Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The whole "not a true servant of the Lord" argument is pointless because it all depends on what one means by a "true servant of the Lord." We throw around these phrases and we never define what they mean.

We say things like "so-and-so is a true servant of the Lord" as kind of general compliment. That's probably as far as we should take the use of that label. We say someone is a "really good Christian," and the like. But we probably shouldn't say someone is a "really bad Christian," should we? I wouldn't think so.

This is the other side, judging also includes the aspect of judging that "WL is the MOTA" etc. We had a discussion on "apostles" and whether they still exist. There was a range of agreement on this topic, some were more willing to accept that we still have apostles, others were not, fair enough. But even if your understanding of the word differs on this, wouldn't you agree that you are prohibited from judging that any particular man is the "MOTA"?

After all, didn't that and other discussions conclude that many former members felt guilty for judging that WL was the MOTA, or that the LRC was an elite group of Christians, or that Christianity was fallen. When the Lord said "judge not lest you be judged" isn't that what he was referring to?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is the other side, judging also includes the aspect of judging that "WL is the MOTA" etc. We had a discussion on "apostles" and whether they still exist. There was a range of agreement on this topic, some were more willing to accept that we still have apostles, others were not, fair enough. But even if your understanding of the word differs on this, wouldn't you agree that you are prohibited from judging that any particular man is the "MOTA"?

After all, didn't that and other discussions conclude that many former members felt guilty for judging that WL was the MOTA, or that the LRC was an elite group of Christians, or that Christianity was fallen. When the Lord said "judge not lest you be judged" isn't that what he was referring to?

I think you are carrying the "not judging" thing too far. Jesus tells us to judge righteously (John 7:24).

The reason it is wrong to judge that WL was the MOTA is because there is no possible way anyone could know he is such a thing. I think the righteous judgment in that case would be "I don't know because I cannot know."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But even if your understanding of the word differs on this, wouldn't you agree that you are prohibited from judging that any particular man is the "MOTA"?

How do you arrive at the notion that we have no right, or even responsibility, to judge whether a person actually is what he claims to be, especially if he is asserting a claim of authority upon others?

You have created a universe in which those who dare to make a claim are, by default, not subject to questioning.

"You don't question God!" "I'm just trying to find out why God needs a Starship."

That may seem a ridiculous example. But if we cannot judge for ourselves whether any particular person is a MOTA, then we are stuck with a universe in which every nut who opens his mouth in a way that is attractive will be able to do anything they want. I recall Max R making fun of the rash of "Yogis" [sic] coming out in the late 70s. He noted that all they had to do was say "Up is up. Down is down. The hands of the clock go 'round and 'round" and they would have a following. You now would declare that no one has any right to question their veracity.

And if we are misunderstanding you, then you really need to restate a few of these lines because several of us are having problems with them. We failed to stand up when more ridiculous things than this were said by Lee back in the 60s and 70s and look what it got us.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

How do you arrive at the notion that we have no right, or even responsibility, to judge whether a person actually is what he claims to be, especially if he is asserting a claim of authority upon others?

You have created a universe in which those who dare to make a claim are, by default, not subject to questioning.

"You don't question God!" "I'm just trying to find out why God needs a Starship."

That may seem a ridiculous example. But if we cannot judge for ourselves whether any particular person is a MOTA, then we are stuck with a universe in which every nut who opens his mouth in a way that is attractive will be able to do anything they want. I recall Max R making fun of the rash of "Yogis" [sic] coming out in the late 70s. He noted that all they had to do was say "Up is up. Down is down. The hands of the clock go 'round and 'round" and they would have a following. You now would declare that no one has any right to question their veracity.

And if we are misunderstanding you, then you really need to restate a few of these lines because several of us are having problems with them. We failed to stand up when more ridiculous things than this were said by Lee back in the 60s and 70s and look what it got us.

Igzy said "there is no possible way to know he is such a thing" I was responding to this. My point is the word "judge" does not have to refer to a negative judgment. My point was that when Jesus said "judge not lest you be judged" we usually take that to mean "don't think evil of someone else" but it could also mean "don't think that someone else is "the MOTA" either". I then pointed out that many on this and other forums have expressed regret or even guilt that they accepted some of these judgments while in the LRC. So, as a result of judging that WL was the MOTA or that the LRC is some kind of elite group of Christians they also are feeling that they are getting judged with the same judgement with which they judged.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My point was that when Jesus said "judge not lest you be judged" we usually take that to mean "don't think evil of someone else" but it could also mean "don't think that someone else is "the MOTA" either".

The very implication of the term "judge" is to render a verdict or decision on some aspect of the character of a person, or of a teaching. And you seemed very clearly to be suggesting that the verses you were pointing to said we should not only not judge anyone, but also not even bother considering whether they really were what they claimed to be.

When it says judge not or you will be judged, it is speaking in worldly terms in which those who render a judgment put themselves under the microscope. Someone who is unrighteous yet rendering judgment will find their existence scrutinized. It is, unfortunately, a kind of "shoot the messenger" approach. But when it comes to claims of the righteousness of someone else, it is not unexpected.

But everyone is judged in the end, so it cannot be talking about that judgment. And it should be understood that we are not in the position to render the ultimate judgment.

So if you want to suggest that we need to understand what it means to judge, and what kind of judgment is allowable — even expected — and what kind is reserved for God, throwing out one passage is pointless. Go find them all. Lay them out together. Let us ponder the similarities and differences and see if there is order in where and how we should judge, where and how we should be careful, and what is not ours.

This would be much better than this nonsense of reading James as saying that judging is speaking evil (it does not say that). Speaking evil may come out of judging. It could come out of a lack of discernment (not judging). In fact, the very exercise of discernment is a form of judging. It is incumbent upon us to exercise discernment. And when we say "discernment of spirits," could that be as much about the force, character, etc., of the person behind the situation, teachings, etc., as it is about "spirits," suggesting angels or demons, Satan or God?

Paul named a few to avoid. There were different reasons. There was Jannes and Jambres, and Hymenaous and Phyletus (I probably spelled those horribly). I doubt those were just ordinary brothers. They were asserting some kind of authority or position, or somehow making themselves a problem to either a specific church or some churches in general (not stated). Paul said to beware of people like them. not just those specific ones. If we are to beware of people like them, then we need to discern (judge) whether they are, in fact, like those. So it is not just Paul's place to make a judgment and everyone else just accept and follow.

It may rightly be that not every one of us has the clear discernment to make such a judgment. But if you persist in attacking the very charge to consider it, that seems more contrary to scripture than in at least trying to get it right by using discernment and judging. My observations may not be the end-all of the discussion. But if someone dismisses them by saying I shouldn't even think about it or say it out loud, then Paul's charge to exercise discernment is undermined. It may be that discussion with others (one of those Acts 15 councils?) could prove me wrong. But to simply say I shouldn't attempt to say it or think it is just plain wrong. Even scripturally wrong.

No. It is not my place to judge anyone's eternal position. Or even attempt to declare what their reward (or punishment if you buy Lee's thinking) will be. Yet to consider that a particular path may lead to a certain outcome may be quite sobering. It may be that the thought that someone is "turned over to Satan" for a time is very fruitful to how others consider their more hidden sins.

Lee thought his sin was hidden. At least enough that he could make its stain go away by lying about those who saw the sin and brought the charge to him. It would seem that one brought the charge to him. Then two or three as witnesses. And the obvious problem was brought to the church. PL was excommunicated (although Lee stepped in and reversed the order for a time (years?)) and the church very temporarily freed from the bondage of a "ministry office" run by an immoral person. Then there was a conference in which Lies were told about those who brought the report about PL. It was transformed into something else. A three-ring circus in which everything became about ambition to overthrow Lee. PL was not mentioned. Only Anaheim knew better. But even too many of them thought MOTA position (even without that term yet on the table) covered all sins. I'm surprised that Anaheim survived as a church after that. They knew what was going on. Did they just move more people from other places to shore up the ranks of the faithful? The ones who put their fingers in their ears and allowed Jannes and Jambres to continue?

It is my assertion that Lee's businesses, even the LSM, was a way to earn money off the backs of the churches. And even the LSM damaged the churches. It cannot be separated from Lee. Lee the minister and LSM, the ministry of Lee, are not two different things. One brought "high peaks" while the other controlled and even damaged churches. I discern too many of the "high peaks" to be false teachings. So I conclude that there is a problem with Lee, the teacher, not just PL, the "ministry office" in Lee's personal ministry.

Take exception to the things I lay out as evidence. These are things brought out by multiple witnesses. It is not just my rant.

Don't declare that no one should judge the situation. I think Paul has strongly said otherwise. As has Jesus. Don't pull out that hollow "judge not another man's servant" dodge. It doesn't fit.

[seeking1]

"I discern too many of the "high peaks" to be false teachings."

OBW, would you mind elaborating on what teachings you're referring to. Not that I disagree, but I'd just like to know.

I know the whole "baby w/ the bath water" thing has probably been beaten to death but, it's something that I've been contemplating lately. If you follow the "a little leaven" line of reasoning, then wouldn't the whole "lump" of Lee be leavened?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Igzy said "there is no possible way to know he is such a thing" I was responding to this. My point is the word "judge" does not have to refer to a negative judgment. My point was that when Jesus said "judge not lest you be judged" we usually take that to mean "don't think evil of someone else" but it could also mean "don't think that someone else is "the MOTA" either". I then pointed out that many on this and other forums have expressed regret or even guilt that they accepted some of these judgments while in the LRC. So, as a result of judging that WL was the MOTA or that the LRC is some kind of elite group of Christians they also are feeling that they are getting judged with the same judgement with which they judged.

This is what I thought you meant. But I don't agree that the "judge not" passage in Matt 7 applies to it. That passage is talking about self-righteous judgment, not judgment that is impossible to make.

Suppose a woman is a prostitute and I have certain knowledge that she is. If I say "that dirty whore" in a self-righteous manner, then that is what the Lord is addressing in Matt 7.

But if I don't have certain knowledge of her and I say "that woman is a prostitute" that's not the judging Matt 7 is talking about. That's more like bearing false witness. Because I'm saying something is true that I don't for certain know is true. Saying WL is the MOTA falls into that category, I would think.

Like I said, I think you are interpreting Matt 7 too broadly. The Lord says in other places that we need to judge in certain cases.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is what I thought you meant. But I don't agree that the "judge not" passage in Matt 7 applies to it. That passage is talking about self-righteous judgment, not judgment that is impossible to make.

Suppose a woman is a prostitute and I have certain knowledge that she is. If I say "that dirty whore" in a self-righteous manner, then that is what the Lord is addressing in Matt 7.

But if I don't have certain knowledge of her and I say "that woman is a prostitute" that's not the judging Matt 7 is talking about. That's more like bearing false witness. Because I'm saying something is true that I don't for certain know is true. Saying WL is the MOTA falls into that category, I would think.

Like I said, I think you are interpreting Matt 7 too broadly. The Lord says in other places that we need to judge in certain cases.

So how would you distinguish between "self righteous judgment" and someone who is "judging the heart". In the example you give I can see someone judging that someone else committed fornication, adultery, or sold their body for sex. But to then take the next step and say they are a "whore" to me is what is forbidden.

As to the MOTA, there was a range of understanding on this. You held to the strictest understanding of Apostles having the authority to write scripture, others held a more lenient view. I don't think we ever found a definitive verse on this matter. Now Paul told the Corinthians that they should have been able to judge that he was an apostle. Also, how could the Lord commend the church in Ephesus for trying those that say they are apostles and finding them false, if you can't discern if someone wasn't a true apostle. So I have no issue with someone who thinks we still have apostles or with someone who judges that a particular brother is an apostle. But MOTA implies more than that, "Minister of the Age". Even if you feel that we still have the gift of apostles, how could you judge that one particular one is the "MOTA", it seems to me to be similar to when the Lord said "to sit on my right hand or my left is not mine to give". If the Lord would say that how much more us?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So how would you distinguish between "self righteous judgment" and someone who is "judging the heart".

Self-righteous judgment means one does not humbly think they are susceptible to the same failing they accuse others of having. I explained this in post #34

Judging someone else's heart could be self-righteous. It could also simply be mistaken.

In the example you give I can see someone judging that someone else committed fornication, adultery, or sold their body for sex. But to then take the next step and say they are a "whore" to me is what is forbidden.

I agree and that's what I said.

But MOTA implies more than that, "Minister of the Age". Even if you feel that we still have the gift of apostles, how could you judge that one particular one is the "MOTA", it seems to me to be similar to when the Lord said "to sit on my right hand or my left is not mine to give". If the Lord would say that how much more us?

I agree with this, too. I just don't think that Matt 7 is the source for this view.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am very much encouraged by this post. Thanks.

Thanks.

I think dismissing Lee's work wholesale is the just the mirror error of considering him the MOTA. It's an extreme.

Lee lived a life and did a work for the Lord. He had both successes and failures. He ran his race.

Now approach him as you would any teacher or writer, living or passed on. Consider the man and consider his ministry. Take the good. Learn from the mistakes. Ignore claims that he had a corner on the market of truth.

And be grateful that God deems to consider any of us His servants, or that He smiles at any of our flawed work.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Self-righteous judgment means one does not humbly think they are susceptible to the same failing they accuse others of having.

So how would you apply that? How would I know that when a person had issued a judgment what they were thinking? How would I know if they were humble?

Also, in the example you gave of the "dirty rotten whore" would it make it OK if I first thanked God, humbly admitting that I also am susceptible, by saying "I thank you that by the grace of God I am not like her"?

[Cal]

First off, nobody is perfect. Everyone sins and falls short of the glory of God. Simply that someone stumbles does not invalidate all the work he or she has ever done for the Lord. Luther and Darby are two good examples. Both had serious failings at the end of their lives (for that matter Moses did, too.)

Witness Lee had failings, too. He also had successes. In that sense he is no different than any other imperfect servant.

If I am interpreting OBW correctly then I disagree with him that Lee completely forfeited his standing as a teacher. I don't know that Darby repented of his exclusivism or that Luther repented of his hatred for Jews before they died. But I can still read their writings and get good out of them. I can still be inspired by the faithfulness they did show. And be warned by their failings.

Lee taught a lot of things and much of it is good. That shouldn't be the issue and I think OBW goes too far with his dismissal of Lee.

What I think is the issue is this whole thing about Lee being some special MOTA--the very real belief that there was something special about the man himself that leads LRC folks to make irrational life choices and allows them to be manipulated.

If we can look back on Luther and Darby and view their life and work objectively, and see them as flawed men who did some good things and also made some mistakes then why can't we do it with Lee?

This to me is the crux of the matter. We must see Lee as we see any other historical figure. LRCers must learn to not be intimidated by his shadow. The MOTA, the infallible apostle who is right even when he is wrong, must be exposed and discarded. It's easy to do with those other so-called "MOTAs" like Luther and Darby. The same approach must be taken with Lee.

The Lord allows us all to be exposed. And the bigger we claim to be the harder He lets us fall. This is a mercy. Can you imagine the delusion we'd be under if Lee had been near perfect? Did you ever think that the Lord lets mighty figures like Moses and David and Luther fail precisely so we will not hold them in too high esteem? And so that people with an agenda are less able to abuse that reverence to control and manipulate us?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

First off, nobody is perfect...

I am very much encouraged by this post. Thanks.