[OBW]

Igzy responded that he thought I was incorrect to conclude that Lee should be simply rejected because of his sins. I understand the context in which he is working, and do not deny him his conclusion.

But I wish to make my case.

And not by simply rehashing all the previous discussion — mine or others.

My overall conclusion is based upon the directives that Paul gave concerning the stopping of incorrect teachings, and more specifically, certain teachers on account of not only their teachings, but their character. That is not a mystery.

And ZNP and Igzy have both indicated that they do not understand this to mean that there is never a place for Lee to teach, but that there is cause to reject him at a time. Well, at least sort of. I sort of think that ZNP is not sure that there is any ground to reject Lee at all, even in part. Only to note his shortcomings but accept what he teaches.

And there was the comparison to David and Moses. And comparisons have also been made to any number of contemporary ministers/teachers/theologians. And the comparisons are not entirely invalid.

But there is also a differentiation — at least relative to David and Moses. While David fell — hard — with respect to Uriah and Bathsheba, he retained his position as king. But he also repented in a way that restored his righteousness. His lament over Absalom is recorded in scripture. Moses struck the rock the second time and lost the right to enter the Good Land. (I think there was something else, but this one will do.) But he was dealt with by God at the time and continued in righteousness.

Under Paul’s various decrees, there are certain things that are to be rejected as far as teachings are concerned. While I could make some case for some of Lee’s teachings literally fitting those things, we will skip that. But Paul also noted that there are some who are holding themselves out as teachers and in some manner doing what they do to fill their bellies (in so many words). Those were equally to be rejected. It really didn’t matter what you thought about their teachings, their character betrayed their motives and source. They were to be rejected.

I have never said that Lee only taught garbage, or that everything he said was theologically incorrect. But the combination of correct teachings with exclusivist teachings, teachings of a special minister of God (under any title) which is defined in a manner that his followers will only conclude is him, directing that nothing but his material needed to be read, then placing an immoral person at the helm of the only publisher that could supply those materials, and speaking lies about anyone who points to the immorality of that person or suggests that a “local church” not do as directed by that person results in a current position of “rejected.” And until that is cleared-up, and repented for to all involved and all who were affected, it remains outstanding and he remains rejected.

And what I would add is that, while those in the US did not know of it, a different form of the same thing happened in the 50s. First, he tried to replace all leadership that did not follow his directive to have nothing to do with another minister. Then he got into a business venture that went under and he saddled the churches in Taiwan with his debts. He may have managed to run off those who openly opposed him, but there was still trouble over it, so he left for the US to try a different field while things cooled down there. As I read Paul’s various directives, I conclude that Lee was not an acceptable teacher at that time.

Since there was nothing done to rectify the situation in Taiwan, even though we Americans were ignorant of the situation, Lee’s standing is with respect to the Church, not just an assembly. So his beginnings in the US stood in opposition to Paul’s instructions to reject him. It wasn’t our fault we didn’t see it at the time. And unfortunately, too many were caught by his charisma (yes, a little Chinese man with a little trouble speaking clear English can have charisma) and then turned a blind eye to the next chapters — Daystar and then PL (2 times, at least). Then he lies about people. Starting in the 70s. I’m not sure how much to blame Max for anything. But it is clear that the rhetoric surrounding his exit was not really about Max, but about something else. Max was just the scapegoat. Maybe even planned that way.

From the 50s until his death, Lee was unrepentant related to his “sins.” They were not just private sins, but actions perpetrated upon his flock of followers. Since he entered the US already in a condition that should have rejected him, there is reason that we should never have invited him to speak to us in little home gatherings in various places in Texas. In NYC. In Las Angeles. In other homes in other places. We just didn’t know it.

But because it was true, even if unknown, it means that Lee was not righteous to stand in front of anyone an proclaim to be speaking for God. He first needed to go back to Taiwan and repent for his treatment of the leaders that liked the ministry of TAS. For his treatment of the churches in general for forcing his personal business debts upon them. Only then would he have an honest standing to see if anyone would even listen to him in the US.

Without that repentance, he did not have the standing to speak here in the US. We should never have had “local churches” with him as the MOTA. With the LSM as the publisher. With PL as the “ministry office.” With Max doing whatever he did or didn’t actually do.

And for this reason, I conclude that I cannot accept that God was sending Lee to teach us anything. Therefore, anything that he taught that was out of the mainstream needs a completely sound base that has no reference to Lee in any way. And because I have observed Nee’s illogic become good because he says it, I cannot simply say that Lee just taught Nee and that makes it OK.

Since I cannot conclude that Lee was righteously speaking for God, I cannot accept anything that he said that gives me any kind of problem with the teachings that abound in a consistent manner throughout Christianity. And there are many such things despite the differences that result in the splits. The amount of agreement is staggering when compared to the actual differences. And when thoughts that arise from my days in the LRC make me reconsider what I am hearing, I immediately require that something prove Lee before I bother trying to prove the other. I will eventually do that too. But Lee no longer gets the “starting point” position.