Mark them which cause divisions...

[Nell]

I'm back.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Terry wrote about this verse on another thread. I've been thinking about it for a long time, and have some questions about its meaning and application. Hopefully some of you can comment on the verse.

1. "Mark them". How? How do you mark someone you determine to be guilty?
2. "Divisions". Define "divisions". Divided from what? Divided from whom?
3. "Offenses". What offenses? What specifically are considered "offenses" in this context? Sinful behavior?
4. "Contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned". What doctrine? What specific doctrine/s have you learned?
5. "Avoid them". Mark them and avoid them.

This verse is addressed to the brethren, so that's all of us. Right? It seems to me that this verse is open to interpretation on so many levels, that us brethren need to be really careful before "marking" and "avoiding" someone, based on this one verse.

If you suspect someone you know is being divisive, and committing other "contrary offences", what is your responsibility to this person?

Communication? At a bare minimum, are you responsible to communicate with them? If so, to what extent are you responsible? What would scripturally bring an end to communication?

Specifics? Are you responsible for defining YOUR standard for divisive behavior and offering proof of how this person has deviated?

Contrary doctrine? Contrary to what specific doctrine? If you take action against someone just because they are contrary to what you learned, do you have a responsibility to prove that what YOU "learned" is scriptural, and that YOU are not the one who is deviant?

Does this verse stand alone for disciplining a brother or sister, or are you responsible to encompass all relevant scripture, (Matthew 18 for example) rather than merely act based on one verse and your learned doctrines?

Is it possible that the "mark-er" become more divisive than the "mark-ee" by misapplying this verse?

What do you think?

Nell

[Cal]

Like a lot of verses this one can be made to mean what one wants it to mean. And so the LRC cooked up a meaning that reflected their controlling nature.

But taking the verse at face value it is pretty simple. All it is saying is to be aware of people who cause trouble and to steer clear of them. That's all.

It doesn't say anything about quarantining or excommunicating or scarlet letters or anything like that. It's not addressed to the elders to give them authority to deal with someone. It's not even a formal doctrine. It's simply sensible advice on dealing with trouble makers. Avoid them.

People who try to make it more than that reveal themselves as control freaks.

[OBW]

This is one of those topics that is begging for misunderstanding and misuse. I note that on the surface it almost says "divide from those that are divisive." It doesn't really say that, but we so often treat it as if it does.

I note that the idea of being harshly divisive over doctrine is somewhat of a dying thing (with a lot of breath left in it). But I'm not sure that simply ignoring the differences is the answer either. And there is a tendency to either divide and build walls or tear them down and become so soft on everything that you don't really know what you think.

It has been noted that outside of some of the really big errors of the first centuries, prior to the marriage of church and state there was discussion of everything. There was no "this is it and we are not listening to you" approach to disagreement. The discussion could go on for years without the kind of effect that being able to simply quash the other and declare them heretic in the name of the state had. I enjoy a podcast that is put out by an organization that has quite variety in its upper echelons. A recent series was on why certain ones believed that the "charismatic" gifts are still in action and others do not. No acrimony in it. No need to drive the other side off. They work well together. On weekends they are part of their own assemblies that are consistent in belief with their positions. But they do not consider the others to be in "serious error." Just differ on certain points of "peripherals."

When I read Paul's words, I sense something more intentionally divisive in positions than simply disagreeing. More like trying to create a following or "party" that is simply at odds with the others in a way that is disruptive to the normal function of the assembly as a whole. This is something more than just disagreement on doctrines. It is more like the joke about the guy who makes it to heaven and is being given a tour by "St. Peter." They come to a wall and the guy asks "what's on the other side?" The answer is "Shhh! The (certain denomination) is behind it and they think they are the only ones here."

Now I think that Paul was mostly talking about someone speaking contrary to sound teaching within a group. He was not talking about a nuance of teaching in one place that is different from another place. Or a minor disagreement about unimportant things. Like who is or is not the "minister of the age." But he might have been talking about the guy who was trying to set himself up as MOTA. Division always follows those kinds of things.

[Nell]

Just to say you're "divisive" isn't enough. What is your standard?

1. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.
2. He was born of a virgin and lived a sinless life on earth 33 1/2 years.
3. He gave Himself up to die on the cross for redeemption of our sins.
4. He died, was buried and rose again on the third day.
5. He ascended to the Heavens and now sits on the right hand of the Father, and one day He will return, as He said, to take His people to be where He is.
6. There is one God--Jehovah and the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, word by word.

This is my standard. Shouldn't the standard for "division" be the same as the standard for being a Christian, that is, the faith once given? If you don't believe these items above, you're not a Christian, and therefore your need is salvation, not "oneness".

Or, what is the standard which you MUST believe and practice, if not, you are divisive.

If you don't play "follow the leader", does that make you divisive? Depends on who is the leader...doesn't it?

Nell

This list is off the top of my head, and maybe there's more. Maybe that's where we should start...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Like a lot of verses this one can be made to mean what one wants it to mean. And so the LRC cooked up a meaning that reflected their controlling nature.

This (and verse 18) is one of those verses that just jumps out of the text. (Nell really should consider these two verses together, if possible.)

Paul was just moving right along, concluding his long epistle, and greeting so many saints, and then "pop" he must have thought of some serious dangers, those who could move in to spoil such a fair sight in the family of God. I think these verses are very similar to Acts 20.30, in that Paul viewed the greatest danger to the flock of God would be from those members already influential in the flock of God.

Previously Paul was very specific mentioning names and specifics concerning the saints, but now becomes abstract and general concerning the identity of his warning. Many times I have looked at this verse, and like Nell, I left with more questions than answers. How do we identify these guys, and exactly what action should we take? For many years, I basically trusted "the brothers" to know the answers here, until I learned how these verses can be so abused for one's own gains.

Today I have to apply these verses to many LC leaders. Have not LC leaders drawn men to themselves? Have not LC leaders deceived the hearts of the simple by smooth and flattering speech? Have not LC leaders made divisions and causes of stumbling? Have not LC leaders served their own ministry appetites, and not as slaves of our Lord?

At the heart of Paul's warnings was an exhortation to have a watchful eye, not just on potential troublemakers, but also to watch their effect on the saints. Are we not exhorted to know them by their fruit, since identifying their motives can be so difficult? How does their "speech" affect the love the saints have one to another? Are the saints desiring to love one another or to critique one another? Isn't that is the precursor of division? Does that ministry cause ones to stumble, or does it encourage the weak to stand up? Since we all could stumble, how are these ones treated? Are we brought to serve Christ our Lord, or are we just capital to build some man's empire? Is their speech plain and simple, without pretense, or is it full of suspicions and hidden messages? Do these ministers, like Paul, have warm appreciation towards all the others, or does the minister only inform us of everyone else's faults and shortcomings?

[Paul Cox]

When you say doctrine the Local Church - and most of Christianity, for that matter - thinks of things like the teaching on the Trinity, Christology, church order, and the second coming. However, I think that sound doctrine in the New Testament had more to do with holiness, and how one behaves towards other believers. For example, if one claims to have all the proper points, all the deep truths, and all the high peak teachings, but ill treats brothers who happen to have a difference of opinion from them, then haven't they become like the clanging symbols spoken of by Paul in I cor. 13?

P.C.

I think "the doctrine which ye have learned" has to be defined. I don't think Paul is talking about petty little things like types of music, who's my favorite minister, did you go to the 7 feasts, etc. In John's epistles he talks about "the doctrine of Christ". These are core beliefs of the common faith related to the Person and work of Christ. If some are influencing others in a church away from these foundational essential beliefs they should be avoided because in fact they are not part of the church anymore if they have abandoned these core beliefs.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

When you say doctrine the Local Church - and most of Christianity, for that matter - thinks of things like the teaching on the Trinity, Christology, church order, and the second coming. However, I think that sound doctrine in the New Testament had more to do with holiness, and how one behaves towards other believers. For example, if one claims to have all the proper points, all the deep truths, and all the high peak teachings, but ill treats brothers who happen to have a difference of opinion from them, then haven't they become like the clanging symbols spoken of by Paul in I cor. 13?

P.C.

This is one of the more profound things written on this forum in quite some time. I have had some of the same thoughts recently.

While Paul did take time to discuss some things like what kind of body we would have at the resurrection, he mainly talked about how they were to live and behave. It was the various churches' lack of obedience and righteousness in certain areas that got the pen flowing in the first place.

It does not appear that Paul ever wrote to talk about the nature of God. He often did mention much about that nature as part of his reason for why his audience should behave in a more "Christian" manner. He never told them anything of mental doctrines except as a cause for righteous living.

Even the mention of things like "I speak concerning Christ and the church" has been turned on its head. Note that the whole discussion about the relationship between husband and wife is not some esoteric thing that would flow out of getting the "spiritual" stuff right. Instead, he was busy telling them that when husband loves and cherishes he wife (his side of submit) as the wife honors and obeys the husband (her side of submit) then the truth of Christ and the church is realized.

Getting the practice of how to do the Lord's table right is irrelevant. As is whether there is just the Holy Spirit or is instead "the sevenfold intensified life-giving Spirit."

The only real difference between the writings of Jams and Paul is that James just said it straight out and gave no room to misread. Paul actually said the same things, but he also gave us a lot of reasons. Unfortunately, many make the reasons into the main thing and turn the main thing into an after-thought.

[Cal]

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Could "contrary to the doctrine" just means contrary to the way they were taught to treat each other, not contrary to Paul's theology? It may just mean contrary to being tenderhearted and submitting one to another, as Paul had taught them.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Could "contrary to the doctrine" just means contrary to the way they were taught to treat each other, not contrary to Paul's theology? It may just mean contrary to being tenderhearted and submitting one to another, as Paul had taught them.

I would say that we view and interpret everything from a "modern" perspective in which it is a mental exercise. We believe in factoids about God/Christ. We argue about words and what our mind thinks is correct. We don't look at actions and life and expect that the very living of a Christian should be appealing and noteworthy to everyone. We think that being weird, reclusive, offensive, and opinionated is the sign of a true Christian. We consider that whether to use the term "person" only for God, or for each of the Three, or for the whole thing is important.

The context of the church when Paul and others were writing was an extension of the Jewish religion as established by covenant with God in the OT. That religion cared less about your thoughts and more about your actions. You had to believe in God. But you didn't really believe if you didn't obey.

Note that the things that instigated so much of Paul's writings were the bad actions of the church(es) to which he wrote. Cutting each other off over favorite teachers (a MOTA?), giving priority to persons based on worldly position, not acting in love in all things, having chaotic meetings, condemning others who were only following their conscience, and acting cavalierly with your "freedom in Christ," etc. It was their actions, not their mental thought that were taken to task.

Somehow, having a better lexicon does not appear on Paul's list of "dos and don'ts." And if he had managed to live 2,000 years, he would have been writing a letter to the churches in the United States, making specific mention of certain ones who were teaching that their fellow brothers were part of the Whore of Babylon and her harlot daughters. To mark such ones and separate from them.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Could "contrary to the doctrine" just means contrary to the way they were taught to treat each other, not contrary to Paul's theology? It may just mean contrary to being tenderhearted and submitting one to another, as Paul had taught them.

In this case, "mark" and "avoid" seems extreme. Not being tenderhearted shouldn't "mark" you and cause the saints to "shun" you.

Nell

Originally Posted by Nell

In this case, "mark" and "avoid" seems extreme. Not being tenderhearted shouldn't "mark" you and cause the saints to "shun" you.

I agree. I think in context he is addressing those with influence in the church who have adopted a school of philosophy contrary to the core of the Christian faith e.g. hedonism and mixed it together with some Christian things to make it palatable for innocents to swallow.

It's not just that they are practicing their philosophy quietly in their home but rather are teaching it to others and leading them astray.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

When you say doctrine the Local Church - and most of Christianity, for that matter - thinks of things like the teaching on the Trinity, Christology, church order, and the second coming. However, I think that sound doctrine in the New Testament had more to do with holiness, and how one behaves towards other believers. For example, if one claims to have all the proper points, all the deep truths, and all the high peak teachings, but ill treats brothers who happen to have a difference of opinion from them, then haven't they become like the clanging symbols spoken of by Paul in I cor. 13?

P.C.

Hi Paul,

I agree with you and OBW about holiness. Thankful wrote in this post about holiness. #66

In particular: "Lee taught us that God's foremost, all-consuming concern, with respect to His house and to the bride of Christ, was a testimony of “oneness.” This is the premise upon which he built his case that God needed a “practical expression” of oneness on the ground of locality.

After looking into the Bible for myself to see what it reveals to be of greatest importance to God, I have come to believe that Lee’s premise was false.

In the Bible, I cannot find that “oneness” is what is most important to God with respect to His people and His habitation. Rather, I find that His emphasis is on their holiness, in both Old and New Testaments. There is no possibility of any thing called oneness, without holiness. The Father is holy. Jesus is holy. They were perfectly one in that holiness. Christ died for us that we would also be made holy. As we are made holy by the blood of the Lamb and by the washing of the water in the Word, we are truly one with God and Christ and with one another."

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

It would seem to be easier to point the finger and cry "Divisive!" when the doctrine you have learned is "oneness".

I was once "prayed at" by a sister who said over and over "Oh Lord, the oneness". My divisive action? I chose not to sing with the other sisters in the car on the way to work; instead I chose to read something. I'm sure you've got your own stories--straight out of the pages of "Oneness for Dummies".

I don't mean to minimize the "oneness" spoken of in the Bible. I just don't think what's being practiced today is even remotely related to biblical "oneness". This is demonstrated every time "oneness" is used as a weapon against a brother or sister. Can you even "practice" being "one"?

Holiness is another matter. It woud be hard for me to point my finger at anyone and accuse them of not being holy. Who among us is holy? The words come to mind "filthy rags". Of course, these refer to righteousness, but "filthy rags" covers a lot of ground.

Nell

[Paul Cox]

Hi Nell,

You reminded me of something. Not long after I made my exodus from following after Witness Lee's Ministry I had occasion to attend the funeral of a departed Local Church brother. The leading brother who gave the eulogy went on and on about how this brother had been "for the baaaaaaaaaady." Every time he made that statement about the brother's absoluteness for the baaaady he would look in my direction.
I've also had other experiences similar to yours in the car with the sisters. It's a coerced "oneness" in the Living Stream Church. And if you don't go along, there are bodies (individual saints) hanging along the wall to remind you of what happens when you don't go along with the "oneness." I speak of saints like John Ingalls and others.

P.C.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

Hi Nell,

You reminded me of something. Not long after I made my exodus from following after Witness Lee's Ministry I had occasion to attend the funeral of a departed Local Church brother. The leading brother who gave the eulogy went on and on about how this brother had been "for the baaaaaaaaaady." Every time he made that statement about the brother's absoluteness for the baaaady he would look in my direction.

I've also had other experiences similar to yours in the car with the sisters. It's a coerced "oneness" in the Living Stream Church. And if you don't go along, there are bodies (individual saints) hanging along the wall to remind you of what happens when you don't go along with the "oneness." I speak of saints like John Ingalls and others.

P.C.

Paul,

Pretty amazing how loose we are with things we don't really understand, like "the Body of Christ".

The Body of Christ doesn't belong to anyone. It's His Body. He is the Head. He is alive and well. He is building His church. He knows who is "offending the Body of Christ" and who isn't. He knows who is fellowshipping with Him, and who isn't.

As much as it may hurt when your brothers and sisters mistreat you in the ways we've been discussing, ultimately, their judgment on me is of little or no effect. My part is to fellowship with the Lord, walk in the light, repent for my sins, and obey Him (to name a few). He is the Righteous Judge, and He tells us:

Matthew 7 1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

To me this says, if you practice verses like Romans 16:17, you'd better be right. You'd better be clean. You'd better be sure you see clearly, without hypocrisy, because you are judging yourself. You are handing down your own sentence of punishment.

I guess we've come full circle, back to the importance of holiness. Maybe the more planks that come out of your eyes, the less likely you are to do surgery on someone else.

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

The leading brother who gave the eulogy went on and on about how this brother had been "for the baaaaaaaaaady." Every time he made that statement about the brother's absoluteness for the baaaady he would look in my direction.

Eventually we all have to conclude that, spoken by LSM'ers, these are nothing more than code words for those who "supported the program." There are for more scriptures indicating that "the body" refers to the interactions between members next to each other, than the "mystical body" of Christ. This is one huge area where many dear saints got steered off course. Their conscience got programed to respond only to how was their relationship with the ministry, and not to how was their relationship with the person next to them.

Here's another example. For a while we had campus rental properties designated for church young people to meet and live. For the most part, we had great relationships with the students from other LC's. The two worst, however, were sons of church elders. Both still owe us hundreds of dollars in back rent and damages. Yet ... both were "one" with the ministry. At least one went on to the FTTA. Both elders lobbied hard to get their kids into my places, yet in the end, neither was willing to help me collect what was owed.

This small example is indicative of the sickness in the Recovery. All too often, they have placed their own brand of "oneness," ahead of righteousness. This is not the real oneness with the brother or sister next to you, but oneness with a program.

[TLFisher]

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.


Nell:
"Is it possible that the "mark-er" become more divisive than the "mark-ee" by misapplying this verse?"
"If you don't play "follow the leader", does that make you divisive? Depends on who is the leader...doesn't it?"

Ohio:
"For many years, I basically trusted "the brothers" to know the answers here, until I learned how these verses can be so abused for one's own gains. Today I have to apply these verses to many LC leaders. Have not LC leaders drawn men to themselves? Have not LC leaders deceived the hearts of the simple by smooth and flattering speech? Have not LC leaders made divisions and causes of stumbling? Have not LC leaders served their own ministry appetites, and not as slaves of our Lord?"

I have understood "contrary to the doctrine" as taking away or adding to the Bible, teaching heresy, etc.
Sadly the verse has been misapplied and in it's misapplication has caused division. That is by following the leader, one gets drawn in to playing church-politics. By following the leader brothers and sisters become polarized in their receiving according to the leaders receiving. Whom the LC leadership receive and reject, you also receive and reject. No longer does Romans 15:7 bear any weight.
Yes Nell, in the verses misapplication, if you or I don't play follow the leader that makes us divisive. If you're Christ-seeking and not man-honoring, that too makes one divisive by the nature of this verses misapplication. That's because by being a Christ-seeker, you cannot be trusted to follow the program.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Terry

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Sadly the verse has been misapplied and in it's misapplication has caused division. That is by following the leader, one gets drawn in to playing church-politics. By following the leader brothers and sisters become polarized in their receiving according to the leaders receiving. Whom the LC leadership receive and reject, you also receive and reject. No longer does Romans 15:7 bear any weight.

Yes Nell, in the verses misapplication, if you or I don't play follow the leader that makes us divisive. If you're Christ-seeking and not man-honoring, that too makes one divisive by the nature of this verses misapplication. That's because by being a Christ-seeker, you cannot be trusted to follow the program.

Here are a few remarks from Watchman Nee and what he believed about "following the brothers" and "truth":

"What does it mean to be absolute to the truth? It means to set aside feelings, to ignore personal relationships, and to not stand for the self. The truth is absolute. Our personal feelings, relationships, experiences and encounters should not be mixed up with it. Since truth is absolute, what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. ...

If the way we take is right, it is always right; it does not become right because this brother is taking this way. If the way we take is wrong, it cannot be made right simply because this brother is taking this way.

Whether or not the way is right has nothing to do with this brother. Even if this brother becomes fallen, the way is still right because the truth is absolute. However, many people have their eyes set only on this brother. They think that if this brother is right, the way he has chosen must be right as well, and if the brother is wrong, the way he has chosen also must be wrong. Are their eyes on the truth, or are they on the person?" The Character of the Lord's Worker, by Watchman Nee Chapter 10, p. 154 +

Nell

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Nell

Here are a few remarks from Watchman Nee and what he believed about "following the brothers" and "truth":

"What does it mean to be absolute to the truth? It means to set aside feelings, to ignore personal relationships, and to not stand for the self. The truth is absolute. Our personal feelings, relationships, experiences and encounters should not be mixed up with it. Since truth is absolute, what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. ...

If the way we take is right, it is always right; it does not become right because this brother is taking this way. If the way we take is wrong, it cannot be made right simply because this brother is taking this way.

Whether or not the way is right has nothing to do with this brother. Even if this brother becomes fallen, the way is still right because the truth is absolute. However, many people have their eyes set only on this brother. They think that if this brother is right, the way he has chosen must be right as well, and if the brother is wrong, the way he has chosen also must be wrong. Are their eyes on the truth, or are they on the person?" The Character of the Lord's Worker, by Watchman Nee Chapter 10, p. 154 +

Nell

Acts 10:34
And opening his mouth, Peter said, In truth I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons,

Excellent quote Nell. If the message in this quote from Watchman Nee is transparent, it should be. In the recovery much of what Watchman Nee has spoken has been disregarded.
1. Set aside feelings.
2. Ignore personal relationships
3. Not stand for the self
4. If a brother takes a certain way, just because he took it does not make it right.

Instead the way that has taken is being one with the brothers (i.e. respecting the feeling of the body.) Here's an example:

"My further feeling is that it is not a question of right or wrong with that situation in the 80's among us; it is a matter of offending the body! We need to be body conscious, body centered. If there is a quarantine of some by the body, I feel to honor it, and the ones quarantined, should also have some response." Email from 2009

A huge concept in this faulty thinking is equating Oneness of the Spirit as seen in John 17 to oneness with the brothers. Sorry to say you don't need to take the ministry published by a Christian publishing house in order to have oneness of the Spirit. That can happen anywhere, anyplace, and apart from any church or fellowship of churches.

[77150]

I have stayed out of this discussion because I have found this topic very perplexing but I think the recent use of the word in Matthew 7:1-4 holds the key.

Matthew 7 does not discourage judging, it only discourages judging others. Because “for with what judgment you judge you shall be judged” has no force if you originally judged yourself (“for with what judgment you judge yourself you shall be judged”).

Second, Matthew 7 encourages judging yourself saying “first remove the speck from your own eye”.

Therefore we should conclude that “judge not” should be understood “don’t judge others”.

So then, based on this word “with what judgment you judge you shall be judged” you would have to conclude that “causing divisions” must refer to Marking others and avoiding them. Since the fitting judgment for someone who has caused division is “judge them with the same judgment with which they have judged”. And Paul has said that they should be marked and avoided.

But it still creates the problem, by following Paul’s word wouldn’t you open yourself to also be judged? The answer is yes, except in one situation. Suppose you had already been judged? There is no further cost or penalty to being judged with the same judgment with which you have already been judged.

So then if someone has marked you and put you into a group to be avoided, then say amen to that judgment. By saying amen you mark them and avoid them. After all it is clear that it is their action that has precipitated the judgment (they “caused divisions”).

I think this explains Galatians 4:17 They zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might affect them.

They exclude you with the hope that you will beg to be included again, Paul is saying don’t do that, just say Amen!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

Here are a few remarks from Watchman Nee and what he believed about "following the brothers" and "truth":

"What does it mean to be absolute to the truth? It means to set aside feelings, to ignore personal relationships, and to not stand for the self. The truth is absolute. Our personal feelings, relationships, experiences and encounters should not be mixed up with it. Since truth is absolute, what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. ...

If the way we take is right, it is always right; it does not become right because this brother is taking this way. If the way we take is wrong, it cannot be made right simply because this brother is taking this way.

Whether or not the way is right has nothing to do with this brother. Even if this brother becomes fallen, the way is still right because the truth is absolute. However, many people have their eyes set only on this brother. They think that if this brother is right, the way he has chosen must be right as well, and if the brother is wrong, the way he has chosen also must be wrong. Are their eyes on the truth, or are they on the person?" The Character of the Lord's Worker, by Watchman Nee Chapter 10, p. 154 +

Nell

The question that I have for Nee (and obviously not to be answered by him) is when he speaks of the "way" we take, is he talking about following Christ v something else. Is he talking about obedience v disobedience. Is he talking about righteousness v unrighteousness.

Or is he talking about the "way" we meet. The doctrines we cling to. Discerning the best leaders.

I will concede that he probably meant some of the first group. But I believe that there was at least some of the second group as well. And the shift from the main thing to the wrong thing was then complete when Lee took over. The "way" we meet became supreme. The doctrines were trumpeted as the best and all others so deficient that its adherents were reduced to participants in the whore daughters of Babylon.

And the basis for "marking" divisiveness became the most superficial junk imaginable. There is no way to determine divisiveness upon such an off-the-mark basis.

[Nell]

Since his subject was more about right, wrong and the brothers, I think "the way" was more literal...or he would have use a term other than "the way". (:-)

Nell

Originally Posted by Nell

If the way we take is right, it is always right; it does not become right because this brother is taking this way. If the way we take is wrong, it cannot be made right simply because this brother is taking this way. [/I][/FONT][/COLOR]

Whenever I hear the word "absolute truth" or the "right way" I always ask: "Who's interpretation of the truth are we really talking about?" Because it seems to me that is the crux of the matter.

Watchman Nee and his coworkers had a consensus of what the right way of doing things was based on their own interpretation of non-essentials. When Nee was imprisoned the consensus broke down at least outside of the Mainland of China as his coworkers did not agree with each other on what the right way was anymore. Witness Lee had the succession model i.e. Nee appointed him to be his successor and all other coworkers should come under his authority. Others said no that is not the way Nee worked or wanted it to be and so more or less they all went their separate ways.

If we are to believe the Blended Brothers it appears there was some sort of consensus which Lee supposedly initiated that after he died the BB would be his collective successor and whoever would not heed to this "right way" would be doing it the wrong way thus the split with Titus Chu who holds his own interpretation of what the "right way" is.

In the late 1980s Witness Lee introduced "The New Way" not "A New Way" or "An Additional Way We Might Want to Try to See If It Works". Non compliance to his new way was equal to forsaking the ministry, etc. It became a measuring stick to determine your level of loyalty to the church and the work and the ministry and the ministry office and most important of all to Witness Lee.

So while the idea of being for absolute truth and the right way in non-essential matters sounds like a good idea it's really wrapped up in interpretation and consensus and who's interpretation are you going to give ascent to and accept and follow.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by 77150

I have stayed out of this discussion because I have found this topic very perplexing but I think the recent use of the word in Matthew 7:1-4 holds the key.

I'm not sure it's that simple...not that what you said was simple :-).

You may agree that Romans 16:17 should not be used as the authoritative verse for "marking" someone as divisive, and "avoiding" them. It could, apparently, be used with someone who is not a Christian. To use this verse to "discipline" a brother or sister will, in my opinion, leave you open to being the party causing division in the church. You may make a big mistake. It leaves you open to not loving a brother enough to try to rescue him, as mandated by other verses in the Bible. That is, if you do as Matthew 7 states and "remove the log from your own eye", you may see clearly enough to stop your judgment of your brother or sister altogether and repent of your own judgmental heart toward the Lord's brothers and sisters.

Matthew 18:15-17 describes a clear process: 1. go to the offending brother alone; 2. go with one or two witnesses; 3. tell it to the church. Also, an important part of the process is to establish, in writing it seems, what the offense of the brother or sister was. Perhaps Matthew 18 is also the process for either removing the log from your own eye, or having witnesses or the church remove it for you! All are helped. Romans 16:17 doesn't even require communication. Shouldn't you at least communicate with someone before you "mark and avoid" them? Romans 16:17 doesn't even require you to communicate AFTER you "mark and avoid". You apparently are not even required to TELL someone that you have marked them as "divisive" and that they are on your "avoid" list.

What does "mark them which cause division and avoid them" tell us? Not much. It's vague. How does it help the "divisive" brother (whichever party that may turn out to be)? Is it even referring to a brother, or is it an unbeliever? What contrary teachings? What "learned" teachings?

Ephesians 4:15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.

Ephesians 4:15 raises the standard and brings perspective. Tell the truth, but do it with love, which I believe would include dignity and respect.

John 13:34-35 A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

John 13:34-35 levels the playing field, don't you think? What does "As I have loved you" mean? Does it means He loves us all the same? "As I have loved you, so you must love one another." Even sounds like a command! Oh Wait! It IS a command!A new command: Love one another.

1 Corinthians 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

Nell

[77150]

You may agree that Romans 16:17 should not be used as the authoritative verse for "marking" someone as divisive, and "avoiding" them. It could, apparently, be used with someone who is not a Christian. To use this verse to "discipline" a brother or sister will, in my opinion, leave you open to being the party causing division in the church. You may make a big mistake. It leaves you open to not loving a brother enough to try to rescue him, as mandated by other verses in the Bible.

Right, except in one situation. “As much as is possible be at peace with all men”. Suppose you have been ostracized from the LRC similar to testimonies several have shared. Suppose you diligently seek fellowship (again as some have testified to) but they refuse. Are you now in limbo? Are you now a slave to the verses that tell you to “love your brother” etc.? This is similar to a divorce and in this situation Paul says “we are called to freedom”, not to initiate a divorce but to say “amen” if the other party is irreconcilable.

Matthew 18:15-17 describes a clear process: 1. go to the offending brother alone; 2. go with one or two witnesses; 3. tell it to the church.

Right, except in a situation where the brother refuses to meet with you and have fellowship. The process in Matt 18 doesn’t work if the brother refuses to talk to you. Why would a brother do that, clearly they have “marked you out” for some reason and are “avoiding” you.

Romans 16:17 doesn't even require communication. Shouldn't you at least communicate with someone before you "mark and avoid" them? Romans 16:17 doesn't even require you to communicate AFTER you "mark and avoid".

Clearly this verse is a direct contradiction to Matt 18 and other NT principles. Therefore I think it must refer to a special case. I would argue Matt 18 trumps this verse in all cases unless you are unable to follow Matt 18 because the other person refuses to speak with you. In that case I believe it is in line with verses that tell us to be at peace.

What does "mark them which cause division and avoid them" tell us? Not much. It's vague. How does it help the "divisive" brother (whichever party that may turn out to be)? Is it even referring to a brother, or is it an unbeliever? What contrary teachings? What "learned" teachings?

I think the teachings are the ones you just referred to. If someone refuses to meet with you to discuss an offense according to Matt 18 that is “contrary to the teachings we have received”. If someone does not forgive their brother that is contrary to the teachings we have received. If someone does not love the brethren even as Jesus did, who died on the cross for our salvation. etc

John 13:34-35 A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

John 13:34-35 levels the playing field, don't you think? What does "As I have loved you" mean? Does it means He loves us all the same? "As I have loved you, so you must love one another." Even sounds like a command! Oh Wait! It IS a command!A new command: Love one another.

I always understood “as I have loved you” to mean that the Lord died on the cross therefore we also should pay a very high price to love the brethren.

1 Corinthians 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

Yes, true. Again, this is why I feel that Rom 16:17 could only be scriptural if Paul was saying to in effect “say amen, be at peace, and move on”.

[Nell]

I guess you all can tell I've given this verse a lot of thought.

In 2009 I wrote an email to two current Local Church members, and was told by them that they had marked me as divisive and had withdrawn from me. I was given no other information. (When? Why? Who else did you tell? etc.)

Of course, I was well aware of the problem among us that began in 2005. I had obeyed the Lord when I told them of their offense against me, and naively thought that they would hear me, we would talk about it and we would clear up the matter and be restored. That clearly didn't happen. By 2009 I had been trying for four years to establish and maintain communication. I had apologized for a lot of things that offended them, and so had they. They are offended that I post on the forum, believing that some anonymous references in my posts have violated their privacy. I have apologized for this.

I believe we are past the original problem that hurt, offended and upset me the most. They have apologized and I fully accept their apologies. However, in the process, many, many painful, heated exchanges have taken place. I tried to make my points by providing them with more information than they wanted to know, specifically about the elder brothers they are loyal to, they love, and look to as mentors. I thought they loved and respected me at least as much as they loved these brothers. I was wrong.

They think I'm lying. They don't believe these brothers would do what I told them...most of which is documented on this forum. They don't verify their facts, even though it would be easy enough to do. It seems they don't believe anything I say and readily take the word of others who also imply that I'm lying.

I was stunned by their Romans 16:17 judgment against me. I had been begging for reconciliation for years. Even though most, if not all, attempts to restore the peace among us were initiated by me, they accused me of being divisive. Did it matter that I was telling the truth about the brothers bad behavior? Not at all.

In April, 2011 we began communicating again. In attempting to find a starting place, and level the playing field, I made the observation that they felt free to speak freely and bluntly to me, but if I responded in kind, freely and bluntly, in the past I was accused of being "negative". My question was, how can we communicate under these circumstances?

I waited for 3 months with no reply. Finally, with trepidation, I wrote and said I didn't appreciate their rude, disrespectful behavior when they had agreed to communicate. I stated that I would not initiate further communication; if they wanted to work toward reconcilliation, they would have to initiate it. They apologized. They were "busy" (sorry) and didn't mean to be rude and disrespectful. A few more very promising exchanges and even a question from them "Do you need anything from us?" I was so hopeful, almost excited.

I responded in August that I needed for them to remove their Romans 16:17 judgment from me. I didn't see how we could communicate---with me under their harsh judgment.

I told them I appreciated their apologies for their poor speaking to me, but that they were continuing to speak poorly and accusatory toward me. I asked if this is something they wanted to take back.

I included the Watchman Nee quote about "right and wrong" and "the brothers" and asked for their comments.

I noted that in a list of 9 items that they didn't like about me, or that they required of me for harmony among us, number 6 was that we care for "Christ alone". I observed that if "Christ alone" was desired, why were there 8 more items in their list of requirements?

I also restated my request to find a way to communicate without me being accused of being negative.


It was a simple request with 2 yes/no questions.

• Removing their Romans 16:17 judgment against me is either yes or no. Not hard to answer.
• A request to take back their continued poor speaking to me? Yes or no.
• Watchman Nee quote comments: optional.
• "Christ alone" observation/rhetorical question: no comment required.

Since August, 2011, no response. Too busy I suppose, though I don't know. I did inquire about status about 8 weeks ago and received a "mostly finished" response. I'm not initiating further communication, as I stated previously. By December, I'm taking the answers to my 2 questions as a "no": I'm still under their judgment and they will continue their poor speaking to me.

On December 8, 2011 something happened. I had an extraordinary experience with the Lord and was encouraged by Him in several areas of my life that I can't begin to describe. (The Lord hasn't passed judgment against me for being divisive.)

After this experience, the burden of communicating with these two Local Church members is gone. Three and four months between communications, as I said earlier, is rude and disrespectful. He loves us all the same but I'm clearly not a priority. (The Lord doesn't wait 3 or 4 months to talk to me.)

I'm making this public statement because I believe the Lord requires my obedience to do so. The Holy Spirit is not rude and disrespectful. The Holy Spirit has provided plenty of time for us to obey His commands, so far. He is not sloppy to squander the time He provides to obey His commands. The responsibility belongs to these two young men now, and I am at peace knowing I have done everything I can do. As it stands now, they may never talk to me again.

Gentlemen, if you're reading this directly, or if someone has passed this message along to you, grace be with you and peace. As always, I love you and your families and pray for the Lord's richest blessings on you. Let me know when you have removed your judgment against me and when you find a way to communicate with me as an equal; without speaking poorly to me and accusing me. (The accuser of the brethren is cast down.)

A person may be able to fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, but according to the word, this is nothing compared to love.

Nell

[Nell]

UntoHim opened the thread for me again in case anyone wants to respond.

Thanks to all--
Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

UntoHim opened the thread for me again in case anyone wants to respond.

Thanks to all--
Nell

And why do these threads get open and closed?!?

[77150]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And why do these threads get open and closed?!?

I don't know

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Nell

I tried to make my points by providing them with more information than they wanted to know, specifically about the elder brothers they are loyal to, they love, and look to as mentors. I thought they loved and respected me at least as much as they loved these brothers. I was wrong.


In attempting to find a starting place, and level the playing field, I made the observation that they felt free to speak freely and bluntly to me, but if I responded in kind, freely and bluntly, in the past I was accused of being "negative". My question was, how can we communicate under these circumstances?

After this experience, the burden of communicating with these two Local Church members is gone. Three and four months between communications, as I said earlier, is rude and disrespectful. He loves us all the same but I'm clearly not a priority. (The Lord doesn't wait 3 or 4 months to talk to me.)

James speaks about the sin of partiality. I'm sure there have been other fellowships exhibiting the sin of partiality, but since this forum is on the local churches, my focus will be specific to this. Over the decades this has been a grevious shortcoming among the local churches. Preference one over another. Whether it be among co-workers, elders, etc. It even trickles to the campus work. Focusing on the "good material". Why James? Here's what the Apostle James had to say:

My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. For if a man comes into your [a]assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” James 2:1-3

Nell, you asked "how can we communicate under these circumstances?" Exactly! This is indicative of the culture where fellowship flows only in one direction. You have a point of a view that is not accepted and disregarded as negative. Not much difference from what Steve Isitt and John Ingalls expereinced at that restaurant in Anaheim on New Year's eve. No willingness to learn the other side. The elder from Vista was free and blunt to John as he did, but for John to speak to him? Unfathomable. How can you communicate when one party is unwilling to listen? What you have is an impasse.

I know I have expereinced the same. No way to have an objective conversation. It's a one way conversation or none at all. Bottom line Nell, I see you're considered negative bacause you cannot be politically correct.

[OBW]

What kind of partiality is displayed when whole categories of Christians are summarily dismissed as fallen, daughters of the whore of Babylon?

How can there be any communication between these two groups?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

What kind of partiality is displayed when whole categories of Christians are summarily dismissed as fallen, daughters of the whore of Babylon?

OBW, when a Christian embraces this type of notion it is transparently clear a complete lack of comprehension concerning the Body of Christ. When there is such a lack, how can you communicate? How can you communicate when one has the notion "the recovery" consummates the Body of Christ? How can you communicate when views of a blended brother are spouted you're a christian meeting indepedently of the body of Christ if you're not meeting with the local churches.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And why do these threads get open and closed?!?

Is this a question or a complaint? (?!?) I assume you aren't referring to this thread since Nell clearly stated why she wanted it opened. There are over 450 threads and how many have been closed? Less then %.01 percent. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Is this a question or a complaint? (?!?) I assume you aren't referring to this thread since Nell clearly stated why she wanted it opened. There are over 450 threads and how many have been closed? Less then %.01 percent. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

The question was not about statistical deviations of closed threads, but what are the guidelines, if any, which causes threads to be opened or closed?

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The question was not about statistical deviations of closed threads, but what are the guidelines, if any, which causes threads to be opened or closed?

Because the thread is unique to Nell's communication with two young men in an attempt at reconciling with them, UntoHim closed the thread so she could receive an answer from them, before the thread would be continued. I think.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The question was not about statistical deviations of closed threads, but what are the guidelines, if any, which causes threads to be opened or closed?

Ah, now there is a question I can answer! As with most things on the forum, I have a tendency to be hands off, and just deal with things on a case by case basis, applying as much fairness and common sense as I can muster. My major consideration is usually to try and put myself in the shoes of the members, readers and lurkers. Also there is the consideration of current LCers, and how a thread may encourage or discourage their interest and participation. Sometimes it can be a case of a thread simply "running it's course", where everything that can be said is said, and the rest is just rehashing. That gets tedious and boring for all concerned (except maybe for the thread starter)

[77150]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Is this a question or a complaint? (?!?) I assume you aren't referring to this thread since Nell clearly stated why she wanted it opened. There are over 450 threads and how many have been closed? Less then %.01 percent. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

In an earlier thread I responded to a requirement you put on me with the following

"I have read the rules regarding posting. The scientific references were not "off topic" they in fact were only in the post that defined the topic. They were not irrelevant as it was the only way I could make my point. I have not "flooded" the site with scientific references. I do not see any violation of the rules and have no intention of being regulated by additional "special" rules that only apply to me. If that means I am no longer welcome to post so be it."

Since according to you 99.99% of posts are not closed by you arbitrarily. That to me is the definition of "special" rules that only apply to me. As a result, after considering this, I have decided to leave this forum. This will be my last visit. Thankyou.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 77150

In an earlier thread I responded to a requirement you put on me with the following

"I have read the rules regarding posting. The scientific references were not "off topic" they in fact were only in the post that defined the topic. They were not irrelevant as it was the only way I could make my point. I have not "flooded" the site with scientific references. I do not see any violation of the rules and have no intention of being regulated by additional "special" rules that only apply to me. If that means I am no longer welcome to post so be it."

Since according to you 99.99% of posts are not closed by you arbitrarily. That to me is the definition of "special" rules that only apply to me. As a result, after considering this, I have decided to leave this forum. This will be my last visit. Thankyou.

I guess I am not smart enough to know why any of your posts were "off topic" and subject to "special" moderation.

Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by 77150

This will be my last visit. Thankyou.

I wish you well. Thanks for your contribution to the forum.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Nell

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

What do you think?

I was reading on afaithfulword.org last night and saw Romans 16:17 as a reference regarding quarantines. By itself Romans 16:17 appears to be vague as to what divisions are. Being so vague anyone such as the contributors at DCP or anywhere else can interpret what divisions are. It could be something trivial as a difference of opinions. Here on this forum there are difference of opinions posting back and forth. However as I was reading scripture last night if your standing on divisions in Romans 16:17 is a stand-alone verse, take heed!
The following verse in Romans 16:18 narrows the scope regarding Romans 16:17;
For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

I was reading on afaithfulword.org last night and saw Romans 16:17 as a reference regarding quarantines. By itself Romans 16:17 appears to be vague as to what divisions are. Being so vague anyone such as the contributors at DCP or anywhere else can interpret what divisions are. It could be something trivial as a difference of opinions. Here on this forum there are difference of opinions posting back and forth. However as I was reading scripture last night if your standing on divisions in Romans 16:17 is a stand-alone verse, take heed!
The following verse in Romans 16:18 narrows the scope regarding Romans 16:17;
For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

"To cause divisions" is be responsible for something being divided into parts. It cannot be equated with asking questions, being troubled by sin, etc.

This verse that you have quoted adds to the definition. To be a slave of their own appetites suggests they are motivated by greed. In today's court you have to convince a jury of means, motive and opportunity to convince a jury of guilt.

Some of those who are accused of "causing a division" had no means so the accusation is ridiculous. This brother or sister was not the lead elder with the ability to separate this locality from others.

Most had no motive. There is no profit or greed motive. Unlike LSM or the Blendeds the ones accused of "causing a division" are not in any way linked to receiving money from their actions.

Opportunity is generally the only variable even remotely applicable. Some brother heard this brother say something. Perhaps an elder is accused of saying something in an elders meeting or a church meeting. Perhaps a brother is accused of spreading poison to saints invited to their home for fellowship. But what is "real" opportunity to "cause" a "division". Surely it should be a conference, or a publishing house, books, etc. Meeting with a few saints for lunch is outrageously lame.

[ZNPaaneah]

Rom
16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

1. The actions must be "contrary to the doctrines that you learned". PL's actions were contrary to the doctrine, questioning those actions are not. Accusing the sister's of a "sister's rebellion" as a smokescreen to cover your own illicit actions is contrary to the doctrine we have received. Attempting to get a monopoly on the word of God is contrary to the doctrine we have received.

2. Cause division is equal to establishing the Local Church as a division. Creating a doctrine based on the ground of oneness to be the basis for a division is to cause a division.

3. Cause offenses -- PL, TL, WL, Daystar, Sister's rebellion, JI, etc. The ones who "cause offenses" refer to LSM and the Blendeds.

4. Serve their own appetite -- refers to LSM and any full timers who are supported by the Saints. Not all full timers cause offenses, but full timers who cause offenses and divisions are serving their own appetite.

5. "By good words and fair speeches" refer to those who give conferences, video conferences and publish books. If a person doesn't do any of these things they may be "negative" but they don't have the means to "cause division".

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Rom
16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

Let's take this forum as a example. I come here to express personal viewpoints and the topics I engage in I would avoid doing when visiting a local church where my parents meet with or when visiting congregation where former-local church attendees may meet.

The Lord's Table is for remembrance of our Lord Jesus Christ and His death's significance on the Lord's Day. It is divisive, offensive, and inappropriate to use the Lord's Table as a platform to ridicule other Christian assemblies, individual members of the Body, or speak somthing that could cause one to stumble. We are all gifts to the Body. Plus you never know who could be visiting that particular Lord's Day morning.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

Let's take this forum as a example. Many of us here express personal viewpoints and engage in certain dialogue we would avoid doing in a communion setting.

The Lord's Table is for remembrance of our Lord Jesus Christ and His death's significance on the Lord's Day. It is divisive, offensive, and inappropriate to use the Lord's Table as a platform to ridicule other Christian assemblies, individual members of the Body, or speak somthing that could cause one to stumble. We are all gifts to the Body. Plus you never know who could be visiting that particular Lord's Day morning.

The term "many of us" is far too vague. If I have said something offensive let me know.

I disagree about the "communion setting". If I met with a congregation that was involved in something that I felt was blatantly sinful I would probably be most provoked in a "communion setting".

This forum is involved in a very difficult process. Most everyone who comes to this forum knows something is/was rotten. We are also, for the most part, clear on what and what does not constitute sin.

The issue is the cause. When and where did the error come in? With WN, with WL, from day 1, from the 80s, etc. We are also grappling with why we were deceived. What should we have done differently? We are seeking the Lord's wisdom. We want to know if our time in the LRC was a waste or part of the Lord's leading.

These are tough questions that are very important and people's egos can get hurt. That is why many who visit prefer to sit on the sidelines and watch. But this is all about becoming practiced in the word of righteousness.

Because there is blood and vomit is not an indication that you are not in a hospital, on the contrary that is what you expect to see.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The term "many of us" is far too vague. If I have said something offensive let me know.
This forum is involved in a very difficult process. Most everyone who comes to this forum knows something is/was rotten.

I apologize. I should only speak for myself regardless. I have edited my post.