[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

I realize that the references to fruit are more than one. And they are not identical in nature. But it seems that it is used as proof to the casual observer of the truth of something.

I was mainly thinking of "fruit" in the context of Matt 7, and to what extent it can reveal things about someone or the teachings/practices that they introduce. For me, I see the bad fruit of Nee and Lee as being the most apparent evidence that there is something wrong with the their teachings and the LCM that they created. For me, the bad fruit was the first thing that became apparent to me. Something stunk badly. I didn't know what it was, but I just realized that I was in a system that wasn't what it was made out to be.

Originally Posted by OBW

But if I am going to be taught by someone and it is seen that their fruit is terrible, then I don't need to try to figure out what teaching they have wrong. I just need to understand that they are not qualified to teach. Their fruit has disqualified them. And if someone is claiming to be of Christ but does not practice sound teaching (rephrased — live it) then there is a big question mark. I'm just not sure that this analysis ever gets to the cause of the problem. To the details of the bad teachings. Just he evidence that not all is well.

And that is an important principle. We still have too much effort going into trying to figure which of Lee's teachings we can like (talking about teachings that you can't find elsewhere) when we should reject Lee altogether and find a different source. His fruit was bad. It was bad in Taiwan. (Of course we didn't know of that in time to act on it.) It was eventually seen as bad here. And we let him blame everyone else for the problems inside of his group. Inside of his teaching. He should have been shown the way to his seat. Never allowed the opportunity to teach. Not saying to excommunicate him. But he should never have been more than another brother. And one not worthy of the position of teacher.

The fruit of Nee and Lee is the barrier that LC leaders cannot get past, and they just don't seem understand what the problem is. It's actually really simple, but for whatever reason, they think they can polish up the images of Nee and Lee. Their understanding of the public perception of Nee and Lee might be something along the lines of "through an exoneration by the CRI will you know Lee" or "by an entry in the congressional record will you know Nee". Unfortunately for them, things don't work that way. LC leaders can get Nee and Lee in the congregational record, or distribute millions of RcV Bibles for free, but at the end of the day, nothing has changed. Nee is still Nee and Lee is still Lee. They are known by their fruits.

I spent my whole life wondering why if we, “the recovery”, really had something so special, then why weren’t more people interested in what we had to offer? It was a question that literally drove me nuts. Of course, the LC had plenty of excuses for this. They might say something like it being the fault of "the opposers". Well, Jesus had plenty of opposers. That didn't stop him or hinder him. He accomplished what He set out to accomplish. When it comes to fruit, there really are no excuses, what you see is what you get. People know Nee and Lee by their fruit. LC leaders really need to honestly ask themselves, just what was the fruit of Nee? What was Lee’s fruit?

Originally Posted by OBW

By the fruit Lee was disqualified. No need to dissect the bad teachings.

But there is good reason to dissect the bad teachings. They are ensnaring many good Christians. Even among us who have left the LCM far, far behind us. We need to be freed from those teachings. But fruit is not the proof against any particular error. The scripture is. And coming together to reason over it. Not just take someone else's word for it.

I would take the position that fruit can lead to a probable indication to what teachings need to be put under the microscope. Of course there are many exceptions to this, but I think that generally speaking, it can be a good indicator.

Fruit, as an indicator, should serve to give people an idea of what teachers not to follow, or who are the false prophets are. People doesn’t necessarily need the ability to evaluate or dissect teachings. Not everyone has enough Bible knowledge to do this, and let’s face it, not everyone has the desire to engage in apologetic debates. In the LC, I've seen situations where the fruit of those in a meeting was manifested to a newcomer such that they sensed something was wrong, and didn't come back. I used to feel so disappointed when I saw that happen, but now I look back and realized that there were many who came through and didn’t see good fruit. It all worked out fine, because these people didn’t need to do any evaluation of LC teachings. They never even got that far. The fruit had raised a flag as it should.

All that being said, those who wish to dissect or evaluation teachings that “stink” should. Even teachings that aren’t raising red flags, but are being introduced as new teachings should be evaluated. This was also a big part of Lee’s problem. He was prepared to declare whatever he wanted to, but he wasn’t prepared to defend his teachings at length, and he didn't want people criticizing him. An evaluation of a teaching should be enough to lead to a strong indication of whether it is erroneous or not. But I do note that even letting people dissect a teaching can still lead to the wrong conclusion. It depends on who is doing the dissecting. Just look at what conclusions the CRI came to in regards to what Lee taught.