The book of James and the LRC

[ZNPaaneah]

Why I love the book of James. The book of James is written “to the 12 tribes that are scattered abroad”. This book is written right at the beginning of the New Testament, the transition from the Old Testament to the New. Imagine how disruptive that is, to once feel that you were God’s special, elite, chosen race and now all of a sudden you have to reject much of what you gave your entire life to for so many years. You didn’t eat with Gentiles before, now you do. You used to teach that the proper ground to worship God was in Jerusalem, now you realize it is in your spirit.

Witness Lee taught that writing to these believers indicates James was not clear on the New Testament. I would completely disagree with this. Instead I would say that this verse indicates James burden is with those having trouble making that transition. You can imagine that if you came out of a group as abusive as the Old Testament where they literally crucify trouble makers, stone them and excommunicate them all the time, that there might be some with the burden to help those having trouble with this transition make it. I feel the burden of the book of James and the burden of this forum are the same. Posting on this forum is not evidence that you cannot make the transition from the LRC but it is evidence that you have a burden for those making this transition.

Then James says “count it all joy when you fall into diverse temptations”. This is my experience on this forum. How many different or diverse experiences do we get to hear. Experiences going all the way back to Mainland China in the 1930s to the present. Experiences within the LRC and experiences of those leaving or wanting to leave. It is a joyful experience if you know one thing: “that the trying of your faith worketh patience”. This is a virtue that is greatly undervalued in our society. Nobody extolls patience, and as a result we rarely ever see a “perfect work”. If you want to have a perfect work, a work that is entire and wanting nothing, then you need patience. This to me is the first lesson from James that I take away from my experience in the LRC. The LRC, like the Old Testament, wasn’t a perfect work, it was incomplete. But you couldn’t get to the New Testament without first having the Old Testament, and I am not going to get to the New Jerusalem without first having gone through the LRC, so these experiences are working patience. You can’t be an expression of God without it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I feel the burden of the book of James and the burden of this forum are the same. Posting on this forum is not evidence that you cannot make the transition from the LRC but it is evidence that you have a burden for those making this transition.

Thankyou for this word of wisdom.

This is exactly the point I wanted to make on the "thread with no name" about Steve Isitt's articles.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thankyou for this word of wisdom.

This is exactly the point I wanted to make on the "thread with no name" about Steve Isitt's articles.

If you write a letter to the church in Ephesus, as the Apostle John did, you cannot assume that the writer has left their first love merely because the Lord says the church in Ephesus has. This is, in my opinion, the error Witness Lee makes.

James does not refer to himself as one of the 12 tribes, but as "a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ". The fact that he is writing to the "12 tribes" should not lead to the assumption that he does not understand the change from the OT to the NT.

Second, you cannot write to the "church in Ephesus" unless there is such a place with such a name. The church in Thyatira is not going to assume that this letter were to them, that would be ridiculous. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that there were believers in Jesus who considered themselves "the twelve tribes in the dispersion". Once again, this is Witness Lee's mistake (in my opinion). He assumes that this label was created by James, that assumption is not supported by this book. On the contrary the logical conclusion is that this label already existed and James was writing to this group.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

James does not refer to himself as one of the 12 tribes, but as "a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ". The fact that he is writing to the "12 tribes" should not lead to the assumption that he does not understand the change from the OT to the NT.

WL misunderstood James 2.17 (faith without works is dead) like so many others have, thinking that James was assaulting the the way of faith. Being placed in the Bible just a page or two after Hebrews chap 11, probably didn't help either.

WL continually made a case against "natural" relationships, interpreting them as "honey" which would contaminate the offerings. He solidified his case against James with the same reasoning, concluding that James rose to prominence in Jerusalem, not because of spiritual maturity, because of this. With so much "wisdom" in Lee's arsenal, it is just unbelievable to me that he would ever include his own sons in his ministry.

[aron]

There are a couple of reasons in the Bible for viewing James with less than sanguinary eyes. First, John writes in chapter 7 of his gospel that "Even his brothers did not believe into Him". When John was writing the gospel, the brothers/family of Jesus had risen into prominence. John is telling the believers that the brothers/family had missed the whole earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. They weren't there. The only time they show up in the narrative is to argue with their brother.

Now, some have told me that this was just to show that Jesus trod the lonely path, and wasn't an indictment against His brothers' later prominince. But I read it as, John is looking at the "leaders of the church" and pointedly reminding everyone that they weren't even there. They missed the boat in the gospels. Why are they now in charge?

Secondly, is Paul's remark in Galatians: "Some came from James" and Peter shrunk back from the Gentiles. Paul could have said, "Some came from Jerusalem" or something like that. But he said "some came from James".

Thirdly, when discussing the resurrection of Jesus, Paul says, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ ... appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."
(1 Corinthians 15:3-8 ESV)

Again, James is late on the scene. Why, then, did the Desposyni (the family) end up running the show? Because they were family, not because they knew what was going on. Blood trumped revelation. Eusebius tells us (approvingly) in HE 7.9.1 that they had their own special chair, "the throne of James", that was kept by the desposyni as a revered keepsake.

All of which doesn't mean I agree with Lee, nor his reasoning. I don't. I just wanted to point out why some folks might hold James with less regard than others.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

There are a couple of reasons in the Bible for viewing James with less than sanguinary eyes. First, John writes in chapter 7 of his gospel that "Even his brothers did not believe into Him". When John was writing the gospel, the brothers/family of Jesus had risen into prominence. John is telling the believers that the brothers/family had missed the whole earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. They weren't there. The only time they show up in the narrative is to argue with their brother.

Now, some have told me that this was just to show that Jesus trod the lonely path, and wasn't an indictment against His brothers' later prominince. But I read it as, John is looking at the "leaders of the church" and pointedly reminding everyone that they weren't even there. They missed the boat in the gospels. Why are they now in charge?

Secondly, is Paul's remark in Galatians: "Some came from James" and Peter shrunk back from the Gentiles. Paul could have said, "Some came from Jerusalem" or something like that. But he said "some came from James".

Thirdly, when discussing the resurrection of Jesus, Paul says, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ ... appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."
(1 Corinthians 15:3-8 ESV)

Again, James is late on the scene. Why, then, did the Desposyni (the family) end up running the show? Because they were family, not because they knew what was going on. Blood trumped revelation. Eusebius tells us (approvingly) in HE 7.9.1 that they had their own special chair, "the throne of James", that was kept by the desposyni as a revered keepsake.

All of which doesn't mean I agree with Lee, nor his reasoning. I don't. I just wanted to point out why some folks might hold James with less regard than others.

This is not logical. According to the verse in ICorinthians 15 Paul is saying that the Lord appeared to James before he appeared to Paul. So if we accept that Paul's vision and ministry is part of the New Testament on what basis would the appearance of the Lord to James have? He appeared to James after the apostles, but he appeared to Paul after the apostles too.

Second, isn't this verse a testimony from the Apostle Paul that the Lord had appeared to James? Doesn't that contradict the idea that James didn't have the vision? Again, this verse seems to destroy this theory.

The verse in Galatians does, in my opinion shine a light on James and give him responsibility for the pressure on the Christians to be separate from the Gentiles. However, Paul was there when Stephen was stoned. Does that mean he didn't have the vision? Peter denied the Lord, does that mean he didn't have the vision. Peter and Paul make mistakes, but they have the vision. James might have made a mistake (the verses in Galatians only give responsibility to James, they don't actually say he did the deed) so therefore he doesn't have the vision?

As for the verses in John 7 it appears they are far more general than just an indictment on James lack of faith. Besides, James having a lack of faith prior to Peter's denial of the Lord, or Paul's participation in the persecution of Christians merely provides background prior to the Lord appearing to him.

The book of James should be judged based on the book. I don't judge Paul's books based on his persecution of Christians. I don't judge Peter's letters based on his denial of the Lord.

Witness Lee said:

"However, to call these believers in Christ the twelve tribes, as God’s chosen people in His Old Testament economy, may also indicate the lack of a clear view concerning the distinction between Christians and Jews, between God’s New Testament economy and the Old Testament dispensation, that God in the New Testament has delivered and separated the Jewish believers in Christ from the Jewish nation, which was then considered by God as a “perverse generation” (Acts 2:40)."

I disagree. You call someone by their name, we have no evidence that James "named" them the "twelve tribes in the dispersion". If Jewish believers were referring to themselves in this way it does indicate that they were not clear, the fact that James wrote to them only indicates he had a burden for them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Eusebius tells us (approvingly) in HE 7.9.1 that they had their own special chair, "the throne of James", that was kept by the desposyni as a revered keepsake.

Did you mean E.H. 7.19.1, which is titled "The episcopal seat of James"?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

But I read it as, John is looking at the "leaders of the church" and pointedly reminding everyone that they weren't even there. They missed the boat in the gospels. Why are they now in charge?

If you receive James 1 you would never be deceived by WL.



1. In the church there is no “super spiritual” brother, there is no “Minister of the Age” or “super apostle” like Witness Lee or Watchman Nee. Likewise there are no small, insignificant brothers. Referring to saints as being “rich” in the word, or in life is a major red flag. V.9-10
2. There is a blessing in enduring the trials and temptations. Our experiences were not a waste, they were a blessing. V.12
3. The reason we got ensnared into the LRC is we were drawn away by our own lusts. Perhaps the idea that you were special or better than other Christians was the lure. Any discussion of special revelation, special blessing, or proper ground is a major red flag. V. 14-15
4. If you justify the LRC saying “how could this be false if the teachings are good” know that “every good gift is from above”. The “truths” didn’t come from Witness Lee, the truths came from God. Any talk of “having the riches” is a red flag, if the gift is a good gift it comes from God, not from WL or WN. We may not have known this at the time, but it should be clear to us now. V. 17
5. “Be ye doers of the word not hearers only” v. 22. Too many in the LRC were nothing but hearers. How many preached the gospel, or raised up churches, or took care of small group meetings? Listening to messages and then thinking you are something spiritual is just deceiving yourself. Talking about preaching the gospel without actually doing it should be a big red flag.
6. Pure religion is to visit the fatherless and widows v.27. If you are not doing that then your worship is not pure. Anytime numerous meetings are emphasized over visiting those in need then that should be a big red flag.
7. Pure religion is to keep yourself unspotted from the world v. 27. Daystar should have been a major red flag. PL running the LSM should have been a major red flag.

When someone tells you that you don’t need to listen to James, then that is a big red flag. Without the book of James the Bible is incomplete, you are incomplete, and the door is left open for you to be led away by your own lusts, by your lack of wisdom, and by deceiving yourself.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Imagine if LCers, with all their devotion and absoluteness, focused on good works in the community. I guarantee they would have grown and spread the gospel more than they have. Also, by having an attitude of care for the weak, they would have been far less likely to mistreat their own.

Amen to that.

As time went on, WL used the matters of "dead" works and "natural" relationships to sever our relationships with those around us and reconnect us with his own programs. Instead of looking outward to love those surrounding us, his many warnings, lodged in our psyche as strongholds, stopped us, and caused us to retreat to the safe havens of building his own empire.

The Bible is filled with exhortations to good works. Titus 2.14 directly connects God love in sending His Son to die for our sins with His desire that all His children be desirous of good works to express His own heart of love. WL distorted this with the warnings about dead works. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to distinguish them. Dead works, like circumcision, do nothing for our salvation, but good works, as a result of our salvation, express the Father's love to those around us.

WL's teachings about natural relationships was even more egregious. Instead of loving those who surrounded us, we were continually warned of the dangers. The not so subtle message eventually became obvious to even me -- the only "safe" love here on earth was to love the ministry. Every other love, whether your spouse, or your kids, or your family, or your friends, or your brothers and sisters in the Lord, all come with risks. The only love (apart from loving the Lord) we should have on earth, without any deleterious side effects, was for him and his ministry.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Amen to that.

As time went on, WL used the matters of "dead" works and "natural" relationships to sever our relationships with those around us and reconnect us with his own programs. Instead of looking outward to love those surrounding us, his many warnings, lodged in our psyche as strongholds, stopped us, and caused us to retreat to the safe havens of building his own empire.

In case anyone thinks we are making this up, I checked the Recovery Version notes around James 1:27 ("pure religion is visiting orphans and widows"). Lee writes a long note on verse 26 comparing James' "not strong in revelation on God's economy" to Paul, Peter and John's alleged superior revelations. He write three short notes on verse 27, and his only comment on the "orphans and widows" passage was to refer to it as "an element of Old Testament charges."

Now, does anyone really believe that God's main reason for James writing this book and having it in the NT was to give us an example of a brother who didn't know the OT from the NT? Even if James was not as clear as Paul, to say that becomes the most important message this book has to offer is a very strange perspective.

At the very least, Lee should have emphasized that these commands from the apostle are to be obeyed by us. We are to be compassionate and caring for the weak and helpless, not to consider caring for them a mistaken holdover from an outdated dispensation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

In case anyone thinks we are making this up, I checked the Recovery Version notes around James 1:27 ("pure religion is visiting orphans and widows"). Lee writes a long note on verse 26 comparing James' "not strong in revelation on God's economy" to Paul, Peter and John's alleged superior revelations. He write three short notes on verse 27, and his only comment on the "orphans and widows" passage was to refer to it as "an element of Old Testament charges."

Years ago John Myer shared this verse from James 3.16 in the context of the Anaheim-Cleveland conflicts preceding the recent quarantine, "For where jealousy and rivalry exist, there is disorder and every kind of evil." The implications were literally shocking to me at the time.

The following verse is even more indicting, comparing James' instruction with the context at that time -- the Recovery had become almost void of any "wisdom from above, which is pure, peaceable, forbearing, compliant, full of mercy and good works, impartial, and unfeigned." None of these descriptions could be applied to the leadership in the Recovery during those days.

How does any sober mind compare the numerous lawsuits between brothers who once loved each other with these vivid descriptions of God's heavenly wisdom which James provides us with?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Years ago John Myer shared this verse from James 3.16 in the context of the Anaheim-Cleveland conflicts preceding the recent quarantine, "For where jealousy and rivalry exist, there is disorder and every kind of evil." The implications were literally shocking to me at the time.

The following verse is even more indicting, comparing James' instruction with the context at that time -- the Recovery had become almost void of any "wisdom from above, which is pure, peaceable, forbearing, compliant, full of mercy and good works, impartial, and unfeigned." None of these descriptions could be applied to the leadership in the Recovery during those days.

How does any sober mind compare the numerous lawsuits between brothers who once loved each other with these vivid descriptions of God's heavenly wisdom which James provides us with?

Wow, great verses, very clear.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The book of James is written “to the 12 tribes that are scattered abroad”. This book is written right at the beginning of the New Testament, the transition from the Old Testament to the New...

Witness Lee taught that writing to these believers indicates James was not clear on the New Testament. I would completely disagree with this. Instead I would say that this verse indicates James burden is with those having trouble making that transition...

There is a quote from Jesus to the 12 disciples, in Matthew 19, where he says, ""I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Now who is you who have followed me? Judas Iscariot got eliminated, right? So maybe there was an opening for one of the twelve thrones, for a judge of one of the tribes of Israel? And how do we know what Jesus said (or didn't say) to James when He met with him, per Paul's account in 1 Cor. 15:7? We don't know, and we probably never will; in this age, anyway. So why judge James so harshly for writing to the twelve tribes? Maybe because someone has a "God's New Testament Economy" template which allows them to bulldoze the sacred texts according to what "fits" and what doesn't?

How do we know how much (or little) of what Jesus said to James, and what James saw (he did live with Jesus for a couple decades, after all) came out, for our benefit, in James' epistle? Like the psalmist who professed love for God's law, maybe the text is shallow and natural only if we want it to be. Maybe it's really as deep as we want it to be. No more and no less.

Psalm 18:25 To the faithful you show yourself faithful,
to the blameless you show yourself blameless,
26 to the pure you show yourself pure,
but to the devious you show yourself shrewd. (NIV)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The book of James is written “to the 12 tribes that are scattered abroad”. This book is written right at the beginning of the New Testament, the transition from the Old Testament to the New...

Witness Lee taught that writing to these believers indicates James was not clear on the New Testament. I would completely disagree with this. Instead I would say that this verse indicates James burden is with those having trouble making that transition...

This is a very good point, ZNP. James was talking in a language the "12 tribes" could understand. Maybe that's one reason James made it to the Bible, because God wanted another book besides Hebrews which could speak to Jews. Hebrews is on the high, theological level, but James speaks the way Jews think.

We are so used to Western, Greco-Roman-influenced thinking--which Paul spoke in, being the Apostle to the Gentiles--that unless you actually read something written by a real, practicing Jew you don't know how differently they think*. Their's is a life very much directed by simple wisdom and maxims. They don't think so much in terms of eternity as in how we should live on this earth today. Perhaps the reason James didn't speak in the language of "God's economy" was because he wanted to speak in a language Jews would relate to.


* A good example is the book Thou Shalt Prosper, a book written on money by a Jewish rabbi. Very interesting and wise, but it almost sounds like someone from another world.

[Cal]

It's also interesting that Martin Luther, a Western thinker and eventual Jew hater, did not think either Hebrews or James should be in the Bible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why I love the book of James. The book of James is written “to the 12 tribes that are scattered abroad”.

If James is judged harshly for writing to the "12 tribes of the dispersion," then we ought to be fair and likewise judge Peter for writing to the "chosen pilgrims of the dispersion." Both have written to those scattered Jews beyond the borders of Israel in Gentile lands. Was it not common knowledge that Peter was "entrusted with the gospel to the circumcision?" (Gal 2.7) So it would be entirely appropriate for Peter to write to the scattered Jews (aka the diaspora) throughout the earth.

Perhaps WL should have cast aspersions over Peter also, as he did to James. Did not the preparations for the Peter Life-Study give him ulcers?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If James is judged harshly for writing to the "12 tribes of the dispersion," then we ought to be fair and likewise judge Peter for writing to the "chosen pilgrims of the dispersion." Both have written to those scattered Jews beyond the borders of Israel in Gentile lands. Was it not common knowledge that Peter was "entrusted with the gospel to the circumcision?" (Gal 2.7) So it would be entirely appropriate for Peter to write to the scattered Jews (aka the diaspora) throughout the earth.

Perhaps WL should have cast aspersions over Peter also, as he did to James. Did not the preparations for the Peter Life-Study give him ulcers?

So writing to Jews is somehow evidence of error, mixture, or something like that. But writing to other specific people is not.

That Lee. He was such a divider of the truth. He divided his teachings far, far away from it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

"So the concept that a few people receive and then convey the "feeling of the Body" is what is not scriptural. There is no NT basis to follow the speaking of a few people who are short circuiting the Lord's speaking"

ZNP,

Unless the speaking of one of those few people is the Lord's speaking at that place and time.

Sometimes the Lord speaks directly and sometimes through gifted members and they may be few for the circumstance.

There is no doubt that the Lord can speak through people. But the idea that you cannot question or object to or refuse to follow or disagree with someone's speaking because "it is the feeling of the Body" is not scriptural. People could and did disagree with Paul even though the Lord spoke through him. People disagreed and questioned Peter before deciding that the Lord had spoken through him. This practice is clearly an ugly blemish.

WL rejects the book of James, many of the Psalms, belittles Proverbs and Job. What hypocrisy to talk about "keeping the oneness of the Body" when you treat the word of God disrespectfully. Clearly the "feeling of the Body" is that these books are part of the Holy Word of God.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There is no doubt that the Lord can speak through people. But the idea that you cannot question or object to or refuse to follow or disagree with someone's speaking because "it is the feeling of the Body" is not scriptural. People could and did disagree with Paul even though the Lord spoke through him. People disagreed and questioned Peter before deciding that the Lord had spoken through him. This practice is clearly an ugly blemish.

WL rejects the book of James, many of the Psalms, belittles Proverbs and Job. What hypocrisy to talk about "keeping the oneness of the Body" when you treat the word of God disrespectfully. Clearly the "feeling of the Body" is that these books are part of the Holy Word of God.

Yes, but you were implying that the Lord would not use a select "few" and we have biblical examples of where He does just that. My point is that you have to allow for that and not reject God's arrangement of speaking through a "few".

I am not sure what the problem you are having about the book of James. You seem to suggest that just because something is in the Bible that it is God's word. Was Peter's objection to the Lord Jesus going to the cross God's word? Was Satan's "Hath God said?" God's words? Was the counsel of Job's friends God's words?

No, of course they were not.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Yes, but you were implying that the Lord would not use a select "few" and we have biblical examples of where He does just that. My point is that you have to allow for that and not reject God's arrangement of speaking through a "few".

I am not sure what the problem you are having about the book of James. You seem to suggest that just because something is in the Bible that it is God's word. Was Peter's objection to the Lord Jesus going to the cross God's word? Was Satan's "Hath God said?" God's words? Was the council of Job's friends God's words?

No, of course they were not.

There was no implication. There is a context here on this thread that when we say "the feeling of the Body" we are referring to how this is used in the LRC and by the Blendeds. I am one of the very few who has tried to draw a distinction between "the oneness of the Body" and other expressions like "the feeling of the Body" or "Keeping the oneness of the Body". But within the context of how this expression is used it bears no relation to how God actually speaks through people. On the contrary it is much closer akin to how the Catholics choose a Pope. The feeling of the Body is the consensus of the "cardinals", i.e. blendeds.

The problem I am having with the book of James is that this is one of the 66 books of the Bible. It is a divine revelation and a wonderful book at protecting saints from being deceived by the likes of WL, etal. The disrespect shown this book by WL is an expression of his pride and arrogance. The fact that so many in the LRC line up behind this farce even though they pretend to base their faith on the Bible is one of many hypocrisies in the LRC. They claim they are rich and know not that they are blind, and miserable and poor.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The problem I am having with the book of James is that this is one of the 66 books of the Bible. It is a divine revelation and a wonderful book at protecting saints from being deceived by the likes of WL, etal. The disrespect shown this book by WL is an expression of his pride and arrogance. The fact that so many in the LRC line up behind this farce even though they pretend to base their faith on the Bible is one of many hypocrisies in the LRC. They claim they are rich and know not that they are blind, and miserable and poor.

Moses was inspired to write the book of Genesis. Was Satan's words to Eve God's words?

If not, then why are they there?

[UntoHim]

The part where he said "hath God not said" are God's word.

Next question.....

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Moses was inspired to write the book of Genesis. Was Satan's words to Eve God's words?

If not, then why are they there?

Are you comparing the Book of James to Satan's words?

Are you saying that an explanation of why God's word includes quotes of what Satan has said is an explanation of how you and the LRC treat the book of James?

Answer my questions and I will answer your question.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why I love the book of James.

Because it is the Word of God.

This is a great thread. Some of the responses should be required reading for anyone considering what James wrote.