|
|
|
07-17-2011, 09:47 AM
|
#1 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,558
|
Rosemead
In The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, this what Witness Lee haf to share regarding the events happening in Rosemead beginning on page 53 to the top of page 54.
"In the winter of 1986, Brothers David Wang and John Wang came to me, asking if Brother Francis Ball ould join them in the eldership there. I felt good about their suggestion. Subsequently, on February 1, 1987, Francis Ball was introduced to the saints in Rosemead by John Kwan and david Wang during a Lord's Day morning meeting. Not long after that, because of the need in Taiwan, Francis went to Taipei. The first rebellion occurred in Rosemead in September 1987. Prior to the door knocking festival in the San Gabriel valley in September, two brothers, Aaron Lee and Jacob Ho, who were invited to help in the festival, visited Joseph Chu, who was one of the main speakers in the Chinese-speaking meeting in Rosemead. They found out that Joseph was very negative and critical about the recovery and me. Joseph's wife told these brothers that I was old and was surrounded by a group of young people who had made me lose my direction. She also told the brothers that "we have connections with the whole world." During the door knocking festival, the couple and some others with them remained critical of that move. Daniel Chu, Joseph's cousin, told David Dong on September 27, 1987, that they (Brother Daniel and those with him) had a global connection, and that some of the leading co-workers in the recovery were meeting (or were going to meet) together and there would be a communique' in a week or two. By this he meant that the ones in Rosemead were not the only ones who were rebelling; there were others also. This indicates that there was already a conspiracy. During this time, Joseph Chu, Daniel Chu, and those agreeing with them strongly condemned all efforts to have fellowship as interference and began to isolate themselves from other churches around the area." Beginning at the end of page 54 and continuing on page 55, "In March 1988 I called Joseph Chu and David Wang at the same time and asked to have fellowship with them concerning the problem in the church in Rosemead. At first, David Wang proposed that it would be better for all of us to come together with the whole church in Rosemead and the Chinese-speaking leading ones in Orange County. He proposed that we do this on the following Lord's Day morning, and I agreed. He promised to notify all the Chinese-speaking leading ones in Orange County. But the next day, David Wang called me and told me that they wanted to keep the church calm for another period of time; after that, we would have the meeting. I agreed with that. On May 8, 1988, the Board of Directors of the church in Rosemead sent a letter to Francis Ball and another to John Kwan, the two elders, telling them that "commencing May 21, 1988, you may no longer set foot on the premises of the church in Rosemead", and that "should you [ Francis Ball and John Kwan] not comply with the directive, we [the Board of Directors] will take any and all appropriate measures to have you forcefully evicted." In their letter to Francis, they charged that "the autonomy of the church in Rosemead" has been "damaged," and they labeled my ministry as "the ministry" of another extra-local individual which has been nothing but dreams, human ideas, reports, numbers, statistics, propaganda, and lies." Among them I was condemned as a pope, and some of them said that they received much help from me in life but that they would not be in the "system" of Witness Lee." |
|
|
|
07-17-2011, 11:21 AM
|
#2 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Rosemead
Quote:
1. Why does "critical" become "rebelling"? If you read this letter it seems that if you disagree with WL you are "rebelling". It seems there is no room for anyone to disagree, to be critical or even to lead their local church as they see fit. It is one thing for a ministry to present a particular way for the gospel to go forth, it is another for that ministry to portray anyone who is critical or decided not to receive this way as "rebelling". 2. Surely Rosemead has as much right as anyone to excommunicate a brother. Citing the autonomy of the Church in Rosemead as the basis for this does seem like a valid reason for excommunication. The first paragraph by WL which likens being critical to being rebellious seems like proof of the allegation. 3. "they labeled my ministry as "the ministry" of another extra-local individual". This is true. How could WL have an issue with this? 4. "which has been nothing but dreams, human ideas, reports, numbers, statistics, propaganda, and lies." Even the most cautious estimate of the impact that door knocking would have would have to be characterized today as "nothing but dreams, human ideas, reports, numbers, statistics, propaganda, and lies". 4. "Among them I was condemned as a pope, and some of them said that they received much help from me in life but that they would not be in the "system" of Witness Lee." First, WL uses the word "condemned" but I wonder if "characterized" would be more accurate. It seems to me that time has proven this to be true with the teaching of the MOTA and what the BB's have done. Kudo's to the church in Rosemead for taking such a stand so early on. |
|
|
|
|
|
07-17-2011, 01:43 PM
|
#3 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Re: Rosemead
Quote:
I cannot pretend to accept that the LRC's doctrinal and practical statements represent a reasonable understanding of the scripture that they use to support them.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
07-17-2011, 02:15 PM
|
#4 |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 718
|
Re: Rosemead "Rebellion" - a normal rejection of the Spirit
http://hidinghistoryinthelordsrecove...dRebellion.pdf
“The Church in Rosemead began to suffer heavy trials in early 1986. This situation reflected that the relation between the work and the church was very abnormal. The matter in the Church in Rosemead is a typical “symptom” and just the tip of the iceberg. The ministry work is for the church. The church should not be for the ministry work. That is in accordance with the principle in the Scriptures. Unfortunately, things have gone the wrong direction and men have tried their best to let the work control the churches. “Authority” has been emphasized. The saints are required to follow a person without any questions. This is definitely against the principle in the Bible. I absolutely believe that today there would not be the socalled “Rosemead Incident” if the abnormal situation never happened.” (from A True Account, 1987) - David Wang |
|
|
|
|
07-17-2011, 03:25 PM
|
#5 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Rosemead "Rebellion" - a normal rejection of the Spirit
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-17-2011, 04:08 PM
|
#6 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,558
|
Re: Rosemead
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-17-2011, 04:23 PM
|
#7 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,558
|
Re: Rosemead
Quote:
"The Church in Rosemead 2454 No. San Gabriel Blvd Rosemead, Ca 91770 213-280-9991 May 7, 1988 To: Francis Ball, The primary purpose of this letter is to serve notice to you that as of the date of May 21, 1988, you must vacate the premises of the church in Rosemead. Its secondary purpose is to give you just a few of the many reasons why such a demand is being placed upon you and why it is altogether incumbent upon you to comply with it. All of the contents of this letter were arrived at through much prayer, consideration, and fellowship, with many brothers and sisters before the Lord. As you read each point, we pray that His light would emanate from it into your heart. To touch your conscience and bring you into a very clear and stark realization that you, and many like you in His “recovery” today, though seemingly staunch, stalwart, and adamant for what you call “the ministry”, have actually strayed from His precious pathway of Life. Commencing with your arrival here in The Church in Rosemead, you, along with both your attitude and actions, have been a constant and increasingly great offense to the majority of the saints meeting here as The Church in Rosemead. What you have consistently espoused and expressed in both words and actions has irreparably damaged the already existing fragile stability and autonomy of The Church in Rosemead (which came about as a result of problems that had arisen through the actions of John Kwan with respect to his apparently secret and subtle instigation of the unscriptural and unrighteous removal of Donald Hardy from the eldership of the Church in Rosemead by you and other “co-workers” of the “ministry”). You and your continued presence here have brought about and sustain the complete polarization and division of the brethren meeting here as The Church in Rosemead. With respect to your actions: 1.) You, as an extra-local “elder” from another locality, took the lead with four other extra-local “elders” in carrying out the above-mentioned unscriptural and unrighteous removal of Donald Hardy as an elder of this locality. A. It was unscriptural because there is absolutely no precedent given in the entire New Testament of any individual being removed from the eldership of any church, whether by example or injunction, in the way that you accomplished his removal. The only portion in the New Testament regarding dealing with improper elders is given in 1 Timothy 5:19 and 20. These two verses contain two very clear and specific injunctions given to the New Testament believers by the Holy Spirit for the divine protection of both the elders and the saints: they protect the elders from individuals who might falsely or unreasonably accuse them; and they protect the saints from any “improper” elders and from any individuals who might falsely or unreasonably accuse their “proper” elders. Neither one of these two precious injunctions that were given a divine protection for all of us were carried out by you and those who participated with you in Don Hardy’s removal. Hence, Donald Hardy was afforded absolutely no scriptural protection from you or his accuser whom you became one with. Moreover, the saints in The Church in Rosemead under the eldership of which Donald Hardy was an integral part had absolutely no scriptural protection from you or his accuser either. B. It was unrighteous because you removed him without ever giving him any reason or explanation for doing so, and hence, you did it without proper cause. Furthermore, it was all done in secret: the accused was never confronted by his accuser before you were his judges in order that he might have the opportunity to respond to his accuser’s accusations. Firstly, you received the accusations against him from his co-elder, John Kwan. Then, you proceeded to seek information from his other two co-elders by calling them to only one meeting and questioning them. After that one meeting with his co-elders, you called him to a meeting in Anaheim at which none of his tree co-elders were present. According to Donald Hardy’s own testimony which he later gave before yourself, John Kwan, and two other brothers from the Church in Rosemead in the elders’ room of The Church in Rosemead (and which was also recorded on tape by one of the two brothers), in that one meeting, when he was told that he should go get a job, he responded by asking, “What about the ‘the work’?” He was then told, “No, no more ‘work’.” Then he asked, “No more eldership?” The response to which was, “No more eldership; we feel you should step aside.” His very next words in his testimony were: “No explanation. No prior knowledge. You could have picked me up off the floor with a blotter. I was in a state of shock!” Even to this very day, he still says he does not know why he is removed. Even the law courts of the world would never allow any judge or group of judges to conduct themselves in such a manner as you conducted yourself in this matter with Don Hardy. (Actually, these two points, A and B, make it quite evident that you, and those who acted in concert with you, had already been predisposed, for whatever reasons, to do away with Donald Hardy; you simply utilized John Kwan, and his coming to you, as a cloak to do it.) C. Thus, you should now be able to clearly understand why it was stated to both you and John Kwan by the brothers in the November 1, 1987 Lord’s Day morning meeting of The Church in Rosemead: “The eldership of The Church in Rosemead was touched and the government was defiled.” Moreover, on top of all that has been stated with respect to this one matter, to add to the offense, you came to reside among us, meet with us, and take up and attempt to retain a position in the eldership among us (the very position that you unscripturally and unrighteously removed Don Hardy from) while being fully conscious of the fact that the majority of the saints know all of these things and absolutely refuse to accept you in that capacity. II. You attended a church home meeting in Abel Chu’s house one Saturday night during which a sister from another locality called on the telephone to tell the saints that there was going to be a combined “ministry” meeting down in Anaheim the very next morning. At the end of that meeting, Daniel Chu, the brother who received the phone call, faithfully made an announcement regarding this suddenly-called Lord’s Day morning “ministry” meeting saying that all who could go should go and that the saints who were unable to go would still be meeting together in The Church in Rosemead meeting hall. That same night you called David Wang after midnight and told him that you had “fellowshipped” with Philip Lee and John Kwan and that your feeling was to “deal with Daniel Chu” regarding his making this announcement, and that it should be done right away. When David attempted to put it off until the next day so that he could hear Daniel Chu’s side of the story, your tone changed and you became obnoxiously persistent that he call Daniel on the phone immediately (at 12:20 A. M.!!!) to “get him out now”. However, David remained adamant in refusing to handle the situation in the way in which you were proposing, and thus, the phone conversation ended. We daresay that if David had not refused to cooperate with you in this Gestapo-like tactic in dealing with a saint (Just who do you think you are?!?!?), there is no telling what kind of damage you may have caused, not only to Daniel Chu himself, but to all the dear saints who were in that meeting with him and heard that absolutely harmless announcement which only expressed a genuine care and concern for the spiritual well-being of all the local saints and who might have heard about what you have done to Daniel after you did it. Actually, as will be proven by the third, fourth, and fifth actions of yours given in points (III, IV, and V.) below, you only have a mind to carry out the desires, activities, and goals of the “ministry” at any and all cost without any regard whatsoever either to the circumstances, condition, or feelings of the individual local saints or to any possible detriment of the Church in Rosemead as a whole. The real reason why you wanted to “deal with Daniel Chu” for making that announcement was because he made a provision in addition to the “ministry” meeting in Anaheim so that the Rosemead saints who, for whatever reason, could not go to the Anaheim meeting on such short notice, could have a meeting and not feel left out or abandoned. Actually, between the two of you, he was the one who exercised the real wisdom and had the proper heart for the local saints. (Solomon knew you should not divide the baby and the mother had the proper heart to not divide the baby.) If Daniel were to have made that announcement according to your desire, he would have had to announce: “Tomorrow morning’s Lord’s day morning meeting of the Church in Rosemead is cancelled because ‘the ministry’ has called a combined ministry meeting down in Anaheim. (Period!)” All of this is clearly proven in the points below. III. Ten minutes after the first phone call mentioned in point II.) above, which resulted in a failed attempt on your part to get David Wang to cooperate in immediately “dealing with Daniel Chu)”, you called David Wang back again. This second phone call was an attempt on your part to put pressure on David to deal with the meeting that Daniel Chu mentioned in his announcement in Abel Chu’s house that was to be for the saints in the Church in Rosemead who would be unable, for whatever reason, to go the “ministry” meeting that had suddenly been called down in Anaheim on such short notice. In this second phone conversation you said that you and John Kwan felt this way: that the gate to the property of the Church in Rosemead should be locked on that Lord’s Day morning and that a sign should be posted on the gate telling the saints to go to Anaheim. David told you in very strong terms that he absolutely did not agree with your “so-called” feeling. Furthermore, he not only told you that he disagreed, but he also gave you two very good, proper, and valid reasons for his disagreement. A.) The first reason he gave was that there was no way for him to contact all the saints to let them know in advance that there would definitely be no meeting in Rosemead. Hence, without notice, many of the saints, regardless of their coming and reading the posted sign would not be prepared to go to Anaheim and would thus be turned away because of the locked meeting hall gate. B.) The second reason was that according to his past experience, it doesn’t matter what kind of meeting there is in Anaheim, people will still come to their locality for the Lord’s Day morning meeting. After David gave you these reasons, once again your tone changed and you again became obnoxiously persistent. It was here at this juncture that you unfurled your true colors. You said that if we were still going to have the meeting here in Rosemead after knowing that there was a “ministry” meeting in Anaheim, then we were not “one with ‘the ministry’”. Hence, the real reason for attempting to deal with Daniel Chu and for attempting to lock the gate to the meeting hall of the Church in Rosemead came out. Both were simply attempts on your part to stamp out what you perceived to be opposition to being “one with ‘the ministry’”. Thus, the locking of the gate was a ruse used by you, not only to prevent the saints from meeting in the meeting hall, which in and of itself is a very shameful deed on your part, but also to apply some degree of pressure to force them to go down to Anaheim. If you did not have the impure ulterior motive of applying this pressure to make them go to Anaheim, you would have no doubt acted in the same pure way toward the 120 adult saints (who came to the Rosemead meeting hall and remained there for the meeting even after finding out that there was a combined “ministry” meeting down in Anaheim) as Daniel Chu and David Wang did. As was stated above, this clearly reveals that you only have a heart and a mind to carry out the desires, activities, and goals of “the ministry” at any and all cost without any regard whatsoever either to the circumstances, condition, or feeling of the individual local saints or to any possible detriment of the Church in Rosemead as a whole. Even though your argument with the saints who reprimanded you in the November 1, 1987 Lord’s Day morning meeting for your callousness was that you never really did do it, yet we must point out to you and to anyone else who might read this letter, that your attitude was strongly to do it until you were met with even greater opposition by brothers who genuinely had a heart to take care of the local saints. Only then did you relent, (not “repent!”) and back off from your improper and unkind intentions. If there had happened to be no one there to hinder or interfere with what you had in mind to do, you no doubt would have locked that gate. IV.) You turned the Lord’s Day morning meeting into a forum and platform from which you could further the work, activities and goals of “the ministry” of another extra-local individual which has lately been nothing but dreams, human ideas, reports, numbers, statistics, propaganda, and lies (where are the 1016 who were saved and baptized in the Chinese-speaking “gospel blitz” in the San Gabriel Valley??? And where are the > 200 people that he boldly stated in the 1987 winter training were “solidly added to the church” in the San Gabriel Valley, as a result of that “blitz”???), rather than the genuine spiritual feeding that he used to give so richly. These matters became the content of the Lord’s Day morning meetings rather than the opening of God’s rich Word for the nurture, admonition, and building up of the saints. In fact, in one of the Lord’s day morning meetings of the Church in Rosemead where you were the main and only speaker, you stated clearly and vehemently that “This big meeting (i. e. this Lord’s day morning meeting here in the meeting hall of the church in Rosemead) is to get rid of the big meeting (i.e. it is to get rid of every Lord’s Day morning meeting here in the meeting hall of the Church in Rosemead)!” Moreover, in another Lord’s Day morning meeting of the Church in Rosemead (October 18, 1987), while the saints were telling you to sit down and to stop taking “the chief seat” among them as exhibited in the way you were chiding with them and upbraiding them, you had said: “This is a ‘ministry meeting’!” This kind of arrogant talk and belligerent attitude toward the saints in Rosemead after months of nothing but dreams, human ideas, reports, numbers, statistics, propaganda, lies, and even grave abuses of their meeting hall facilities during the previously mentioned gospel “blitz” from those who claim to represent “the ministry”, plus the knowledge of what you did in the matter of Donald Hardy, were the chief reasons why the majority of them reacted to you in the extremely negative way they did. That such a person as yourself with such a terribly presumptuous attitude would be sent into our midst by “the ministry” absolutely does not speak well of “the ministry” at all. Hence, after you exclaimed, “This is a ‘ministry’ meeting!”, you were even forced to sit down by some of the younger brothers. V.) You contributed to the running up of a major part of the Church in Rosemead’s October phone bill (to the point where it was over $700) with no intention whatsoever of paying for the phone calls that you made. Only when it was pointed out to you by the Board of Trustees of the Church in Rosemead did you “make amends” by paying what you righteously owed. Even then, as you as you were making payment to one of the brothers who pointed out your “breach”, you had the audacity to insist to him that the calls you made (the majority of which were to Taiwan and other long distance places) were “church business”, when David Wang, who was an elder of the Church in Rosemead during the above-mentioned period, knew nothing of the calls that you made. Not only so, this occurred when the giving of the saints had fallen below the level sufficient even to take care of its normal financial obligations (which, incidentally, was the result of the gradually increasing negative response to the “ministry” activities that were being carried out among us at that time and during the previous months). Thus, once again, we have another clear exhibition of your lack of concern and your complete disregard for the well-being of the Church in Rosemead. With respect to your attitude, which is clearly evident by all the above listed deeds and actions, it has simply reflected your position as an insensitive, hardhearted, stiff-necked, hardened, deceived, and deceitful “co-worker” to a possibly well-intentioned extra-local individual rather than one who genuinely cares for and seeks the welfare of the local brothers and sisters meeting here as the Church in the city of Rosemead. You have made it absolutely clear that your priority is the goals and activities of this extra-local individual without any regard to the feelings of the majority of the local brethren and the local situation here in the Church in Rosemead. The clearest and best example of this is that in spite of the strong vocal objections to you and your presence here in the Church in Rosemead which was expressed by the majority of the local brethren in two of our regularly scheduled Lord’s Day morning meetings (October 18, 1987 and November 1, 1987), you still have not departed from the Church in Rosemead as you told the saints you were going to do in their November 1, 1987 meeting in response to their vehemently expressed desire and request. Moreover, your failure to depart as requested by this majority has brought about the division that is among us today. In the light of all that has been stated above, and after patiently waiting for six months for you to voluntarily remove yourself as you had said you were going to do, we, the undersigned brothers in the church in Rosemead, hereby inform you that you are no longer permitted to use the facilities of the Church in Rosemead for any reason whatsoever. Furthermore, according to the authority vested in us, and based on all of the damage having been wrought and still being wrought on the Church in Rosemead by you and your continued presence here, commencing May 21, 1988, you may no longer set foot on the premises of the Church in Rosemead. Should you not comply with this directive, we will take any and all appropriate measures to have you forcefully evicted. The Board of Trustees of the Church in Rosemead David C. Wang, President Michael T. Dwyer, Secretary Abel A. Chu, Treasurer Edward Y. Michioka, Asst. Treasurer" |
|
|
|
|
|
07-18-2011, 11:33 AM
|
#8 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,558
|
Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion
I realize there may be ones reading these thread who may be offended of my inclusion of these letters by Bill Mallon and by the Church in Rosemead's Board of Directors. Point is when Witness Lee referred to these letters in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, he did not do so according to truth and reality, but according to his preferences. As result what was spoken in the book comes across as skewed. The letter's entire text are needed in order to read the letter in context.
|
|
|
|
|
07-18-2011, 01:49 PM
|
#9 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion
Quote:
TFOTPR is a false witness in contradiction of the most basic righteousness of God that was demanded of men.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
07-18-2011, 03:59 PM
|
#10 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Georgetown, Texas
Posts: 295
|
Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion
Quote:
Thou shalt not bear false witness means exactly what it says. Those who bear false witness are of the devil. No amount of spiritual lingo can change that fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
07-18-2011, 06:42 PM
|
#11 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,558
|
Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-18-2011, 06:29 PM
|
#12 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,558
|
Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion
Quote:
"A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers." Proverbs 6:19 "We tell others what we like and keep silent about what we do not like. We speak about what is profitable to us and keep silent about things that are not profitable to us. This is also a kind of lying. Many people purposely withhold half of a story. They withhold the things that are profitable to others, especially things that are profitable to their enemies, and remain silent about them. Instead, they talk about things that hurt, damage, or bring loss to others. This is lying. Many people do not speak according to truth and reality, but according to their own likes and dislikes. Many words are not based on facts but on sentiments. Such people speak certain things because they like to speak them, or they speak about certain persons because they like them. They change their tone when the conversation turns to people or things they do not like. This kind of speaking is totally according to one's likes and dislikes. It is speaking according to one's emotion, not according to truth and reality. Please keep in mind that this is lying. Inaccurate words are a serious sin. Willful deception is even more serious, and it is a greater sin before God. We must not speak according to our emotion but according to facts. Either we must not speak at all, or we must speak according to facts and the truth. We cannot speak according to our feeling. If we do, we are lying willfully before God." Watchman Nee's Collected Works Volume 50 If you read the quoted text, this was and still is the case with The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. I have underlined the applicable portions that relate to the book. Where there was facts in Witness Lee's speaking, it was still according to his likes and his dislikes which Watchman Nee writes is a lie. |
|
|
|
|
|
07-19-2011, 05:32 AM
|
#13 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion
Quote:
The withholding of a fact, opinion, etc., is not simply a lie where the whole "truth" serves no meaningful purpose, especially where it merely inflames emotions or causes grief, embarrassment, etc. It may or may not be a lie to withhold knowledge. If a court is seeking facts and you withhold the truth to the detriment of the accused, then you have lied. But if you merely withhold your opinion, the only thing you have withheld is, well, your opinion. If you are asked to provide your opinion, then your opinion to withhold some or all of your opinion is your legitimate option. But when we look at the things upon which this thread is based — the fabrications of TFOTPR — there is no withholding. Instead, there are facts that have been misrepresented in a manner that causes what is said to be a lie. It may be true that a particular phrase was actually said by John or Bill, but outside of its context it appears to say something different from what was actually said. That is to misrepresent and is therefore a lie. This whole thing about preferences is a vague thing. I can argue that there is nothing about God that is my natural preference, therefore if I am taking a position for God (by being for a ministry) then it must be against my natural preference. Then it must not be a lie. But that position is itself a lie. False witness is to make a statement about someone that is not true. If I use their words to cause them to seem to say something that they actually did not say, then I have lied. There is no issue of preferences. For a ministry of "life" there is the constant layering on of rules and regulations. And those rules and regulations do not agree completely with the simple command of God, therefore they negate the command of God. Unlike Lee, I do not necessarily accuse him of willfully being duplicitous with this teaching. But once you are deep into analyzing your preferences, it is too easy to let that override the simple "it is a lie." If it is a false statement, it is irrelevant whether it is or is not your preference. I'm not sure that Nee was so wise to come up with more ways to dice the "false witness" onion. If you have caused something not true to be believed about someone else, then you have lied. Whether it was or was not your preference is irrelevant. And Lee drove a Mack truck through the opening that Nee provided. We really should reconsider whether basing any of our morality, theology, etc., on either Lee or Nee is really valuable. Both provide loopholes to the plain word of God. The only real difference is that Lee used the loopholes while Nee did not (that we know of).
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
07-19-2011, 09:20 AM
|
#14 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,558
|
Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion
Quote:
Sure saints like the Mallon's may have wanted to go on in the recovery. How could they or anyone else in their position, when no one is willing to receive them based on what was said in this publication? |
|
|
|
|
|
07-20-2011, 12:32 AM
|
#15 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 600
|
Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-19-2011, 06:37 AM
|
#16 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion
Quote:
On a daily basis it is impossible to always speak in a complete manner that does not leave anything out. But, when you are creating a publication that is a witness and which you know will spread strife among brothers then the standard is much higher and you must speak in a complete manner. So, for example, in this case there were things that were left out that would have weakened, or harmed WL case. According to WN to leave them out is to lie and to be a false witness. (Did WN just call WL "a false witness"?) Also, if I am speaking to my wife I can safely assume that many things I leave out are already understood by her because of previous conversations. But, when you publish something you cannot make that assumption as you would have no idea who is your reader. Therefore the standard for being complete is of necessity much higher. So, in my opinion, this case is a clear case of willful deception by WL, let the Lord judge. |
|
|
|
|
|
07-19-2011, 09:08 AM
|
#17 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion
I have ignored the "spreading strife among brothers" portion because that is such a subjective thing. A lie can spread strife. The truth can spread strife. And avoiding saying something true that would spread strife is to withhold the truth. In some ways, Nee's formula is overly legalistic and is potentially circular. I sense that if it is my place to speak, then I must be truthful. But I do not need to say things that are not beneficial even if true. And I don't need to refrain from telling the truth just because there will be strife, although that might be a consideration.
Using Nee's "preferences, no strife, etc." rules provides a platform to ignore the clear rule and substitute one that can be manipulated. And it removes the need for wisdom and guidance. "Just follow this formula." It takes wisdom to know when to speak or refrain from speaking. Preferences can be an issue. But they can also be irrelevant although present. But "do not bear false witness" cannot be ignored because of some overlay of "spiritual" mumbo-jumbo spoken by some guy that people think was so spiritual. And to be a little more blunt, I don't think that referring to either Lee or Nee to discuss the veracity of TFOTPR is meaningful. They may or may not speak what is actually true. But it is such a crap-shoot to stake your decision on them that I just wouldn't do it. Just refer to the Bible. The 10 commandments are clear. "Preferences" and "strife" provide ways to avoid the commandment. Just let your "yes" be "yes" and your "no" be "no." And TFOTPR fails the "don't bear false witness" test. No need to look further. Doesn't matter what Nee or Lee says about what is true or whether Deputy Authority has an out. A lie is a lie. And TFOTPR is a collection of lies. Period. No weasel room.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
07-21-2011, 01:31 AM
|
#18 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 600
|
Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion
Quote:
But whether you agree with him or not, whether you think he's being more "philisophical" or more "biblical", is really beside the point. Because he's clearly condemning the kind of "playing fast and loose with the facts" that is exemplified in these defamatory publications. Consider this excerpt: "Many people purposely withhold half of a story. They withhold the things that are profitable to others, especially things that are profitable to their enemies, and remain silent about them. Instead, they talk about things that hurt, damage, or bring loss to others." The context of Bill Mallon's letter was withheld. "Things that are profitable to [Witness Lee's perceived] enemies" -- you know, Mallon's expressions of concern, regret, even solidarity with Witness Lee -- were entirely withheld, in favor of "things that hurt, damage, or bring loss" to Mallon. Surely Nee would have considered TFOTPR as an example of what he was describing here? Personally I don't think Lee was making use of any kind of "loophole", perceived or otherwise, from Watchman Nee. I think he was just doing whatever the hell he wanted, and if anyone dared ask him about Nee's teachings, in light of his recent actions, his response was essentially, Who do you think you are, you insolent slob? |
|
|
|
|
|
07-21-2011, 04:43 AM
|
#19 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-21-2011, 06:21 AM
|
#20 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion
Quote:
WN's exposition (first posted by Terry in post #17) was an attempt to close loopholes in the way people speak, not open loopholes big enough for "Lee to drive a Mack truck through." Is WN the first minister on record who began to detail how we humans can use "white lies" and the like to escape from telling the truth. I just don't see how WN's teaching in any way negates the command, "thou shalt not bear false witness," by replacing the Lord's word with some psychological construct. Now if MikeH finds fault with the whole teaching on the distinctions of "mind, emotion, will," shouldn't that be be a part of another discussion? Introducing these topics has derailed the current discussion. Contrary to what MikeH has said, I see this as just one more serious instance where WL has seriously violated the teachings, not only of the mentor he claims to closely adhere to, but more importantly the Lord's clear instruction in the Bible. No amount of rational teaching, least of all WN's quoted teaching, can justify what was recorded in the book Fermentation ... That is about as clear a case of "bearing false witness against your neighbor" as has ever occurred in the annals of history! What hypocrisy! And to think this was done by the same folks who appealed for relief from the US Supreme Court for some perceived injustice by another publisher!
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
07-21-2011, 07:02 AM
|
#21 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion
Quote:
I personally believed WL's account of the story, supported by so many "testimonies," which were recorded in Fermentation..., for 15 years. At the time, no brother I knew in the Ohio area, spoke anything different. If they knew better, they were silent about it. Only one opportunistic, and not very well-respected, young worker from the region was even included in the book. In the absence of dissenting opinions, the book was accepted in the GLA as "accurate." We in the GLA never did have the opportunity to weigh the facts individually. There is a reason that the American judicial system demands a "jury of peers." Common folks like us should be able to discern the facts, without a carte blanche acceptance of one side's version of the story based on the decision of TC in Cleveland, who held to some misguided Chinese principle that, "my father's mistakes are none of my business." That principle, like so many other "human traditions," was used to trump the Biblical mandates concerning "bearing false witness." Using such "principles," WL has continually escaped all culpability. History shows us this pattern of abuse, and subsequent endorsements by regional leaders, allowed WL to continue unchecked from the time of WN's imprisonment until WL's death.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
07-21-2011, 11:02 AM
|
#22 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Fermentation of the Present Rebellion
Quote:
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
