Judge not that ye be not judged...

[Nell]

"poor, poor Christianity"
"Degraded Christianity"
"moo-cows"

To what extent, if any, has "the ministry" of Witness Lee heaped judgment upon itself? Upon the Local Churches? Has the Local Church brought the judgment of being not just "poor", but doubly poor, upon itself?

Have the Local Churches become degraded because of their own name-calling of their brothers and sisters in Christ? Remember the song?

"Overcome! Overcome! Overcome degraded CHRISSSS-tianity!" A song. How shameful.

Has the LC Leadership become a herd of mooing cows?

What other judgments were pronounced by Lee upon his brothers and sisters, and are those judgments visible in the LC today?

What other self-inflicted judgments, if any?

Judging Others: Matt. 7:1-6
“Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgement you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see 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’, when there is the log 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 dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.


I remember in the early days, Lee pronounced an enormous amount of judgment/criticism of denominational churches for their practice of hiring pastors and preachers to serve their flocks. Hirelings. That's what Lee called them. Hirelings. The logic was, if their pastors were paid, then the churches owned those whom they paid. Controlled them. They could not speak the truth that was not "approved" by the ones who paid their salaries...or they could get fired. Then he boasted profusely that "we don't have any hirelings", we don't pay anyone.

Does the Local Church pay those who serve it today?

Nell

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Nell

Does the Local Church pay those who serve it today?

Yes the LSM church in my city had at least two elders on the payroll and at least 4 Full Time working on campus recruiting students to the LSM. I don’t know if they had to raise support for a percentage of their income but they were on payroll.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Yes the LSM church in my city had at least two elders on the payroll and at least 4 Full Time working on campus recruiting students to the LSM. I don’t know if they had to raise support for a percentage of their income but they were on payroll.

So. LoT, what happened between the time WLee condemned other Christian churches in the denominations for employing "hirelings" and the time when Lee's churches began to employ hirelings themselves?

Is this the fulfillment of the verses "judge not, that ye be not judged?" Lee judged and then began down the same path.

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

I remember in the early days, Lee pronounced an enormous amount of judgment/criticism of denominational churches for their practice of hiring pastors and preachers to serve their flocks. Hirelings. That's what Lee called them. Hirelings. The logic was, if their pastors were paid, then the churches owned those whom they paid. Controlled them. They could not speak the truth that was not "approved" by the ones who paid their salaries...or they could get fired. Then he boasted profusely that "we don't have any hirelings", we don't pay anyone.

Does the Local Church pay those who serve it today?

Nell

As long as the LC's don't call these workers "Pastors," then everything is OK, and approved by the throne of God. So that's why they are called "full-timers," "trainees," and "co-workers." These are the only approved names. It doesn't matter that they are paid just like in the rest of Christianity, as long as they got the right names. Does that make sense?

It's just like when names for the church are picked. As long as it is "church in Anaheim" or "church of the Fullertonians" then they enjoy all the blessings of God. Otherwise they are just poor, degraded, divided, hopeless, and helpless.

Do you understand the rules now? It's all backed up by the MOTA and God's New Testament Economy.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Ohio

As long as the LC's don't call these workers "Pastors," then everything is OK, and approved by the throne of God. So that's why they are called "full-timers," "trainees," and "co-workers." These are the only approved names. It doesn't matter that they are paid just like in the rest of Christianity, as long as they got the right names. Does that make sense?

It's just like when names for the church are picked. As long as it is "church in Anaheim" or "church of the Fullertonians" then they enjoy all the blessings of God. Otherwise they are just poor, degraded, divided, hopeless, and helpless.

Do you understand the rules now? It's all backed up by the MOTA and God's New Testament Economy.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying the rules. I believe I do understand. Let's call the rules: word games.

So.

Word games notwithstanding, judging other churches for having hirelings then employing hirelings yourself seems to be rather blatant.

1) Is this the result of hypocrisy or is it Lee, et al, experiencing the judgment he pronounced onto others?
2) Do you think God plays word games?

Nell

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nell

"poor, poor Christianity"
"Degraded Christianity"
"moo-cows"

Not to mention, "devilish" and "satanic". All these demarcations may in some objective sense be true, but in a spiritual sense they're curses. We're called to bless, not curse. The ones who put the curse on others, curse themselves.

"What pit ye digged, ye have fallen into", said the psalmist, and Jesus echoed with "What therefore ye would have done to yourself, do therefore unto others." In the divine view, "other" becomes the stand-in for the true "self". Only by embracing, blessing the "other" do we become freed from the Adamic curse. If we contrarily revile and curse, so we do to our own self.

What happened to the passive and silent LC crowds who sat under these curses? They vicariously partook the judgment. By silently acquiescing to the curse, they agreed to put themselves under it. Now the way back home to the Father was apparently sealed shut, because it was closed to rapprochement with fellow believers.

The LC cut themselves off with the curse.

----------------------------------------------------

Now, some here have pointed out my own combative spirit, and my using invective like 'braindead' to characterise the thoughtlessness of the LC'ers who sit passively through teachings that are arbitrary, self-contradictory, against scripture (it's called "natural" and "fallen" in great swaths), and against the apostolic precedent. But the Deputy God spoke it, so it's received in the LC assemblies as from God.

Perhaps my observations have some truth, just as WL's repeated views against the mass of current Christianity, harboring as it does strange festivals, practices, and thoughts introduced centuries after Christ to entertain and pacify the natives.

But my observations may lack the grace and truth that WL also lacked in his, and promote a rancorous and party spirit. Proud, boastful of 'truths' and so forth.

Mea culpa.

Please forgive my interjections of personal ambitions (to be something) and my unresolved issues (leading to un-Christlike quarrels).

We all need healing. May the Lord have mercy. May we all have the grace to bless and not curse, to endure with love, to see the common good and not the failure of the "other", which is surely a deception of the adversary.

The most I can say for my posts is that they have some basis (observation, scripture). (As did WL's.) But at least mine have not been leveraged for pecuniary bases. WL can not say the same. So his curses should be utterly renounced.

And I'll try to soften my tone. . . "and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain." To curse others is not to hold fast. May we let go of the curse, and hold to the Word of promise. I really liked the "by which you are being saved" part. It's not to sit passively under curses and invective and judgment; it's rather to actively let go of all things that hinder the Word of promise operating in us. We're not "saved" as much as "being saved". Just as life doesn't begin at birth but at conception. We received the Spirit, now we must not let go of the life. Bless, seek the good in all and to all, and thus let the life grow.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by aron

Not to mention, "devilish" and "satanic". All these demarcations may in some objective sense be true, but in a spiritual sense they're curses. We're called to bless, not curse. The ones who put the curse on others, curse themselves.

"What pit ye digged, ye have fallen into", said the psalmist, and Jesus echoed with "What therefore ye would have done to yourself, do therefore unto others." In the divine view, "other" becomes the stand-in for the true "self". Only by embracing, blessing the "other" do we become freed from the Adamic curse. If we contrarily revile and curse, so we do to our own self.

What happened to the passive and silent LC crowds who sat under these curses? They vicariously partook the judgment. By silently acquiescing to the curse, they agreed to put themselves under it. Now the way back home to the Father was apparently sealed shut, because it was closed to rapprochement with fellow believers.

The LC cut themselves off with the curse. ...

The LC cut themselves off with the curse, or, did Lee's judgmental spirit spoken toward others came back upon him "with the same judgment (he) pronounced"? It seems that judgment and "curse" may be closely related.

Nell

[Nell]

Originally Posted by aron

...
Now, some here have pointed out my own combative spirit, and my using invective like 'braindead' to characterise the thoughtlessness of the LC'ers who sit passively through teachings that are arbitrary, self-contradictory, against scripture (it's called "natural" and "fallen" in great swaths), and against the apostolic precedent. But the Deputy God spoke it, so it's received in the LC assemblies as from God.

Perhaps my observations have some truth, just as WL's repeated views against the mass of current Christianity, harboring as it does strange festivals, practices, and thoughts introduced centuries after Christ to entertain and pacify the natives.

But my observations may lack the grace and truth that WL also lacked in his, and promote a rancorous and party spirit. Proud, boastful of 'truths' and so forth.

Mea culpa.

Please forgive my interjections of personal ambitions (to be something) and my unresolved issues (leading to un-Christlike quarrels).

We all need healing. May the Lord have mercy. May we all have the grace to bless and not curse, to endure with love, to see the common good and not the failure of the "other", which is surely a deception of the adversary.

The most I can say for my posts is that they have some basis (observation, scripture). (As did WL's.) But at least mine have not been leveraged for pecuniary bases. WL can not say the same. So his curses should be utterly renounced.

And I'll try to soften my tone. . . "and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain." To curse others is not to hold fast. May we let go of the curse, and hold to the Word of promise. I really liked the "by which you are being saved" part. It's not to sit passively under curses and invective and judgment; it's rather to actively let go of all things that hinder the Word of promise operating in us. We're not "saved" as much as "being saved". Just as life doesn't begin at birth but at conception. We received the Spirit, now we must not let go of the life. Bless, seek the good in all and to all, and thus let the life grow.

Thanks Aron...seems that the lights came on there. You are forgiven. And, you're right. We all need healing.

We also need to heed the warning to "judge not" since, according to the verse, we are heaping judgment on ourselves, and specifically, in the same measure we dish it out.

Does that mean, every time Lee (and we) judged Christianity, that same judgment fell back on us?

Nell

[Evangelical]

In denominations, pastor is a secure, ongoing, fully time permanent position.

In the recovery they are not like that. If a church decides to pay the elder that is up to them, but usually it is only full time workers on campuses. It is usually for a period of time, not guaranteed to be until retirement.

The paying of the worker is not the issue, it is the position of pastor that is the issue - paying of a person to support their permanent position which is not found in scripture - in the early church, pastors did not run churches. Elder is not a full time permanent vocation like a pastor or priest.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In denominations, pastor is a secure, ongoing, fully time permanent position.

In the recovery they are not like that. If a church decides to pay the elder that is up to them, but usually it is only full time workers on campuses. It is usually for a period of time, not guaranteed to be until retirement.

The paying of the worker is not the issue, it is the position of pastor that is the issue - paying of a person to support their permanent position which is not found in scripture - in the early church, pastors did not run churches. Elder is not a full time permanent vocation like a pastor or priest.

Thanks for verifying my points.

Pastor evil. Full-timers and workers good.

Both are paid staff without difference.

Change the name and the LCM calls them legit. Hypocrites.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In denominations, pastor is a secure, ongoing, fully time permanent position.

In the recovery they are not like that. If a church decides to pay the elder that is up to them, but usually it is only full time workers on campuses. It is usually for a period of time, not guaranteed to be until retirement...
...paying of a person to support their permanent position which is not found in scripture - in the early church, pastorsdid not run churches..

This may be true as a whole, I couldn’t speak to it with any other locality, but is the opposite of what I experienced first hand at the Local LSM church I was a part of for over a year.

The paid elders I knew had been there for decades. They ran the church. They knew me well and treated me great. I had 1:1 access and relationship with them unlike most in the church. They’ll be there for awhile. But I agree they’re not “guaranteed retirement”, but then again no pastor I’ve ever known personally has either...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In denominations, pastor is a secure, ongoing, fully time permanent position.

In the recovery they are not like that. If a church decides to pay the elder that is up to them, but usually it is only full time workers on campuses. It is usually for a period of time, not guaranteed to be until retirement.

The paying of the worker is not the issue, it is the position of pastor that is the issue - paying of a person to support their permanent position which is not found in scripture - in the early church, pastors did not run churches. Elder is not a full time permanent vocation like a pastor or priest.

Evan G you are constantly looking for differences where there is none, except in the gross generalizations of your mind.

What's the difference between some worker, reporting back to headquarters, "running the church," and a pastor? Not much at all.

Most churches, however, get to "approve" of new pastors, whereas in the LC's, the elders and local saints have no choice. When HQ's sends a new worker "boss" to town, the church is not entitled to any opinion.

I know, because that's exactly what happened to my LC. After watching this kid operate, I had enough, and decided to leave. Nothing "local" there. That system became worse than all the denominations they regularly judged.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In denominations, pastor is a secure, ongoing, fully time permanent position.

In the recovery they are not like that. If a church decides to pay the elder that is up to them, but usually it is only full time workers on campuses. It is usually for a period of time, not guaranteed to be until retirement.

The paying of the worker is not the issue, it is the position of pastor that is the issue - paying of a person to support their permanent position which is not found in scripture - in the early church, pastors did not run churches. Elder is not a full time permanent vocation like a pastor or priest.

No. Evangelical.You don't define the issue. Start your own topic. This one is about Witness Lee passing judgment on his brothers and sisters and then becoming the recipient of his own judgmental practices.

"The paying of the (hireling) worker" is EXACTLY the issue. Paid workers are hirelings. Hired hands. The scripture uses the word "hireling." However you try to spin it with your word games, you don't get to change the subject. You pay someone to work for you, you employ a hired hand.

Witness Lee judged the denominations for their use of "hired hands". Then Witness Lee began hiring his own. Regardless of who signs the check, Lee knew about the practice and didn't stop it. Lee judged others and now Lee is being judged by his own words.

Nell

John 10
11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

"The paying of the (hireling) worker" is EXACTLY the issue. Paid workers are hirelings. Hired hands. The scripture uses the word "hireling." However you try to spin it with your word games, you don't get to change the subject. You pay someone to work for you, you employ a hired hand.

There's nothing wrong with brothers or sisters being supported by others. The N.T. addresses this. (I Tim 5.17-18; Luke 10.7)

The hireling, however, only cares for his wages, and thus is loyal only to his paycheck. This is what troubled me. N.T. workers owe their loyalties to God and to the ones that care for them.

The LC system demands that all their workers owe allegiance to headquarters, and headquarters alone. The few workers, whom I have seen over the years, who served only God and the saints, were eventually fired, quarantined, and excommunicated by those who wrote the paychecks.

It was these fiery trials of the faith which determined who was a hireling and who was a real shepherd.

[Evangelical]

We should be careful of how we speak of God's servants, namely, to compare a full time worker who is supported by the church with the hirelings of denominations. A young man foregoes a university degree or graduate job, goes to the training, afterwards, needs support to work full time on the campuses. He lives in the meeting hall or with someone who opens their home for hospitality. A local church supports him to cover his basic needs. It is not much. This is mostly covered by members of the church. The support may end after a few months or 1 year, it depends. He does not intend to do this forever, but to serve God while young, and then later find employment, marriage etc. I do not see how the term "hireling" can be applied to this person.

Let's forget for the moment that he is actually preaching the gospel most of the time. Unlike most pastors who are organizing and conducting "services", wedding, funerals, baptisms, for unregenerate people.

Most differently, if that full time worker is not paid, and leaves, then the church does not close down (unlike denominations where loss of a pastor or priest often scatters the church). Having a full time worker in the church is a bonus, but not a necessity.

There is no paid position like pastor or priest in most (not all) denominations where there is an expectation to receive a regular income. A full time worker is not the same as the vocation of a pastor or priest.

I see a few ways in which the term "hireling" is appropriate for denominations, but not for the local church. Denominations will have an open position, like an employment job in a company, and they will seek people to fill that position. In the local churches it is a matter of having people willing to be full timers and the church agreeing to support them. There is no actual position to be filled.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nell

Thanks Aron...seems that the lights came on there.

At best, one can say the lights flicker on and off. Peter is our NT exemplar here, not some culturally-derived "untouchable" like "Paul the MOTA", a self-serving fiction if there ever was one.

Originally Posted by Nell

We also need to heed the warning to "judge not" since, according to the verse, we are heaping judgment on ourselves, and specifically, in the same measure we dish it out.

Does that mean, every time Lee (and we) judged Christianity, that same judgment fell back on us?

Nell

All are under the curse. "There is none good, not even one." Only Jesus is "the true light that shines into the world."

Those of us who think they have the "light" to judge the rest, may want to reconsider. The NT is too clear. "Whoso among you with no sin, let him cast the first stone".

The way home, the way out of the curse, is to bless, to receive, to encourage, to console. Not to judge, demarcate and shun. Not to create self-serving fictions where the "Other" is "poor" while "We" are "rich". That kind of thinking is not the way home.

[Trapped]

Although some elders are not full-time, I would say they are permanent (under normal conditions), are they not?

From what I've seen, the local church both pays and doesn't pay those who serve it.

I know of elders who do not have another "vocation" who are not paid or supported by the church because they can live off of what they already have.

I know of elders who DO have another job who are not paid or supported by the church.

I know of elders who are solely supported by the church.

I know of elders who are supported by a church that does not have sufficient funds to do so, so they take multiple other jobs to cover the rest.

I know of serving ones who are supported (usually just barely above the point that covers their basic living expenses).

I know of serving ones who are not supported at all.

I wonder if Witness Lee's issue was with the "hiring" of an "outside person"? As opposed to someone being appointed from within and being supported because he otherwise could not do it. I understand both appear the same, and I am in no way defending the dripping derision from Witness Lee.

How do other churches (non-LC) handle the elder/pastor thing? I don't even know. Is it often members from within who grow/mature into the position? Or is it really bringing in someone from "the outside" who does not know the congregation? Genuinely asking here....not even really in the context of this discussion, just curious now because I never thought about it until now.

[Weighingin]

Trapped's observations regarding support are true. There does not seem to be any organized ways of support. Some workers will be supported by the LSM.
Some churches, either individually or with other churches, may feel to send a monthly amount to a coworker. The elders who serve locally may be self supporting. Sometimes, monetary offerings may be given to them.

Regarding Trapped's last query, my children attended a Christian school. I was riding with the assistant principal to an event. He told me he had interviewed for pastoral jobs that had been advertised.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Although some elders are not full-time, I would say they are permanent (under normal conditions), are they not?

From what I've seen, the local church both pays and doesn't pay those who serve it.

I know of elders who do not have another "vocation" who are not paid or supported by the church because they can live off of what they already have.

I know of elders who DO have another job who are not paid or supported by the church.

I know of elders who are solely supported by the church.

I know of elders who are supported by a church that does not have sufficient funds to do so, so they take multiple other jobs to cover the rest.

I know of serving ones who are supported (usually just barely above the point that covers their basic living expenses).

I know of serving ones who are not supported at all.

I wonder if Witness Lee's issue was with the "hiring" of an "outside person"? As opposed to someone being appointed from within and being supported because he otherwise could not do it. I understand both appear the same, and I am in no way defending the dripping derision from Witness Lee.

How do other churches (non-LC) handle the elder/pastor thing? I don't even know. Is it often members from within who grow/mature into the position? Or is it really bringing in someone from "the outside" who does not know the congregation? Genuinely asking here....not even really in the context of this discussion, just curious now because I never thought about it until now.

Most churches are open and honest. They interview applicants and make a job offer to someone to be their pastor for a $ figure with benefits. They pass an offering plate for contributions to the needs of the church. They have fund-raisers. They may offer a book written by a pastor at no cost, in return for a contribution. They do what they do. Open and above board. Right or wrong.


When I was in it, there was a hole in the wall somewhere for you to make contributions and no one ever asked for contributions. This seemed to be the "purist" approach. That is, if the Lord leads you to give, then give. If there was a need, the Lord would make it known to the body, as individuals, and the body would give, in whatever manner they chose, to meet the need. Lee boasted about this as a put-down to other Christian churches as a point of "poor, degraded". Maybe another relevant verse is "pride cometh before a fall."

To pass judgment on other Christians for their practice of handling money is, IMHO, petty at a minimum, and maximum hypocrisy---especially when your "church" does the same thing. I.e., with the same judgment you judge, you are judged.

I honestly don't have much of a problem with paying folks to do a job, even in the local churches. My problem is the hypocrisy of judging others.

The denominations are at least honest about it.

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

How do other churches (non-LC) handle the elder/pastor thing? I don't even know. Is it often members from within who grow/mature into the position? Or is it really bringing in someone from "the outside" who does not know the congregation? Genuinely asking here....not even really in the context of this discussion, just curious now because I never thought about it until now.

Established denominations usually draw on certain Bible schools or seminaries for youth leaders, assistant pastor, worship leader, etc. With time these ones may move on to become pastor for some needy church.

I am also familiar with some non-denominational community churches that basically "grew up" with their pastor, depending on his gifts/talents. Look at Saddleback Church. Rick Warren grew that church of 20,000 from nothing.

Some small rural congregations hire retired brothers who love to labor in the word to come and share with the church. Some of these brothers are the richest ministers. One I recently heard was a retired State Trooper. He shared richly on Psalm 23.

These are the diversities of gifts and ministries which the Lord Spirit will use to shepherd His people. Whenever man comes along to define "THE God-ordained way," you can be sure it is not "THE" God-ordained way at all. No such pattern in history ever existed. No way can ever be "the way," because Jesus is "the way," and He can use any way, many ways, and all ways to meet His people's needs.

For example, John Darby hated diverse musical instruments in the worship of God. Thus all the Exclusive Brethren around the world must sing a cappella. Nee and Lee permitted pianos only. But look at how many diverse instruments David and Solomon used in their worship. Lee hated drums, but Christians throughout sub-Saharan Africa nearly all use drums of some sort. Who is WL to tell the entire body of Christ "THE WAY" to worship God? ... "THE WAY" to meet? ... "THE WAY" to minister?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

"poor, poor Christianity"
"Degraded Christianity"
"moo-cows"

What goes around, come around. Watch out it doesn't bite you.

I was there in plenty of meeting where WL called all the LC's "moo-cows." He let it be known that the LC's had failed, and had become Laodicea. The LC's, for the most part, had become Laodicean, lifeless, "know-it-all's." These are Lee's words, not mine. He used this to build up his ministry, "stealing" from all the LC's, their best saints and their offerings.

So here we have just more ministry word-games to dupe the saints.

Pastor bad, Full-Timer good
Seminary bad, Full Time Training good
Go to church bad, Go to meetings good
Christians bad, Saints good
Communion bad, Break Bread good
Worship bad, Enjoy the Lord good
Go to heaven bad, Go to New Jerusalem good
Pope bad, MOTA good
Bishop bad, Regional Worker good
Missal bad, HWfMR good
Pews bad, Padded seats good

Originally Posted by Ohio

Seminary bad, Full Time Training good
Go to church bad, Go to meetings good
Christians bad, Saints good
Communion bad, Break Bread good
Worship bad, Enjoy the Lord good
Go to heaven bad, Go to New Jerusalem good
Pope bad, MOTA good
Bishop bad, Regional Worker good
Missal bad, HWfMR good
Pews bad, Padded seats good

[/INDENT]

LOL You nailed it!