Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by 77150

I am asking this question because it is central to the credibility of the excommunication of TC.

The basis for analysis has not shifted: did the BBs lie.

77150, I would turn this around and say the illegitimate quarantine oh John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon, and Joseph Fung (who is now with the Lord), gives credence to the illegitimate quarantine of Titus Chu, Nigel Tomes, among other co-workers.
You ask did the BB's lie? I'll put it like this. Those who participate and still speak against the quarantined brothers are bearing false witness. Additionally each time references are made, they are doing further damage to the Body of Christ meeting in the local churches. When a brother and sister are too hardened to forgive or ask forgiveness, that alone speaks of the damage done.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

77150, I would turn this around and say the illegitimate quarantine oh John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon, and Joseph Fung (who is now with the Lord), gives credence to the illegitimate quarantine of Titus Chu, Nigel Tomes, among other co-workers.

Hypocrisy breeds hypocrisy. Hypocrisy also damages consciences.

WL never quarantined TC because he never was a threat to WL's power, as the sole leader of the Recovery. TC submitted to WL in all things. During the quarantine of the late 80's, TC went against own better judgment to side with WL, and sign that letter BP wrote. TC knew that John Ingalls and the others were not rebellious conspirators. He even talked to John in private supporting him, that is, until WL made TC get his priorities "right." TC also knew the true character of PL, probably more than any of the American leaders, as they were contemporaries in age back in Taiwan. TC knew that it was absolutely wrong for WL to appoint his son to run LSM, yet he said nothing. TC's silence towards WL' improprieties and unrighteousnesses gave PL and others the opportunity to impugn him for years, and then finally eliminate him.

[77150]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hypocrisy breeds hypocrisy. Hypocrisy also damages consciences...

I am well aware of the irony here (the lies and hypocrisy were "faithful" to the ministry of WL). I think this may be what a lot of the objections are for. But that would be for a different thread. Woe to the scribes and pharisees because they make their disciples into sons of Gehenna.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hypocrisy breeds hypocrisy. Hypocrisy also damages consciences.

Which is why Nee's doctrine of absolute submission is an error. It simply becomes a tool of a corrupt regime. It ultimately leads to hypocrisy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Which is why Nee's doctrine of absolute submission is an error. It simply becomes a tool of a corrupt regime. It ultimately leads to hypocrisy.

I have heard that WN's original fellowship on this teaching was balanced with numerous caveats, but LSM removed those warnings and safeguards in their version, thus making it seem that it was the well-respected WN who promoted absolute submission.

Either way, I do think the teaching was greatly influenced by Chinese culture, after all, haven't they had dictators and dynasties since the beginning of time?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have heard that WN's original fellowship on this teaching was balanced with numerous caveats, but LSM removed those warnings and safeguards in their version, thus making it seem that it was the well-respected WN who promoted absolute submission.

Either way, I do think the teaching was greatly influenced by Chinese culture, after all, haven't they had dictators and dynasties since the beginning of time?

Right. It could never work in large scale in the Western world. Of course, LRCers would say that's because of the inherent rebelliousness and self-will of man. But not so, it's simply that Westerners know better than to mistake submitting to a man with submitting to God. They look around to places like, say China, and see the results of doing that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Right. It could never work in large scale in the Western world. Of course, LRCers would say that's because of the inherent rebelliousness and self-will of man. But not so, it's simply that Westerners know better than to mistake submitting to a man with submitting to God. They look around to places like, say China, and see the results of doing that.

Church history is filled with "obstinate" men, who were condemned for their inherent rebelliousness and self-will, but which our Lord has wisely used for His own purpose. Huss, Luther, Wycliff, Tyndale, and many others stand out, however, there are far more whose names only the Lord truly remembers.

Absolute submission to man is never demanded by the Word of God, and always becomes a powerful tool in Satan's hand. One cannot look at the stories of Ham and Meriam, used so frequently by LSM to reinforce this teaching, and declare that their failures were a lack of total submission.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Church history is filled with "obstinate" men, who were condemned for their inherent rebelliousness and self-will, but which our Lord has wisely used for His own purpose. Huss, Luther, Wycliff, Tyndale, and many others stand out, however, there are far more whose names only the Lord truly remembers.

Absolute submission to man is never demanded by the Word of God, and always becomes a powerful tool in Satan's hand. One cannot look at the stories of Ham and Meriam, used so frequently by LSM to reinforce this teaching, and declare that their failures were a lack of total submission.

This consideration always led to the question I've asked many times here: At what point does an individual have the right to say "Enough!" and to move on to begin anew?

LRC doctrine answers "never." But the irony of this is that "the Recovery" was based on men leaving bad systems and moving to something purer. But when WL institutionalized "the Recovery" and put himself in charge of it somehow the principle of leaving the corrupt for the purer became obsolete, and the principle became the matter of falling in line because now all of a sudden "the Recovery" was in the hands of men and would remain so no matter what anyone else thought.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have heard that WN's original fellowship on this teaching was balanced with numerous caveats, but LSM removed those warnings and safeguards in their version,

That is where Watchman Nee's Character of the Lord's Worker comes in which is ommitted in LSM's Authority and Submssion.
Without it, there has been an unchecked freedom to abuse saints as we have previously seen in Ontario, California. Just submit, character is a non-issue.