Does anyone see a problem with this teaching?

[googlelight]

"Spiritually speaking, it was easy for a person like Noah to be humble and to confess. Do you not think that this is easy? But it would be very difficult for one who has failed and has been exposed to curse and to bless. Noah was the father of the family and the leader of mankind. Everyone looked to him. He failed and was exposed. He could have been humble, confessed, and admitted that he had failed. However, since God had established him as the leader, he had to speak, not according to his convictions, but according to God's government. Which is easier to do—to be humble and confess, or to speak according to God's government? It is easy for anyone to be humble, admit the failure, and confess it. But if Noah had been like that, what would have become of God's government on this earth? What about his descendants? What about God's economy, God's administration? It would have been all right for Noah to make such a confession, but it would have meant the ruin of God's government on earth. Besides Noah, who could have represented God to speak in a governmental way? No one but Noah could have done that work. It was difficult for Noah, as one who had failed, to represent God by speaking governmentally. While he was speaking in such a way, his conscience might have troubled him and the Devil might have accused his conscience, saying, "How can you speak this way, since you have had such a failure?" Sometimes when the leaders in the church fell into this kind of situation, they gave up and did not say anything. So, there was no divine government."

Isnt this a teaching that actually encourage cover-ups?

This is gathered from life-study of Witness Lee.
link: https://www.ministrybooks.org/Search...?id=0807D2F5CC

[aron]

Originally Posted by googlelight

Isnt this a teaching that actually encourage cover-ups?

Unbelievable. I can't believe any Christian minister would speak such a word.

"Repent and confess your sins to one another, unless of course you are Deputy God, and then you can't confess because the foundations of God's government would be shaken".

"Upon the mouths of two witnesses, a thing is established, unless of course that pertains to the MOTA, then no amount of witnesses matter."

Etc. This is so strikingly at variance with the whole tenor of the Bible. There is, in fact, one "Deputy God" in the Bible. There is one MOTA. His name is Jesus. No one can overturn his word. Everyone else, everyone, is a sinner. There is one sinless Christ. The rest should not make distinctions among themselves.

Look at how they chose an apostle to replace Judas, in Acts 1:26. They gathered several good men, and drew lots. The one chosen was not better than the others, he just got chosen by lot. Just like Peter wasn't better than any other Galilean fisherman. But Jesus chose him.

Nobody on this earth, including the twelve, has the right to put on airs or claim special place. And yet the teaching of WL is just to ensconce one believer, one special believer, above and separate from all the rest. The untouchable deputy God, representing the divine heavenly government on earth, answerable to none. It flies against the face of the whole Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. It's such a crass, open, blatant power play, that only those bereft of their God-given senses will succumb to such nonsense. Which is where the repetitive shouting comes in, and the admonitions not to think, etc. Only then can one swallow such tripe.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many Midwest brothers never knew what really happened back then until the Quarantine hit the Midwest and all these old accounts by the so-called "conspirators" were made public on these forums. TC betrayed John Ingalls, yet afterwards he would only say that, "WL is my spiritual father, and his mistakes are none of my business."

I've seen 30 such quotes on this forum: responsible ones would ignore evil because a "more responsible" brother was involved. The cultural imperative would now appear. "Never make someone more senior than yourself publicly lose face." The Bible was tearfully held, with trembling hands, and loud exclamations of fealty, until it ran against human culture. Then it was ignored, as if never written, and make-believe stories like "drunken Noah" were invented to fill the void.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by googlelight

Isnt this a teaching that actually encourage cover-ups?

Exactly. Pure politics. "Rules for thee, but not for me!"

But look at LC history and see how this was regularly done. Take the deceitful Daystar dupery.

He could have been humble, confessed, and admitted that he had failed. However, since God had established him as the leader, he had to speak, not according to his convictions, but according to God's government. Which is easier to do—to be humble and confess, or to speak according to God's government?

Since God had established WL as the leader, he had to speak "according to God's government." Here's his message from the podium during the next training:

"Brothers and sisters, you should never complain when government programs like Daystar fail you. God's enemy attacks the Recovery like no others because we are God's unique bride. Whatever you give to the ministry is unto the Lord because we are not some piece of Christian work, but God's New Testament ministry on earth to bring the Lord back."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I've seen 30 such quotes on this forum: responsible ones would ignore evil because a "more responsible" brother was involved. The cultural imperative would now appear. "Never make someone more senior than yourself publicly lose face." The Bible was tearfully held, with trembling hands, and loud exclamations of fealty, until it ran against human culture. Then it was ignored, as if never written, and make-believe stories like "drunken Noah" were invented to fill the void.

Well said aron.

To those who espouse this "cultural narrative" about "covering drunken Noah," I would say two things from scripture. First, where is the mandate in the Bible to "cover" the sins of some leader? (Didn't Paul tell Timothy to first find two witnesses, and then rebuke the sinner, so all may learn, and be fearful.) Second, look at a couple actual examples of the Bible:

1. David as King outranked Nathan a lowly prophet, but Nathan rebuked David for his sins. Why is it that Nathan never covered for David? (And if this don't persuade you, then why are numerous brothers like John Ingalls not considered prophets to confront WL over sin?)
2. Peter outranked Paul as leader of the Apostles, but Paul rebuked Peter to his face for playing politics with the gentiles. Why didn't Paul cover for Peter's failure?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by googlelight

...Isnt this a teaching that actually encourage cover-ups?

Yes. I see a BIG problem.

The actual verses aren't a "teaching" at all. The verses are a description.

I think this was the best thing I ever learned from Bill Mallon regarding studying and understanding the Bible. Something like this:

• Descriptive passages describe what happened; they give us the historical narratives and the stories of the events that took place.
• Prescriptive passages give us clear commands and instructions as to how we are to live our lives.
• When we misunderstand the style of writing we run the risk of misunderstanding the character and nature of God.
• We should primarily build our doctrine on prescriptive passages and then supplement that doctrine with the overall themes and trends and patterns that we learn from descriptive Biblical passages.
• We should avoid building our doctrine on individual descriptive passages that describe individual events.
• Are there any other passages from scripture that give us equally clear commands and instructions confirming the "teaching" in question?

Witness Lee built his ministry by misapplying descriptive scripture. FORGET what Witness Lee, or any other Christian teacher taught. Witness Lee taught us to misunderstand the character and nature of God...did he not? Check the scripture. Is the referenced scripture below actually a description of something that happened, or was it the foundation for a doctrine which gives clear commands and instructions which prescribe how we are to live our lives regarding Noah and authority?

What are the clear commands and instructions in the following passage?

Gen. 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.


After you check out Genesis 9, check out another example: Lee's foundation scriptures for "One church, One city."

Witness Lee's ministry could unravel if we put it to the sniff test of descriptive v. prescriptive. Lee, in the early days, actually told us "Study the Bible WITH the Bible." He stopped doing that.

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

I think this was the best thing I ever learned from Bill Mallon regarding studying and understanding the Bible. Something like this:

• Descriptive passages describe what happened; they give us the historical narratives and the stories of the events that took place.
• Prescriptive passages give us clear commands and instructions as to how we are to live our lives.
• When we misunderstand the style of writing we run the risk of misunderstanding the character and nature of God.
• We should primarily build our doctrine on prescriptive passages and then supplement that doctrine with the overall themes and trends and patterns that we learn from descriptive Biblical passages.
• We should avoid building our doctrine on individual descriptive passages that describe individual events.
• Are there any other passages from scripture that give us equally clear commands and instructions confirming the "teaching" in question?

Nell, thanks, great info on the Bible.

Dr. Philip Comfort, renowned Greek scholar who once ministered in my LC, gave this example to clarify prescriptive and descriptive instructions in the Bible using John 21.1-14: The disciples were instructed to "cast their net on the right side." As soon as they did, the net was overflowing with fish too many to haul in. Obviously Phil's example here made the distinction real easy to understand.

Such is also the case with "all things common" in Acts -- it happened, it was wonderful, it was of the Lord, but do not repeat! That's what Karl Marx attempted to do. It's called communism.

Such is also the case with "one church one city," the foundation of Recovery exclusivism. It was mentioned in Revelation 2-3, it was wonderful, it was of the Lord, but do not repeat! Those who have tried this, have become the most divisive folks in church history.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by googlelight

"Spiritually speaking, it was easy for a person like Noah to be humble and to confess. Do you not think that this is easy? But it would be very difficult for one who has failed and has been exposed to curse and to bless. Noah was the father of the family and the leader of mankind. Everyone looked to him. He failed and was exposed. He could have been humble, confessed, and admitted that he had failed. However, since God had established him as the leader, he had to speak, not according to his convictions, but according to God's government. Which is easier to do—to be humble and confess, or to speak according to God's government? It is easy for anyone to be humble, admit the failure, and confess it. But if Noah had been like that, what would have become of God's government on this earth? What about his descendants? What about God's economy, God's administration? It would have been all right for Noah to make such a confession, but it would have meant the ruin of God's government on earth. Besides Noah, who could have represented God to speak in a governmental way? No one but Noah could have done that work. It was difficult for Noah, as one who had failed, to represent God by speaking governmentally. While he was speaking in such a way, his conscience might have troubled him and the Devil might have accused his conscience, saying, "How can you speak this way, since you have had such a failure?" Sometimes when the leaders in the church fell into this kind of situation, they gave up and did not say anything. So, there was no divine government."

Isnt this a teaching that actually encourage cover-ups?

This is gathered from life-study of Witness Lee.
link: https://www.ministrybooks.org/Search...?id=0807D2F5CC

Nope, I don't see A problem.

I see A WHOOOOOOLE LOT OF PROBLEMS.

Problem #1: After his floodly duties are over, Noah is nowhere established as a leader of or over anyone, or representing God to anyone. He is just a father with an extended family and a vineyard.

In Genesis 9, God makes a covenant with Noah, but that same covenant is also with "every living creature with" Noah and with "all life on earth". A "covenant for all generations to come". Noah is not ever established as any kind of head, or deputy authority, or representative of God, and most importantly, the government of God has no part in the Genesis narrative here. Anywhere. An echo into silence.

As I said in another post somewhere, when they start speaking of "God's government" it's usually in a threatening, fear-based way to shut you up so you don't think critically about the situation. That's what's happening here.

Problem #2: From Genesis 9:20 on (when Noah plants a vineyard and gets drunk), God is not present in the story, save for Noah invoking His name when cursing Canaan. God is not there to tell us whether He approves or disapproves of Noah's actions. It's just the telling of a story. Yet again, Noah cannot be said to "represent God".

Problem #3: Noah was not "the leader of mankind". After the flood his genes are ostensibly where mankind came from, but he's not touted as "the leader" of anything.

Problem #4: This quote of Lee's is just.....makes me speechless: "He could have been humble, confessed, and admitted that he had failed. However, since God had established him as the leader, he had to speak, not according to his convictions, but according to God's government."

Witness Lee is actually pitting God's government and the truth of a confession of wrongdoing against each other, saying they cannot be reconciled with each other. What Lee is doing here is saying that God's government (where does the Bible speak of God's government, anyway?) should not operate according to convictions of truth. He's saying, then, that God's government should operate according to a lie.

That's the false god Witness Lee preaches. A god whose kingdom stands on a lie. Just so we're all clear on that one.

Problem #5: This next quote of Lee's: "Which is easier to do—to be humble and confess, or to speak according to God's government? It is easy for anyone to be humble, admit the failure, and confess it. But if Noah had been like that, what would have become of God's government on this earth?"

Since when does "what is easier to do" become the determining factor of our choices? And why on EARTH does Lee put humble confession in a headlock against God's government?? If Noah had been humble, admitted the failure, and confessed it....what would have become of God's government on this earth?

Why.....it would have continued to stand steadfastly because it was grounded in and operating according to righteousness, that's what would have become of it! The only principle "God's government" can operate according to! Again, note the false god that Lee is preaching here.

Problem #6: This next quote: "But if Noah had been like that, what would have become of God's government on this earth? What about his descendants? What about God's economy, God's administration? It would have been all right for Noah to make such a confession, but it would have meant the ruin of God's government on earth."

Notice that Lee never explains WHY it would have "meant the ruin of God's government on earth". And I suppose there is a good reason why he didn't explain why........because his argument doesn't hold even one drop of water! He couldn't explain why if his life depended on it! Why on earth would true confession, acknowledgement, and repentance have ended God's government???

Lee actually manages to make Noah seem like a hero for the "difficult" thing of not confessing his sin. That's the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard! We all know the difficult thing is TO confess our sin! It's second nature to cover them up and deny! Witness Lee's teaching in this passage is literally, directly contrary to God.

God wants us to confess our sins, openly acknowledge them, repent of them, so that He can be the one to cover us. It was that way in the garden of Eden, and it's still that way now. Adam and Eve tried to cover themselves and cover each other, but God wanted them to openly confess so He could cover them in a better way.

Lee is totally in darkness here.

[Sons to Glory!]

I wasn't going to respond on this topic, as others here have done a good job. But I'm having some realization that it's this governmental teaching which is at the root of many things within the LC (should put that on the "What is the Greatest WL/LC Error" thread). I must say that this is a teaching, that where I've been these last 20 some years (in a group who was once LC) - I don't think I've heard something spoken about God's government here on the earth!

Now, in the Scottsdale group, we do hear some about God's economy, that is, His administration. But this is spoken of as it relates to God's way of supplying His loved ones, in His household, with what they need. I've never once heard it spoken like, "You must be careful when you touch God's government (or you might get zapped)!"

To be sure, we have leading ones here, but never has this sort of thing come up as a way to justify some apparent authority coming directly from God, through them. To me, this seems like a way to subject others to man's rule, and would just promote a form of legalism.