen...and I have seen a lot.

The BB/CB disagreements over how each side plans to "do-Lee," was simply a "smokescreen" for a power struggle. The BB's used the One Pub Bull to force TC and the GLA into subjection. This is part of what Igzy means by idolatry by submission. I never saw or heard TC venerate WL, any more than exhortations to "stay close" to his ministry as an older servant of the Lord. TC actively received from the ministry of WL from 1953-1997, so it's hard to see any critic not saying that, "Titus Chu is a "re-packaging" of Lee's ministry with a little bit of personal spin to make it his own." Pretty harsh for one who admits to "what little I have heard from Titus."

UntoHim, you parsed my post long and hard, yet I still don't see any support for the notion that TC and the GLA are all idolaters guilty by association.

Suannehill

09-25-2008, 05:48 AM

UntoHim,[/B] you parsed my post long and hard, yet I still don't see any support for the notion that TC and the GLA are all idolaters guilty by association.

Well, I've been a GLAer for over 30 years. This gives me some ground (not THE ground:nono:) to speak.
I pondered this precise thing for weeks.
I did not participate in the Lee worship, and cringed when it began. I even spoke to the worst offenders. HOWEVER, I remained in fellowship with them. Does this mean that because I stayed... I participated in the deed?
Am I just as guilty for not walking away? Or was I keeping the oneness of the Faith by ignoring nonsense and still remaining in fellowship? I'm not being flip...I actually talk to the Lord about this.
Sue

YP0534

09-25-2008, 06:50 AM

Well, I've been a GLAer for over 30 years. This gives me some ground (not THE ground:nono:) to speak.
I pondered this precise thing for weeks.
I did not participate in the Lee worship, and cringed when it began. I even spoke to the worst offenders. HOWEVER, I remained in fellowship with them. Does this mean that because I stayed... I participated in the deed?
Am I just as guilty for not walking away? Or was I keeping the oneness of the Faith by ignoring nonsense and still remaining in fellowship? I'm not being flip...I actually talk to the Lord about this.
Sue

And I'll post a word on this point.

One time, at a training in Irving, I and another couple of brothers were instructed on how to pick up all the little bits of notebook paper that might have fallen along the pathway from brother Lee's apartment door to the podium, as a matter of service. We laughed among ourselves. We picked up paper. And we were disturbed about the veneration of this old Chinese fellow as a little Pope.

Did I participate in the idolatrous worship of Lee by picking up the trash?

Absolutely not.

Firstly, I did it as to the Lord.

Secondly, the bits of paper would eventually need to be picked up by someone, regardless of whether a Holy Man would soon pass that way or not.

Thirdly, we did not have the place in that setting to explain to the leading serving one how silly he sounded in his concern that the pathway appear perfect for His Worship's passage.

Finally, we realized that to the extent that there were those who may have held such a warped view, they appeared to our observation to be a distinct minority and most everyone we enjoyed fellowship with handled Christ pretty purely, at least as far as they had the light to do so.

I don't doubt that I could spin this little story up into an "I will not eat meat forever" mandate if I wanted to. I could say how, upon realization that some might perceive my paper-picking-up to be the Idolatry of Lee, I should have declined to do so for his conscience's sake (not mine, of course, as Paul clearly teaches concerning idols). But we had no clear leading not to pick up paper and so, the meeting hall was cleaned at least along that pathway and we did not worship any false god while doing so. :eek:

I haven't talked to those two brothers about this in all the years since.
I wonder if they remember that day as well as I do...

aron

09-25-2008, 07:14 AM

I've always seen the human arrangements ordained by God as being more absolute and rigid than spritual realtionships. The very fact that Paul admonishes slaves to submit to their masters entails that submission to sovereieng human authorities is absolute, not conditioned on the "rightness" of the "master".

So, the first question would be whether God-ordained human authorities are to be followed rigidly.

The second question is whether spiritual authority should follow the same pattern as Ceasar, masters, parents and husbands.

Witness Lee used the analogy of parents, husbands etc... as a pattern. Is that right?

A few points seem to indicate that "slaves, obey your masters" is conditional, at least in part, and not absolute, nor rigid. It is at least somewhat conditional on the behavior of the other, "authoritative" party.

First, Paul admonishes (in Rom. 12) the believers to, "as much as you are able, be at peace with all men". As much as you are able means there are times when you can't be at peace with other folks, in spite of your best efforts. Seems to me this might be germane to obedience/ruling relationships as well. I.e, as much as you are able, be obedient.

Second, the disciples of Jesus, when they ran afoul of the ruling authorities, in Acts chapter 4, for preaching the gospel of the resurrected Christ, said, "If we have to either obey God or obey men we will obey God." They were beaten and released and went right back to preaching and proclaiming, disobeying yet again the commands of the ruling authorities.

And yet Peter, one of the disobedient ones, admonishes in his epistle to be obedient to secular authorities ("obey the king"). So it seems to be conditional, both ways. Our job is to discern where "obeying men", the default mode, gets overridden by the "obey God" command. Sometimes the two conflict; often they do not.

Many who faithfully followed the LSM program for years bent over backward to be "one" with the ministry, and eventually it became too much. Obeying God meant saying "no" to the words of men.

Cal

09-25-2008, 07:33 AM

Well, I've been a GLAer for over 30 years. This gives me some ground (not THE ground:nono:) to speak.

Gotta love it. :thumbsup:

Cal

09-25-2008, 08:04 AM

I pondered this precise thing for weeks.
I did not participate in the Lee worship, and cringed when it began. I even spoke to the worst offenders. HOWEVER, I remained in fellowship with them. Does this mean that because I stayed... I participated in the deed?
Am I just as guilty for not walking away? Or was I keeping the oneness of the Faith by ignoring nonsense and still remaining in fellowship? I'm not being flip...I actually talk to the Lord about this.
Sue

I think it depends on what you mean by "remain in fellowship." If you continue to fully support the program, thinking that "oneness" trumps all, I believe that is an extreme which will produce all the problems we've been talking about.

"Oneness" is the "Golden Rule" of LSM-LCers. But their extreme insistence on "oneness" (as defined by them) cannot be correct since it has no provision for reform. In fact it is guaranteed to squelch most genuine reform, since history has shown time and time again that most genuine reform does not come from established leaders.

If you mean by "remain in fellowship" simply preserving a relationship with the believers as much as you can, I think that is proper and right. Most of us wouldn't reject fellowship with Catholics.

Shawn

09-29-2008, 07:59 AM

Hmmm...

I've always seen the human arrangements ordained by God as being more absolute and rigid than spritual realtionships. The very fact that Paul admonishes slaves to submit to their masters entails that submission to sovereieng human authorities is absolute, not conditioned on the "rightness" of the "master".

So, the first question would be whether God-ordained human authorities are to be followed rigidly.

The second question is whether spiritual authority should follow the same pattern as Ceasar, masters, parents and husbands.

Witness Lee used the analogy of parents, husbands etc... as a pattern. Is that right?

Peter

"It is not a shame to say to you that I write these things but to admonish you as my beloved children.
For though you have ten thousand guides in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

I Corinthians 4:14, 15

I think when Paul used the example of a father to his beloved children, he was refering to his position as it relates to the Corinthian believers he has been caring for. I think he was asking them to reciprocate by obeying him as a loving father. I think in a healthy family, Pauls word can be received, for honoring the ones who brought us into this world (or into the Kingdom of God)should be respected for the advice they give.

Unfortunately, ones in leadership positions may use Pauls example in a negative way, devoid of love, to force authority to a program that will not succeed except by forced adherance. Pauls thought and how God intended for families to work, is to respect the boundaries of the parent and the child, yet in love for the sake of the childs betterment, the parent offers advice to the child that will produce something good in the child. This is certianly not rigid, but intended to be carried out in a healthy environment.

The rigidity you refer to in our masters, bosses or enforcement agencies over us is intended outside the family, where authority is maintained for the good of society or the company as opposed for the advancing of the generations within the family, there is the need for tighter controls or laws, that ensure the enforcement.

Whether family or society, Pauls final exortation is to live before Christ as the final judge over all, for it is only before Him that we will give account for our actions and deeds.

"Therefore also we are determined, whether at home or abroad, to gain the honor of being well pleasing to Him.
For we must all be manifested before the judgement seat of Christ..."

II Corinthians 5:9, 10a

Cal

09-29-2008, 09:15 AM

Well said, Shawn.

Ohio

10-01-2008, 06:04 AM

"Oneness" is the "Golden Rule" of LSM-LCers. But their extreme insistence on "oneness" (as defined by them) cannot be correct since it has no provision for reform. In fact it is guaranteed to squelch most genuine reform, since history has shown time and time again that most genuine reform does not come from established leaders.

I have thought about this many times, and I believe it is perhaps the saddest thing about the future of the LC's. Their kind of oneness and view of "the ministry" precludes any opportunity for God to speak to them. They will listen to change from neither outsiders nor insiders. There are just no avenues open to them for reform.

UntoHim

10-01-2008, 08:39 AM

They will listen to change from neither outsiders nor insiders

Yikes! Now just WHO does this remind you of? This is the kind of mindset that develops when people hear nothing but the constant harping that all outsiders are opposers and all insiders who disagree are rebellious. This did not happen over night.

There are just no avenues open to them for reform.

Oh there is an avenue all right, it just does not have any off-ramps. When a group proclaims "we are the Lord's Recovery!" then why would there be any other avenues? Who would want to get off of such a glorious path?

Thankful Jane

10-10-2008, 10:33 AM

Dear Ohio,

Sorry for the delayed response.

I am more and more convinced that this matter of "guilt by association" has no merit in the age of grace. Israel is a pattern for our admonition, but the N.T. provides no basis for this. We are no longer judged by our parents bad behavior.
I still see no judgment upon all of Israel for the sin of one. This story is similar to Corinth. The whole church suffered thru the sin of one, but Paul's admonition was to purge out the old leaven, via godly fellowship with the offender, who did repent and was restored. Joshua was forced to examine Israel, and the idolator was judged by fire. Let's be careful not to misapply this type. If we judge all Israel because of the sin of one, then all Israel should be burnt with fire. If we judge all the church in like manner, will there be enough firewood in the world?

What? I don’t see “godly fellowship with the offender” in Corinthians. (Which verses show this?) I just see that he was put away from fellowship by the majority. I also see that Paul delivered him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit could be saved in the day of Christ Jesus. I guess you could call that “godly fellowship” if you wanted to do so. He did repent, but it took a lot more than some kind of conversation with him.

I see that some have been arguing using the phrase “guilt by association” as if I had used this phrase; however, I think that it was you introduced it.

I guess you considered it was “guilt by association” when God judged the Israelites and 36 of them died in battle because of the sin of another (Achan), whom they were associated with by virtue of being part of the children of Israel. You said this idea was frightening to you. It is healthy for God’s judgment to strike a chord of fear in us. The Ai story also makes it clear that it wasn’t men on some kind of a witch hunt that found Achan, but it was God Who directed them to Achan. God is the one who pointed out the idolater. So this is not a story about man’s misjudgment, but God’s righteous actions through men who were willing to walk in the light with Him.

The real judgment that the children of Israel experienced at Ai was that they were defeated by their enemies. God was not with them in battle. Why not? Because of the sin of one person among them—sin that no one apparently knew about except for God. Their defeat was His way of telling everyone something was wrong. I didn’t write this story, God did. I guess He wasn’t afraid of sobering us by it.

Shouldn’t defeat by our enemies concern us? When we see the enemy prevailing, shouldn’t we humbly pray for God’s light on the situation and not start defendimg ourselves as innocent? The norm is blessing and victory, not cursing and defeat.

The children of Israel were warned in advance they would lose God’s blessing if they served other gods. They were told they would experience pestilence, the sword, famine, and beasts devouring them. God told them what the loss of blessing would look like, so that they would recognize when they had offended Him.

Many, many, years ago, we in the Local Churches began to suffer defeat at the hands of the devil. It has continued for decades. We lost the blessing and were put to shame repeatedly. Yet, we did nothing but press on blindly in our sin. We believed we were following God because we were absolutely following our leadership (a false belief taught by the men who were leading us), but the defeats among us were screaming otherwise. Instead of looking in the mirror, our leaders re-characterized our defeats by saying these were “attacks by the enemy.” We all nodded our heads and said “Amen.”

This matter of "guilt by association" frankly scares me, and that's why I have protested repeatedly. History is replete with martyrs slain by well-intentioned religious folks who felt they were serving God. I know this seems extreme, but an O.T. story was cited which ended in holocaust. (see Joshua 7.15) The RCC has used this same story to justify their diabolical schemes via slaughter of whole villages and prison inquisitions. How far do we carry out O.T. stories? Again, the point is how does God see our situation? Have we suffered defeat by the enemy or not? Loss of marriages; our second generation turning away from God and living sinful, immoral lives; untimely deaths, lawsuits against Christian brothers; brother hating brother; boasting in riches; etc. When all is said and done, it really doesn’t matter what we say, but what God says. If I or others say that the reason for such loss of blessing is our serving other gods, do you really consider such a statement to be the same as the crimes of holocaust or inquisitions? Don’t you think that is a bit of exaggeration? Isn’t there at least a possibility that God might consider our behavior (bowing to others voices and commands) to be idolatrous?

Let me propose another thought for this story, based on the patterns of the N.T. All prospering congregations of believers have healthy oversight by elders. One of their roles at times is to examine the church in prayer and fellowship and seek the Lord for any reason that they are short of the Lord's blessing. Just as Joshua sought the Lord in prayer, the Lord may wait until some do this before He exposes some matter. Our Lord has a heart of love and blessing towards His people, but neither is He mocked.
The problem in the LC is that there was not healthy oversight and there was never any admission that the blessing was lost. If anyone dared suggest that this might have happened, then they and those in their tent who were targeted as the troublemakers... been there, done that... i.e., if you name a problem, you are the problem. (To me, this is similar to what has happened in the resistance shown to this topic on this thread.)

The tragedy of the LC's for decades was to look to Anaheim for the way of blessing and for the reasons for which there was no blessing. This has robbed the Lord of His rightful place as the Head of the church and the Son of Man walking in her midst. Anaheim became a rival to God's own Son. The "ministry" became a rival to His word. Hence, very little blessing exists in the LC's, to the point that some would even say there is a kind of curse upon them.
How is this different than what I said? The O.T. cursings and blessings were directly tied to God’s children having other gods. The ministry and leadership hierarchy among us took the place of God’s word and His direct headship over each of us; hence, it was another god. Some may claim now that they never submitted. I ask, then, where were their voices of objection in the past? Silence is consent. Silence is the equivalent of bowing and it produces culpability. If we saw the problem and were silent, we had part in closing the door on blessing and opening the door to cursing. We share responsibility for our being run over by every kind of evil. I believe that even now, many people ex-LSM folks still value the teachings of the ministry more than the pure Word of God. They treasure the ministry and still have it hidden under their tents.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane

10-10-2008, 11:04 AM

Dear Toledo,

I am sorry for taking so long to respond to your last post.

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

If the broad brush doesn’t apply, it doesn’t apply. I still don't see anything wrong with broad brush observations, definitions, or applications. If people’s deeds cause them to fit under the picture that brush paints, then they apply to them. If they don’t fit, then they don’t apply.
So it's okay to make a general slur and insult on a wide group of people, then claim it doesn't apply to some of the individuals you included...? I'm sure you didn't mean this as ungraciously as it sounds.
I don’t know what you mean by my “general slur and insult on a wide group of people.” I have a hard time responding to things like this without knowing exactly what you are referring to.

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane
I am assuming from what you say that you never submitted to any demands made by Witness Lee, but only appreciated his teachings. Am I correct about this?To be fair, I was very much a young brother while WL was still alive. I had very few dealings directly with him. Except for keeping the rules of his various trainings, I cannot say that he ever made any particular demands on me.And, yes, I appreciated his teachings, even as I appreciated the teachings of Lewis Sperry Chafer that were remarkably similar.
I, too, was young while I was under his ministry and I never had any direct dealings with Lee either, but I did submit to his control through the leaders where I was. The example of Lee’s training which you mentioned is a good one. W. Lee called it “training” and told us that this was different from the church. By this it seems he found a way to legitimize our submission to his dictates. His public behavior at the trainings was less than Christian on many occasions as he mercilessly berated people in front of others. Our willing submission eventually carried over into the “church.”

I sat quietly and watched at the trainings, praying I would never find myself in his gun sights. Of course, we were free to not attend—but only if we didn’t care about being “absolute” and if we didn’t mind facing the raised eyebrows of our vigilant leaders who were “watching over” the flock. On one hand, I didn’t want to come under their scrutiny, so I paid the price to go and submitted to the legitimized abuse. On the other, I also believed what I had been taught by our leaders--that God would meet us there and that WL had God’s up-to-date speaking. How could I miss out on that? Everyone else I knew who went to the trainings believed the same way. If they didn’t believe this, I never heard them say so.

I assume you submitted to his training rules, which included not leaving our seats before break time. If God himself had told you to get up and go to the restroom when your bladder was bursting, would you have done so? Pardon the graphic question, but it makes the point. What kind of Christian would hold that many people in bondage to their chairs under penalty of rebuke (or a mark against you that could lead to expulsion from the training) if they had to get up and go? I knew of some who were on the verge of being violently ill from waiting for the clock to move to the position which allowed them to get out of their seat and run for the restroom. I found myself in that condition a number of times and once I was unable to get through the long restroom line before our break time was up between morning meetings, and I had to return to my chair for an additional hour of torture. This was Christian treatment? I used to hope and pray that my assigned seat would be near the restroom!

I’m glad to hear that you read other materials. Did you ever share L. S. Chafer’s teachings in the meetings of the Local Church or mention him publicly (while still in an LSM church)?

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane
Toledo, if a believer willingly submits to and obeys the demands of someone who tells them to do something that is against God’s word, isn’t such serving of someone else other than God an act of idolatry?

I cannot recall ever being asked to do anything against God's word. However, I realize that time is both a balm and an anesthetic -- maybe I have forgotten or have hidden away some lapse of conscience. Do you, perhaps, have an example that may refresh my memory. I am not at all sure of what you mean.
Did you sign the letter with approx. 400 other elders that stated that the leading of W. Lee was “indispensable to our oneness”? That would be to do something against God’s word. Only one person is indispensable to Christian oneness and it isn’t W. Lee. Also, did you support or participate in the lawsuit endeavors?

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane

10-10-2008, 11:47 AM

2) "{I}sn’t such serving of someone else other than God an act of idolatry?"

Idolatry has to do with the worship of idols. The "such serving" to which you refer would seem to be more of an act of disobedience. Eve ate an apple (whatever...), submitting to the serpent against God's word, yet the bible never calls her an idolater.

I'm not saying that you haven't put your finger on some very serious offenses in the local churches. Rather that calling it idolatry is forcing a definition that simply does not fit. As much as Cinderella's step-sisters tried, they could not get their feet into Prince Charming's glass slipper.

At the beginning of this thread djohnson kept referring to "Leeaholisim", a made up term, and Matt corrected him -- there is no such thing as "Leeaholism". Unfortunately, calling the problem idolatry doesn't fit any better (then insisting that everyone who ever met with the local churches bought into idolatry fits even less).Dear Toledo,

I am planning to spend less time on the forum for awhile. During the past two weeks God has shown me that I need to redirect my focus for a period of time. I didn’t want to leave without responding about idolatry as I said I would, so here goes.

I choose to use this word/concept because it is biblical, is widely used in the Bible, and because it holds the possibility of grabbing our attention. I think we are not that different from God's people who have come before us, whom He often characterized as hard of hearing.

The following is my basic understanding of idolatry, as it applies to us as believers. It is not simplistic. It has come mostly from spending time with the Lord, reading His Word, and my experiences. I am not asking for, or expecting, agreement with my understanding. I share this because it has greatly helped me in my walk with Jesus and because I said I would. Maybe it will be helpful to some.

“Hallowed be thy name” has new meaning for me. I see now very clearly that the law of God’s house is holiness (Eze. 43:12) and that His name is to be held in the highest regard. If I am sinful and use His name loosely, I pollute it. If I am bowing to someone else’s dictates and still using His name, I am using it in vain.

The main point of what I am going to share is this: I believe that God views our deliberate obedience to voices/words/teachings other than His own as spiritual fornication. In other words, idolatry equals spiritual fornication and spiritual fornication equals idolatry. This sin began in the Garden of Eden and has continued to the present.

So to be very clear, when I speak of idolatry, I am not speaking of setting up a piece of stone or wood on an altar or making some kind of molten image and then bowing down before it. I am speaking of the very large picture of idolatry which is painted in the Old Testament that I believe is for our learning as Christians. In the Bible it is clear that God considers Himself to be husband to His people. He is jealous over His relationship with us as His people and expects us likewise to cling jealously to only Him.

It still holds true in the New Testament age that we are not to have other gods before Him. If I begin to practice bowing down and serving another god, which means I decide to submit to someone or something other than God Himself (even if I do so in under deception), then I am guilty of idolatry and of spiritual fornication. Rom 7 says that we become the servants of whoever we obey. According to this, if we walk in disobedience to God as a result of walking in obedience to another, we break the first commandment.

You may say that idolatry only begins with commandment #2 when we fashion something with our hands which we bow down and serve. I would say that when we reach that point, we are simply manifesting evidence that we have broken commandment #1. Idolatry starts in the heart and ends up manifested in something tangible. The LSM publishing company with its fully formed idol of “One Publication” today would be an example of such a visible manifestation of idolatry.

I believe that God sees having any other god as a violation of our relationship with Him in the same way that we view violation of a marriage relationship by fornication/adultery. In Jeremiah 3 God gave Israel (northern kindom) a bill of divorcement because of her adulteries. This, among other passages, shows clearly that He considered himself as the husband of the children of Israel.

Strong’s says:
zânâh
zaw-naw'
A primitive root (highly fed and therefore wanton); to commit adultery (usually of the female, and less often of simple fornication, rarely of involuntary ravishment); figuratively to commit idolatry (the Jewish people being regarded as the spouse of Jehovah): - (cause to) commit fornication, X continually, X great, (be an, play the) harlot, (cause to be, play the) whore, (commit, fall to) whoredom, (cause to) go a-whoring, whorish.

In the New Testament, fornication is figuratively the same as idolatry (see Gk. for the word “fornication”). The following verses show that there is a connection between our spirit and what we do with our body. If we commit fornication, our spirit becomes defiled and filthy and we lose fellowship with God. Bowing down to another god has the same affect on our spiritual condition. God does not hold us guiltless but considers that we hate Him (commandment #2).

1Co 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid.

1Co 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

1Co 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

I Cor. 6:17 with the word “joined” was used by Lee to support his “mingling” teaching and gave us the idea that this particular joining could not be undone. However, this word actually means in Gk. to glue, that is, (passively or reflexively) to stick (figuratively): - cleave, join (self), keep company. In the O. T. the corresponding word was “cleave” as in “cleave unto Him” (meaning cling or adhere to Him). I Co. 6:17 can more rightly be understood to mean that he that is adhered to or glued to the Lord is one spirit. We can become dirty and lose our adherence to Him. Just as in a marriage the relationship (joining) can be broken (put asunder) by unfaithfulness, so can we become separated experientially from our relationship with the Lord.

Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder [separate].

This warning shows that what God joins together can be put asunder. A similar thought is found in the following verse. It shows how God views Christ’s relationship with us. He is adhering to us and gluing Himself to us. We are to respond in kind and cling to Him.

Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined [Gk: proskollao – to glue to; to adhere to] unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Christ died for us so that we could have spiritual communication/fellowship with God in a state of holiness which became ours by faith in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. This intimate relationship between Christ and the church is a great mystery. Whenever, as Christians, we become contaminated by fornication (or by idolatry, obeying commands of others that bring us into disobedience to God), we lose fellowship with the holy God. He does not stop loving us, and works to bring us to repentance. If we exercise our spirit to pray while we are in an unrepentant state, we will not contact the holy God, and we can be snared into spiritual communication with the devil and fall prey to his wiles. The Bible makes it clear that we cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils.

1Co 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

1Co 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Paul said that as believers we were espoused to one husband, Jesus Christ. He feared that we would be seduced.

2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled [seduced] Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

The first seduction took place in the garden of Eden. It took place through the mind becoming corrupted by means of listening to the deceiving words of someone other than God.

Paul realized that seduction of believers came through the words of men who appeared to be apostles of Christ and ministers of righteousness. Just as Satan came in the garden of Eden as one bearing “light,” and corrupted Eve’s mind by communicating with her, he continues to do the same thing today. He best accomplishes this objective in a systematic way through the teachings of those who appear to be ministers of righteousness, but who are actually not.

2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming [fashioning] themselves into the apostles of Christ.

2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Jesus told us repeatedly to keep his words, his commandments. He promised us that if we did this He and the Father would come and make their home with us. If, instead, we keep the words of others which lead us into disobedience to God’s words, we are allowing someone else to interfere in our new covenant relationship with God. I believe that God sees this kind of violation as seduction or fornication or idolatry.

Eph 5:6 (CLV) Let no one be seducing you through empty words because of these things the indignation of God is coming on the sons of stubbornness.

The New Covenant relationship is one of intimacy between God and each believer. It is far superior to the Old Covenant relationship between God and the children of Israel as shown in Hebrews. In the New Covenant, there is one mediator between us and God, Jesus, and no one should supersede His place in each of our lives or come between us and Him in any way. We have been betrothed to Him. Paul makes it clear that such superseding can take place through “words” or teachings spoken by others in order to seduce us away from the personal, intimate relationship we have with God as our God. (Only as we have an intimate relationship with Him first and foremost can we have a close, intimate, fellowship with one another in the church.)

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Note that men who give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils speak lies as if they were truth (in hypocrisy). They have seared consciences. They lord it over people and use assumed “authority” in their teachings to control others (note that the words “forbidding” and “commanding” describe an exercise of “authority”). This is all too familiar.

In Revelation 17, the woman sitting on the scarlet colored beast having seven heads and ten horns is called “Mystery Babylon the Great, the Mother of the harlots [Gk: idolaters] and abominations [idolatries] of the Earth.” The kingdoms of the earth commit fornication with her. This shows that God considers such fornications to be more than something physical between human beings. There are spiritual fornications between the great woman and the evil world rulers. It is clear that the RCC today matches this woman, as do all religious systems (her daughters) who are like her. There are many who are not literally bowing down to stone or wooden idols, yet they are practicing idolatry by walking stubbornly in disobedience to Him and His Word and at the same time using His name. They inadvertently become involved with evil spiritual powers while praying and vainly using the name of Jesus. They become involved with another Jesus, another spirit.

This is a brief overview of what I believe. I think it is much safer to consider that the warnings of the O.T. concerning serving other gods have applicability to us and not just dismiss them as only referring to pagans who bow to blocks of wood or stone.

I have been convicted that God is a jealous God and that He is jealous over my New Covenant relationship with Him. I am to be likewise jealous over my relationship with Him and to remain faithful to Him. I am not to let others interfere with that most intimate and precious relationship for any reason.

Today, just as in Paul’s day, there are men who come as Christian leaders and fashion themselves as ones sent by God bearing light. They use their “light” to impress, attract, and seduce people to come under their control. They usurp the role of God in their involvement with other believers. They expect submission to their words, teachings, and instructions and believe this is their God-given prerogative. This phenomenon among believers is nothing less than the mystery of iniquity (lawlessness) that was already at work in Paul’s day. We should flee from such people.

We are the bride of Christ, espoused to him as a chaste virgin. We are to guard our relationship with Him jealously as we look to His soon coming. The Bible says that what God has joined together (yoked together) let no man separate. I have been set free to treasure Jesus and His Words and to reject the subtle, deceiving words of men. I do not have to give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons that come through men, “commanding” and “forbidding” and expecting me to obey their “authoritative” interpretations, teachings, and instructions.

I have given some thought to the repeated accusation on this thread that I believe “all” in the Local Churches are guilty of idolatry. No one has yet shown me where I said this. I have decided to make this very plain: I do not know who is guilty. That is something each person must determine for themselves. But, sadly, most in the LC don’t even know to ask the question. It is for that reason that I have spoken so strongly. I want to provoke those who read here to think seriously about this.

The simple truth is that it really doesn’t matter what I think or you or anyone else thinks about idolatry. What matters is what is true and what He judges to be the case.

Shouldn't we ask something like this:

"Lord, how do You view my relationship with You? Am I holding to or adhering to beliefs and practices which I received from other men that bring me into conflict with You? I am asking You to shine Your light on me and show me my case in your eyes so I can repent and be set free from anything that offends you, hurts my relationship with You, and hinders my prayers and effectiveness as a believer."

Also, if other men support us financially in our service to God, wouldn't it be wise to consider praying something to this effect:

"Lord, please judge me in the matter of money, especially as it relates to my serving You. I do not want to be found at Your coming to have been serving another master out of fear of my and my family’s needs not being met."

We are called to submit first and foremost to God and to look to Him for everything. We are expected to give way or yield to one another when truth or principle is not at stake. Where it is, our submission not only hurts us, it hurts others. As believers we need to recognize the difference between submitting to God and to something that appears to be of God. The line drawn is determined by the Holy Word understood under the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. If the living One and the living Book forbid something, I must not do it, regardless of what any “minister of righteousness” says.

For this reason, I am responsible to know the Words of God and also to learn for myself to hear the Spirit speak. I will be without excuse in that day because as a participant in the wonderful New Covenant relationship with God which is mine by His amazing grace, I have been given His words to treasure, and I have been given His Holy Spirit to write them on my heart.

Thankful Jane

Peter Debelak

10-10-2008, 11:32 PM

I assume you submitted to his training rules, which included not leaving our seats before break time. If God himself had told you to get up and go to the restroom when your bladder was bursting, would you have done so? Pardon the graphic question, but it makes the point. What kind of Christian would hold that many people in bondage to their chairs under penalty of rebuke (or a mark against you that could lead to expulsion from the training) if they had to get up and go? I knew of some who were on the verge of being violently ill from waiting for the clock to move to the position which allowed them to get out of their seat and run for the restroom. I found myself in that condition a number of times and once I was unable to get through the long restroom line before our break time was up between morning meetings, and I had to return to my chair for an additional hour of torture. This was Christian treatment? I used to hope and pray that my assigned seat would be near the restroom!

Geez. In three trainings "under" Lee, I think I left meetings at least 12 times to use the rest room, just get outside, or for some other reason. I am just astounded by your report here. The trainings I speak of were '94-'96. Did the atmosphere change? I couldn't imagine (and never would be able to) hold my ....

P.S. I admit that I had no problem being "that guy" - but no one gave be grief over it (except all the folks I had to scootch past to get to the aisle to leave...).

YP0534

10-11-2008, 05:50 AM

P.S. I admit that I had no problem being "that guy"

Still don't, as far as I can tell. :D

Ohio

10-11-2008, 07:45 AM

Dear Ohio, Sorry for the delayed response.

Thankful Jane, apologies accepted. :)

What? I don’t see “godly fellowship with the offender” in Corinthians. (Which verses show this?) I just see that he was put away from fellowship by the majority. I also see that Paul delivered him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit could be saved in the day of Christ Jesus. I guess you could call that “godly fellowship” if you wanted to do so. He did repent, but it took a lot more than some kind of conversation with him.

Gal 6.1, Brothers, even if a man is overtaken in some offense, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of meekness." We also know that the brother was repentant and Paul encouraged the Corinthians in his second letter to restore the brother and to "confirm your love to him." 2 Cor 2.1-11 I encourage you to read these verses. They are the "flip side" of the verse "purge out the old leaven."

TJ, it's sad that the Texas brothers never presented a pattern of "godly fellowship" to the flock. Instead they have only presented a rotten example of ruthless humiliations and quarantines.

I see that some have been arguing using the phrase “guilt by association” as if I had used this phrase; however, I think that it was you introduced it. I guess you considered it was “guilt by association” when God judged the Israelites and 36 of them died in battle because of the sin of another (Achan), whom they were associated with by virtue of being part of the children of Israel. You said this idea was frightening to you. It is healthy for God’s judgment to strike a chord of fear in us. The Ai story also makes it clear that it wasn’t men on some kind of a witch hunt that found Achan, but it was God Who directed them to Achan. God is the one who pointed out the idolater. So this is not a story about man’s misjudgment, but God’s righteous actions through men who were willing to walk in the light with Him.

I may have introduced this specific phrase, or its alternate "broad brush," but it was not me who said, "Then I don't think you have gotten it yet. Everyone was brought into the idolatry (me included). All you have to do is study history (including the history of Israel) to see that it is not just the leaders who are held responsible. The whole congregation is held responsible." Other things have been said that lumps all together as idolators. This is what I have protested.

The real judgment that the children of Israel experienced at Ai was that they were defeated by their enemies. God was not with them in battle. Why not? Because of the sin of one person among them—sin that no one apparently knew about except for God. Their defeat was His way of telling everyone something was wrong. I didn’t write this story, God did. I guess He wasn’t afraid of sobering us by it.

Not all Israel suffered discipline at Ai. 2 or 3 thousand were sent to fight by Joshua, and only 36 were smitten. Let me suggest that the real reason that they lost the battle was they didn't seek the Lord first. There were other times this also happened -- when the enemies disguised themselves, for example. After they lost that skirmish, then did seek the Lord and the "accursed thing" was exposed. God often uses our failures to bring us seeking to Himself, not with the goal of judging us, or worse -- judging us all.

Shouldn’t defeat by our enemies concern us? When we see the enemy prevailing, shouldn’t we humbly pray for God’s light on the situation and not start defending ourselves as innocent? The norm is blessing and victory, not cursing and defeat. The children of Israel were warned in advance they would lose God’s blessing if they served other gods. They were told they would experience pestilence, the sword, famine, and beasts devouring them. God told them what the loss of blessing would look like, so that they would recognize when they had offended Him.

Yes, a hearty Amen, we should humbly pray.

But ... we should ask what is on the Lord's heart, and not assume that others are guilty of idolatry.

Also, the age has changed. This is the church age, the age of grace. I am not judged just for being part of the LC's based on something done at a publishing house in Calfornia.

Ohio

10-11-2008, 03:42 PM

Again, the point is how does God see our situation? Have we suffered defeat by the enemy or not? Loss of marriages; our second generation turning away from God and living sinful, immoral lives; untimely deaths, lawsuits against Christian brothers; brother hating brother; boasting in riches; etc. When all is said and done, it really doesn’t matter what we say, but what God says.

Your description sounds exactly like Laodicea in Rev 3. I would say it is a "perfect fit." The arrogant pride, the exclusivism and elitism all bear the rotten fruits that you enumerated. And ... what does God say to them? He did not mention idolatry. He did rebuke them. He admonished them to buy from Him. And He waited outside the door until some invited Him in.

If I or others say that the reason for such loss of blessing is our serving other gods, do you really consider such a statement to be the same as the crimes of holocaust or inquisitions? Don’t you think that is a bit of exaggeration? Isn’t there at least a possibility that God might consider our behavior (bowing to others voices and commands) to be idolatrous?

I mentioned holocaust because that was how the story in Joshua ended. You likened the LC situation to that story in Joshua 7. If we are all idolators like that one in the story, shouldn't all our fate be the same? It's not me who is exaggerating here. How far are you pushing the analogy? He was burned alive. Should we all suffer the same judgment?

If I "listen" to the "voices and commands" of others who are elders and ministers, then have I become an idolator? I don't think so. Since when is to "listen to" the same as to "bow down to?" What scripture supports that? I have protested every such assertion on this thread. Don't you think if there was, "at least a possibility that God might consider our behavior (bowing to others voices and commands) to be idolatrous," He would tell us in plain words?

Toledo

10-11-2008, 08:03 PM

I’m glad to hear that you read other materials. Did you ever share L. S. Chafer’s teachings in the meetings of the Local Church or mention him publicly (while still in an LSM church)?

Yes, in fact several elders in the Great Lakes area also had sets of Chafers' eight volume systematic theology.

Did you sign the letter with approx. 400 other elders that stated that the leading of W. Lee was “indispensable to our oneness”?

No.

Toledo

10-11-2008, 08:28 PM

The following is my basic understanding of idolatry, as it applies to us as believers.

I believe that God views our deliberate obedience to voices/words/teachings other than His own as spiritual fornication.

I believe that God sees having any other god as a violation of our relationship with Him in the same way that we view violation of a marriage relationship by fornication/adultery.

I believe that God sees this kind of violation as seduction or fornication or idolatry.

This is a brief overview of what I believe.
I both respect and appreciate your beliefs. I do not agree with you, but it is obvious that you have spent much time before the Lord in prayer, and much time searching through the bible. I do not agree with your interpretation of the scriptures -- you add a lot to the plain word of the bible. However, I respect your right to do so. Our oneness is based upon the Spirit and the divine life that we share, not upon our doctrinal agreement.

I have given some thought to the repeated accusation on this thread that I believe “all” in the Local Churches are guilty of idolatry. No one has yet shown me where I said this.
Ohio has pointed out at least one example above.

The simple truth is that it really doesn’t matter what I think or you or anyone else thinks about idolatry.
I agree: it really doesn’t matter what I think or you or anyone else thinks about idolatry. That is why I have responded to this thread. I think we would profit greatly if we would abandon the subject of idolatry altogether.

Ohio

10-12-2008, 05:07 AM

The example of Lee’s training which you mentioned is a good one. W. Lee called it “training” ... he found a way to legitimize our submission to his dictates ...as he mercilessly berated people in front of others. Our willing submission eventually carried over into the “church.” I sat quietly and watched at the trainings, praying I would never find myself in his gun sights ... I assume you submitted to his training rules, which included not leaving our seats before break time. If God himself had told you to get up and go to the restroom when your bladder was bursting, would you have done so?

TJ, your "graphic" illustration of one sister's plight in the training is a vivid description of another factor which crept into the LC's -- which until now, I have heard very little mention of -- legalism. And ... btw ... for us coffee drinkers that plight was very real indeed.

Many, many times the ministry informed us of how bad, careless, and irresponsible we all were -- thus we needed "training." That was one thing we could never get enough of! The need for training was often just a "disguise" for legalism to invade the churchlife. Oftentimes, this legalism became sanctioned "abuse". Each one begins to apply standards to others which were drilled into them. Sensitivity to others' needs is overridden by rules and regulations ... and a general callousness to God's needy people. These changes went into overdrive at LSM during the mid-80's, and many churches were adversely affected.

Obviously, via the many testimonies I have read on these forums, the Texas brand of legalism was especially obnoxious. Though all attendants received the same regulations at the LSM trainings, it was the reinforcement of those regulations by certain leaders back in Texas, which made those rules so repugnant. Personally, even I were chief training usher, I could never forbid a sister in need.

Legalism has always been a killer of God's people. The Pharisees used it and the Lord rebuked them and exposed them. Paul fought its effects. But ... whether we are discussing legalism, or abuse, or wrong submissions, or a host of other issues in the LC, all of them together do not rise to the standard of idolatry. Like I was taught in Catholic school -- a million "venial" sins do not make a single "mortal" sin.

Ohio

10-12-2008, 05:53 AM

The problem in the LC is that there was not healthy oversight and there was never any admission that the blessing was lost. If anyone dared suggest that this might have happened, then they and those in their tent who were targeted as the troublemakers... been there, done that... i.e., if you name a problem, you are the problem. (To me, this is similar to what has happened in the resistance shown to this topic on this thread.)

Much of the oversight was not healthy because it did not come from the local elders, but rather from a headquarters. The loss of blessing gnawed at me for years, all the while I kept believing endless broken promises. And, yes ... problems are not received warmly.

But ... your reference to the resistance to the topic of idolatry on this thread has no merit.
.................................................. ..................................................

Originally Posted by Ohio: http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?p=3745#post3745) The tragedy of the LC's for decades was to look to Anaheim for the way of blessing and for the reasons for which there was no blessing. This has robbed the Lord of His rightful place as the Head of the church and the Son of Man walking in her midst. Anaheim became a rival to God's own Son. The "ministry" became a rival to His word. Hence, very little blessing exists in the LC's, to the point that some would even say there is a kind of curse upon them.

How is this different than what I said? The O.T. cursings and blessings were directly tied to God’s children having other gods. The ministry and leadership hierarchy among us took the place of God’s word and His direct headship over each of us; hence, it was another god.
This was the exact same situation the Lord Jesus faced in His earthly ministry. The Pharisees made void the word of God. They robbed God of His rightful place. But the begging question is this -- why didn't the Lord call this idolatry. He had ample opportunity. He was in Jerusalem rebuking them for a whole week. His "woe to you"s were fairly extensive. Why did the Lord not tell the Pharisees that they had "another god?" He called them vipers and cemeteries. Obviously he was not pulling any punches. Could He simply have forgotten what he had written in times past about idolatry?
.................................................. ..................................................

Some may claim now that they never submitted. I ask, then, where were their voices of objection in the past? Silence is consent. Silence is the equivalent of bowing and it produces culpability. If we saw the problem and were silent, we had part in closing the door on blessing and opening the door to cursing. We share responsibility for our being run over by every kind of evil. I believe that even now, many people ex-LSM folks still value the teachings of the ministry more than the pure Word of God. They treasure the ministry and still have it hidden under their tents. Thankful Jane

Whoa! Slow down here. "Silence is consent. Silence is the equivalent of bowing?" Consent to what? Bowing down to who?

In conclusion, I can not say it any better than ol' brother Toledo: "I both respect and appreciate your beliefs. I do not agree with you, but it is obvious that you have spent much time before the Lord in prayer, and much time searching through the bible. I do not agree with your interpretation of the scriptures -- you add a lot to the plain word of the bible. However, I respect your right to do so. Our oneness is based upon the Spirit and the divine life that we share, not upon our doctrinal agreement."