Walter Martin

[TLFisher]

Having never heard Walter Martin speak before, I came across a YouTube audio. Raised in the local church, Walter was always characterized negatively. I found Walter Martin's speaking to be succinct in addressing LC orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=830hmhL-w6A

On another note that Walter Martin brought out that's a LSM trend is not responding. Since Living Stream Ministry has developed a trait of not responding to anything, it's apparent the only course anyone would want to get a response is via a lawsuit. For fellow believers, that should never be a recourse.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Terry

Having never heard Walter Martin speak before, I came across a YouTube audio. Raised in the local church, Walter was always characterized negatively. I found Walter Martin's speaking to be succinct in addressing LC orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=830hmhL-w6A

On another note that Walter Martin brought out that's a LSM trend is not responding. Since Living Stream Ministry has developed a trait of not responding to anything, it's apparent the only course anyone would want to get a response is via a lawsuit. For fellow believers, that should never be a recourse.

Thanks Terry for posting this. I listened to the entire message. The speaker's closing words were something like "the members of the local church should stop listening to Wiltness Lee and start listening to the witness of the Spirit which is the word of God". Did the fellow who wrote We Were Wrong inherit Walter Martin's apologetic ministry?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

Did the fellow who wrote We Were Wrong inherit Walter Martin's apologetic ministry?

As I understand, after Walter Martin passed his children were divided over who should lead CRI. One was in favor of Hank Hannegraf. His other child(ren) were indifferent or not in favor.

[Freedom]

A few comments... It is significant that Walter Martin starts off by saying that he's not out to 'attack' WL or the LC. He indicates that some from the LC may have been in the audience. With that in mind, there should have been a willingness on the part of the LC to listen to what he had to say and to attempt to understand why he was concerned. Of course, knowing the LC, anyone there attending that meeting were there as 'spies'. They weren't there because they wanted to resolve anything, they were there to see what the other side was up to.

There is a big difference between the real Walter Martin and the straw-man Walter Martin that the LC has constructed. I wasn't around in the 70's when all this was going on, so I never even had the chance to hear the items of concern that the CRI had. I only hear the narrative about Walter Martin having a vendetta against the LC.

What I can collect from the recording is that Walter Martin was concerned about the elitist and divisive attitude of those in the LC, as well as the obvious theological issues of what WL was teaching. I know that the LC did offer some written responses to various criticism, but from a historical perspective, the criticism has largely been written off as something that was completely unwarranted and done with ill-intentions. There was never the heart to get to the bottom of matters. Much of the 'defense' of WL's teachings that I have seen just involves word games and ad hominem attacks.

Walter Martin provided plenty of WL quotes throughout the recording, and that to me demonstrates that the research effort was in no way an attempt to purposely misunderstand what WL taught. The notion that he was purposely misunderstanding WL should be outright rejected. Certain things that WL spoke can really be understood one way. When WL stated that "Christendom has become an organism of Satan", he wholeheartedly meant exactly what he said. Lee's view towards other Christians was nothing less than that of a bigot. Yet instead of owning up to this and repenting of such behaviors and attitudes, WL insisted on suggesting that his critics had ill-motives.

Finally, Walter Martin mentions meeting WL in person to discuss his concerns directly. WL asked to record the conversation, and Walter Martin requested that a copy of the recording be provided to him. WL never did so, later claiming some petty 'offense' as the reason. To me this pattern of behavior is one that can be seen time and time again in the LC (especially when those in the LC brought certain matters to WL's attention). That pattern is the initial pretense of being 'open' for fellowship, only to later close the door with little to no explanation. I think that WL made a pretense of willingness to work things out, in order to get people to let their guards down. After people assumed that he was at least willing to address concerns regarding his teachings, he would then give some arbitrary reason for not going forward with things.

[TLFisher]

I heard of Walter Martin when I was a teenager. My serving brother at the time characterized Walter Martin as one "attacking" the recovery. Listening to Walter Martin, there's no attacking. Just a concerned brother. More likely LC brothers feel attacked because they're under scrutiny as if they're under the microscope. It could be the definition LSM has for attack is what most people consider scrutiny.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

I heard of Walter Martin when I was a teenager. My serving brother at the time characterized Walter Martin as one "attacking" the recovery. Listening to Walter Martin, there's no attacking. Just a concerned brother. More likely LC brothers feel attacked because they're under scrutiny as if they're under the microscope. It could be the definition LSM has for attack is what most people consider scrutiny.

It is highly convenient for those in the LC to label any kind of criticism as an ‘attack’. It keeps them from having to address the real issues at hand, and it also leads unsuspecting members to believe that all such criticism is unfounded and not worth anyone's time to address.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It is highly convenient for those in the LC to label any kind of criticism as an ‘attack’. It keeps them from having to address the real issues at hand, and it also leads unsuspecting members to believe that all such criticism is unfounded and not worth anyone's time to address.

Most criticism of the LC is not unfounded. It's also convenient to employ double-standards. Any criticism is an attack, but it's totally permissible and as I have witnessed in many a LC prophesying meeting it is applauded with a chorus of amens to criticize non-LSM Christianity.
Perhaps, if there was some transparency and dialog over concerns there wouldn't be nearly as much criticisms.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It is highly convenient for those in the LC to label any kind of criticism as an ‘attack’. It keeps them from having to address the real issues at hand, and it also leads unsuspecting members to believe that all such criticism is unfounded and not worth anyone's time to address.

For years I heard stories of how Nee was constantly persecuted. Then I heard the other side of the story.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For years I heard stories of how Nee was constantly persecuted. Then I heard the other side of the story.

Most people realize that there are two sides to every story, but in the LC, everyone gives the system and leaders the benefit of the doubt.

There are a few comments that I noticed posted on the youtube video and of course the comments are completely dismissive of there being any reason to be concerned about the LC. The only goal is to blindly defend Lee.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Most criticism of the LC is not unfounded. It's also convenient to employ double-standards. Any criticism is an attack, but it's totally permissible and as I have witnessed in many a LC prophesying meeting it is applauded with a chorus of amens to criticize non-LSM Christianity.
Perhaps, if there was some transparency and dialog over concerns there wouldn't be nearly as much criticisms.

The double standard is terrible! If Christians spoke of the LC the way that WL spoke of Christians, those in the LC would have a fit.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The double standard is terrible! If Christians spoke of the LC the way that WL spoke of Christians, those in the LC would have a fit.

That's because Lee was just being "honest," and the rest of God's people are being "rebellious."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's because Lee was just being "honest," and the rest of God's people are being "rebellious."

Once one takes a step back from the LC, it becomes quickly apparent the amount of sheer arrogance that exists. It is sad really, and it was hard for me to admit, even though I knew it to be true for a long time.

This arrogance is exactly what has concerned outsiders since the inception of the LC in the U.S. Outsiders who express concern about the LC are not adopting a "holier than thou" attitude. They don't want to see members fall into the trap of pride. Being a Christian is about humbling oneself as a child (Matt 18:3-4). It's not about claiming to be someone special or seeing the "high peak of the divine revelation". Those who make such claims are blind. They have never looked in a mirror.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

Did the fellow who wrote We Were Wrong inherit Walter Martin's apologetic ministry?

The 2015 Charity Navigator rating site gave the CRI a 63% on transparency, and overall a pretty low score, if you compare it to similar ministries. The fellow who inherited Walter Martin's apologetic ministry made about $80,000 as CEO, and his wife made $142,000 as Director of Planning. And the staffers who actually did the work, made peanuts.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...ary&orgid=5077

Plus, apparently this job gets mucho perks, like a fat housing allowance, two cars leased for personal use, country club membership etc. Rip-off central.

http://www.waltermartin.com/cri.html

So why would this fellow, who looks like everything LSM decries about "fallen Christianity", be their chief flag-waver? Because he's their only flag-waver, that's why. They'll take whatever they can get; times are lean in the apologetics and orthodoxy field for LSM. Think about it this way: the ministry that supposedly doesn't care about right and wrong, suddenly loves that someone else said that they were wrong, and that WL was right. How the worm has turned.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

The 2015 Charity Navigator rating site gave the CRI a 63% on transparency, and overall a pretty low score, if you compare it to similar ministries. The fellow who inherited Walter Martin's apologetic ministry made about $80,000 as CEO, and his wife made $142,000 as Director of Planning. And the staffers who actually did the work, made peanuts.

Still fares better than Bibles for America with a transparency score of 32.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

The 2015 Charity Navigator rating site gave the CRI a 63% on transparency, and overall a pretty low score, if you compare it to similar ministries. The fellow who inherited Walter Martin's apologetic ministry made about $80,000 as CEO, and his wife made $142,000 as Director of Planning. And the staffers who actually did the work, made peanuts.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...ary&orgid=5077

Plus, apparently this job gets mucho perks, like a fat housing allowance, two cars leased for personal use, country club membership etc. Rip-off central.

http://www.waltermartin.com/cri.html

So why would this fellow, who looks like everything LSM decries about "fallen Christianity", be their chief flag-waver? Because he's their only flag-waver, that's why. They'll take whatever they can get; times are lean in the apologetics and orthodoxy field for LSM. Think about it this way: the ministry that supposedly doesn't care about right and wrong, suddenly loves that someone else said that they were wrong, and that WL was right. How the worm has turned.

Hank is just like LC leaders when it comes to basic Christian conduct. He also believes that it's perfectly okay to take another Christian to court and sue for defamation.

The sheer irony of it all is what gets me. Hank is on of the ones who provided an 'affirmation' of the LC's use of lawsuits. He obviously wouldn't have any issue with lawsuits if he was willing to initiate his own. I wish I had known this when the CRI journal was published. This is what the LC doesn't disclose about their flag-wavers.

At least others have the sense to withhold any endorsement of the LC. The voices of 70+ scholars are louder and clearer than a man in charge of the CRI who has a sketchy track record.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Still fares better than Bibles for America with a transparency score of 32.

I think it’s fair to say that LC affiliated organizations regard accountability as an afterthought. In their minds, everything being done is part of “the Lord’s move”, and thus, the end justifies the means. Anyone within the LC attempting to demand accountability might be considered to be ‘negative’.

On youtube, there is the video of Sal Benoit demanding accountability from WL regarding Daystar. WL tells him that it’s none of his business. In some comments posted by LCers, Sal’s ‘motives’ are questioned and they even go so far to claim that he was “setting WL up”. My question for them is regardless of Sal’s motives, why is there any reason to avoid answering questions? Why hide anything? If there is nothing to hide, then take the oppurtunity to clear things up for crying out loud.

When I recently visited the DCP website, I noticed that they haven’t published any new writings since 2014. Surely they are receiving donations, have an office and employees, but no one really knows what they are up to (Last that I heard the were sending Chris Wilde to an Evangelical Theological Society conference). I’m sure certain LC’s continue to donate to the DCP without regard for what they are or aren’t doing.

Christian organizations must set transparency as a goal, not think that because they are a Christian organization, that the public can assume that they have the best intentions. Whether it is the CRI or BFA, there is nothing to hide. These low scores indicate that each organization should be willing to become more accountable and transparent. A refusal to do so warrants further investigation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The 2015 Charity Navigator rating site gave the CRI a 63% on transparency, and overall a pretty low score, if you compare it to similar ministries. The fellow who inherited Walter Martin's apologetic ministry made about $80,000 as CEO, and his wife made $142,000 as Director of Planning. And the staffers who actually did the work, made peanuts.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...ary&orgid=5077

Plus, apparently this job gets mucho perks, like a fat housing allowance, two cars leased for personal use, country club membership etc. Rip-off central.

http://www.waltermartin.com/cri.html

So why would this fellow, who looks like everything LSM decries about "fallen Christianity", be their chief flag-waver? Because he's their only flag-waver, that's why. They'll take whatever they can get; times are lean in the apologetics and orthodoxy field for LSM. Think about it this way: the ministry that supposedly doesn't care about right and wrong, suddenly loves that someone else said that they were wrong, and that WL was right. How the worm has turned.

A former CRI staffer came on this forum and talked about some of the corruption, and then abruptly left. It should be the thread about CRI's endorsement of LSM

[Cal]

I think the CRI's assessment of the LC's theology matches that of many here. That is, though the LC is unusual in it's views, it is not monstrously heretical.

The problem with the CRI's report is that it said nothing about the social aspect of the LC culture. Everything was straight theology. There was no commentary on the excommunications, purgings of dissenters, quarantines, guttings of churches, public denunciations of individuals, isolation of members, excessive pressure and control from leaders, etc. None of that was investigated. No former members were consulted.

That's like reviewing a new car and just reading the specs on the engine but not bothering to drive it to find if it actually works. And it is very misleading.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think the CRI's assessment of the LC's theology matches that of many here. That is, though the LC is unusual in it's views, it is not monstrously heretical.

The problem with the CRI's report is that it said nothing about the social aspect of the LC culture. Everything was straight theology. There was no commentary on the excommunications, purgings of dissenters, quarantines, guttings of churches, public denunciations of individuals, isolation of members, excessive pressure and control from leaders, etc. None of that was investigated. No former members were consulted.

That's like reviewing a new car and just reading the specs on the engine but not bothering to drive it to find if it actually works. And it is very misleading.

True. If you listen to Walter Martin's message. He attributes the research of Bob and Gretchen Passantino and the Mindbenders book which touches on the social aspect of the LC culture which is scrutinized. It's as if when CRI came out with "We were wrong" publication it's as if there's a predetermined agreement to address on the orthodoxy of the church, but not the practices.
-

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

A former CRI staffer came on this forum and talked about some of the corruption, and then abruptly left. It should be the thread about CRI's endorsement of LSM

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem with the CRI's report is that it said nothing about the social aspect of the LC culture. Everything was straight theology. There was no commentary on the excommunications, purgings of dissenters, quarantines, guttings of churches, public denunciations of individuals, isolation of members, excessive pressure and control from leaders, etc. ...it is very misleading.

CRI and LSM, though seemingly strange bedfellows, are in some ways oddly matched. Both have had decades of repeated un-Christian behaviors, which marked them by unaccountability, lack of transparency, a know-it-all attitude, and a long trail of broken relationships and embittered former associates who were used up and cast aside.

There are clearly differences, however: CRI is middle-of-the-road theologically, which is their mandate. Novelty is obviously not what they're about. On the other hand, Witness Lee decried the middle of the road as "poor Christianity" which was "dead", "dormant", "fallen", "devilish", "satanic" and so forth, and he continually put forth theological novelty; LSM always deliberately dangled at the precipice of heterodoxy.

And compared to LSM, the CRI leadership is blatantly money-grubbing; their "ministry" is little more than a cash grab, a vehicle for their CEO and upper echelon to live the soft life. Whether or not LSM leadership were or are lovers of filthy lucre, it's at least not so obvious to the casual viewer as it is with CRI.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem with the CRI's report is that it said nothing about the social aspect of the LC culture. Everything was straight theology. There was no commentary on the excommunications, purging of dissenters, quarantines, gutting of churches, public denunciations of individuals, isolation of members, excessive pressure and control from leaders, etc. None of that was investigated. No former members were consulted.

That's like reviewing a new car and just reading the specs on the engine but not bothering to drive it to find if it actually works. And it is very misleading.

Here is a quote by UntoHim, on another thread:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually Dr. Martin, and other apologists and critics, could only look at what they could see - which at the time were the writings in the form of books, booklets and tracts etc. Obviously many people were also aware of the Local Church's aggressive attitude and behavior towards other Christian groups. Not many people were aware of, much less able to directly observe, so many of the aberrational teachings and practices that took place behind the closed doors of the LC meeting halls.

Around this time (circa 1978) the LC released a booklet entitled "Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches". Much of what was presented in this booklet was a highly sanitized version of what was commonly taught and practiced in the movement. For example, under the Q & A section one of the posed questions was "Who is your leader?". The answer given: "Our unique leader is Christ. We have no official, permanent, organized human leadership. Furthermore, there is no hierarchy of any kind and no worldwide leader. We regard no person as infallible, and we do not follow anyone blindly."

Not many years later...."even if Witness Lee is wrong he is right!" and bold claims from church leaders that entire churches "owed their existence to Witness Lee" and that Lee was an apostle of the first order, just like the apostle Paul. Even worse things were said.

Look at the two-faced speaking: "We have no official, permanent, organized human leadership." This was the official statement, to the examining outside world. Yet everything, and I mean everything, coming from this group said the opposite. In order to survive in the LC of Lee, one needed to know who was connected to whom, all the way back to the Man Himself. And this kind of social arrangement clearly traces back to Nee: "Whenever two Christians are in a room, one of them should recognize the authority of the other." The culturally-derived framework for understanding this religious organization necessitated an explicitly defined and rigidly adhered-to hierarchy. And it usually became most explicit when the Chinese, who instinctively "got it", were explaining how things worked to clueless LC Caucasians (but not to the press or the CRI - you had to be "sold out" first).

Anyone that apparently threatened this rigid and explicitly defined hierarchy was instantly labeled as "being independent", "divisive", "negative" or "rebellious" if coming from within, or being an "attack" if from without. We even heard statements like, "After the Trinity, Witness Lee is Number Four." This was said with the utmost seriousness and conviction, as if the viability of their orientally-flavored social cohesion depended upon the ability to make such statements. "Witness Lee has the ministry of the age" ultimately became the group's central organizing principle. To say that CRI got a highly sanitized version of LC teachings could be understatement of the year.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

[Watchman Nee's culturally-derived framework for understanding the dynamics of social cohesion] necessitated an explicitly defined and rigidly adhered-to hierarchy. And it usually became most explicit when the Chinese, who instinctively "got it", were explaining how things worked to clueless LC Caucasians (but not to the press or the CRI - you had to be "sold out" first). . .

I've repeatedly noted the role that culture, in this case oriental culture, played in shaping social dynamics and organizational structure in the LC of Nee and Lee. It's important here to mention what I'm not doing: I'm not saying that oriental culture is somehow deficient to Western. Rather, I'm saying that pretending that we've somehow gotten past "fallen human culture" doesn't work. That presumption simply gives it free reign.

"There is no elephant in the room!"

"So what's crushing all the furniture?"

"I don't know, I don't know! Maybe, a storm? A rebellion? Ambition?"

And I'm not saying that there should be no culture, today. I'm saying that when someone's following the Bible as interpreted by the cultural matrix of early 20th century Chinese Protestants, all the while saying that they're following "the Bible alone" and "the pure Word" is engaged in an exercise of willful self-delusion.

[aron]

Even discounting fallen human culture, it's hard to imagine living with the disconnect of telling outsiders like the press and cultwatchers,

"Our unique leader is Christ. We have no official, permanent, organized human leadership. Furthermore, there is no hierarchy of any kind and no worldwide leader. We regard no person as infallible, and we do not follow anyone blindly."

while telling insiders

"Even when Witness Lee is wrong, he's right; to question God's Deputy is the evil sin of rebellion; Witness Lee is Number Four after the Trinity; we owe him our lives; we do what we are told; there is only one trumpet" etc etc

How can there not be some jarring disconnect within? It's hard to imagine simultaneously holding both statements. Well, mea culpa I was in this group myself, but the disconnect between what I heard in LC meetings and the real world outside the pews became so glaring that I left.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

How can there not be some jarring disconnect within? It's hard to imagine simultaneously holding both statements. Well, mea culpa I was in this group myself, but the disconnect between what I heard in LC meetings and the real world outside the pews became so glaring that I left.

I personally never witnessed Lee's "jarring disconnect." I received a sanitized 2nd or 3rd hand account of him.

This is why I have continually said that the leaders bear the brunt of responsibility. They knew better. They deceived us.

Were it not for the quarantine which forced me to research our history, I might not know anything was amiss at LSM.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have continually said that the leaders bear the brunt of responsibility.

Agreed. I think of senior co-workers like RG, who knew full well the official replies to the cult watchers, even while he was telling local and regional elders and leading ones, "We must be one with the office" (i.e. PL) and "We do what we are told" (e.g. to BM).

What kind of thinking can absorb such disconnect? It's nearly unfathomable. Yet we're all disconnected, in God's eyes. Only Jesus made it through unscathed by disconnect. Yet He was bruised for our disconnection, our sin. Therefore the rest of us should suspend judgment, and humble ourselves, and ask for God's mercy.

Lord Jesus, have mercy on us all. Amen.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Were it not for the quarantine which forced me to research our history, I might not know anything was amiss at LSM.

Thank God for the First Amendment, and for faithful ones like Indiana, who made it his business to get the hidden history. Otherwise we'd be like the CRI, looking at the official statements and saying, "What's the problem?", while unaware of people and their testimonies, who'd been buried by the ministry propaganda machine.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Agreed. I think of senior co-workers like RG, who knew full well the official replies to the cult watchers, even while he was telling local and regional elders and leading ones, "We must be one with the office" (i.e. PL) and "We do what we are told" (e.g. to BM).

Thank God for the First Amendment, and for faithful ones like Indiana, who made it his business to get the hidden history. Otherwise we'd be like the CRI, looking at the official statements and saying, "What's the problem?", while unaware of people and their testimonies, who'd been buried by the ministry propaganda machine.

Speaking of Indiana, my opinion is the elders and coworkers motivated Indiana to write. More the Seattle elders refused to communicate with Indiana led Indiana to investigate, research, and subsequently write. More localities in partiality refuse to accept him, more they inspire and motivate Indiana to write.

As for senior coworkers, those who have seen the movie Absolute Power my analogy is senior coworkers are represented by the two secret service men in the movie. Whether the president in the film is right or wrong, the secret service follow him absolutely.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is why I have continually said that the leaders bear the brunt of responsibility. They knew better. They deceived us.

Were it not for the quarantine which forced me to research our history, I might not know anything was amiss at LSM.

I agree Ohio. It lies with elders, coworkers, etc. I have long considered many elders themselves were deceived without ever knowing it. Accepting allegations without any fact-finding led them into the position they could be wrong.
Quarantines were just the beginning. How much more is there? If the accounts of Larry Chi are fact-based, we're sitting on the tip of the iceberg. Talking about Daystar, Linko, quaratnines, etc is only the tip. There might be something substantiating more than just feeling why I never had peace to give to LSM.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Agreed. I think of senior co-workers like RG, who knew full well the official replies to the cult watchers, even while he was telling local and regional elders and leading ones, "We must be one with the office" (i.e. PL) and "We do what we are told" (e.g. to BM).

What kind of thinking can absorb such disconnect? It's nearly unfathomable. Yet we're all disconnected, in God's eyes. Only Jesus made it through unscathed by disconnect. Yet He was bruised for our disconnection, our sin. Therefore the rest of us should suspend judgment, and humble ourselves, and ask for God's mercy.

Lord Jesus, have mercy on us all. Amen.

Thank God for the First Amendment, and for faithful ones like Indiana, who made it his business to get the hidden history. Otherwise we'd be like the CRI, looking at the official statements and saying, "What's the problem?", while unaware of people and their testimonies, who'd been buried by the ministry propaganda machine.

The hypocrisy of LC leaders is highly concerning, but even that can distract from the bigger issue.

That issue is, of course, what you mentioned - the disconnect from reality that so many of us were living in and fell for. It doesn't matter what type of nonsense was set forth, there was always some way that LCers could rationalize it.

The LC involves a mindset that is highly addictive to those in the LC. It's hard to break free from, and even more difficult to do so with confidence. Thankfully, the pure nonsense and absurdity of it all is clearly evident after taking a step back.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Speaking of Indiana, my opinion is the elders and coworkers motivated Indiana to write. More the Seattle elders refused to communicate with Indiana led Indiana to investigate, research, and subsequently write. More localities in partiality refuse to accept him, more they inspire and motivate Indiana to write.

I remember being at the II Corinthians training in Anaheim and hearing Witness Lee share about possessing the ministry of reconciliation (5.18-20) like the Apostle Paul, and thinking what a blessed place for me to be. Back in those early days we would not partake of the bread and wine at His Table until we had reconciled any conflicts with the brothers, and I did so on several occasions apologizing to brothers immediately before the meeting. What joy that would bring!

Then as the GLA quarantines loomed (circa. 2003-05) on the horizon, and I began to research (as brother Indiana did much earlier) and find out that reconciliation was never practiced at LSM, (nor btw the exclusive Brethren either.) They either sued or expelled any brothers who voiced concerns about their teachings or lack of uprightness in business matters. What a shock to learn (from Indiana, Ingalls, Anderson, and others) that Recovery leaders can't get along with anyone! Ironically I was practicing what Lee taught, but the Blendeds, who were watching him up close for years, practiced what he did.

Isn't that how the Lord instructed the disciples concerning the Pharisees? -- "do what they say, not what they do." (Matthew 23.3)

When we read Revelations 3 concerning the epistle to Laodicea and her arrogant pride, some wonder how the church could have become like that. Here is the answer right in front of us. They learned from watching their leaders.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I remember being at the II Corinthians training in Anaheim and hearing Witness Lee share about possessing the ministry of reconciliation (5.18-20) like the Apostle Paul, and thinking what a blessed place for me to be. Back in those early days we would not partake of the bread and wine at His Table until we had reconciled any conflicts with the brothers, and I did so on several occasions apologizing to brothers immediately before the meeting. What joy that would bring!

Then as the GLA quarantines loomed (circa. 2003-05) on the horizon, and I began to research (as brother Indiana did much earlier) and find out that reconciliation was never practiced at LSM, (nor btw the exclusive Brethren either.) They either sued or expelled any brothers who voiced concerns about their teachings or lack of uprightness in business matters. What a shock to learn (from Indiana, Ingalls, Anderson, and others) that Recovery leaders can't get along with anyone! Ironically I was practicing what Lee taught, but the Blendeds, who were watching him up close for years, practiced what he did.

I don't know if I should laugh or cry. What's really sad is reconciliation is regarded as something to speak of, but not practice. I correct myself, if there is reconciliation in practice, it's conditional. By comparison, trust is unconditional and bears far more weight in local church culture than reconciliation does.
Believe me, I've heard it. In dealing with NW elders concerning the brother known as Indiana. The issue is trust and not reconciliation. How can they as leaders receive a brother they cannot trust. It's not about whether he's for or against the ministry LSM publishes, but about trust. There's the sentiment (although not a consensus) if they received Indiana; sooner or later he'd resume his writing in "attacking" the brothers.
Certainly when Mario Sandoval couldn't be received in Vista, trust was the issue and not his inability to get Samuel Liu to reconcile with him.
With each of the "official" quarantines, the issue is they couldn't be trusted and whether or not the quarantined brothers had or did not have a heart for reconciliation.

I'll add the LSM leadership have an inherent problem when a brother is under the headship of Christ and not under the fellowship of the blended coworkers.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by aron

The 2015 Charity Navigator rating site gave the CRI a 63% on transparency, and overall a pretty low score, if you compare it to similar ministries. The fellow who inherited Walter Martin's apologetic ministry made about $80,000 as CEO, and his wife made $142,000 as Director of Planning. And the staffers who actually did the work, made peanuts.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...ary&orgid=5077

Plus, apparently this job gets mucho perks, like a fat housing allowance, two cars leased for personal use, country club membership etc. Rip-off central.

http://www.waltermartin.com/cri.html

So why would this fellow, who looks like everything LSM decries about "fallen Christianity", be their chief flag-waver? Because he's their only flag-waver, that's why. They'll take whatever they can get; times are lean in the apologetics and orthodoxy field for LSM. Think about it this way: the ministry that supposedly doesn't care about right and wrong, suddenly loves that someone else said that they were wrong, and that WL was right. How the worm has turned.

Aron,

Very good assessment, if it wasn’t for that fake magazine, my family would have never been exposed to this scam! I hope there is a special place in hell or the Lake of Fire (for those who don’t believe in hell), for the writers and distributors of that specific issue.

[Paul Vusik]

By the way, in his recording, Walter Martin refers to the tape recording that was supposed to be given to him or publicly released of the conversation between him and MOTA. Was that ever made public by LSM? Or MOTA? Or was it buried somewhere in the bunker in Anahiem?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

The 2015 Charity Navigator rating site gave the CRI a 63% on transparency, and overall a pretty low score, if you compare it to similar ministries. The fellow who inherited Walter Martin's apologetic ministry made about $80,000 as CEO, and his wife made $142,000 as Director of Planning. And the staffers who actually did the work, made peanuts.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...ary&orgid=5077

Plus, apparently this job gets mucho perks, like a fat housing allowance, two cars leased for personal use, country club membership etc. Rip-off central.

Hey hey wait a minute. CRI emails me a couple days a week. And they thank me.

They thank me for supporting CRI, when I've never done so in any way, shape or form.

That doesn't stop them from begging for donations ... and selling me books. Hank isn'y really The Bible Answer Man. He should rightly and honestly go by The Hankerin Hank, for the god of riches.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by awareness

They thank me for supporting CRI, when I've never done so in any way, shape or form.

That’s assuming that your donations to the LC, never by any means, accidentally, unknowingly to you, ended up supporting them, or paid for one of those issues or appearances by the answer man to defend the LC. I’m very certain that he would not do a single thing unless there is some financial compensation of sorts.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

That’s assuming that your donations to the LC, never by any means, accidentally, unknowingly to you, ended up supporting them, or paid for one of those issues or appearances by the answer man to defend the LC. I’m very certain that he would not do a single thing unless there is some financial compensation of sorts.

Good and true points Paul ... points that wound me.

But I was bamboozled. I was ignorant. It took a decade to discover that I was in a cult ... back in the W. Martin days, before "We were wrong" ... before W. Martin was wrong.

When it comes to the LC being a cult, I stand with that Baptist, even tho I don't stand with the Baptist's.

Maybe it was the Southern Baptist in me -- that I grew up in -- that enabled me to realize that I was in a cult (like Martin's association with Baptist standards and theology).

I didn't need to know Walter Martin and CRI. But I knew "We were Wrong" was wrong.

And today I know the The Answer Man is just a Eastern Orthodox money grubber.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good and true points Paul ... points that wound me.

But I was bamboozled. I was ignorant. It took a decade to discover that I was in a cult ... back in the W. Martin days, before "We were wrong" ... before W. Martin was wrong.

When it comes to the LC being a cult, I stand with that Baptist, even tho I don't stand with the Baptist's.

Maybe it was the Southern Baptist in me -- that I grew up in -- that enabled me to realize that I was in a cult (like Martin's association with Baptist standards and theology).

I didn't need to know Walter Martin and CRI. But I knew "We were Wrong" was wrong.

And today I know the The Answer Man is just a Eastern Orthodox money grubber.

Hey, we all been there, to some extent. There are things that were done without our consent, that we will let God take care off.

When I was just brought in, the Anahiem building 8 conference center and building 7 were getting built. I was told it would be a good thing to go down there and contribute to the “God’s move”, since I had skills to do so. Guess what, I was ignotate enough to leave my wife at home with a 4 and a 2 year olds, for weeks at the time, doing things that I thought was doing for the Lord. So I have contributed to it too, most of it unknowingly and blindly. The spirit of recovery, is a strong and powerful deception, whoever been exposed to it, or surrendered their whole life too, once discovered, will have multiple regrets and things to be repenfull for.

[awareness]

This is interesting: Dr. Martin speaking about Lee and the LC.

Both Untohim and Nell, plus the LCD (in my view), and also the Baptist's, will unquestionably stand on what Dr. Martin stands upon.

Check it out :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=830hmhL-w6A

[awareness]

I'm so embarrassed. I did a update to windows that required a reboot. After the reboot it loaded LCD but didn't log me in. Then I saw Terry posted in the OP the link to Dr. Martin that I posted.

Basically I repeated Terry. And I didn't check to see if Untohim and/or Nell remarked about it.

I watched or rather listened to the whole youtube. Basically Dr. Martin was speaking against Lee et al was/is a cult by Baptist views and theology. I grew up in the Baptist church and understand where he was coming from.

But I left the Baptist several years before joining the LC. So I like that Dr. Martin pegged the LC as a cult. I saw that the LC was a cult in the early 80s without knowing about Dr. Martin.

So I left behind the LC and the Baptist church, and left evangelicalism too.

Now I can't go back into any of them, because I can't fit into those boxes.

I made friends with a JW. He wanted me to go to his Kingdom hall. I told him I was in a Christion cult. He denied that the JW was a cult. But Dr. Martin disagreed.

[awareness]

Okay it's obvious that this thread is dead. We owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Walter Martin (RIP). Thanks Dr. Martin.

Lets see if this thread can be quickened. For those interested in this Lee Cult controversy, check out this on "Contending for the Faith" of all places, presented by DCP :
https://contendingforthefaith.org/en...xposed/#Spirit

Harold

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm so embarrassed. I did a update to windows that required a reboot. After the reboot it loaded LCD but didn't log me in. Then I saw Terry posted in the OP the link to Dr. Martin that I posted.

Basically I repeated Terry. And I didn't check to see if Untohim and/or Nell remarked about it.

I watched or rather listened to the whole youtube. Basically Dr. Martin was speaking against Lee et al was/is a cult by Baptist views and theology. I grew up in the Baptist church and understand where he was coming from.

But I left the Baptist several years before joining the LC. So I like that Dr. Martin pegged the LC as a cult. I saw that the LC was a cult in the early 80s without knowing about Dr. Martin.

So I left behind the LC and the Baptist church, and left evangelicalism too.

Now I can't go back into any of them, because I can't fit into those boxes.

I made friends with a JW. He wanted me to go to his Kingdom hall. I told him I was in a Christion cult. He denied that the JW was a cult. But Dr. Martin disagreed.

Every church I have ever attended has been called a “cult” by somebody. Even this little local independent Community Church we attended has been called a cult. Let’s be honest, Christians can be nasty name-callers too, sorry to say. I have been called “un-Christian” too. It’s all just like nasty politics - throw pejorative labels at those you disagree with.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Every church I have ever attended has been called a “cult” by somebody. Even this little local independent Community Church we attended has been called a cult. Let’s be honest, Christians can be nasty name-callers too, sorry to say. I have been called “un-Christian” too. It’s all just like nasty politics - throw pejorative labels at those you disagree with.

Is that what you think Dr. Martin is doing? He did label the local church a cult.

With CRI always email me for money, prolly Dr. Martin would now consider CRI a cult.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Is that what you think Dr. Martin is doing? He did label the local church a cult.

With CRI always email me for money, prolly Dr. Martin would now consider CRI a cult.

Haha, lol. Which kind of proves my point, huh?

[UntoHim]

Cult is one of controversial terms that might have 100 different meaning to 100 different people. There's actually a very easy way to sort things out...and it is by differentiating WHO IS CALLING WHO A CULT. When the LA Times calls your orthodox/evangelical Christian church a cult, it might very well be a good thing. When Dr. Walter Martin, a world-renown cult expert, calls your church a Christian cult then it may be time for insiders and outsiders to be very concerned.

Ohio, I doubt that every church you have ever attended has been called a “cult” by somebody. And if that's true, you may really want to start questioning your discernment, and let somebody else start picking churches for you! Seriously though, I really do believe that if one takes into consideration what I have posted above, they will rarely find themselves in a Christian cult.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ohio, I doubt that every church you have ever attended has been called a “cult” by somebody. And if that's true, you may really want to start questioning your discernment, and let somebody else start picking churches for you! Seriously though, I really do believe that if one takes into consideration what I have posted above, they will rarely find themselves in a Christian cult.
-

Note that I said ever "attended" not ever visited. And that comment I made is definitely true. I don't think it's necessary to name them here. All of them, except for the Catholic Church I was raised in, preached the Gospel of salvation thru faith in Jesus Christ who died and resurrected.

Anyways, my point was simple. Even Christians can carelessly backstab others with names like "cult," much the same as Christian conservatives are now regularly labeled as "racist, misogynist, white supremacist, etc." Pejorative tags mean nothing any more. When we get smeared like this, we should rejoice, since our Savior has so blessed us:

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you. Mt 5.11-12

[UntoHim]

Anyways, my point was simple too - There are time when a Christian group can properly and rightly be called a cult. Walter Martin's calling the Local Church of Witness Lee a cult of Christianity was just such an instance. A more recent instance would be the inclusion of the Local Church of Witness Lee in The Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions - a miniscule mention of less than 4 paragraphs, for which the boys over in Anaheim sued Harvest House for over 100 Million dollars. Thankfully LSM&CO got thoroughly smacked down and shown the door by some of the highest courts in our land...but not before "Witness Lee Continuation" burned through 10s of Millions of the saints hard earned money.
-

[awareness]

They don't care about the saints money. Their cult hates being called a cult -- no dah ... and they'll spend all the money to keep the truth out of the public eye

Before I ever heard of Dr. Martin and CRI, I saw with my own two eyes, back circa 1980, that Lee's local church was/is a cult.

It's likely that our dear brother Ohio knows and loves brothers and sisters in the LC, and feels protective of them and their good names. So he doesn't want to tranish them with the cult label.

I'd say if he loves them he would want to tell them they are in a cult. Sorry LC, the internet is loaded with it. I suppose they could avoid it by keeping their heads in the clouds, and closed off from reality. But that wouldn't make Jesus look good, that they purport to cherish above all ... or is that Lee ... their dead cult leader?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

They don't care about the saints money. Their cult hates being called a cult -- no dah ... and they'll spend all the money to keep the truth out of the public eye

Before I ever heard of Dr. Martin and CRI, I saw with my own two eyes, back circa 1980, that Lee's local church was/is a cult.

It's likely that our dear brother Ohio knows and loves brothers and sisters in the LC, and feels protective of them and their good names. So he doesn't want to tranish them with the cult label.

I'd say if he loves them he would want to tell them they are in a cult. Sorry LC, the internet is loaded with it. I suppose they could avoid it by keeping their heads in the clouds, and closed off from reality. But that wouldn't make Jesus look good, that they purport to cherish above all ... or is that Lee ... their dead cult leader?

Ahhh, and how is my old friend awareness?

I really have nothing more to say about the topic of this thread - your beloved and cherished founder of CRI - so I’ll perhaps end my participation on the thread with this memory:

The first LC brother I ever met in May of 1973 also insisted that “if I love all my friends and family in the Catholic Church, I must go and inform them that they are in a cult.” (He even demanded that I take my savings out of their credit union.) That lovely message never helped any of them. And the last I heard of that old “well-meaning” and zealous friend was that he left his wife and kids and ran off with his secretary.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ahhh, and how is my old friend awareness?

I'm doing as well as can be expected. I'm this side of the dirt.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The first LC brother I ever met in May of 1973 also insisted that “if I love all my friends and family in the Catholic Church, I must go and inform them that they are in a cult.”

And they were and are. And the Pope, the most powerful man on earth, is their personality cult leader.

But can we fairly compare the RCC with Lee and the LC? Lee is new on the scene. The RCC has been around at least 1700 years. And there's no point in trying to change 1.3 billion established members. You're lucky you got out of that cult. But not lucky to join another one, sorry to say.

I know quite a few exLCers. They all say the LC was/is a cult.

Isn't that why we're here? to save those that are in it? Or are we just funning around?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Isn't that why we're here? to save those that are in it? Or are we just funning around?

Many leave the LC and also leave the faith, which I find extremely unfortunate. I would prefer they grow in faith, love, and hope, abounding in the perfect liberty of the Lord.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many leave the LC and also leave the faith, which I find extremely unfortunate. I would prefer they grow in faith, love, and hope, abounding in the perfect liberty of the Lord.

So true bro Ohio. Not just the local churches but all the churches. Millennial's don't like church. Atheism is on the rise.

But, ironically, it takes a lot of faith to leave faith.

A friend of mine, from before the LC, that I brought in, tells me to drop it all. She thinks if I don't leave it all behind it will drive me crazy (alright, alright ... now now.).

But she's a delightful caring person. And she don't care if she goes to heaven or hell. She doesn't believe in them. Are they part of "the faith?" Can you disbelieve in them, and still keep the faith?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

But she's a delightful caring person. And she don't care if she goes to heaven or hell. She doesn't believe in them. Are they part of "the faith?" Can you disbelieve in them, and still keep the faith?

The more I look into the matter of what is translated often as "hell" in a number of versions, it seems the traditional understanding - at least what seems most popular these days in numerous evangelical circles (torture forever) - may not have as much basis in scripture as I thought . . .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So true bro Ohio. Not just the local churches but all the churches. Millennial's don't like church. Atheism is on the rise.

But, ironically, it takes a lot of faith to leave faith.

A friend of mine, from before the LC, that I brought in, tells me to drop it all. She thinks if I don't leave it all behind it will drive me crazy (alright, alright ... now now.).

But she's a delightful caring person. And she don't care if she goes to heaven or hell. She doesn't believe in them. Are they part of "the faith?" Can you disbelieve in them, and still keep the faith?

I think it's safer to err on the side of caution, and therefore we should love more, believe more, trust more, and obey more. Can't hurt, eh? The world would be a better place.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think it's safer to err on the side of caution, and therefore we should love more, believe more, trust more, and obey more. Can't hurt, eh? The world would be a better place.

Can too hurt. All the proponents of love has been killed ... like Jesus. And many more since then.

But love, believing more, trust, et all is a great message.,

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

The more I look into the matter of what is translated often as "hell" in a number of versions, it seems the traditional understanding - at least what seems most popular these days in numerous evangelical circles (torture forever) - may not have as much basis in scripture as I thought . . .

That would be found in Dante's Inferno, and his 9 circles of hell. Current popular conceptions of hell comes not from the Bible but from Dante.