Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Igzy
I think it's interesting that Kangas chose to call Steve Isitt a "man of death." Why didn't he call him a "man of sin?" Because if he did that he'd have to specify his sin, and he can't do it because there is none.
|
When Ron publicly defamed Steve, he did so using vague terminology and accusations. And by that I mean language that is elusive to outsiders. His intended message, however, is crystal clear to those within the LC. As
Igzy pointed out, it is significant that Ron was not willing to convey a definitive position that he could subsequently stand behind. He didn’t even initiate a public ‘quarantine’ letter like has been done for others.
As it turns out, what Ron spoke is only a modern example of a pattern that has long existed within the LC. The pattern which I am referring to is a large amount of vagueness in conveying accusations presented as cause for church discipline. Just look at what WL had to say on the subject:
Quote:
We must see, however, that to make a public announcement of a kind of excommunication involves a person’s name, position, and status in today’s society. This is serious and very risky. This involves families and human relationships. In this matter we have been under the influence of the tradition of Christianity, but in my experiences over the past fifty years I have surely learned that to make a public announcement, especially in a matter concerning immorality, is not so safe and profitable. If we announce a certain person’s being excommunicated in a public meeting, he could appeal to a court of law and say that we are spoiling his name. He would claim that since you said he committed immorality, you must provide the evidence in a court of law. This would cause much trouble. This one may have committed that sin, but according to law you must present the evidence. This sinning one may not have that much growth in the Lord, but he may bold a high position in society. He would vindicate himself by bringing this case to the law court to clear up his name. This shows us the turmoil that such a public announcement could cause…
According to our present knowledge of the New Testament, I do not believe there is the need of making a public announcement…
Witness Lee, Elders’ Training, Book 4, Ch 7
|
WL was not hesitant in making “public announcements,” but he had a different way of doing it, one that had the end effect of absolving himself of all accountability. The notion of ‘quarantine’ that he set forth is very deceptive. To the naïve, it seemingly represents a ‘gentle’ approach to correct those in err. In the LC, the true purpose of
quarantine is that it serves as an effective excommunication without having to present real facts and evidence to support the action.
Quarantine implies someone is sick and there is no choice to but to set that person aside. To go along with the analogy, being sick or leprous is the sole accusation, so what exactly does that mean? That is what Lee refused to define. He didn't want to justify his actions. He wouldn't stand behind things that he did. That's not the pattern the Apostle Paul set. Paul made a case and then said to "
deliver such a one to Satan." If LCers aren't willing to stand behind their statements or actions in the same way that Paul did, then they shouldn't be making them.