"The Matter of Gaining African-Americans"

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, I appreciate your response. Thank you for being genuine. I can appreciate your decisions and your feelings because I understand them.

The problem that I have is this--in the Local Church those who feel differently are not treated with such grace or consideration. You have referred to "the failures, the sins, the turmoil," and we all know some examples. How much failure, sin, and turmoil does there need to be before a line is crossed? If someone leaves or becomes disillusioned due to actual grievances, actual abuse, actual unrighteousness, is that ever legitimate?

The answer seems to be no--because LC leaders and members equate spiritual principles with earthly things like groups and ministries and leaders. They equate the church that Jesus is building with their group, and because of this, there is no legitimate reason for leaving the Local Church or being disillusioned. The Local Church is "the church." There is no legitimate reason for disagreeing with Witness Lee's ministry. Witness Lee's ministry is "the ministry." There is no legitimate reason for questioning the actions and decisions of Local Church leadership. Local Church leadership is "God's deputy authority." Witness Lee's way is "the God-ordained way."

I once asked a brother who was a prominent leader during the Philip Lee debacle why he was not bothered by the gross sexual immorality, abuse, and coverup--why he went along with all of it. He answered with (rare) candor that he was bothered, but that he had decided for his own sake to "go on," be "positive," and "eat the tree of life." I don't question his motives, and I don't expect him to deal with problems beyond his capacity, but is this really the legitimate response of everyone involved? Was John Ingalls really a "rebel," a "leper," worthy of "quarantine" and censure for trying to address these things? Do LC leaders give any consideration to his conscience, or the psychological turmoil he must have suffered to be shunned and slandered for attempting to address real scandal and moral disgrace? Was his motivation really to bring down Witness Lee? Or to replace Witness Lee? Or protect "one-man-speaking," etc., etc? Is there any room for a different viewpoint? Is there any room for sympathy and respect?

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim to be "the local church," yet function as the Witness Lee group, based on mutual agreement that Witness Lee's leadership (and his followers' leadership) is the only one legitimate. You cannot claim to be "the local church," yet equate "the ministry" (Witness Lee's ministry) with the reality of Jesus' church (the one He is building), which includes every real believer.

So, while I understand your decisions, at a certain point we have to grapple with reality, and the reality is that 50 years ago Witness Lee came to this country and taught that "the church in X" is not a name, but an acknowledgment of a spiritual reality--that all believers in a city are the church in that city, and that the basis for meeting together is an acknowledgment of what already exists in the eyes of God, and must be general, and not based on any other thing--any practice, any ministry, or any other interest, tie, or bond. Churches shouldn't follow ministries, or be divided by ministries.

Unfortunately, that has gone out the window. Somewhere along the line, it changed.

Brother Drake, did you read my response to you here?