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

[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.

[TLFisher]

This is from a message given in 1968 and printed as The Practical Expression of the Church. As you will read this message by Witness Lee is scriptural, but I cannot say the BB's have been faithful to this portion of Witness Lee's ministry. There has been a serious lack of receiving liberally or generally. Before I get to the text of Witness Lee's ministry, here is an example of the current mode of receiving:

"There is a church in Riverside, standing on the ground of the oneness of the Body of Christ. It seem that the brother you mention had fellowship not with the church but with an independent group of Christians. Our contact with dissenting ones needs to be according to life and truth and according to the feeling of the Body."


THE PROPER RECEIVING OF THE SAINTS



It is only by being so liberal and general that we can receive all the saints in a proper way. If we are otherwise, we cannot avoid being sectarian in the matter of receiving. If we are special in anything and insist upon that, we will probably not receive those who differ from us in certain matters. But the Apostle said, “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.” What he meant when he referred to “him that is weak in the faith” is illustrated in the following verses: i.e., the matter of eating and keeping of days. By this we are affirmatively told that we must receive the saints who differ from us in these things. Any saint who holds a different opinion or concept regarding the things we are in favor, we must receive, “for God hath received him.” As long as he is a saint, as long as he has received hin, we have no right to reject him. Our receiving must be the same as God’s receiving, no less and no more. God’s receiving is the basis of our receiving. Our receiving must not be according to our taste, our opinion, or our assertion. It must be in accordance with God’s receiving. It must be based upon God’s receiving- nothing else.

God receives people according to His Son. As long as a person receives His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, as his personal Savior, regardless of the concepts he holds regarding all other things, God receives him immediately. Since God receives people in this way, we too must receive people in the same way. Our receiving must be in accordance with God’s receiving. If our receiving differs from His, it means that we are wrong: either we are more narrow or more broad than God. This will cause much trouble and damage to the church life.

God’s receiving is based upon Christ’s receiving, and Christ’s receiving is in accordance with our faith in Him. Whoever believes in Him, He will receive. Whoever receives Him, He will never reject. He said, “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37). Since coming to Him, believing in Him, receiving Him, is the only condition for Christ’s receiving, so we must receive people upon the same basis with nothing added. As long as anyone believes in Christ our Lord, as long as He receives Him as His personal Savior, we must receive him with nothing else required. Regardless of how he may dissent in so many other things, as long as he is a real believer in the Lord, we have no choice but to receive him, for the Lord has received him. This is why the Apostle said, “Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.” We must receive whoever Christ has received. We must have such a proper receiving of all the saints that we may keep the proper unity; otherwise, we can never keep ourselves from being sectarian and causing much confusion and damage to the church life. To practice the church life by keeping the proper unity, such a general receiving is necessary. May the Lord have mercy upon us! (page 66-67)

[77150]

2 Cor 7:2 Receive us; we have wronged no man, we have corrupted no man, we have defrauded no man.

If we refuse to receive WL because he has wronged a man in the false accusations of the “sister’s rebellion”, or if we refused to receive WL because he allowed his son to corrupt saints, or if we refused to receive WL because he defrauded saints as a result of the Daystar debacle that would be Biblical. JS and JI had legitimate Biblical basis to not receive WL. But these were not the issues in casting out TC. No the issue was LSM trainings and publications. The issue was that they “sought to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL” and they felt that TC did not.

However, according to WL “Any saint who holds a different opinion or concept regarding the things we are in favor, we must receive, “for God hath received him.” (WL, The Practical Expression of the Church, page 66-67). The BBs were in favor of the ministry of WL, TC held a different opinion or concept than they did. However, no one disputed that “God had received him”. Therefore, anyone seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL would receive him.

“As long as a person receives His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, as his personal Savior, regardless of the concepts he holds regarding all other things, God receives him immediately. Since God receives people in this way, we too must receive people in the same way. Our receiving must be in accordance with God’s receiving. If our receiving differs from His, it means that we are wrong: either we are more narrow or more broad than God.” (WL, The Practical Expression of the Church, page 66-67). I think that it is clear from the action taken in quarantining TC that the “receiving” of the BBs differs from God’s receiving. Therefore this action is condemned by the ministry of WL as being wrong and being too narrow. Clearly, justifying this action as being the result of “seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL” is hypocrisy.

"As long as anyone believes in Christ our Lord, as long as He receives Him as His personal Savior, we must receive him with nothing else required. Regardless of how he may dissent in so many other things, as long as he is a real believer in the Lord, we have no choice but to receive him, for the Lord has received him." (WL, The Practical Expression of the Church, page 66-67). Justifying your action by accusing TC or any other brother of “dissenting” is also condemned by WL’s ministry. Once again, doing this while also claiming to be “seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL” is hypocrisy. It is deceitful.

"This is why the Apostle said, “Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.” We must receive whoever Christ has received. We must have such a proper receiving of all the saints that we may keep the proper unity; otherwise, we can never keep ourselves from being sectarian and causing much confusion and damage to the church life." (WL, The Practical Expression of the Church, page 66-67). The BBs claim that they are for the “oneness of the Body” while “being sectarian” and “causing confusion and damage to the church life”. They claim that they seek to be “faithful” to the “entire ministry of WL” yet are condemned by WL’s ministry as being sectarian and causing confusion and damage to the church life.

According to the Recovery Version of Galatians, the footnotes in chapter 5:19-21 being sectarian is a work of the flesh.

WL taught in “The Experience of Life” that we need to deal with the flesh. “Romans 8:8, “They that are in the flesh cannot please God.” The Bible has spoken much about the flesh, and at this point it concludes that the flesh cannot please God. If man belongs to the flesh, minds the flesh, and lives by the flesh, whatever he does, either good or bad, cannot please God.” It may be that Abraham was trying to please God when he had a son by Hagar, and it may also be that the BBs were trying to please God when they excommunicated TC and a number of churches, but the Bible and WL teach that “those who are in the flesh cannot please God”.

[UntoHim]

The blended brothers are behaving just as Witness Lee behaved. I don't see a lick of difference between the two of them, and over the years, nobody has presented one shred of evidence to show any significant difference between the two. And quoting things that Witness Lee wrote 40 or 50 years ago is much to do about nothing. Witness Lee did not practice the things posted here, and neither do the blended brothers. So? Even Witness Lee was not faithful to the entire ministry of Witness Lee! So why should his closest followers be any different?

[77150]

Originally Posted by 77150

2 Cor 7:2 Receive us; we have wronged no man, we have corrupted no man, we have defrauded no man.

If we refuse to receive WL because he has wronged a man in the false accusations of the “sister’s rebellion”, or if we refused to receive WL because he allowed his son to corrupt saints, or if we refused to receive WL because he defrauded saints as a result of the Daystar debacle that would be Biblical. JS and JI had legitimate Biblical basis to not receive WL. But these were not the issues in casting out TC. No the issue was LSM trainings and publications. The issue was that they “sought to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL” and they felt that TC did not.

I am wondering if anyone knows of any WL ministry on the above topics. Surely WL spoke on "wronging" others, "corrupting" others and "defrauding" others. I think it adds to the hypocrisy. On one side you have the BB's condemning the righteous unjustly. But, how about the other side of justifying the wicked?

[77150]

Originally Posted by 77150

2 Cor 7:2 Receive us; we have wronged no man, we have corrupted no man, we have defrauded no man.

If we refuse to receive WL because he has wronged a man in the false accusations of the “sister’s rebellion”, or if we refused to receive WL because he allowed his son to corrupt saints, or if we refused to receive WL because he defrauded saints as a result of the Daystar debacle that would be Biblical. JS and JI had legitimate Biblical basis to not receive WL. But these were not the issues in casting out TC. No the issue was LSM trainings and publications. The issue was that they “sought to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL” and they felt that TC did not.

However, according to WL “Any saint who holds a different opinion or concept regarding the things we are in favor, we must receive, “for God hath received him.” (WL, The Practical Expression of the Church, page 66-67). The BBs were in favor of the ministry of WL, TC held a different opinion or concept than they did. However, no one disputed that “God had received him”. Therefore, anyone seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL would receive him.

“As long as a person receives His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, as his personal Savior, regardless of the concepts he holds regarding all other things, God receives him immediately. Since God receives people in this way, we too must receive people in the same way. Our receiving must be in accordance with God’s receiving. If our receiving differs from His, it means that we are wrong: either we are more narrow or more broad than God.” (WL, The Practical Expression of the Church, page 66-67). I think that it is clear from the action taken in quarantining TC that the “receiving” of the BBs differs from God’s receiving. Therefore this action is condemned by the ministry of WL as being wrong and being too narrow. Clearly, justifying this action as being the result of “seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL” is hypocrisy.

"As long as anyone believes in Christ our Lord, as long as He receives Him as His personal Savior, we must receive him with nothing else required. Regardless of how he may dissent in so many other things, as long as he is a real believer in the Lord, we have no choice but to receive him, for the Lord has received him." (WL, The Practical Expression of the Church, page 66-67). Justifying your action by accusing TC or any other brother of “dissenting” is also condemned by WL’s ministry. Once again, doing this while also claiming to be “seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL” is hypocrisy. It is deceitful.

"This is why the Apostle said, “Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.” We must receive whoever Christ has received. We must have such a proper receiving of all the saints that we may keep the proper unity; otherwise, we can never keep ourselves from being sectarian and causing much confusion and damage to the church life." (WL, The Practical Expression of the Church, page 66-67). The BBs claim that they are for the “oneness of the Body” while “being sectarian” and “causing confusion and damage to the church life”. They claim that they seek to be “faithful” to the “entire ministry of WL” yet are condemned by WL’s ministry as being sectarian and causing confusion and damage to the church life.

According to the Recovery Version of Galatians, the footnotes in chapter 5:19-21 being sectarian is a work of the flesh.

WL taught in “The Experience of Life” that we need to deal with the flesh. “Romans 8:8, “They that are in the flesh cannot please God.” The Bible has spoken much about the flesh, and at this point it concludes that the flesh cannot please God. If man belongs to the flesh, minds the flesh, and lives by the flesh, whatever he does, either good or bad, cannot please God.” It may be that Abraham was trying to please God when he had a son by Hagar, and it may also be that the BBs were trying to please God when they excommunicated TC and a number of churches, but the Bible and WL teach that “those who are in the flesh cannot please God”.

Sept 24, 1996 the elders in Anaheim wrote an apology to PL for the actions that the elders in Anaheim had taken in 1988 in disciplining him. I think this is a clear example of those that forsake the law praise the wicked, but such as keep the law contend with them. Several of those who signed this letter are BBs.

They have forsaken the Law. They praise the wicked. They have spoken lies. They have destroyed others with false witness. They have devised schemes and sown discord among brothers. Even by the standards of the world their actions are evil. They defraud one another (Daystar), they corrupt one another (PL) and they libel one another. Their feet run swiftly when doing evil but are lame and out of joint when asked for righteousness (Nell's testimony). They are proud in their stand (ground of the church), boast in their teachings (MOTA), and they are practiced in shedding innocent blood (sister's rebellion, Joseph Fung, JI, TC, JS, etc.). They have been given space to repent and instead have become more insolent (TC excommunication, recent issue in Brazil). They fabricate lies in order to make merchandise of others (MOTA, "we seek to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL", "FPR", issue with TC was really about publishing and market share).

Jeremiah 6:15Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD

[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.