Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
To consider the claims that WL was "the MOTA" is reasonable and Biblical and I took part in that discussion. I saw no reason to take this to the next level and say that WL was not a true servant of the Lord. To do so is in my understanding stepping over a clear boundary.
|
What boundary is that? When any lay claim to such a serious thing as "Minister of the Age" they take on some significant requirements. Surely if there is only one MOTA, then that very status must be subject to testing like that of an apostle. And if there is such a claim and it is discovered to be false, what does it say about the one making the claim?
I note that comparison is made to other ministers of various kinds and of their less-than stellar lives. And the correct response is that all men are fallen. But at the same time, few, if any, of these are claiming such a significant position among ministers. With some exceptions, they are mostly serving those they are called to serve with the best that they can do with the help of the Holy Spirit. They do not claim elite status and call all others unworthy of receiving your attention.
And they don't set up businesses that invite investors into a scheme that is not registered with the SEC and is not above board. They do not underhandedly take the savings of their followers and then walk away unscathed when the business collapses.
Something about those who are serving their belly comes to mind.
You can complain about the fact that preachers are often (and almost always) paid. And that the so-called "business" side of a church is often inefficient at its best. But there is no deceit in obtaining its funding. There is no mystery concerning where the money goes.
And in the few cases where there is a mystery, the Feds often step in and charges are filed.
And you can complain about the empire at some of the mega churches. For every mega church out there (even assuming there is some generic problem with that) there are a sea of small churches that cumulatively include what is probably a majority of the Protestant membership.
When Jimmy Swaggert as caught with a prostitute, the Assemblies of God, under whose banner JS preached, ordered that he simply step down. He refused and continued on his own. Lee had no problem. There was no organization over him. He put his son into his private business, the Living Stream Ministry, and when it was discovered that the son was engaged in immoral acts inside the LSM offices, it was hushed-up. 10 years later, it happened again. This time, more than one came with the reports from those molested by PL. Again, no action. And when those with the report took it upon themselves as the leaders of their assembly to deal with the problems that were being caused in their church by PL and the ongoing meddling of the LSM office, those elders were run off and the facts covered.
At least David mourned in public. He repented in sackcloth and ashes for his sins against Uriah and Bathsheba. He suffered publicly for his failures concerning his sons and daughters. At least one Psalm walks us through the change that came over him as he went from hiding to open repentance.
But for Lee, there was none. He may have expressed some bad feelings about those who lost their savings, but the part of the Daystar business that continued to operate — the manufacturing plant — continued to try to make him money without doing one thing about repaying those that had been defrauded by illegally induced, unregistered investments in companies that had no actual financial presence in any jurisdiction.
The church(es) in Taiwan were saddled with the debts of a 1950s business venture of Lee's. Eldon hall was said to have a storage area full of suits that Lee and sons had tried to sell at the the World's Fair shortly before the start of the LRC in the US. There were health products being sold in the churches when I started in 1973. And then came Daystar. It may have already been going, but there was a specific time that it was "sold" in Dallas after we started there. So at this point, Lee had managed to return to saddling the churches with the risks of his private business ventures.
And you think you can't find where Paul would suggest that Lee should never be given a microphone, a video camera, or the opportunity to speak as a teacher? It would not matter how good his teaching might have been. It should never have been uttered. If those in the US had been warned about Lee before he came, maybe he would never have been given the time of day. But even those who knew, like Samuel Chang, would never speak up. Whether Chinese culture, fear of retaliation, or just plain belief in the nonsense taught, they remained silent about the unrighteousness.
And yet we wax poetic about the chain of events that led us to the place where "blessings abound" and all Christians of any kind not within the fold are chastised as worldly, satanic, demonic, etc., while we eat up the "you're special" rhetoric.
It is not that the LRC is not Christian. Or that Lee never taught anything right. It is that even his teachings leaned toward allowing his vices. Right and wrong not mattering. Dismissing any kind of call to righteousness as being "from the self." I dare say that Jesus would have turned to Lee and suggested rather strongly that if he wanted to teach that way, then he would find himself at the end of the line waiting to enter whatever it is that our "afterlife" actually is. It's right there in black-and-white in Matthew 5.