Is an "Appeal to Caesar" Really the Scriptural "Second Principle"??

[kisstheson]

Hello dear ones, beloved brothers and sisters in Christ,

I recently came across the LSM/LC-affiliated web site entitled "FAQs Concerning the Local Churches" at http://www.ltm.org/index.html. One of the FAQs is a well-known bone of contention between LSM/LC and other Christians: "What is your view of lawsuits between Christians?". Of course, we have discussed this topic thoroughly in the past on other threads, but my burden lies not so much with lawsuits themselves but with this question: What is the real teaching of the Scriptures regarding relationships between believers when fellowship has deteriorated and has completely broken down?

I believe that we would all agree that the "first principle" to apply when problems exist between believers is found in the well-known portion in Matthew 18:15-17. Of course, how wonderful it is when every heart involved is soft and there is openness, forgiveness, and reconcilliation! And yet, what to do when there is no forgiveness and reconcilliation, when "your brother" refuses to hear you, refuses to hear you when you take one or two others with you, and refuses to hear the church? What then?

In LSM's FAQ, they state that when reconcilliation through fellowship does not take place, "the second principle" to be followed is found in Acts 25:10-12, which is Paul's famous "appeal to Caesar". But is the "appeal to Caesar" really the "second principle", or do the Scriptures teach another, totally different, approach as the "second principle"? I would very much like to hear anyone's thoughts on this matter! My preliminary seeking on this matter has led me to conclude that the "second principle" to follow amongst believers is to be found in Matthew 18:18-22 and Matthew 5:21-26 and 5:38-48. Call me a dreamy, starry-eyed idealist, but I firmly believe that the Lord's "second principle" among believers is not the law court, but is mercy, forgiveness, and love.

Here is a parital excerpt from LMS's FAQ (the entire FAQ can be found at http://www.ltm.org/lawsuits/index.html):

"In Matthew 18:17, the Lord Jesus Himself anticipated that situations would arise between believers in which the principle of fellowship would be rejected by one of the parties: 'If he [the offending brother] refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile [unbeliever] and a tax collector' (NASB). This word implies that such a situation has deteriorated beyond the scriptural bounds of reconciliation through fellowship, necessitating a second principle, found in Acts. Acts 25:10-12 is an account of Paul's “appeal to Caesar” (the ultimate civil authority of his time) when unlawful actions by unbelieving Jews threatened his ministry."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

... my burden lies not so much with lawsuits themselves but with this question: What is the real teaching of the Scriptures regarding relationships between believers when fellowship has deteriorated and has completely broken down?

Good topic, KissTheSon. My wife just gave me some literature from Peacemaker Ministries, and was very impressed with the scriptural principles by which they arbitrate disputes among believers, their site is at:

http://www.peacemaker.net/site/c.aqK....CB70/Home.htm

I'm just beginning to look this over -- "Rules of Procedure for Christian Arbitration." I'm real interested in whether this matter of "Appealing to Caesar" is in their operations. Part of their ministry is to assist churches who are dividing over doctrines.

The Apostle Paul asked this question, "Is nobody wise among you?" (IC.6.5) Today, I do believe there are many wise brothers in the greater body of Christ. Shouldn't we benefit from them? Since LSM purposely cut themselves off from all outside helps, none of this "wisdom" was available to them or the LC's. I'll try to compose some posts for discussion.

[Cal]

I think LSM's "second principle" is a silly rationalization.

Different Christian groups have been (unfortunately) calling each other names forever. Cite one other that resorted to suing another over it. Imagine if the Catholic Church sued Protestants for calling it a whore. How would that look to the world. Silly and childish.

I think the real second principle includes a heart of forgiveness, but it also includes shaking the dust off one's feet and moving on. Let the court of public opinion decide. Didn't the Lord say it was by the foolishness of the preaching that people would be saved? In other words, the message itself is its own vindication--or not, if it happens to be false, which some of LSM's message is, which is why it doesn't resonate, which is why it is criticized, which is why they can't handle it and sue over it. Whiners.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

I think Witness Lee and his church sue because they have ego problems. He was an egomaniac and so are the current leaders which were trained by him. It is a psychological problem not a biblical one. Although cloaked in "spiritual" costume.

Apparently he was a bully and was accustomed to getting his own way. If someone did something he did not not like or drew a boundary he did not like he would react. Included in his collection of reactions were: public shaming and humiliation techniques, behind the scenes manipulations, quarantines, name calling, blame shifting, suing people etc.

His well learned students behave the same way and let it be made clear for any new people on this site who may not be aware: they sue "outsiders" and "insiders". And they sue for different reasons. E.g. alleged defamation, real estate, etc.

Can anybody imagine Jesus or the apostles suing Christians? I can't. And that is why it is essential to separate the hifalutin "god-talk" of Lee's church with what they actually do. Look at what they do not what they say. When it's all mixed together in one big blob it sounds so spiritual. But when you ask a concrete question: would the Triune God you talk so much about sue a believer for a piece of real estate: yes or no? Clarity will soon set in because the benchmark is not the empty god-talk of Lee's church but God Himself.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think LSM's "second principle" is a silly rationalization.

Here is LSM's justification for the "second principle:"

In Matthew 18:17, the Lord Jesus Himself anticipated that situations would arise between believers in which the principle of fellowship would be rejected by one of the parties: “If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile [unbeliever] and a tax collector” (NASB). This word implies that such a situation has deteriorated beyond the scriptural bounds of reconciliation through fellowship, necessitating a second principle, found in Acts 25:10-12 an account of Paul's “appeal to Caesar” (the ultimate civil authority of his time) when unlawful actions by unbelieving Jews threatened his ministry. In contrast to the case in 1 Corinthians 6, such an appeal was neither for personal gain nor to avoid mistreatment, but purely to defend and preserve the ministry entrusted to him by the Lord. The Lord vindicated Paul's use of the civil legal system for this purpose: it resulted in a period of peace for his ministry (Acts 28:30-31) and allowed him to write eight more New Testament Epistles.

The necessity of "appealing to Caesar" can be summarized as follows:

1. Matt 18 directives have not been successful
2. Thus Matt 18 instructs us to treat them as unbelievers
3. Unbeliever conflicts are settled in courts
4. Acts 25 provides an example of Paul's "appeal to Caesar"
5. This appeal must be "purely" on behalf of the ministry, with no incentive for personal gain nor to avoid mistreatment
6. The Lord blessed this endeavor with peace and more scriptures

The above concepts have almost become part of the "normal Christian faith" for LC'ers.

[kisstheson]

Amen, dear brothers. All of your posts have been very helpful.

Ohio - Wow! "Peacemaker Ministries". Has anyone introduced LSM/DCP to Peacemaker Ministries? I too would be interested to know what Peacemaker Ministries has to say about "the appeal to Caeser". "Blessed are the peacemakers . . ."

Igzy - Yes, a point well taken. "The real second principle includes the heart of forgiveness, but it also includes shaking the dust off one's feet and moving on. Let the court of public opinion decide." If believers absolutely can not be reconciled, then they should simply agree to disagree and go their separate ways in peace, not slandering or fighting against each other.

Djohnson - Amen. "But when you ask a concrete question: would the Triune God you talk so much about sue a believer for a piece of real estate: yes or no? Clarity will soon set in because the benchmark is not the empty god-talk of Lee's church but God Himself." Surely the pettiness and meanness of worldly lawsuits are contrary to the loving and long-suffering heart of our God.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here is LSM's justification for the "second principle:"
The necessity of "appealing to Caesar" can be summarized as follows:

1. Matt 18 directives have not been successful
2. Thus Matt 18 instructs us to treat them as unbelievers
3. Unbeliever conflicts are settled in courts
4. Acts 25 provides an example of Paul's "appeal to Caesar"
5. This appeal must be "purely" on behalf of the ministry, with no incentive for personal gain nor to avoid mistreatment
6. The Lord blessed this endeavor with peace and more scriptures

The above concepts have almost become part of the "normal Christian faith" for LC'ers.

Dear brother Ohio,

Thank you for laying out the steps in LSM's necessity of "appealing to Caesar". This is an excellent framework for going forward.

So, dear ones, what sayeth the Scriptures? Is LSM's logic fully according to the heart and mind of God as revealed in His Holy Word, or is there a "weak link" somewhere in LSM's chain of thought?

The first item in the list is, of course, the starting point for our discussion. Sadly, way too many times throughout Church History Matthew 18 directives have not been successful. The second item in the list is certainly true - if the Matthew 18 directives have not been successful, then Matt. 18:17b clearly states: "And if he refuses to hear the assembly also, let him be to you just like the Gentile and the tax collector." So, at least in their standing and position relative to ourselves, these unreconciled ones are now "just like the Gentile and the tax collector", which is to say, to us their position is just like that of an unbeliever.

It is in going from the second to the third item in the list that I see the first serious defect in LSM's train of thought. Yes, to us these unreconciled ones are now in a position just like that of unbelievers. And yes, unbelievers do, by and large, settle their conflicts in wordly law courts (better they use the law courts rather than settling conflicts with guns and knives!). But herein lies the rub: Simply because these unreconciled ones are "just like unbelievers" to us and simply because unbelievers do tend to use the worldly law courts, none of that gives us believers the right to act like unbelievers!! No! The life of Christ in us will never agree with that! The life of Christ in us would have us forgive seventy times seven times, would have us be quickly reconciled to our brother, would have us turn the other cheeck, would have us go the extra mile, would have us yield up our cloak to the one who sues us for our tunic, would have us give to all who ask of us, would have us love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, would have us be as perfect in love as our heavenly Father is perfect!!

[Ohio]

In Matthew 18:17, the Lord Jesus Himself anticipated that situations would arise between believers in which the principle of fellowship would be rejected by one of the parties: “If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile [unbeliever] and a tax collector” (NASB). This word implies that such a situation has deteriorated beyond the scriptural bounds of reconciliation through fellowship, necessitating a second principle, found in Acts 25:10-12 an account of Paul's “appeal to Caesar” ...

The question for me has not been Paul's action to "appeal to Caesar" in Jerusalem during the uproar, but what does the Lord mean here -- "let him be to you as a Gentile." What is the Lord implying by this? To me this was always ambiguous. What does it mean? Is there some Jewish principle that the disciples understood by this? I cannot think of any O.T. precedent where unresolved conflicts among the Jews were to go outside of Israel to the nations, can you?

Why would the Lord be instructing believers or the church to go outside of the fellowship of the church for relief. If this phrase remains open-ended with no clear scriptural guidelines, then ones like LSM can define it as they please. It seems to me that Paul's teaching in I Cor. 6 would negate any thought about the Lord's word "let him be to you as a Gentile," meaning to "sue him like the Gentiles do."

LSM explains away this apparent contradiction by saying that Matt 18 is only for private and personal disputes between brothers and sisters, while none of their lawsuits was personal. By their logic, it is OK to sue the church for meeting halls and furnitures because it is not an individual matter. Their second justification for lawsuits concerns protecting "the ministry" as Paul did.

The life of Christ in us will never agree with that! The life of Christ in us would have us forgive seventy times seven times, would have us be quickly reconciled to our brother, would have us turn the other cheeck, would have us go the extra mile, would have us yield up our cloak to the one who sues us for our tunic, would have us give to all who ask of us, would have us love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, would have us be as perfect in love as our heavenly Father is perfect!!

KissTheSon, I just read your post, and these scriptures here. LSM would agree with your comments, but would add that they don't apply to any of their lawsuits, because these scriptures are of a personal nature like I Cor 6.

.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Tell it to what church? The Lee church sues the authors of the HH book. Did they go to those bros' church and present their case? No. They went to themselves and their lawyers. It is a self referential system. "They measure themselves by themselves." What Paul warned against in 2nd Cor.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The question for me has not been Paul's action to "appeal to Caesar" in Jerusalem during the uproar, but what does the Lord mean here -- "let him be to you as a Gentile." What is the Lord implying by this? To me this was always ambiguous. What does it mean? Is there some Jewish principle that the disciples understood by this? I cannot think of any O.T. precedent where unresolved conflicts among the Jews were to go outside of Israel to the nations, can you?

KissTheSon, I just read your post, and these scriptures here. LSM would agree with your comments, but would add that they don't apply to any of their lawsuits, because these scriptures are of a personal nature like I Cor 6.

Dear brother Ohio,

Thank you for bringing up LSM's viewpoint. I really, really, want to get clear on this matter of "the second principle", so I am more than open to you pointing out any weak links in my own chain of thought. To everyone - don't worry about hurting my feelings! I really want to get clear on this matter, so fire away!

I have what I hope will prove to be a helpful insight for you, dear brother Ohio. You asked a question regarding what the Lord means when He says "let him be to you as a Gentile". I am always amazed at how "internally consistent" Matthew was in his choice of vocabulary when he composed his Gospel under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For example, when our Lord charges us in Matt. 6:20 to "lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven", what does He mean? How, practically speaking, do we "lay up for ourselves treasures in heaven"? The answer is not immediately obvious in Matt. 6:20. Praise God, Matthew uses very similar words in Matt. 19:21 when Jesus says to the rich young ruler: "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven". Now, thanks to Matt. 19:21, we have at least one practical way to "lay up treasure in heaven"!

I believe the same principle applies here. In Matt. 18:17 our Lord says "Let him be to you just like the Gentile and the tax collector." What does this mean? Interestingly, Matthew used these same two words "tax collector" and "Gentile" back in Matt. 5:46-47:

"For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what better thing are you doing? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?"

It would appear that our Lord defines "Gentiles" and "tax collectors" using the "lens" of love. Gentiles and tax collectors are those who love only those who will love them in return. They greet only those whom they are close to. There is no room in their hearts for a broader love, for a broader circle of fellowship. Sadly, our heavenly Father's heart of unlimited love can not be expressed through such small-hearted ones. I believe that at least a part of the Lord's exhortation to let a brother be to us "just like a Gentile" is to admit that our brother no longer has a heart of love towards us and to recognize that our brother no longer desires us to be in his circle of fellowship. As such, we do not harass our brother; rather, we simply let him be. Our only recourse is to forgive this one from our heart and to gather in love to pray for him, using our prayers to bind the unseen enemy who has bound the heart of our brother.

[IDon'tKnow]

First Corinthians 6:1-6 introduces the issue of lawsuits between believers. Rather than endorsing such behavior, Paul strongly rebuked a brother for taking a fellow believer to court over a personal offense. Instead of resolving the problem by way of fellowship, first individually with the offender and then, if needed, together with other believers, the offended party initiated a lawsuit. Thus the reason for the rebuke: the failure to first address the problem as brothers in the Lord, a violation of the principle of fellowship in Matthew 18.

A quote from the FAQ. It highlight's a trend which I notice with the ministry. Whether or not the parties involved attempted to fellowship over their problems in the principle of Mathew 18 is not covered in 1 Corinthians 6. What was covered was the fact that it is already a defeat to have lawsuits between one another, that it is better to be wronged, better to be defrauded. Which do you think is the more important principle here. That explicitly stated by Paul, or some kind of inference that this was only when not having gone through the proper fellowship, and in certain cases.

Which brings us to the question. If the thing your defending can actually be defended by bringing your brother in the Lord to a worldly law court and suing him for 136 million dollars, can that thing actually bare the testimony of a Man who said "But i say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. ..."?

It's a bit like if a pacifist defended his ideal by getting into a fist fight with whoever disagreed.

[IDon'tKnow]

By their logic, it is OK to sue the church for meeting halls and furnitures because it is not an individual matter.

Ohio
Has this been actually explicitly stated as the reason behind suing for meeting halls? If so well that's just sad.

[OBW]

Kisstehson said “It would appear that our Lord defines "Gentiles" and "tax collectors" using the "lens" of love. Gentiles and tax collectors are those who love only those who will love them in return. They greet only those whom they are close to. There is no room in their hearts for a broader love, for a broader circle of fellowship. Sadly, our heavenly Father's heart of unlimited love can not be expressed through such small-hearted ones. I believe that at least a part of the Lord's exhortation to let a brother be to us "just like a Gentile" is to admit that our brother no longer has a heart of love towards us and to recognize that our brother no longer desires us to be in his circle of fellowship. As such, we do not harass our brother; rather, we simply let him be. Our only recourse is to forgive this one from our heart and to gather in love to pray for him, using our prayers to bind the unseen enemy who has bound the heart of our brother.”

IDon’tKnow said “Which brings us to the question. If the thing your defending can actually be defended by bringing your brother in the Lord to worldly law court and suing him for 136 million dollars, can that thing actually bare the testimony of a Man who said "But i say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. ..."?

It's a bit like if a pacifist defended his ideal by getting into a fist fight with whoever disagreed.”

I find these analyses to be most insightful. When a person reverts to “Gentile” he/she is still your neighbor. I find the kind of lawsuits that the LSM and LCs have filed to be funny displays of love for those neighbors.

I also like the discussion of what church the LC “told” their complaint to, assuming that treating someone as a Gentile could actually allow them to despise and sue such persons. When a church is the “brother” that is making the charge against another brother, it is not morally able to make the determination of whether its charge is righteous and failure of the one(s) charged are in violation of their decree and therefore to be treated as Gentiles and tax collectors. So who did they tell?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by IDon'tKnow

Ohio
Has this been actually explicitly stated as the reason behind suing for meeting halls? If so well that's just sad.

Their web site listed above says this:

This word implies that such a situation has deteriorated beyond the scriptural bounds of reconciliation through fellowship, necessitating a second principle, found in Acts 25:10-12 an account of Paul's “appeal to Caesar” (the ultimate civil authority of his time) when unlawful actions by unbelieving Jews threatened his ministry. In contrast to the case in 1 Corinthians 6, such an appeal was neither for personal gain nor to avoid mistreatment, but purely to defend and preserve the ministry entrusted to him by the Lord.

Thus, in the mind of LSM and a typical LSMer, as long as the lawsuit is not an individual matter (i.e. brother against brother), and that they feel "the ministry" of WL might possibly suffer, then they feel fully justified to sue the elders and the churches for all the real estate.

In both U.S. cases (Mansfield and Columbus, Ohio), LSM won easily, even though they were the minority. In Toronto, however, which had the biggest jackpot of them all, the majority won and LSM lost, though they did all they could, even sending numerous key operatives into Toronto to influence the saints, and hold "training sessions." Do you think the Canadian courts got bothered by American interference?

[Norm]

Quote from Post #9 Instead of resolving the problem by way of fellowship, first individually with the offender and then, if needed, together with other believers, the offended party initiated a lawsuit. Thus the reason for the rebuke: the failure to first address the problem as brothers in the Lord, a violation of the principle of fellowship in Matthew 18.

The part in the quote in bold is exactly what those with the LSM-view did in Mansfield. When I tried to address this with Benson, he didn't want to hear it. So Benson, LSM, and the saints which initiated the lawsuit should bear the rebuke of Paul in First Corinthians 6:1-6.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Dear brother Ohio, Thank you for bringing up LSM's viewpoint. I really, really, want to get clear on this matter of "the second principle", so I am more than open to you pointing out any weak links in my own chain of thought. To everyone - don't worry about hurting my feelings! I really want to get clear on this matter, so fire away!

Brother KissTheSon, I actually remember one special gathering in Columbus, approx 30 years ago, when the leading brothers gave us "talking points" concerning why we were suing Thomas Nelson and Intervarsity Press. I can still visualize my hand-scribbled notes. The "fellowship" came from Anaheim, in order to properly "inoculate" us and those who might hear about the lawsuits and read I Cor 6. Many times afterwards these points were discussed to "refresh our vision."

Phil Comfort, who was a full timer, was heading up Ohio's court case (I think there was 4 or 5 total) in those days, so we had some insider info and many a prayer meeting focused on the suit. Btw, I'm still undecided about those court cases. We had several saints who were kidnapped and deprogrammed; I myself was also at risk, and the books stirred so much raw emotion in the wake of the Jonestown massacre.

Looking back, the saints in the LC's did suffer unnecessarily due to some of WL's more outrageous theologies. Hope implied that perhaps a more humble heart on WL's part could have averted much of the controversies.

Originally Posted by kisstheson

I have what I hope will prove to be a helpful insight for you, dear brother Ohio. You asked a question regarding what the Lord means when He says "let him be to you as a Gentile" ... Now, thanks to Matt. 19:21, we have at least one practical way to "lay up treasure in heaven"! I believe the same principle applies here. In Matt. 18:17 our Lord says "Let him be to you just like the Gentile and the tax collector." What does this mean? Interestingly, Matthew used these same two words "tax collector" and "Gentile" back in Matt. 5:46-47: ... Gentiles and tax collectors are those who love only those who will love them in return. ... I believe that at least a part of the Lord's exhortation to let a brother be to us "just like a Gentile" is to admit that our brother no longer has a heart of love towards us and to recognize that our brother no longer desires us to be in his circle of fellowship. As such, we do not harass our brother; rather, we simply let him be.

You make some good points here. Perhaps we need to examine all references to "Gentiles and tax collectors." I definitely think LSM needs some more scripture here to make the long jump from "treat him as a Gentile" to "sue him in court." It seems no one outside of the LSM LC's is buying this interpretation either, especially not for the Harvest House suit. As is usually the case, once exceptions are made for the most egregious of cases, the gates widen for every situation. Ask little Mansfield, OH about that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Norm

Quote from Post #9 Instead of resolving the problem by way of fellowship, first individually with the offender and then, if needed, together with other believers, the offended party initiated a lawsuit. Thus the reason for the rebuke: the failure to first address the problem as brothers in the Lord, a violation of the principle of fellowship in Matthew 18.

The part in the quote in bold is exactly what those with the LSM-view did in Mansfield. When I tried to address this with Benson, he didn't want to hear it. So Benson, LSM, and the saints which initiated the lawsuit should bear the rebuke of Paul in First Corinthians 6:1-6.

There are several reasons why LSM has absolved itself of any responsibility related to I Cor 6, so in some sense their conscience is "clean." I understand their thought process because I once held it too.

1. I Cor 6 and Matt 18 both involve personal matters between brothers
2. Matthew addresses offenses and Corinthians implies financial remedy
3. Hence, neither of these scriptures applies to them
4. Paul appealed to the law of the land and so did WL
5. Both Paul and WL were only "fighting for the truth"
6. Today LSM'ers are only copying what the "minister of the age" did

Of course, I no longer agree with this. There are too many loopholes and inconsistencies. It's kind of like getting drunk on whiskey because the Bible clearly tells us to "be not drunk with wine."

[IDon'tKnow]

In both U.S. cases (Mansfield and Columbus, Ohio), LSM won easily, even though they were the minority. In Toronto, however, which had the biggest jackpot of them all, the majority won and LSM lost, though they did all they could, even sending numerous key operatives into Toronto to influence the saints, and hold "training sessions." Do you think the Canadian courts got bothered by American interference?

Ohio

I thought that the LSM side lost the court case in Columbus? What is the story with the lawsuit in Toronto, I wasn't aware of one? Were there more lawsuits for church property? I remember that when I was still meeting I wasn't aware of the fact that lawsuits were in fact occurring in the midwest, (all I heard was that the faithful were being persecuted by the dissenting ones). Was I just oblivious or did LSM actively not want people to be aware of lawsuits in the midwest? How tangible is the link between the lawsuits and LSM? Is it predominantly circumstantial (Blended Brother's just happened to show up for fellowship right before the brothers filed suit) or concrete (LSM admits it or DCP helped finance the lawsuit)?

[IDon'tKnow]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There are several reasons why LSM has absolved itself of any responsibility related to I Cor 6, so in some sense their conscience is "clean." I understand their thought process because I once held it too.

1. I Cor 6 and Matt 18 both involve personal matters between brothers
2. Matthew addresses offenses and Corinthians implies financial remedy
3. Hence, neither of these scriptures applies to them
4. Paul appealed to the law of the land and so did WL
5. Both Paul and WL were only "fighting for the truth"
6. Today LSM'ers are only copying what the "minister of the age" did

Of course, I no longer agree with this. There are too many loopholes and inconsistencies. It's kind of like getting drunk on whiskey because the Bible clearly tells us to "be not drunk with wine."

I guess is this was one of my main problems with the ministry. Everything is so high, so spiritual, so divine and mystical. That is until we need to sue somebody, or ram our latest papal decree down everybodys' throats. We'll be faithful to the Word until it becomes inconvenient. Then we'll creatively reinterpret it to suit our current need.

[AndPeter]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In Toronto, however, which had the biggest jackpot of them all, the majority won and LSM lost, though they did all they could, even sending numerous key operatives into Toronto to influence the saints, and hold "training sessions." Do you think the Canadian courts got bothered by American interference?

Strictly speaking, there was no law suit in Toronto. LSM did, however, use key brothers within Toronto to try and stop the Mar 4/2007 Business Meeting. They asked the court for an injunction using a supposed loophole in the then current bylaws. Their application was turned down and it had the opposite effect of making the Mar 4/2007 Business Meeting court approved. In that meeting new bylaws were approved which changed the terms of the Directorship to 3 years, meaning they would have to wait 3 years before they had a chance of putting pro-LSM directors in. On April 1st, 2007 they published a letter of disassociation and have never been back to another meeting.

The fact of American interference was used in resisting the injunction by the church's lawyer. How much influence this had on the judge is hard to say. The success of an injunction according to Canadian law required them to convince the judge in a 3 step process. If memory serves me correctly they had to show irreparable damage as the first step. They never got past step 1 which is the easiest. Their case was weak. The other 2 steps are even higher hurdles to traverse.

Ohio is right in that they sent in many operatives to try and influence the Business Meeting. To this day many dear saints that disassociated themselves are fed the line that we resisted LSMs onslaught through lies and cheating. The Lord, however, knows our conscience is very clear about this matter.

My prayer is that one day they will all wake up and that we can once again enjoy sweet fellowship again without the LSM elephant being in the room.

Steve

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by AndPeter

Strictly speaking, there was no law suit in Toronto ... ... My prayer is that one day they will all wake up and that we can once again enjoy sweet fellowship again without the LSM elephant being in the room.

Steve

AndPeter, thanks for the clarification.

Let me venture to say that, to a great majority of people -- once the lawyers were contacted and the court was asked to act -- that the church had, in effect, been sued in court. Strictly speaking, as you have correctly stated, this is not the case, and there was no official lawsuit. I also think that LSM has conveniently used this little legal technicality in their favor over the years. And ...

What a glorious day that will be when all the lies get exposed, and the saints are once again restored to sweet fellowship!

Originally Posted by IDon'tKnow

I thought that the LSM side lost the court case in Columbus?

IDon'tKnow, this is not true. LSM backed saints in Columbus brought civil action against the church and its eldership, and whether this became an "official" lawsuit or not is another matter. You probably need a lawyer to answer that question!

The elders, after incurring enormous defense counsel fees, and seeing litigation as detrimental to their congregation, decided not to resist the legal action, and to turn over their church property and "naming rights" to the LSM sponsored minority. They are now Columbus Christian Assembly meeting in a public school. Google the name, and take a look at their website.

If you are interested, the Bereans forum has several lengthy threads which roughly chronicle the sad events in Mansfield, Columbus, and Toronto.

[aron]

Originally Posted by AndPeter

My prayer is that one day they will all wake up and that we can once again enjoy sweet fellowship again without the LSM elephant being in the room.

Question: How "local" is a local assembly if they are getting directions/directives/suggestions/interference from a non-local source? I know the LSM operatives would call this "fellowship" but fellowship must be two-way, no? It should be a process of mutual exploration and discovery.

Any idea that the LSM was merely a publishing house for the local assemblies of saints seems to be overturned by this type of experience.

I still like the idea of local assemblies of believers. But the history of interference and control with this group is glaring. The appeal to "Caesar" was just the next step when intimidation failed.

It seems strange that we as believers would try to control one another. :frown:

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by IDon'tKnow

I remember that when I was still meeting I wasn't aware of the fact that lawsuits were in fact occurring in the midwest, (all I heard was that the faithful were being persecuted by the dissenting ones). Was I just oblivious or did LSM actively not want people to be aware of lawsuits in the midwest?

This is ridiculous, but this is what they mean: In Columbus, while they were actually meeting on the Lord's day, the LSM sponsored saints would protest that HWFMR material was not being used, and would begin to moan and audibly disrupt the meeting fellowship with "Ohhh Lahhhhd" groans. They sounded as if they were in much agony, and interpreted this as "persecution." You be the judge!

Originally Posted by IDon'tKnow

How tangible is the link between the lawsuits and LSM? Is it predominantly circumstantial (Blended Brother's just happened to show up for fellowship right before the brothers filed suit) or concrete (LSM admits it or DCP helped finance the lawsuit)?

In Mansfield, for example, Benson Philips, LSM president, was directly conferring with saints to undermine the eldership and plan strategies for pending legal actions.

In Toronto, for example, the LSM sponsored elders (2 of the nine) were sending email messages to LSM's legal team -- DCP -- during a break in the Toronto directors' business meeting! Can you believe that? LSM had infiltrated the church in Toronto at the highest levels.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by Ohio

1. I Cor 6 and Matt 18 both involve personal matters between brothers
2. Matthew addresses offenses and Corinthians implies financial remedy
3. Hence, neither of these scriptures applies to them
4. Paul appealed to the law of the land and so did WL
5. Both Paul and WL were only "fighting for the truth"
6. Today LSM'ers are only copying what the "minister of the age" did

Of course, I no longer agree with this. There are too many loopholes and inconsistencies. It's kind of like getting drunk on whiskey because the Bible clearly tells us to "be not drunk with wine."

Dear ones,

A few random thoughts after all the fellowship thus far:

1. I do like this updated framework from dear brother Ohio. It is a good summary of LSM's position and should allow us to move forward in our critique. (I also appreciate the little nugget of humor there at the end!)
2. I am currently seriously rethinking "the first principle", i.e. I believe much more is required to attempt to reconcile than a mere outward following of Matthew 18:15-17.
3. I now question LSM's track record regarding how diligently they applied "the first principle" before their "appeals to Caeser". This appears to be another area where some serious repentance is called for on their part.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

The twisting of Scriptures by Lee's church is most evident in these kind of things. The idea that they compare Lee to Paul is just silly. But to stretch that further into them suing Christians = a Pauline appeal to Caesar is outright ridiculous. They conveniently yank the verses out of direct literary context and the historical-social context to justify their unseemly and childish behavior. And this behavior makes light of and cheapens what Paul really did suffer i.e. going to jail and eventually being martyred for the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So on the one had we have the suers seeking real estate and loads of money in their lawsuits against Christians and on the other hand you have an imprisoned genuine apostle who eventually lost his life. I wonder which is more well-pleasing to the Lord? I think we all know the answer!

[IDon'tKnow]

On the matter of fellowship with Harvest House before filing-suit.

Harvest House gives their account of events here

http://www.harvesthousepublishers.co...reconciliation

LSM gives their's here

http://www.contendingforthefaith.com/libel-litigations/harvest-house-et-al/responses/History/ProtestHistory.htm

Which also seems to contain links to all the letter's sent by LSM to Harvest House.

Harvest House's feeling seems to be that LSM only gave them scattered letters which they promptly answered and that LSM only gave them a list of their specific complaints about a month before their deadline to give in to thier requests.

LSM for thier part state that they tried to have face to face fellowship with the authors and harvest house and this was continually rebuffed.

Here is a statement of why they did not start out with specific issues with the book in question.

To have initiated fellowship with a long list of criticisms or demands would have immediately put the interaction on an adversarial basis and been counterproductive to the desire to engage in Christian fellowship. Nevertheless, the letter did make it clear that the objections to the book included both the contents of "The Local Church" chapter and the inclusion of the local churches and LSM in a book full of accusations of deviant practices:

This seems somewhat disingenuous seeing as in the words of Harvest House's faq

In a clear reference to a previous lawsuit filed by some Local Churches, they closed their letter with these words: “We hope you know that this kind of writing has been ruled as libelous concerning us in the past.”

Harvest house seems to have wanted to put off meeting with LSM until getting a list of specific problems so that they would know what they would be getting into. Given that LSM was threatening lgeal action this seems somewhat prudent.

Also it seems somewhat suspicious that they would leave it so close to the date that the statute of limitations runs out for them to state thier specific problems. Also here is a quote from the letter at http://www.contendingforthefaith.com...s/pd08-01.html

Other passages in the book falsely suggest that Local Church leaders practice “shamanism,” speak through “demons,” and encourage believers to communicate directly with “devils.”

From reading the introduction and the chapter on the local church on the bereans forum these claims are blatantly false unless thier is some other area of the book which refers to the Local Church.

[IDon'tKnow]

Also I remember hearing that one of the justifications for suing Harvest House was that the chinese government was using the harvest house book to justify persecuting saints in China. Is there any truth to this?

[aron]

Originally Posted by kisstheson

...I am currently seriously rethinking "the first principle", i.e. I believe much more is required to attempt to reconcile than a mere outward following of Matthew 18:15-17.

I now question LSM's track record regarding how diligently they applied "the first principle" before their "appeals to Caeser".

I agree; it also reminds me of the classic passage in Matthew chapter 5, where Jesus says that if you are bringing a gift to the altar, and remember that you have something against your brother, then first put down your gift, go and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer the gift.

The LSM way includes leaving a lot of unreconciled christians in their wake, with no thought of putting down the gift and going back. In fact, in my time there, I remember a strong "us and them" theme pervading the ministry, and this is probably what occasionally broke out in the various never-to-be reconciled "wars" with other christians (I am including the many so-called "rebellions" from within in this repeated cycle of unresolved antagonisms). Harvest House is merely one of many cases. In the Harvest H case, the appeal to Caesar merely is a way to drive the yawning gulf between christians still further, and ensure no reconciliation is ever gained.

How can you bring gifts to the altar, when you have so many unreconciled christian brothers and sisters? I don't understand it. What stories must you tell yourself in order to think that God will accept your gift?

[UntoHim]

Facts to keep in mind regarding “appealing to Caesar”

The only record in the Bible of a Christian appealing to Caesar was made by the apostle Paul, who never authorized, much less recommended, that his followers/readers appeal to the civil courts of law to settle disputes of any kind. He never set himself up as an example for us in this regard. Of course the original example was set by the Lord Jesus himself, who has been “defamed” more then anybody in the history of mankind, and set the ultimate example of just how God’s people should react when anybody speaks anything against them, or even against their cherished religious ideals or principles.

No well-known or reputable Christian teacher, theologian or scholar has ever taught that the apostle Paul’s appeal to Caesar was to serve as a model or precedent for any Christian, Christian church or ministry to take legal action against another Christian, Christian church or ministry. The very thought of such a thing has been abhorrent to the great majority of Christian people in all the recorded history of the Church.

It is biblical, moral and ethical for Christian teachers, theologians, apologists, and even ex-members, to expose the false teachings, cultic practices and sordid history of any wayward group, and they should be able to do so without fear of being sued in the civil courts of law.

According to the folks at Harvest House Publishers, the Local Church threatened legal action against them (if they didn't pull ECNR from publication) right from day one. Those of us who have a lot of experience, both in and out, with the Local Church/LSM would recognize this familiar method of intimidation – it’s a Witness Lee trademark. The man couldn’t have spelled “Christian mediation” if you spotted him all the consonants and then threw in the a and the i for good measure. Also, in true Local Church fashion, they played the “can’t you read our mind” game for months and months (almost a year), leaving the people at HH somewhat mystified why this obscure little group was making such a fuss over a few paragraphs buried in a 700+ page book.

The fact that Witness Lee was not misquoted, nor were the basic teachings misrepresented, didn’t stop the Local Churchers from skipping that ever-so-inconvenient drudgery of “going to your brother” – Nope, they went straight from total silence right to passing go and trying to cash in on the $136 million dollar insurance pot of gold. Luckily for HH (and for the rights of all Christian publishers) all the Local Church found at the end of the rainbow was a rather rude “you’re kidding, right?” from the US Supreme Court and a big, fat $10 million dollar + bill from their Vegas/Hollywood-defending landshark attorneys.

And the moral of the story? Gosh, it’s always so hard to figure this out when it comes to matters and events surrounding the life and times of Witness Lee and the religion he invented. And the sad but expected “we still feel from the Lord it was the right thing to do” from Dan Towle et al doesn’t help things along either. But, unlike the numerous other attempts to silence Christian apologists and critics, this time LC members, ex members, the general public and even Caeser himself get to find out where that awful smell of rotting fish is coming from…. 2431 West La Palma Ave. Anaheim, CA. 92801
-

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

As UntoHim has pointed out the egomaniacs of Lee's church use the threat of lawsuits and actual suing as a bullying tactic to get their own way. "Give us what we want or we will sue you." That's their idea of applying Matt 18 i.e. go to your brother and threaten to sue him and it he doesn't cave in to your bullying go ahead and sue him because obviously he's a gentile and deserves it. Thankfully HH did not cave in to these tactics and stood their ground.

I'm sure LSM has had quite an interesting time explaining to the money people who funded their lawsuit why they lost i.e. flushing all the legal fee money down the drain.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by AndPeter

My prayer is that one day they will all wake up and that we can once again enjoy sweet fellowship again without the LSM elephant being in the room.

Amen! Steve, I'm sure there are many who echo your sentiment.

Terry