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

[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?