Quote:
Originally Posted by least
Good point.
When a complaint is against an elder or elders, and one has to tell it to the 'elders' , one will be silenced, punished, instead of Matthew 18 being practiced.
|
Yes, Nell's point is spot on. The proper way to deal with offenses is given by Jesus in the gospels. Additionally, it still applies when the elders have a complaint against the non-local person. If Watchman Nee, not taking the local Lord's table, is told by the Shanghai elders that he is not to return among them for reasons of maintaining the church testimony, then the elders are presenting the will of the church. (Instead, Witness Lee overturned this).
And if the Anaheim elders told Witness Lee that his son Philip was meddling in the affairs of other localities, and the elders in those regions were reporting the sufferings caused by this, then as Matthew 18 witnesses they should be heard. Where does the NT say that an office manager of a publisher should dictate practices in various local assemblies? If ever there was a klaxon horn warning the believers - imagine a cartoonish "ooogah, ooogah!! - it was with Witness Lee's sons. (And yet we saw what happened).
And then the LSM office manager gets caught sexually abusing the help, Matthew 18 should apply. Witnesses come forward, and if there is not repentance and restoration then the offender is removed from the assembly.
None of this happened according to Matthew 18. So here we are, today. The proper way to deal with problems was not followed and the issues of that failure reverberates today..