Walter Martin

[TLFisher]

Having never heard Walter Martin speak before, I came across a YouTube audio. Raised in the local church, Walter was always characterized negatively. I found Walter Martin's speaking to be succinct in addressing LC orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=830hmhL-w6A

On another note that Walter Martin brought out that's a LSM trend is not responding. Since Living Stream Ministry has developed a trait of not responding to anything, it's apparent the only course anyone would want to get a response is via a lawsuit. For fellow believers, that should never be a recourse.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Terry

Having never heard Walter Martin speak before, I came across a YouTube audio. Raised in the local church, Walter was always characterized negatively. I found Walter Martin's speaking to be succinct in addressing LC orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=830hmhL-w6A

On another note that Walter Martin brought out that's a LSM trend is not responding. Since Living Stream Ministry has developed a trait of not responding to anything, it's apparent the only course anyone would want to get a response is via a lawsuit. For fellow believers, that should never be a recourse.

Thanks Terry for posting this. I listened to the entire message. The speaker's closing words were something like "the members of the local church should stop listening to Wiltness Lee and start listening to the witness of the Spirit which is the word of God". Did the fellow who wrote We Were Wrong inherit Walter Martin's apologetic ministry?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

Did the fellow who wrote We Were Wrong inherit Walter Martin's apologetic ministry?

As I understand, after Walter Martin passed his children were divided over who should lead CRI. One was in favor of Hank Hannegraf. His other child(ren) were indifferent or not in favor.

[Freedom]

A few comments... It is significant that Walter Martin starts off by saying that he's not out to 'attack' WL or the LC. He indicates that some from the LC may have been in the audience. With that in mind, there should have been a willingness on the part of the LC to listen to what he had to say and to attempt to understand why he was concerned. Of course, knowing the LC, anyone there attending that meeting were there as 'spies'. They weren't there because they wanted to resolve anything, they were there to see what the other side was up to.

There is a big difference between the real Walter Martin and the straw-man Walter Martin that the LC has constructed. I wasn't around in the 70's when all this was going on, so I never even had the chance to hear the items of concern that the CRI had. I only hear the narrative about Walter Martin having a vendetta against the LC.

What I can collect from the recording is that Walter Martin was concerned about the elitist and divisive attitude of those in the LC, as well as the obvious theological issues of what WL was teaching. I know that the LC did offer some written responses to various criticism, but from a historical perspective, the criticism has largely been written off as something that was completely unwarranted and done with ill-intentions. There was never the heart to get to the bottom of matters. Much of the 'defense' of WL's teachings that I have seen just involves word games and ad hominem attacks.

Walter Martin provided plenty of WL quotes throughout the recording, and that to me demonstrates that the research effort was in no way an attempt to purposely misunderstand what WL taught. The notion that he was purposely misunderstanding WL should be outright rejected. Certain things that WL spoke can really be understood one way. When WL stated that "Christendom has become an organism of Satan", he wholeheartedly meant exactly what he said. Lee's view towards other Christians was nothing less than that of a bigot. Yet instead of owning up to this and repenting of such behaviors and attitudes, WL insisted on suggesting that his critics had ill-motives.

Finally, Walter Martin mentions meeting WL in person to discuss his concerns directly. WL asked to record the conversation, and Walter Martin requested that a copy of the recording be provided to him. WL never did so, later claiming some petty 'offense' as the reason. To me this pattern of behavior is one that can be seen time and time again in the LC (especially when those in the LC brought certain matters to WL's attention). That pattern is the initial pretense of being 'open' for fellowship, only to later close the door with little to no explanation. I think that WL made a pretense of willingness to work things out, in order to get people to let their guards down. After people assumed that he was at least willing to address concerns regarding his teachings, he would then give some arbitrary reason for not going forward with things.

[TLFisher]

I heard of Walter Martin when I was a teenager. My serving brother at the time characterized Walter Martin as one "attacking" the recovery. Listening to Walter Martin, there's no attacking. Just a concerned brother. More likely LC brothers feel attacked because they're under scrutiny as if they're under the microscope. It could be the definition LSM has for attack is what most people consider scrutiny.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

I heard of Walter Martin when I was a teenager. My serving brother at the time characterized Walter Martin as one "attacking" the recovery. Listening to Walter Martin, there's no attacking. Just a concerned brother. More likely LC brothers feel attacked because they're under scrutiny as if they're under the microscope. It could be the definition LSM has for attack is what most people consider scrutiny.

It is highly convenient for those in the LC to label any kind of criticism as an ‘attack’. It keeps them from having to address the real issues at hand, and it also leads unsuspecting members to believe that all such criticism is unfounded and not worth anyone's time to address.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

Did the fellow who wrote We Were Wrong inherit Walter Martin's apologetic ministry?

The 2015 Charity Navigator rating site gave the CRI a 63% on transparency, and overall a pretty low score, if you compare it to similar ministries. The fellow who inherited Walter Martin's apologetic ministry made about $80,000 as CEO, and his wife made $142,000 as Director of Planning. And the staffers who actually did the work, made peanuts.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...ary&orgid=5077

Plus, apparently this job gets mucho perks, like a fat housing allowance, two cars leased for personal use, country club membership etc. Rip-off central.

http://www.waltermartin.com/cri.html

So why would this fellow, who looks like everything LSM decries about "fallen Christianity", be their chief flag-waver? Because he's their only flag-waver, that's why. They'll take whatever they can get; times are lean in the apologetics and orthodoxy field for LSM. Think about it this way: the ministry that supposedly doesn't care about right and wrong, suddenly loves that someone else said that they were wrong, and that WL was right. How the worm has turned.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

The 2015 Charity Navigator rating site gave the CRI a 63% on transparency, and overall a pretty low score, if you compare it to similar ministries. The fellow who inherited Walter Martin's apologetic ministry made about $80,000 as CEO, and his wife made $142,000 as Director of Planning. And the staffers who actually did the work, made peanuts.

Still fares better than Bibles for America with a transparency score of 32.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Still fares better than Bibles for America with a transparency score of 32.

I think it’s fair to say that LC affiliated organizations regard accountability as an afterthought. In their minds, everything being done is part of “the Lord’s move”, and thus, the end justifies the means. Anyone within the LC attempting to demand accountability might be considered to be ‘negative’.

On youtube, there is the video of Sal Benoit demanding accountability from WL regarding Daystar. WL tells him that it’s none of his business. In some comments posted by LCers, Sal’s ‘motives’ are questioned and they even go so far to claim that he was “setting WL up”. My question for them is regardless of Sal’s motives, why is there any reason to avoid answering questions? Why hide anything? If there is nothing to hide, then take the oppurtunity to clear things up for crying out loud.

When I recently visited the DCP website, I noticed that they haven’t published any new writings since 2014. Surely they are receiving donations, have an office and employees, but no one really knows what they are up to (Last that I heard the were sending Chris Wilde to an Evangelical Theological Society conference). I’m sure certain LC’s continue to donate to the DCP without regard for what they are or aren’t doing.

Christian organizations must set transparency as a goal, not think that because they are a Christian organization, that the public can assume that they have the best intentions. Whether it is the CRI or BFA, there is nothing to hide. These low scores indicate that each organization should be willing to become more accountable and transparent. A refusal to do so warrants further investigation.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

The 2015 Charity Navigator rating site gave the CRI a 63% on transparency, and overall a pretty low score, if you compare it to similar ministries. The fellow who inherited Walter Martin's apologetic ministry made about $80,000 as CEO, and his wife made $142,000 as Director of Planning. And the staffers who actually did the work, made peanuts.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...ary&orgid=5077

Plus, apparently this job gets mucho perks, like a fat housing allowance, two cars leased for personal use, country club membership etc. Rip-off central.

http://www.waltermartin.com/cri.html

So why would this fellow, who looks like everything LSM decries about "fallen Christianity", be their chief flag-waver? Because he's their only flag-waver, that's why. They'll take whatever they can get; times are lean in the apologetics and orthodoxy field for LSM. Think about it this way: the ministry that supposedly doesn't care about right and wrong, suddenly loves that someone else said that they were wrong, and that WL was right. How the worm has turned.

Hank is just like LC leaders when it comes to basic Christian conduct. He also believes that it's perfectly okay to take another Christian to court and sue for defamation.

The sheer irony of it all is what gets me. Hank is on of the ones who provided an 'affirmation' of the LC's use of lawsuits. He obviously wouldn't have any issue with lawsuits if he was willing to initiate his own. I wish I had known this when the CRI journal was published. This is what the LC doesn't disclose about their flag-wavers.

At least others have the sense to withhold any endorsement of the LC. The voices of 70+ scholars are louder and clearer than a man in charge of the CRI who has a sketchy track record.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The 2015 Charity Navigator rating site gave the CRI a 63% on transparency, and overall a pretty low score, if you compare it to similar ministries. The fellow who inherited Walter Martin's apologetic ministry made about $80,000 as CEO, and his wife made $142,000 as Director of Planning. And the staffers who actually did the work, made peanuts.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...ary&orgid=5077

Plus, apparently this job gets mucho perks, like a fat housing allowance, two cars leased for personal use, country club membership etc. Rip-off central.

http://www.waltermartin.com/cri.html

So why would this fellow, who looks like everything LSM decries about "fallen Christianity", be their chief flag-waver? Because he's their only flag-waver, that's why. They'll take whatever they can get; times are lean in the apologetics and orthodoxy field for LSM. Think about it this way: the ministry that supposedly doesn't care about right and wrong, suddenly loves that someone else said that they were wrong, and that WL was right. How the worm has turned.

A former CRI staffer came on this forum and talked about some of the corruption, and then abruptly left. It should be the thread about CRI's endorsement of LSM

[Cal]

I think the CRI's assessment of the LC's theology matches that of many here. That is, though the LC is unusual in it's views, it is not monstrously heretical.

The problem with the CRI's report is that it said nothing about the social aspect of the LC culture. Everything was straight theology. There was no commentary on the excommunications, purgings of dissenters, quarantines, guttings of churches, public denunciations of individuals, isolation of members, excessive pressure and control from leaders, etc. None of that was investigated. No former members were consulted.

That's like reviewing a new car and just reading the specs on the engine but not bothering to drive it to find if it actually works. And it is very misleading.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think the CRI's assessment of the LC's theology matches that of many here. That is, though the LC is unusual in it's views, it is not monstrously heretical.

The problem with the CRI's report is that it said nothing about the social aspect of the LC culture. Everything was straight theology. There was no commentary on the excommunications, purgings of dissenters, quarantines, guttings of churches, public denunciations of individuals, isolation of members, excessive pressure and control from leaders, etc. None of that was investigated. No former members were consulted.

That's like reviewing a new car and just reading the specs on the engine but not bothering to drive it to find if it actually works. And it is very misleading.

True. If you listen to Walter Martin's message. He attributes the research of Bob and Gretchen Passantino and the Mindbenders book which touches on the social aspect of the LC culture which is scrutinized. It's as if when CRI came out with "We were wrong" publication it's as if there's a predetermined agreement to address on the orthodoxy of the church, but not the practices.
-

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem with the CRI's report is that it said nothing about the social aspect of the LC culture. Everything was straight theology. There was no commentary on the excommunications, purging of dissenters, quarantines, gutting of churches, public denunciations of individuals, isolation of members, excessive pressure and control from leaders, etc. None of that was investigated. No former members were consulted.

That's like reviewing a new car and just reading the specs on the engine but not bothering to drive it to find if it actually works. And it is very misleading.

Here is a quote by UntoHim, on another thread:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually Dr. Martin, and other apologists and critics, could only look at what they could see - which at the time were the writings in the form of books, booklets and tracts etc. Obviously many people were also aware of the Local Church's aggressive attitude and behavior towards other Christian groups. Not many people were aware of, much less able to directly observe, so many of the aberrational teachings and practices that took place behind the closed doors of the LC meeting halls.

Around this time (circa 1978) the LC released a booklet entitled "Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches". Much of what was presented in this booklet was a highly sanitized version of what was commonly taught and practiced in the movement. For example, under the Q & A section one of the posed questions was "Who is your leader?". The answer given: "Our unique leader is Christ. We have no official, permanent, organized human leadership. Furthermore, there is no hierarchy of any kind and no worldwide leader. We regard no person as infallible, and we do not follow anyone blindly."

Not many years later...."even if Witness Lee is wrong he is right!" and bold claims from church leaders that entire churches "owed their existence to Witness Lee" and that Lee was an apostle of the first order, just like the apostle Paul. Even worse things were said.

Look at the two-faced speaking: "We have no official, permanent, organized human leadership." This was the official statement, to the examining outside world. Yet everything, and I mean everything, coming from this group said the opposite. In order to survive in the LC of Lee, one needed to know who was connected to whom, all the way back to the Man Himself. And this kind of social arrangement clearly traces back to Nee: "Whenever two Christians are in a room, one of them should recognize the authority of the other." The culturally-derived framework for understanding this religious organization necessitated an explicitly defined and rigidly adhered-to hierarchy. And it usually became most explicit when the Chinese, who instinctively "got it", were explaining how things worked to clueless LC Caucasians (but not to the press or the CRI - you had to be "sold out" first).

Anyone that apparently threatened this rigid and explicitly defined hierarchy was instantly labeled as "being independent", "divisive", "negative" or "rebellious" if coming from within, or being an "attack" if from without. We even heard statements like, "After the Trinity, Witness Lee is Number Four." This was said with the utmost seriousness and conviction, as if the viability of their orientally-flavored social cohesion depended upon the ability to make such statements. "Witness Lee has the ministry of the age" ultimately became the group's central organizing principle. To say that CRI got a highly sanitized version of LC teachings could be understatement of the year.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by aron

The 2015 Charity Navigator rating site gave the CRI a 63% on transparency, and overall a pretty low score, if you compare it to similar ministries. The fellow who inherited Walter Martin's apologetic ministry made about $80,000 as CEO, and his wife made $142,000 as Director of Planning. And the staffers who actually did the work, made peanuts.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...ary&orgid=5077

Plus, apparently this job gets mucho perks, like a fat housing allowance, two cars leased for personal use, country club membership etc. Rip-off central.

http://www.waltermartin.com/cri.html

So why would this fellow, who looks like everything LSM decries about "fallen Christianity", be their chief flag-waver? Because he's their only flag-waver, that's why. They'll take whatever they can get; times are lean in the apologetics and orthodoxy field for LSM. Think about it this way: the ministry that supposedly doesn't care about right and wrong, suddenly loves that someone else said that they were wrong, and that WL was right. How the worm has turned.

Aron,

Very good assessment, if it wasn’t for that fake magazine, my family would have never been exposed to this scam! I hope there is a special place in hell or the Lake of Fire (for those who don’t believe in hell), for the writers and distributors of that specific issue.

[Paul Vusik]

By the way, in his recording, Walter Martin refers to the tape recording that was supposed to be given to him or publicly released of the conversation between him and MOTA. Was that ever made public by LSM? Or MOTA? Or was it buried somewhere in the bunker in Anahiem?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

The 2015 Charity Navigator rating site gave the CRI a 63% on transparency, and overall a pretty low score, if you compare it to similar ministries. The fellow who inherited Walter Martin's apologetic ministry made about $80,000 as CEO, and his wife made $142,000 as Director of Planning. And the staffers who actually did the work, made peanuts.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...ary&orgid=5077

Plus, apparently this job gets mucho perks, like a fat housing allowance, two cars leased for personal use, country club membership etc. Rip-off central.

Hey hey wait a minute. CRI emails me a couple days a week. And they thank me.

They thank me for supporting CRI, when I've never done so in any way, shape or form.

That doesn't stop them from begging for donations ... and selling me books. Hank isn'y really The Bible Answer Man. He should rightly and honestly go by The Hankerin Hank, for the god of riches.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by awareness

They thank me for supporting CRI, when I've never done so in any way, shape or form.

That’s assuming that your donations to the LC, never by any means, accidentally, unknowingly to you, ended up supporting them, or paid for one of those issues or appearances by the answer man to defend the LC. I’m very certain that he would not do a single thing unless there is some financial compensation of sorts.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

That’s assuming that your donations to the LC, never by any means, accidentally, unknowingly to you, ended up supporting them, or paid for one of those issues or appearances by the answer man to defend the LC. I’m very certain that he would not do a single thing unless there is some financial compensation of sorts.

Good and true points Paul ... points that wound me.

But I was bamboozled. I was ignorant. It took a decade to discover that I was in a cult ... back in the W. Martin days, before "We were wrong" ... before W. Martin was wrong.

When it comes to the LC being a cult, I stand with that Baptist, even tho I don't stand with the Baptist's.

Maybe it was the Southern Baptist in me -- that I grew up in -- that enabled me to realize that I was in a cult (like Martin's association with Baptist standards and theology).

I didn't need to know Walter Martin and CRI. But I knew "We were Wrong" was wrong.

And today I know the The Answer Man is just a Eastern Orthodox money grubber.