Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL?

[77150]

Originally Posted by Terry

Would this sufficce relating to the late 80's turmoil being brought into light:

"As to the issues you have raised related to the events of the distant past, the brothers here just do not have the heart to reopen old wounds and delve into matters that we believe were resolved many years ago. "

Can you answer my 3 questions:

1. Did this eliminate the discord?
2. Was this a testimony to God's salvation?
3. Were you benefitted by this?

Also, can you please verify that one of these who spoke this signed that document of 2006. No need to be specific.

PS -- There is no basis whatsoever, based on WL's teaching that sins that were committed a long time ago do not need to "be dredged up". On the contrary you are to deal with every sin that the Lord makes you aware of. This word is a clear testimony that those involved had been made aware. How many BBs? If this is an official stance of the BBs it is the ultimate hypocrisy.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by 77150

Can you answer my 3 questions:

1. Did this eliminate the discord?
2. Was this a testimony to God's salvation?
3. Were you benefitted by this?

Also, can you please verify that one of these who spoke this signed that document of 2006. No need to be specific.

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.

The author of what I quoted did not sign any of the 3 letters from 2005 or 2006.

[77150]

Originally Posted by Terry

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.

The author of what I quoted did not sign any of the 3 letters from 2005 or 2006.

Moses and David both made mistakes. The difference is that when made aware of those mistakes they dealt with them in a way that testified to God's salvation. To stand with those who proclaim they are seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL and then decide you won't deal with an acknowledged sin because it happened a long time ago is hypocrisy. The discord was a result of the sin, by not rebuking the sin you choose discord. To claim that you are for the oneness of the Body and yet you are choosing discord is hypocrisy. We deal with sins instead of covering them up because we have been redeemed and our spirit has been regenerated. Our conscience will not permit us to just sweep sins under the rug, this is a testimony of God's salvation and it is a glory to God. To sweep this under the rug in this way calls into question the brothers salvation and brings shame to God. Their words and doings are against the Lord of Glory to provoke Him. They are allowing the damage to the saints as a result of their sin, which in this case is the sin of justifying the wicked. Isaiah 3:15 "What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord GOD of hosts."

Isaiah 3:12 "O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."

[77150]

Originally Posted by Terry

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.

The author of what I quoted did not sign any of the 3 letters from 2005 or 2006.

To be fair, the reasons why a Christian would want to discuss sins would be to deal with them in a way that eliminates discord, testifies to God's salvation and benefits the victims.

Therefore, if a person is not qualified to deal with the sin since it was not their sin, they are not in a position to do any of these things. In that event it would be understandable that someone would not want to dredge up past sins of others.

So sins committed by PL, TL and WL would all be the responsibility of LSM. Daystar, publication of "Fermentation...", and any other published statements concerning these events would be something that LSM would be qualified to deal with.

2nd of all, "dealing with sins" is taught by WL. Since BBs have testified in a solemn oath that they are seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL it is fair to look at how they have dealt with any and all public sins. But if someone did not sign anything to that effect the situation becomes much murkier. There is no scriptural basis that I am aware of that would compel a brother to discuss the sins of others. So whereas you might feel led by the Lord to discuss this, I cannot see any basis to assume that all would feel the same. Also, the forum becomes a major issue. I might be willing to discuss these issues with you personally yet absolutely refuse to discuss them in a meeting with others who might be damaged by this discussion.

[OBW]

I am not sure what it is you mean when you keep referring to whether certain one "signed anything." Do you feel that those who are leaders of the LSM are excused if they did not "sing something" — are not on record with respect to specific things? That the repetition of the content of their error by leadership is excusable as long as they were not the originators of the lie?

Not sure what "signing anything" is supposed to mean and how it limits the discussion.

[77150]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am not sure what it is you mean when you keep referring to whether certain one "signed anything." Do you feel that those who are leaders of the LSM are excused if they did not "sing something" — are not on record with respect to specific things? That the repetition of the content of their error by leadership is excusable as long as they were not the originators of the lie?

Not sure what "signing anything" is supposed to mean and how it limits the discussion.

I am referring to the warning letter concerning TC. This letter was used to essentially excommunicate TC and it was based on the fact that "they were seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL".

If someone did not sign that letter then, no, I am not aware of any solemn oath they have made to "seek to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL". Therefore I do not see that it is reasonable to measure them based on how faithful they have been to WL's teaching on dealing with sins.

Second, not being faithful to WL's ministry would not implicate such a one in hypocrisy concerning TC since they didn't claim that they were.

Third, it would not be evidence of them damaging saints with their lies since they didn't use this claim as an excuse to excommunicate TC. For all I know they were not involved in that in any way.

Fourth, it wouldn't have a very strong impact on the the LRC. The people who signed that letter were being held up as leaders of the LRC. They are claiming that they are "blended" brothers and that they are one. therefore, punching a hole in that facade would implicate the leadership of the LRC.

I have limited the scope of this thread to the BBs that signed that letter for the above reasons. I am not saying anything about anyone else. I hope the above answers your question. If not, I am not saying anything about anyone who is not the focus of this thread, and this thread is focused on those that signed that letter.

[I think RG and BP got the elders during an elders conference to sign a pledge to be one with the ministry. However, as that was not used to excommunicate others you might be able to prove that one of the signatories fell short of that pledge, but it would hardly be enough to warrant the Lord's judgment.]

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by 77150

I am referring to the warning letter concerning TC. This letter was used to essentially excommunicate TC and it was based on the fact that "they were seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL".

If someone did not sign that letter then, no, I am not aware of any solemn oath they have made to "seek to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL". Therefore I do not see that it is reasonable to measure them based on how faithful they have been to WL's teaching on dealing with sins.

First hat was the exact date this letter was circulated about being faithful to the entire ministry of WL?
When you get into signing of letters specifically related to Titus Chu, there are two types of letters that were signed:
1. Letters signed by a core group of blended brothers from 2005-2006.
2. Letters signed by brothers representing their individual localties.

The latter I have a bigger issue with. It ties back to Nell's post where she references Watchman Nee's Character of the Lord's Worker. Here is a specific example where as much as brothers claim to be faithful to Witness Lee or Watchman Nee's ministry lays a discrepancy between practices and what the ministry says.

One of my issues with localities regarding Titus Chu, at what point where they ministered directly by Titus Chu. Specifically on the west coast US. When was the last time he ministered in Seattle, Portland, Sacremmento, San Diego, etc?
At what point was anything he said worthy of being divisive or heretical?
Why would localities who saw Titus Chu as a non-issue be considered personna non grata?

[77150]

Originally Posted by Terry

First hat was the exact date this letter was circulated about being faithful to the entire ministry of WL?
When you get into signing of letters specifically related to Titus Chu, there are two types of letters that were signed:
1. Letters signed by a core group of blended brothers from 2005-2006.
2. Letters signed by brothers representing their individual localties.

The latter I have a bigger issue with. It ties back to Nell's post where she references Watchman Nee's Character of the Lord's Worker. Here is a specific example where as much as brothers claim to be faithful to Witness Lee or Watchman Nee's ministry lays a discrepancy between practices and what the ministry says.

One of my issues with localities regarding Titus Chu, at what point where they ministered directly by Titus Chu. Specifically on the west coast US. When was the last time he ministered in Seattle, Portland, Sacremmento, San Diego, etc?
At what point was anything he said worthy of being divisive or heretical?
Why would localities who saw Titus Chu as a non-issue be considered personna non grata?

These are great issues, but not really relevant to the very narrow focus of this thread. I am looking for an example of hypocrisy that I could take to the Lord in prayer asking Him to overthrow the house of the wicked, just as His word says. Without such an event then I would be forced to conclude that none of the sins and complaints leveled on this and other forums comes to the level of bringing the Lord's judgement on either the LRC or LSM.

No doubt there are valid complaints concerning PL, concerning TL and concerning WL. RG and BP's endorsement of PL and pushing of the MOTA is certainly suspect, but does it rise to the level of sin that needs to be dealt with publicly? I would think that if there were any blatant lies in "Fermentation..." that this would be something that would be a public sin that would have to be dealt with publicly. However, several days have passed and no one has made such a claim.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by 77150

I am referring to the warning letter concerning TC. This letter was used to essentially excommunicate TC and it was based on the fact that "they were seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL".

If someone did not sign that letter then, no, I am not aware of any solemn oath they have made to "seek to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL". Therefore I do not see that it is reasonable to measure them based on how faithful they have been to WL's teaching on dealing with sins.

Second, not being faithful to WL's ministry would not implicate such a one in hypocrisy concerning TC since they didn't claim that they were.

Subsequent to the letters of excommunication written by the "21 Blendeds," many leaders of regions and churches signed "Letters of Affirmation," which means they whole-heartedly endorsed the Blended Brothers' actions at Whistler. They can be found here ...

afaithfulword.org/corresp/churches.html

Specifically, here is the letter from the Northwest LC's ...

http://afaithfulword.org/corresp/Sta...hwest%20US.pdf

[77150]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Subsequent to the letters of excommunication written by the "21 Blendeds," many leaders of regions and churches signed "Letters of Affirmation," which means they whole-heartedly endorsed the Blended Brothers' actions at Whistler. They can be found here ...

afaithfulword.org/corresp/churches.html

Specifically, here is the letter from the Northwest LC's ...

http://afaithfulword.org/corresp/Sta...hwest%20US.pdf

Well then, if a brother endorses TC being judged based on not "seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL" then it is only right that they also be judged by this standard. However, I don't think any individuals failure would implicate the LRC as much as the failure of a BB.

Realistically, apart from BP, RK, RG, and a few other brothers, hypocrisy on this point would only implicate the brother and not the LSM or LRC.