|
|
|
01-07-2010, 01:21 PM
|
#1 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,824
|
Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
--------------------------------------
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
11-20-2011, 10:21 AM
|
#2 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
I logged in this morning to respond to a post directed at me in another thread. While perusing the site I saw this Post #139 in “Regarding the Ground of Oneness…” by UntoHim.
“Witness Lee never broke the principle that “Jesus is Lord”, so I’m not sure why you bring this up, however whether or not he was a true servant to God is now up for review, and whether you like it or not the jury is composed of me, other members of this forum, and many other Christians who may or may not have any experience with the Local Church. My PERSONAL opinion is that Witness Lee, as an “apostle”, has been tried and found to be false.” I did try to understand the statement in red. Here is how I understand the complete context of this statement: 1. OBW in post #132 says “You can't get blessings and cursings from the same mouth. Or sustenance and poison from the same kitchen. If there is poison, then it is all poisoned.” 2. Unreg in 133 restates this as “WL's sins makes all of his teachings suspect or "you can't get blessing and cursing from the same mouth". And takes exception saying that all Bible teachers have sinned. And then in post #137 says “To me that Biblical principle that trumps all others is that "Jesus is Lord", not WL, not me, and who am I to judge another man's servant, to his own master he stands or falls.” 3. Then UntoHim in post #139 apparently understands this to mean that WL violated the Biblical principle of Jesus is Lord. I understood it differently, that WL was the servant of the Lord, and therefore it is for the Lord to judge him, not us. So I may have misunderstood this discussion, and if so please clarify and that will be that. But the question that I am asking in this thread is this: can you dismiss WL’s entire ministry because of his sins? Do the sins that WL committed poison every word that he spoke? I will share my own opinion, then sit back and listen as others lay out their case. If anyone sways me with their posts I will comment, and I do plan to read all posts on this thread. First, I am not aware of any biblical basis that would make me or any other members of this forum a jury to judge any servant of the Lord. Jesus is the judge of all, not me. Jesus is Lord, and as such, He will judge his own servants. They will stand or fall based on His judgment, not mine. The Jewish leaders Judged Jesus ministry to be false and had him crucified. God also judged, and Jesus was resurrected. To me, anyone who wants to set himself or herself up as a jury to judge a servant of God is usurping the headship of the Lord. My position is that there is a difference between “trying an apostle and finding him to be false” and teaching that WL’s ministry is forfeit based on his sins. I think you can try an apostle by looking at their teachings, not the same thing as looking at the person. I also think that you can look at sins and judge sins. Fair enough. But when you take the next step and say because of this man’s sins he was not a servant of the Lord I feel you have overstepped. That is not for you to say, that is for the Lord. That very act violates the Lordship of Jesus. So if this forum is, as UntoHim has stated, a jury to determine if WL was a true servant of the Lord then I don’t want any part of it. I will listen to reasonable posts. If anyone can sway me that Christians do in fact have a NT calling to judge one another I will consider what you say carefully. I understand that we should judge the truth, and the teachings, and sin. It is that extra step that I am taking issue with. |
|
|
|
|
11-20-2011, 01:18 PM
|
#3 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
It's even worse than that. A poster that Witness Lee was "not clean" thereby denying the power of the precious blood of Christ. It is one thing to reject a man's ministry, but it is entirely shocking to hear this poster reject the most fundamental truth of the christian faith. Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
11-23-2011, 04:22 AM
|
#4 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
The word of God came to us through holy men, cleansed men, such as David and Moses. Witness Lee was not clean. I was under the impression that this had been edited out by the poster, but have since seen that it hasn't. Since then I have seen Igzy and OBW's reference to this and read their comments. I am also grieved by this. When looking at the sins committed by the "holy men" of the Bible I feel that WL's sins as described on this forum are on par with them. I do not see them as categorically more heinous (i.e. the sin for which there is no forgiveness as mentioned by Jesus). I understand OBW's point that when you sin before all you need to confess before all. However I also agree with you that the final analysis on who is and is not clean is up to the Lord. But, looking at all three posts, I don't see that anyone has denied that the blood cleanses our sins. For example, I have repeatedly asked OBW to apologize for posts he has made, and this has gone on for months. Has he ever done that? No. Were the posts made before all? Yes. By his own admission shouldn't he therefore apologize before all? Yes. I feel I have the right to point these out, but I don't have the right to then say "he is not clean". That is for the Lord to judge. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2011, 07:53 AM
|
#5 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
You constantly assert that I am calling you a liar for suggesting a strawman argument. You ignore that I do not suggest that it is intentional. Even state that I only note that you are not responding to the point I made, but to something else. Whether intentional or not, since it stands in for my actual point, it is a strawman. I think you will find every one of them to be in that nature. But if you become too "one" with your argument, it is too easy to consider that an attack on the argument is a personal attack. And since my observations had been that you were quite intelligent, probably even more so than myself, I began to find so many of the misdirects to be stacking up as suggesting that you didn't really want to deal with my point, but to simply make your own. If that is the case, then say so. Just say you don't care what I say. I won't waste my time on someone who is intending to dismiss me. But I have mostly presumed otherwise. And for long periods of time. The one or two times that I actually "called you out" you have declared that I have misread you. One time declaring that you didn't have time yet to respond. But you had time to post several paragraphs on the topic, just not responsive to the question. In a few instances you have pointed back at posts and declared that you did not say some particular thing. You do so with incredulity. But the places that you point to were not understood to support your incredulity. And you have a number of posters on the forum saying the same thing. Not just me. You make absolute statements and then run from their absoluteness. Someone takes exception with what you say and you declare an ad hominem. Even this post is not an ad hominem. This post is not declaring that what you say is invalid because you are (whatever). It is pointing to the faults in your reasoning. Even where that reasoning is about what is being said to you. No one has called you a liar. But there does seem to be a serious disconnect between what we say and how you respond to it. And you don't like people disagreeing with you. Get used to dissappointment. It happens to us all the time. I do not declare that my statements are simply true. But too often you do not respond by taking on my argument, but by suggesting that I shouldn't even think it. Or say it. Or act incredulous that I could think it. Like that Jesse thing. It's fine to think what you want about how Jesse taught David. But you can't declare with any certainty that Jesse taught David anything. It is speculation. And the fact that Jesse's name is mentioned does not support your claim. Yet you persist. And respond with incredulity when we disagree. Then we come to the discussion about Lee's "position" as any kind of teacher, from children's church all the way up to MOTA. And you start throwing out James with the suggestion that maybe we can't even judge whether the claim of MOTA is valid. And if you didn't intend to suggest that, then just say so. Admit that the very short thing you wrote could be misunderstood and clarify it for us. I am accused of repeating myself in multiple posts. It is because someone has responded in a manner that convinces me that I was not clear about what I said. Maybe I just am never as clear as I think I am. There is a simple solution for you. Drop the "poor me" attitude. Quit taking exception to those who take exception to points made. Get engaged in making your point more clearly. Be strong for your point. That is OK. But don't be inflexible. If you think the rest of us have not changed our positions as a result of these discussions, you would be horribly mistaken. This forum gave me more reason to avoid the LRC and to rethink the whole of it. But it has also given me pause to moderate my position on the people. Even on the brothers who have harmed others so greatly. I see the errors of theology, like the Ground and Jesus became the Holy Spirit as less egregious in themselves. I do continue to hold that what grows out of those is seriously harmful to the current condition of the LRC. But back to the present. You want to discuss what is ours to judge? Bring out all the verses. I suggest that you include near synonyms, like discernment, choice, etc. Let's discuss what we are to judge/discern and what is not ours. I think that the evidence will show that we are instructed by Paul to take note of Lee's sins when considering him as a minister. There is a difference between David, Moses, and Lee. Yes, they all were openly disobedient. And there was open sin. But David and Moses repented. Lee did not. Even his near deathbed repentance was too vague and general to have been understood as repenting for what should have set him aside. And David essentially stepped aside for a time to repent and mourn over his sin. Since Lee's sins were against the churches, it would require that he also repent openly to them. He did not. From the start of the sin until the repentance, there is no place for his teaching. And there is evidence that the first unrepented sin was in the 50s. Maybe earlier. It clearly happened in the mid 70s. First with Daystar, and then with PL. The only repentance was for pushing the envelope with Max. And he wasn't even honest with that. He blamed it all on Max. And ignored PL. The event in the 80s was just continuance of the original sin. David's situation, and that of Moses, did not go on for such a period of time. David slipped by for 9 months and paid dearly. And openly. It is recorded for all to read. Moses was dealt with immediately. If Lee was chastised by God, he would have had to deal with how it flowed out onto the people. First in effectively stealing their savings. (And since the way the thing was sold was illegal, I'm pretty sure that a court of law would have agreed and penalized them for the scheme, maybe even with jail time.) Then with pushing an immoral person on the churches and allowing him to force the sale of LSM products. Which went into their pocket in some form. Lee lived in a house provided by the church. He traveled at others' expense. And he forced churches to buy his books. There is a record of this. No repentance. I think Paul would reject. Trying to stall the inquiry seems quite the dodge. And one thing to add. Since there seems to have been an ongoing issue from the 50s until his death, his constant insertion of himself as spiritual leader can be nothing but suspect. It should suggest a disconnect between the claimed connection with God and the kind of disconnect with God that the ongoing sin indicates. That should give me reason to seriously question anything that Lee taught that was not simply a verbatim repeat of standard orthodoxy. Surely anything peculiar should be suspect. It should at least require that we get into our minds and out of our emotions and search the scriptures. Come together to reason over the proposed teachings. Take the weight of centuries of teaching to the contrary rather than rejecting even opening their books and reading only his. That is the kind of arrogance that seems contrary to even a true MOTA. If there actually should be such a person, Lee fails to act like one. He now seems more like the guy who eluded the FBI for years as recently portrayed in the movie "Catch Me If You Can."
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
11-20-2011, 03:23 PM
|
#6 | ||||||
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,824
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
11-20-2011, 05:37 PM
|
#7 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
Now if I understand your argument, we are in America (the land of the free?), too many brave men and women gave their lives so that we could enjoy these freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. As US citizens we enjoy these freedoms and we have the rights afforded all citizens and we have the responsibility to stand up and defend these rights when challenged. Hmmh, I think I heard this argument before, but where? Oh yeah, WL used this same argument to justify his lawsuits against other Christians. Ironically, this reminds me of another verse that the Lord spoke: 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2011, 07:22 AM
|
#8 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
I note that comparison is made to other ministers of various kinds and of their less-than stellar lives. And the correct response is that all men are fallen. But at the same time, few, if any, of these are claiming such a significant position among ministers. With some exceptions, they are mostly serving those they are called to serve with the best that they can do with the help of the Holy Spirit. They do not claim elite status and call all others unworthy of receiving your attention. And they don't set up businesses that invite investors into a scheme that is not registered with the SEC and is not above board. They do not underhandedly take the savings of their followers and then walk away unscathed when the business collapses. Something about those who are serving their belly comes to mind. You can complain about the fact that preachers are often (and almost always) paid. And that the so-called "business" side of a church is often inefficient at its best. But there is no deceit in obtaining its funding. There is no mystery concerning where the money goes. And in the few cases where there is a mystery, the Feds often step in and charges are filed. And you can complain about the empire at some of the mega churches. For every mega church out there (even assuming there is some generic problem with that) there are a sea of small churches that cumulatively include what is probably a majority of the Protestant membership. When Jimmy Swaggert as caught with a prostitute, the Assemblies of God, under whose banner JS preached, ordered that he simply step down. He refused and continued on his own. Lee had no problem. There was no organization over him. He put his son into his private business, the Living Stream Ministry, and when it was discovered that the son was engaged in immoral acts inside the LSM offices, it was hushed-up. 10 years later, it happened again. This time, more than one came with the reports from those molested by PL. Again, no action. And when those with the report took it upon themselves as the leaders of their assembly to deal with the problems that were being caused in their church by PL and the ongoing meddling of the LSM office, those elders were run off and the facts covered. At least David mourned in public. He repented in sackcloth and ashes for his sins against Uriah and Bathsheba. He suffered publicly for his failures concerning his sons and daughters. At least one Psalm walks us through the change that came over him as he went from hiding to open repentance. But for Lee, there was none. He may have expressed some bad feelings about those who lost their savings, but the part of the Daystar business that continued to operate — the manufacturing plant — continued to try to make him money without doing one thing about repaying those that had been defrauded by illegally induced, unregistered investments in companies that had no actual financial presence in any jurisdiction. The church(es) in Taiwan were saddled with the debts of a 1950s business venture of Lee's. Eldon hall was said to have a storage area full of suits that Lee and sons had tried to sell at the the World's Fair shortly before the start of the LRC in the US. There were health products being sold in the churches when I started in 1973. And then came Daystar. It may have already been going, but there was a specific time that it was "sold" in Dallas after we started there. So at this point, Lee had managed to return to saddling the churches with the risks of his private business ventures. And you think you can't find where Paul would suggest that Lee should never be given a microphone, a video camera, or the opportunity to speak as a teacher? It would not matter how good his teaching might have been. It should never have been uttered. If those in the US had been warned about Lee before he came, maybe he would never have been given the time of day. But even those who knew, like Samuel Chang, would never speak up. Whether Chinese culture, fear of retaliation, or just plain belief in the nonsense taught, they remained silent about the unrighteousness. And yet we wax poetic about the chain of events that led us to the place where "blessings abound" and all Christians of any kind not within the fold are chastised as worldly, satanic, demonic, etc., while we eat up the "you're special" rhetoric. It is not that the LRC is not Christian. Or that Lee never taught anything right. It is that even his teachings leaned toward allowing his vices. Right and wrong not mattering. Dismissing any kind of call to righteousness as being "from the self." I dare say that Jesus would have turned to Lee and suggested rather strongly that if he wanted to teach that way, then he would find himself at the end of the line waiting to enter whatever it is that our "afterlife" actually is. It's right there in black-and-white in Matthew 5.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2011, 11:44 AM
|
#9 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. 4:12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another? What is the boundary: 1. We are commanded not to speak evil of a brother. 2. We are commanded to be doers of the law, and according to James when you are judging your brother you are not a doer of the law but a judge. 3. Who art thou that judgest another? The NT never appointed us as a judge over our brothers. Jesus is the judge of both the living and the dead. 4. Paul says that we can judge “the things of this world” and that the saints “will judge the world” and that we “will judge angels”. Never once were we appointed as judges over other believers. We can judge sin, we can judge righteousness, and we can rightly divide the truth. But the boundary is that we are not here to judge one another. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2011, 12:02 PM
|
#10 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
Even if you cede all that you are forgetting Hebrews 10:30 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. Vengeance belongs to the Lord, not to you. You are robbing the Lord of his opportunity to take vengeance. By all means expose falsehood, lies, deceit. But when it comes to judgement and vengeance you have to leave that to the Lord. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-20-2011, 09:07 PM
|
#11 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
King David was an abject failure when it came to raising children. One of his sons raped one of his daughters, and David did nothing about it, consequently another one of his sons was forced to take justice in his own hands. Looking at Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, I'm hard-pressed to find any good patterns of marriage and child-rearing, and these are the Patriarchs of Israel. We have discussed the corruptions of old Eli the priest and his boys, but it was the failures of Samuel's own children that caused Israel to cry out for a king. Looking at the many examples in the Bible, ZNPaaneah has some solid points about not judging WL. In this regard, the forum goes often beyond "what has been written" in judging WL. This does not mean, however, that ministers cannot be held accountable by the church, rather they must be.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-20-2011, 10:10 PM
|
#12 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 181
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
My criticisms have to do with how Lee handled the matter of his son Philip, once it was clear what he was doing, and how the future Blendeds circled the wagons around him, forsaking righteousness in favor of a man and his ministry. That's why I can't have respect for them now, and they've got nothing to say that I'm interested in hearing. Even their projection of the ministries of Lee and Nee are tainted and best avoided, as far as I am concerned. As I have stated before, they have no truths of importance that have not already been delivered to the Church through other ministers. And some of their so-called "high peak truths" are nothing more than tomfoolery. P.C. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2011, 07:36 AM
|
#13 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
I would never fault WL for his sons' behaviors. But I also think it is completely fair to expose publicly how WL publicly smeared the reputations of all the godly men who approached him privately in order to deal righteously with with PL, the LSM "office" manager. Those who love and receive the ministry of WL need to know what WL did to other brothers (Ingalls et. al.) who once served with him, just as all of us who love the Psalms know how David killed Uriah, and all of us who love Peter know that he denied the Lord 3 times. It is extremely unrighteous, and contrary to the holy nature of God, that WL should be portrayed by his minions at LSM as some perfected and flawless god-man, the latest in the lineage of "Ministers of the Age", and some supposed "acting God" on earth. I believe this false image of WL needs to be torn down and smashed, because it directly insults our holy God. The Bible is fair to point out all the flaws of men, even the servants of God, while LSM has never been fair or upright. In this regard, LSM has been completely dishonest. They have elevated WL and canonized him in the eyes of all the "faithful." This insults our God, whose only Son is the only perfect Man.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2011, 12:43 PM
|
#14 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,545
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2011, 03:06 PM
|
#15 | |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,824
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
From ZNPaaneah's opening post:
Quote:
Admittedly, I feel that for the most part what is happening on the Forum is the judging of the truth, teachings and sin. Maybe there are some who have crossed the line and I have simply missed the post. Maybe I've seen it and look at it differently. In any event, as I have stated many times, I would like to see this Forum as a "safe and sane" place for all concerned to come and dialog, and I am deeply committed to this. As we all know, there is simply no other venue for current Local Church members to have open and honest dialog, or even to have access to information regarding the true history of Witness Lee and the Local Church.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2011, 04:41 PM
|
#16 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
So although Paul told the Corinthians to "purge out the old leaven" and that he had "judged concerning him" I don't think he ever went over the line to "judge him". Rather he judged the sin. When he said that causing divisions is not serving Christ but their own bellies, he was judging the sin, not the sinner. This may seem like a fine distinction, but you can't accurately judge the sinner unless you can know the heart, and we can't know the heart, only Jesus does. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-21-2011, 08:31 PM
|
#17 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,824
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
ZNP,
So we can judge Witness Lee as a false apostle, but we've crossed the line when we question if he is a true servant of God? I see a disconnect here. Please explain the difference between the two and how it applies to our discussions. I don't believe that your "purge out the old leaven" example is relevant to our discussions regarding Witness Lee, who claimed to be the sole person on earth speaking as God's oracle. The example you give from 1st Corinthians is regarding "a brother" in one particular local church. Again there is a disconnect. Should people look at (and yes judge) these two in the same manner?
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
11-22-2011, 06:01 AM
|
#18 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
The Bible charges us to judge the prophets. We should examine the prophecies and judge those that are false. Judging a statement or action is a matter of righteousness. However, we are not called to judge the person. The verse in James is very clear on this -- 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. 4:12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another? Paul also expresses the same sentiment when he says "who are you to judge another man's servant, to his own master he stands or falls". Jesus also covers this when he says "Judge not lest you be judged for with what judgment you judge you shall be judged". This verse is probably handled more carelessly than any other verse in the Bible. First, this is not a prohibition against judging sin because we will be judged if we sin regardless of whether or not we judge sin. Also, not judging sin can also be a sin as some have pointed out concerning LSM and WL. Likewise this does not refer to choosing something, for example where to meet, since that would violate man's free will. What we are prohibited from doing is judging someone else. If I judge that WL was "not a true servant" then will I also be judged in the same way? If I argue that I have the right to say this because America is a free country, then won't I be judged for condemning WL for suing Christians since that also was his right as an American? So there are two issues here: which principle is correct "Americans have the right to sue" or "Christians should not sue other Christians but rather choose to suffer loss"? To discuss this is a matter of righteousness. But to then take this to the next step and say because WL violated this or that principle therefore he was not a "true servant of God". That, to my understanding, is what Jesus prohibited, that is what James prohibited and that is what Paul prohibited. I have looked and so far I do not see any example in the NT where that line was crossed. That said, there are areas where they seemed to have walked right up to that line. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2011, 10:30 AM
|
#19 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
To go back to the original title of the thread, I think whether people receive or reject another's ministry is entirely up to them and their consciences.
And I think what OBW is saying is that according to his assessment he can reject WL's ministry because he sees so many faults with both it and the way WL operated that for him he sees no way to reconcile the whole mess. That's his recommendation of the situation to readers of this board. (And, by the way, people have the right to reject OBW's ministry for the very same reasons.) ----- The argument which some are making that OBW rejects WL's ministry therefore OBW must be rejecting things like justification by faith is simply a stupid argument. I wouldn't register for the board either if that's the best I had to offer. ----- The idea that any Christian can have the attitude of "Hey, I have a ministry, and the rest of you have to receive it" is false. No one has the right, including WL, to expect anyone to receive his or her ministry. I would hope what I share in a ministerial fashion is acceptable by other believers. But whether they accept it or not is not something I should expect. For example, I might have a lot of good teachings to share, but I might be proud. Others might detect that and be less receptive of me because of that. It's my job to work on myself to be a good presenter of my ministry. But I can't go around being indignant because I'm not received. That's just the wrong approach. It doesn't mean I accept wholesale people's assessment of me, but it does mean I at least consider it as possible constructive criticism. ----- The whole "not a true servant of the Lord" argument is pointless because it all depends on what one means by a "true servant of the Lord." We throw around these phrases and we never define what they mean. We say things like "so-and-so is a true servant of the Lord" as kind of general compliment. That's probably as far as we should take the use of that label. We say someone is a "really good Christian," and the like. But we probably shouldn't say someone is a "really bad Christian," should we? I wouldn't think so. |
|
|
|
|
11-22-2011, 11:01 AM
|
#20 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Another problem is the confusion produced when referring to someone's ministry. Just what is being referred to? The black and white teachings? The way they were presented? The personality and attitude of the minister? How he or she conducted business? All these come into play when talking about a ministry. It's not just the teachings. Two ministers can share similar teachings and give very distinct impressions.
In the case of WL, however, there was more involved. Most ministers simply teach and allow you to make up your own mind whether to receive their teaching. WL demanded much more than that. He expected people to treat him like "the minister of the age." That alone for many is a serious red flag. |
|
|
|
|
11-22-2011, 11:10 AM
|
#21 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2011, 11:11 AM
|
#22 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2011, 12:15 PM
|
#23 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
When Jesus prohibits judging in Matt 7, he does so in the sense of our acting as if we are above the particular failing we cite in another. You have to read it in context. He says in effect that if you judge someone you are saying that others can look for the same failing in you. He says it is a kind of blindness to say someone else has a sin and to not even consider that you might be doing the same thing yourself. This is consistent with Romans 2:1-3.
He immediately goes on to say do not give pearls to swine. But how can you fulfill that commandment without judging who is a swine and who isn't?! In John 7:24, Jesus commands us to judge righteously. He does not tell us there wholesale not to judge. Rather he tells us to judge, just so as we do so righteously. Taken as a whole, Jesus is not prohibiting all judging in Matt 7, just self-righteous judging. Matt 7 1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. 6 “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. John 7 23 If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses will not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath? 24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” |
|
|
|
|
11-22-2011, 11:06 AM
|
#24 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
After all, didn't that and other discussions conclude that many former members felt guilty for judging that WL was the MOTA, or that the LRC was an elite group of Christians, or that Christianity was fallen. When the Lord said "judge not lest you be judged" isn't that what he was referring to? |
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2011, 12:32 PM
|
#25 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
The reason it is wrong to judge that WL was the MOTA is because there is no possible way anyone could know he is such a thing. I think the righteous judgment in that case would be "I don't know because I cannot know." |
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2011, 03:41 PM
|
#26 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
You have created a universe in which those who dare to make a claim are, by default, not subject to questioning. "You don't question God!" "I'm just trying to find out why God needs a Starship." That may seem a ridiculous example. But if we cannot judge for ourselves whether any particular person is a MOTA, then we are stuck with a universe in which every nut who opens his mouth in a way that is attractive will be able to do anything they want. I recall Max R making fun of the rash of "Yogis" [sic] coming out in the late 70s. He noted that all they had to do was say "Up is up. Down is down. The hands of the clock go 'round and 'round" and they would have a following. You now would declare that no one has any right to question their veracity. And if we are misunderstanding you, then you really need to restate a few of these lines because several of us are having problems with them. We failed to stand up when more ridiculous things than this were said by Lee back in the 60s and 70s and look what it got us.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2011, 07:41 PM
|
#27 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2011, 12:01 PM
|
#28 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
In another thread you turn a complete blind eye to a poster who claimed that WL was not "clean" because of his sins therefore his ministry should be discarded too. The premise of that argument is even worse than the one OBW made because that argument suggests that the blood of Christ is not efficacious for that brother (WL). What poster has a right to make such a declaration? None. Yet it is part and parcel to the attitudes expressed in this forum such as yours where people seat themselves in the judgment seat reserved for Christ and Christ alone. You let that camel slip right down without so much as hiccup. Cassidy |
|
|
|
|
11-22-2011, 03:28 PM
|
#29 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
The whole problem here is that you are making a huge presumption that to judge the nature of what we can see is somehow to be "speaking evil."
Quote:
You are claiming that pointing to strong evidence is equivalent to speaking evil and therefore cannot be. This is the kind of speaking that allowed Benson, Ray, Lee, Kangas, and so many others to declare that anyone who exposes the wrongs of their spiritual superiors (most notably Lee or any of the upper echelons) is guilty no matter how right they are. It simply falls back under that heinous rule of "right and wrong do not matter, only the spirit." Well, the "spirit" they are speaking of is not the one that Paul ever spoke of. It is something else. It is some code for "spiritual authorities are exempt from righteousness." And to suggest otherwise is to join them. Quote:
And every bit of this is relevant to whether you can dismiss Lee's ministry. According to Paul, it is quite essential that those kinds of things be considered. You, along with others, were so strong for the adherence to the qualifications for elders, yet you do not even require those for the source of your teachings. You do not require that your teacher(s) at least admit their faults and repent when they are found in sin. And take at least some time out if not step aside altogether. Instead, they are clothed in an impenetrable shield that makes all faults, great or small, irrelevant. Why? Because they brought a bunch of teachings to us that made us feel superior? If we dismiss the source of our superiority, we will fall in our own eyes. It would be a great fall. But again, only in our own eyes. We are the only ones who ever thought we were so much because of those teachings. And even if we have rejected the superiority, if we cling to the erroneous teachings, we know that they will not be found anywhere else, so we continue to cling to the source. It does seem a dichotomy to declare that we are all fallen and then note that we accept the teachings of many fallen teachers. But those teachers are not declaring their folly to be righteous, their business to be no one's but their own. Yet their business controls the very life of the churches it touches. How can that only be Lee's own business? The very position reeks of hypocrisy. If it affects the churches by requirement, then it is the business of every member of those churches. So a man who puts an openly immoral man in charge of the affairs of those churches through a "ministry office" is to be allowed to do so and any comment about it declared to be "evil"? And how is this so important? That office has directed that its churches must cease certain meetings of the church, and instead have meetings for the purpose of effectively reading through materials that must be bought from the ministry. It is making God's house a house of merchandise. A personal piggy bank. I don't fault the churches for having book sales, even of LSM books. I fault the LSM for forcing itself upon the churches and requiring their payments. It is a variant on the sale of indulgences. Complain about this being "off topic" if you will. It is sound reason for rejecting the ministry of Lee. And you can reject the ministry of Lee, and his "service" to the churches, without denying him a place among the redeemed. And without speaking evil of him. But speaking evil of him is really about speaking of him in a manner that would be blaspheme if said of God. Blaspheme is to say something knowingly untrue about God as a slight against his character. Speaking the truth is not blaspheme. (And there are people these days that are sure that God cannot be the God that wiped out all but 8 people in a flood. So they either have to say that is a misunderstanding of God written into "scripture" by men, or that God is unjust. Either way is to misrepresent God.) We are not misrepresenting Lee. We are telling it like it is. That is not evil.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
||
|
|
|
|
11-22-2011, 07:31 PM
|
#30 | ||||||||
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
11-22-2011, 03:46 PM
|
#31 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2011, 04:24 PM
|
#32 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
I'm going to make one last comment for the day. Be sure to read it all before you (whoever) comment. Don't accuse me of something that I don't say, especially where I make it clear what I am and/or am not saying.
I believe that there are requirements on those who teach us. Those requirements are not so great that the very existence of human frailty would reject anyone actually of the human race. But they are still very real. Just like the qualifications for elder and deacon, there are qualifications for anyone who is teaching. And depending on what kind of teaching, the level of qualifications increases. (But that is irrelevant for this post.) (I note that Lee and his successors constantly demean virtually all teachers outside of the LRC. They are all "clergy" which is "bad." But if anyone says anything about any of them, especially Lee (even after his death), they are subject to excommunication. So the playing field for determining qualifications for leadership is far from level. The only leaders of the church are declared to be in the LRC. All those others are leaders of harlots.) But let's look at what scripture provides on the subject. Unfortunately, the qualifications to be a teacher are not gathered together as nicely as Paul did for elders and deacons. So we have to find different passages and piece them together. Stop those who are teaching "differently." Who are teaching endless genealogies and other things that just increase arguments and strive. (And I would argue that soliloquies about what it means to be "the one" bringing "the ministry" is a kind of genealogy that leads to identification of a "MOTA," and "oracle," or even an "acting god.") Reject those that cause divisions. Those that denigrate your brothers and sisters in Christ as demonic, satanic, and even the Whore of Babylon. Note those that keep putting the law on you. Who require circumcision, a standing order for LSM books, and a proper respect for "our brother, Witness Lee." It may not always be our place to decide whether teachings are good or bad (stubble or precious stones). But when we see it, we shouldn't just sit there and take it. But there is no place in scripture that suggests that we are to simply accept every Tom, Dick, and Harry that comes along with a claim of revelation. It almost seems as if the thrust of those defending the ministry of Lee are determined that because they like some of the things he said, the evidence that he was not what he claimed to be should be overlooked. And further, anyone who disagrees is going against scripture to do so. And for every one who is taking one of these positions — any variant — I suggest that you should be stuck with Lee, Benny Hinn, Jim Baaker, Herbert W. Armstrong, Joseph Smith, Thomas Campbell, William Miller, Harold Campings, Jimmy Swaggert, Brian McLaren, etc. We are not charged to slander any of these men. Or to misrepresent the things they taught or said. But we are, at a minimum, not refrained from determining whether the teachings of any of these men, or of any others you want to include in the mix, are sound. And if you read Paul's comments on the subject, there is not only the watchfulness concerning proper teachings, but of open, unrepentant character flaws that evidence a person not right before God in a manner sufficient to allow them as a teacher. Of those unrepentant persons, I find Lee to be among them. And I also find significant flaw in his teachings. I cannot say which is the cause of the other. But they do seem to go hand-in-hand. But some are determined that if he ever said a true thing, then he is to be left to fleece the flock. He can no longer do that. (I am not thankful for his death, just noting that due to it, there is nothing new going on there.) But others continue to push is faulty teachings. And they do it in a more dictatorial manner than even Lee did. Yet it is an outgrowth of Lee's teachings. It is the logical progression of teachings that make position and doctrine trump obedience and righteousness. That suggest that a "spiritual authority" should not submit to any accusation. Interesting that this is essentially Nee's teaching. At least he didn't hide behind it. That was what Lee did. Then his successors drove a truck through it.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
11-28-2011, 05:38 PM
|
#33 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
On Dismissing Lee Because of His Sins
Igzy responded that he thought I was incorrect to conclude that Lee should be simply rejected because of his sins. I understand the context in which he is working, and do not deny him his conclusion.
But I wish to make my case. And not by simply rehashing all the previous discussion — mine or others. My overall conclusion is based upon the directives that Paul gave concerning the stopping of incorrect teachings, and more specifically, certain teachers on account of not only their teachings, but their character. That is not a mystery. And ZNP and Igzy have both indicated that they do not understand this to mean that there is never a place for Lee to teach, but that there is cause to reject him at a time. Well, at least sort of. I sort of think that ZNP is not sure that there is any ground to reject Lee at all, even in part. Only to note his shortcomings but accept what he teaches. And there was the comparison to David and Moses. And comparisons have also been made to any number of contemporary ministers/teachers/theologians. And the comparisons are not entirely invalid. But there is also a differentiation — at least relative to David and Moses. While David fell — hard — with respect to Uriah and Bathsheba, he retained his position as king. But he also repented in a way that restored his righteousness. His lament over Absalom is recorded in scripture. Moses struck the rock the second time and lost the right to enter the Good Land. (I think there was something else, but this one will do.) But he was dealt with by God at the time and continued in righteousness. Under Paul’s various decrees, there are certain things that are to be rejected as far as teachings are concerned. While I could make some case for some of Lee’s teachings literally fitting those things, we will skip that. But Paul also noted that there are some who are holding themselves out as teachers and in some manner doing what they do to fill their bellies (in so many words). Those were equally to be rejected. It really didn’t matter what you thought about their teachings, their character betrayed their motives and source. They were to be rejected. I have never said that Lee only taught garbage, or that everything he said was theologically incorrect. But the combination of correct teachings with exclusivist teachings, teachings of a special minister of God (under any title) which is defined in a manner that his followers will only conclude is him, directing that nothing but his material needed to be read, then placing an immoral person at the helm of the only publisher that could supply those materials, and speaking lies about anyone who points to the immorality of that person or suggests that a “local church” not do as directed by that person results in a current position of “rejected.” And until that is cleared-up, and repented for to all involved and all who were affected, it remains outstanding and he remains rejected. And what I would add is that, while those in the US did not know of it, a different form of the same thing happened in the 50s. First, he tried to replace all leadership that did not follow his directive to have nothing to do with another minister. Then he got into a business venture that went under and he saddled the churches in Taiwan with his debts. He may have managed to run off those who openly opposed him, but there was still trouble over it, so he left for the US to try a different field while things cooled down there. As I read Paul’s various directives, I conclude that Lee was not an acceptable teacher at that time. Since there was nothing done to rectify the situation in Taiwan, even though we Americans were ignorant of the situation, Lee’s standing is with respect to the Church, not just an assembly. So his beginnings in the US stood in opposition to Paul’s instructions to reject him. It wasn’t our fault we didn’t see it at the time. And unfortunately, too many were caught by his charisma (yes, a little Chinese man with a little trouble speaking clear English can have charisma) and then turned a blind eye to the next chapters — Daystar and then PL (2 times, at least). Then he lies about people. Starting in the 70s. I’m not sure how much to blame Max for anything. But it is clear that the rhetoric surrounding his exit was not really about Max, but about something else. Max was just the scapegoat. Maybe even planned that way. From the 50s until his death, Lee was unrepentant related to his “sins.” They were not just private sins, but actions perpetrated upon his flock of followers. Since he entered the US already in a condition that should have rejected him, there is reason that we should never have invited him to speak to us in little home gatherings in various places in Texas. In NYC. In Las Angeles. In other homes in other places. We just didn’t know it. But because it was true, even if unknown, it means that Lee was not righteous to stand in front of anyone an proclaim to be speaking for God. He first needed to go back to Taiwan and repent for his treatment of the leaders that liked the ministry of TAS. For his treatment of the churches in general for forcing his personal business debts upon them. Only then would he have an honest standing to see if anyone would even listen to him in the US. Without that repentance, he did not have the standing to speak here in the US. We should never have had “local churches” with him as the MOTA. With the LSM as the publisher. With PL as the “ministry office.” With Max doing whatever he did or didn’t actually do. And for this reason, I conclude that I cannot accept that God was sending Lee to teach us anything. Therefore, anything that he taught that was out of the mainstream needs a completely sound base that has no reference to Lee in any way. And because I have observed Nee’s illogic become good because he says it, I cannot simply say that Lee just taught Nee and that makes it OK. Since I cannot conclude that Lee was righteously speaking for God, I cannot accept anything that he said that gives me any kind of problem with the teachings that abound in a consistent manner throughout Christianity. And there are many such things despite the differences that result in the splits. The amount of agreement is staggering when compared to the actual differences. And when thoughts that arise from my days in the LRC make me reconsider what I am hearing, I immediately require that something prove Lee before I bother trying to prove the other. I will eventually do that too. But Lee no longer gets the “starting point” position.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
11-29-2011, 08:07 AM
|
#34 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Re: On Dismissing Lee Because of His Sins
Very clear post, OBW. I understand your point and generally agree. Basically I hear you saying that Lee forfeited the benefit of any doubt. I've said this before myself.
It's that benefit of the doubt that the LRC movement poured so liberally on Lee. To the point where they made him the "minister of the age." Such a person automatically gets all the benefit of the doubt. In addition Lee even got the benefit of our feeling guilty for doubting him! I have never felt about any historical figure the way I was made by the movement to feel about Nee and even more so, Lee. It was as if there was this aura of specialness bestowed on them that compelled us to follow them no matter what, to actually fear not following them. I've often wondered what Lee would have had to have done for his most loyal followers to put him aside. I have to imagine that if he had in a public meeting taken out a gun and shot John Ingalls between the eyes some would have still considered him the minister of the age. Such is the craziness of the whole MOTA mindset. It's a mindset with no fail-safe or off switch. Like the Energizer bunny it just keeps going and going and going. The MOTA became as good as God himself. Better even because he is more practical and doesn't have to be perfect! The issue whether to dismiss Lee's ministry or not is really a minor one. Simply look at him as you would any other teacher: Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Murray, Darby, Graham, Warren, Myer, or any more minor teacher if you prefer, and ask how you view their teachings. What does their living tell you? Do you tremble at the thought of possibly rejecting the instructions of some God-ordained MOTA? Probably not. So why worry about it with Lee? One reason. You were conditioned to. It is this conditioning that must be purged, along with any remaining belief that things call MOTAs exist. Only then will you be able to view Lee and Nee clearly, and only then will you know how to handle their ministries. As long as you believe in the MOTA, you are a slave to all kinds of thoughts you shouldn't even have to process. |
|
|
|
|
11-29-2011, 10:00 AM
|
#35 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Igzy,
I think that the angle that has been missing in the discussion is that this is not simply about whether it is correct to lay claim to the title MOTA, or to allow others to designate you as such without strong condemnation for it. It also is not simply about some longstanding minister of good standing who has a moral lapse and then becomes a spiritual liability from that time forward. It is a pattern of moral lapses going back longer than most of us have been alive on which there is no evidence of actual apology or repentance prior to his death over a decade ago. That person lost any claim to position in at least the 50s. Maybe before. So there is little reason to start from a framework in which he is presumed to be a "good teacher" (not trying to invoke the imagery of the man who called Jesus "good teacher"). He starts from a place where we should not have been listening. If someone felt compelled to listen to him and then study it really carefully then pass on what they concluded was valid and valuable, that would be fine. But that never happened. Lee was the source of truth for the LRC faithful. We needed to get out of our minds to accept his teachings and we happily followed. And virtually all other theologians rejected his teachings. Only an exorcist and a ministry in need of funds has fallen in line, at least in what they will speak of. I have realized that I was directly duped for 14 years. Then for many more years than that I remained in Lee's fog, thinking that there were all these great teachings simply mired in a system that didn't live up to its own standards. I am learning differently. Few items, alone and in themselves, are truly "bad." But the "Collected Works" lead somewhere that a Christian with their mind in gear would not agree to go. It is the constant interspersing of garbage with the truth. Sectarian ideas phrased in the rhetoric of oneness. An air of humility in a man who would reject anyone else's teachings, and spit on a book by another. I don't really like all of what certain contemporary writers produce. But I do not spit on any of it. And I don't refer to them as demonic or Satanic. And while I may not have spent as many years allegedly given to the study of the Word as Lee did, I do recall that his former calling may have been as an accountant. Assuming that is true, he should have kept his day job. I honestly think that my pathetic understanding of scripture is at least founded on the scripture. I'm beginning to see more and more that Lee was not bound by scripture, but only by what he could define as a principle through which scripture could be reworded.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
11-29-2011, 10:15 AM
|
#36 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
One follow-up. My last post made some sweeping statements. For anyone who is incensed at them, rather than trying to dismantle them as a unit, let's turn to the teachings and the practices one-by-one and see how they fare. I will concede that I cannot prove my generalities in a single reply. But that does not make it invalid. It just makes the proof difficult.
And it has been happening here and on the old BARM for several years. We have discussed many of the doctrines; "ground of locality," "God's economy" (both the teaching and the book), the Trinity, the definition of soul and spirit, Spiritual Authority (Authority and Submission), elders, apostles, abiding v obedience, works v dispensing. The list goes on. One thread was about teachings of Lee's that someone really liked. So many of them seemed to start with virtual dismissal of the actual words of the underlying scripture due to an over lay of "God's economy." Another thread covered the places where Lee altered readings and understandings in a manner that altered the meaning of scripture (under the title "The Leaven of Lee" or something like that). We have discovered that even Nee openly restated scripture to his liking and no one batted an eye. So if you want to discover the Lee (and possibly Nee) that evidences a disconnect from God rather than some special connection, we should pick a topic and start discussing it. And as I so often will state, Nee and Lee are not authorities for this purpose. We can read what they say. But it is not true until it is discovered to be true because it accurately aligns with the scripture or with standard understandings of scripture. I would even go so far as to suggest that Brethren teachings should be considered suspect because, at some level, they did no better than Nee and Lee. Even to the point of similar exclusivity.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
11-29-2011, 01:12 PM
|
#37 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Georgetown, Texas
Posts: 295
|
Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?
Quote:
When I post, I am addressing people who are, or were, under the spell of Lee's teachings and persona. (If I were addressing ones who had never been involved with his teachings, I would recommend they not become involved with his ministry, i.e. reject it.) However, I do not think that it is possible to be devoted to his ministry for years and then one day decide to reject it and just walk away. Once you have been willingly webbed in Lee's ministry, you have to use your will to de-web yourself, string by string, or you will not find freedom and spiritual health. You'll remain in the fog that Mike mentioned. That's a fog most of us exes know all too well. De-webbing requires seeing truth for yourself in the light of the Word. That, to me, is one of the biggest benefits of forum discussions. When we help each other examine, in the light of the pure Word, what Lee taught, then here and there truth breaks out, and minds get set free. Like Igzy, that is why I started posting here, and that is why I still follow the forums when I am able and post as time permits. I continue to be involved periodically in one-on-one conversations with people who have struggled and struggled in their Christian walk after leaving the Local Church. They range the gambit from agnostic to severely depressed. I find that the root of much of their trouble is Lee's teachings that are imbedded in their brain. Only as they receive and accept sound scriptural refutation of such teachings do they start to find mental clarity and then freedom and peace. I agree with OBW that it's best to look at Lee, teaching by teaching, and compare each teaching to the Word of God. Lots of that has been done already on internet forums and much of that bears repeating because of new readers. In addition, lots more needs to be done for the sake of the webbed. I continue to pray that we will fight the good fight for one another and that the truth of the Word of God will prevail. Thankful Jane |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
