Quote:
Originally Posted by james73
Well I disagree. What have they done right? I am not laying American jurisprudence on the church at all - there is Matthew 18:15. If there is a disagreement, if a brother sins against you, first tell one, then tell a couple, then tell the whole church. If they don't like something I did, they can follow Jesus' words - first tell me, then a couple, then the church and then, if I do not see the error, they can treat me as a tax collector or Gentile. They jumped straight to "tax collector".
Anyway I don't blame them, they are only human. But exclusion is a serious matter in the church, it is one of Witness Lee's own six tests for a genuine local church.
|
And in that regard you have them right where they cannot allow such a thing to happen.
But tell me, if they had actually gone through the whole thing, how would it have played out?
"We note that you have been writing things on the internet about us. Things that you should have first come to us about. That you should have confronted us as being an offense. Then we could respond. BTW, you are James73, are you not?"
At this point, you can only agree that you are or there are more serious problems.
"Are you going to repent from this error and stop doing it?"
Interesting problem. Will you repent and stop? I sort of doubt it.
"Since you assert that you will not cease in this action and you continue to spread lies concerning Witness Lee and the Local Churches, you are hereby excluded from our fellowship."
Oh, it is very clear that they simply bypassed the Matthew 18 process. But was the outcome unexpected even if followed?
And since their charge is related to speaking lies concerning Lee and the churches, it is clearly not going to be some public event in which your "lies" will either be listed or otherwise put out for the rest of the people to hear. So it is going to be private.
It appears that you have equally bypassed any attempt at "fellowship" concerning the "problems" and are equally at fault.
Now, before you think I am blaming you, I am not. But in the grand scheme of things, most of what we do here on this forum is arguably in opposition to Matthew 18. At least if you assert that it applies to every possible disagreement with all other Christians, at all times, and in all ways.
What I am saying is that it is not entirely obvious that Matt 18 is written for this kind of issue. Many will disagree. But simply saying that it applies to everything does not make it so. Its own words and those of scripture suggest something different.
Our tendency to take everything written in scripture and declare it to be the only way with respect to all things. But much of it is more specific and contextual than that. We like to make Matthew 18 into a general prescription concerning all disputes of all kinds, but it is not stated as such.
It says if "you" note that your brother or sister sins, point it out to them. If they will not hear you, take along one or two more to establish the facts. If they won't hear it then, take it to the church. If they won't hear the church, "treat them as you would a pagan or tax collector." (I should say here that I cannot determine who it is that is supposed to take this position — the church or the person who sees the problem. I can make an argument either way.)
Yet when Paul wrote to Timothy concerning bad teachers, he simply said to refuse them. He didn't say to tell them, then if they don't listen, to take it to the church. He said to refuse them. Surely he did not consider Timothy to stand as the church.
So, if it is the church leadership that has noted you doing something that may not actually be sin, but that is a willful misspeaking (in their opinion) concerning things that they consider "truth," are they limited like the "you" in Matthew, or are they standing in the position of Timothy with respect to trouble in the church?
Unless we are ready to have a serious problem with Paul (and therefore the inerrancy issue that has recently died down) it is not so simple as to drag out Matthew 18 every time something of "discipline" occurs. Matt 18 clearly applies to sin. Paul seems to have used something like Matt 18 (or was the last step in that process) when he advised the Corinthians to exclude the sinning brother. But he does not even suggest such a thing when he tells Timothy to silence certain teachers.
Now there has been some controversy as to whether the silencing of certain teachers was coupled with some kind of expulsion. It is not clear. Some say "yes" while others say "no."
- - - -
And having said all of that, please note that I do not defend the LRC, per se, but note that we may be fighting the wrong battle in this case. Surely they are one of the worst examples of any kind of righteousness when it comes to their stances and how that plays out with their members. Despite the generally poor advice to label them as a cult, there is a side in which the church community as a whole is treating the LRC according to Matthew 18. Unlike the LRC, much of the rest of Christianity operates with much more charity concerning the large variety of groups and differences of opinion on things. But they stop when it comes to "playing nice" with the ones who sue over characterizations of their doctrines (borderline heresy) and practices (actually quite cultic in many cases). The LRC does not respond to attempts at discussion. They simply shut of conversation and call their lawyers.
So they get excluded. Treated as pagans and tax collectors. (I kind of like the idea that labeling something as being like the IRS is a sort of curse.)