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

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's disconcerting how many of those who have left the BBs still feel the need to show that they haven't left WL. Do they really think the Lord cares they are faithful to a man's ministry? Or is it a culture they feel the need to genuflect to?

This is the point. It all revolves around Witness Lee. Who is most faithful to the person and work of Witness Lee - Not who is most biblical in their teachings and practices. The simple fact is that both the blended brothers and Titus Chu are wholly dedicated to the person and work of Witness Lee. Just as there is not a lick of difference between Lee and the blended brothers, there is not a lick of difference between the blended brothers and Chu. They are all peas in a pod. They teach the same things. They practice the same things. I guess some churches under Chu have let the young people use drums and electric guitars? So? Witness Lee clearly taught that things like music were non-essentials....but did Witness Lee ever let non-essentials become an issue and divide? Of course he did - he did it all the time! So, now the blended brothers are making a big issue out of all sorts of non-essentials. Unfortunately for Chu he is simply out numbered. So he just ended up taking his ball and going home. Then, naturally, the blended brothers ordered all churches under their control to never go and play ball at any of Chu's sandlots. Much to do about nothing

[77150]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This is the point. It all revolves around Witness Lee. Who is most faithful to the person and work of Witness Lee - Not who is most biblical in their teachings and practices. The simple fact is that both the blended brothers and Titus Chu are wholly dedicated to the person and work of Witness Lee. Just as there is not a lick of difference between Lee and the blended brothers, there is not a lick of difference between the blended brothers and Chu. They are all peas in a pod. They teach the same things. They practice the same things. I guess some churches under Chu have let the young people use drums and electric guitars? So? Witness Lee clearly taught that things like music were non-essentials....but did Witness Lee ever let non-essentials become an issue and divide? Of course he did - he did it all the time! So, now the blended brothers are making a big issue out of all sorts of non-essentials. Unfortunately for Chu he is simply out numbered. So he just ended up taking his ball and going home. Then, naturally, the blended brothers ordered all churches under their control to never go and play ball at any of Chu's sandlots. Much to do about nothing

And that, by definition, is hypocrisy. And if the split with Chu is based on lies, deceit and hypocrisy it was not authorized by the Lord. And if they acted without authorization in excommunicating brothers and churches they are worthy of being judged. Therefore they will be judged by their own words.

The point is that "it all revolves around WL" in word but not in fact. The reality is they have ulterior motives and use "being faithful to WL" as some kind of bogus justification. Expose that lie and the structure they have built up collapses. The point is this is their action that they must be held accountable for. They do not have "plausible deniability". WL was dead. WL never excommunicated TC. If they can complain about being held accountable for WL sins, then this is a case where it is not WL's sin, it is their sin.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by 77150

And if the split with Chu is based on lies, deceit and hypocrisy it was not authorized by the Lord.

. . . .

The point is that "it all revolves around WL" in word but not in fact.

Are we discussing the actions of the BBs in relation to Lee's ministry ("faithful to the entire ministry of WL") or to the Lord. Seems that the basis for analysis keeps shifting depending on the point being made at the moment.

Analysis under either basis is acceptable. They both tell us something about Lee and the BBs. But if hypocrisy is based on "not authorized by the Lord" then the topic is not relevant to the discussion you want to have.

Try to keep your discussion coherently on the analysis of Lee and the BBs relative to either the public teaching of Lee or the Lord, but not both. Or clarify what needs to be analyzed relative to the teachings of Lee and what needs to be analyzed relative to the teachings of the scriptures. There is a chasm with terrible traps between the two.

[77150]

Originally Posted by OBW

Are we discussing the actions of the BBs in relation to Lee's ministry ("faithful to the entire ministry of WL") or to the Lord. Seems that the basis for analysis keeps shifting depending on the point being made at the moment.

The question is "Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL"?

I am asking this question because it is central to the credibility of the excommunication of TC.

You cannot answer this question without looking at the Ministry of WL. That does not make WL or his ministry the topic. Nor does it make WL's actions or sins the topic.

However, my motive in asking this question is that there is a promise in Proverbs that "God overthrows the house of the wicked". Teaching unsound teachings does not make you "wicked". However, a false witness who speaks lies with the intention of sowing discord among brethren is by definition "wicked". So, proving that the excommunication of TC was in fact the speaking of lies with the intention of sowing discord would be the basis for me to ask for the Lord to step in and overthrow the house of the wicked.

There is no implied meaning of equating WL's ministry with the Lord. The point is they claimed that in excommunicating TC they were "seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL". Proving that this statement was a lie lays the groundwork to claim that this act was an abomination to the Lord. Therefore, based on the promise in the word of God I can pray that "the Lord overthrow the house of the wicked".

The basis for analysis has not shifted: did the BBs lie.

The motive for doing this analysis has also not shifted: if so, then I would ask the Lord to overthrow the house of the wicked.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by 77150

I am asking this question because it is central to the credibility of the excommunication of TC.

The basis for analysis has not shifted: did the BBs lie.

77150, I would turn this around and say the illegitimate quarantine oh John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon, and Joseph Fung (who is now with the Lord), gives credence to the illegitimate quarantine of Titus Chu, Nigel Tomes, among other co-workers.
You ask did the BB's lie? I'll put it like this. Those who participate and still speak against the quarantined brothers are bearing false witness. Additionally each time references are made, they are doing further damage to the Body of Christ meeting in the local churches. When a brother and sister are too hardened to forgive or ask forgiveness, that alone speaks of the damage done.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

77150, I would turn this around and say the illegitimate quarantine oh John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon, and Joseph Fung (who is now with the Lord), gives credence to the illegitimate quarantine of Titus Chu, Nigel Tomes, among other co-workers.

Hypocrisy breeds hypocrisy. Hypocrisy also damages consciences.

WL never quarantined TC because he never was a threat to WL's power, as the sole leader of the Recovery. TC submitted to WL in all things. During the quarantine of the late 80's, TC went against own better judgment to side with WL, and sign that letter BP wrote. TC knew that John Ingalls and the others were not rebellious conspirators. He even talked to John in private supporting him, that is, until WL made TC get his priorities "right." TC also knew the true character of PL, probably more than any of the American leaders, as they were contemporaries in age back in Taiwan. TC knew that it was absolutely wrong for WL to appoint his son to run LSM, yet he said nothing. TC's silence towards WL' improprieties and unrighteousnesses gave PL and others the opportunity to impugn him for years, and then finally eliminate him.

[77150]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hypocrisy breeds hypocrisy. Hypocrisy also damages consciences...

I am well aware of the irony here (the lies and hypocrisy were "faithful" to the ministry of WL). I think this may be what a lot of the objections are for. But that would be for a different thread. Woe to the scribes and pharisees because they make their disciples into sons of Gehenna.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hypocrisy breeds hypocrisy. Hypocrisy also damages consciences.

Which is why Nee's doctrine of absolute submission is an error. It simply becomes a tool of a corrupt regime. It ultimately leads to hypocrisy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This is the point. It all revolves around Witness Lee. Who is most faithful to the person and work of Witness Lee - Not who is most biblical in their teachings and practices. The simple fact is that both the blended brothers and Titus Chu are wholly dedicated to the person and work of Witness Lee. Just as there is not a lick of difference between Lee and the blended brothers, there is not a lick of difference between the blended brothers and Chu. They are all peas in a pod.

Much to do about nothing

I'm not understanding this.

This is a forum of members and ex-members and topics such as leadership actions, which impact all members, by definition, can not be "much ado about nothing."

We have provided ex-members, like Nell and the Andersons, endless audience, and unlimited bandwith on these forums, but when the new guy 77150 has a new slant or two, the moderator steps in to limit discussion, or at the least, attempts to downplay it.

Unless we address the very attitudes which members and ex-members have towards following the teachings of WL, this forum is irrelevant. Who are we attempting to help?

What am I missing here?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What am I missing here?

I think that the problem is that if the analysis is actions based on Lee, then the BBs and TC were mostly cookie-cutter duplicates of the original — Lee. And it turns out that when there was only one sheriff with minions, things went on OK. But once the sheriff dies, (kind of like when Julius Caesar died) there is this attempt to share power. And one-by-one they get bumped off (or take their place as subservient to some presumed stand-out among them) until there is a single leader.

Just peas in a pod.

And the pod isn't big enough for the both of them. (That sounds very ant- LRC dogma when you say it as "this church isn't big enough for the both of us.")

I read Unto's "much ado" as discussing the inter workings of the upper echelons of a crime syndicate. It isn't about law. Or right and wrong. It is about power and being unafraid to wield it.

Discussing the BBs in terms of a seriously flawed ministry is like judging a Mafia war based on the way the Mafia works, or a battle among pirates based on the pirate's code.

So the stated topic is only important if the basis (the ministry of Lee) is truly a sound basis for analysis. Otherwise, it is an effort in futility. It does expose the complete lack of morality of those mired in that way of thinking. But we already knew that.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

So the stated topic is only important if the basis (the ministry of Lee) is truly a sound basis for analysis. Otherwise, it is an effort in futility. It does expose the complete lack of morality of those mired in that way of thinking. But we already knew that.

I think 77150 was just attempting to establish that the BBs are not even faithful to their stated goal of being faithful to WL's ministry.

My point was simply that the goal itself is flawed, so in one sense who cares if they are faithful, except to establish that they are full of beans.

Of course, we already knew that. But it doesn't hurt to give concrete evidence as to why.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We have provided ex-members, like Nell and the Andersons, endless audience, and unlimited bandwith on these forums, but when the new guy 77150 has a new slant or two, the moderator steps in to limit discussion, or at the least, attempts to downplay it.

Neither the Andersons nor Nell have posted much here in years. What's your beef with them? (don't answer that, your personal problems with other posters should be kept personal) Nobody gets endless audience or unlimited bandwidth...I couldn't possibly afford it!

What am I missing here?

Apparently you've missed the main point I was driving at.
OBW and Igzy answered better than I could (as usual)

Originally Posted by OBW

Are we discussing the actions of the BBs in relation to Lee's ministry ("faithful to the entire ministry of WL") or to the Lord. Seems that the basis for analysis keeps shifting depending on the point being made at the moment.

Analysis under either basis is acceptable. They both tell us something about Lee and the BBs. But if hypocrisy is based on "not authorized by the Lord" then the topic is not relevant to the discussion you want to have.

Try to keep your discussion coherently on the analysis of Lee and the BBs relative to either the public teaching of Lee or the Lord, but not both. Or clarify what needs to be analyzed relative to the teachings of Lee and what needs to be analyzed relative to the teachings of the scriptures. There is a chasm with terrible traps between the two.

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that the problem is that if the analysis is actions based on Lee, then the BBs and TC were mostly cookie-cutter duplicates of the original — Lee. And it turns out that when there was only one sheriff with minions, things went on OK. But once the sheriff dies, (kind of like when Julius Caesar died) there is this attempt to share power. And one-by-one they get bumped off (or take their place as subservient to some presumed stand-out among them) until there is a single leader.

Just peas in a pod.

And the pod isn't big enough for the both of them. (That sounds very ant- LRC dogma when you say it as "this church isn't big enough for the both of us.")

I read Unto's "much ado" as discussing the inter workings of the upper echelons of a crime syndicate. It isn't about law. Or right and wrong. It is about power and being unafraid to wield it.

Discussing the BBs in terms of a seriously flawed ministry is like judging a Mafia war based on the way the Mafia works, or a battle among pirates based on the pirate's code.

So the stated topic is only important if the basis (the ministry of Lee) is truly a sound basis for analysis. Otherwise, it is an effort in futility. It does expose the complete lack of morality of those mired in that way of thinking. But we already knew that.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think 77150 was just attempting to establish that the BBs are not even faithful to their stated goal of being faithful to WL's ministry.

My point was simply that the goal itself is flawed, so in one sense who cares if they are faithful, except to establish that they are full of beans.

Of course, we already knew that. But it doesn't hurt to give concrete evidence as to why.

PS: My "Much (to do) ado about nothing" smack talk was just that....smack talk. All it really did was expose my lack of knowledge of Shakespeare.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think 77150 was just attempting to establish that the BBs are not even faithful to their stated goal of being faithful to WL's ministry.

My point was simply that the goal itself is flawed, so in one sense who cares if they are faithful, except to establish that they are full of beans.

Of course, we already knew that. But it doesn't hurt to give concrete evidence as to why.

What you and OBW keep saying is true, but that is not the point.

The goal is not "flawed" for those inside the program. I know, I was there, and so were you. Who knows how many lurkers are out there who would be interested to know if the Blendeds were even faithful even to their own flawed mission?

For me personally, and I assume many others also, taking the approach of hypocrisy and unrighteousness (including matters of abuse) opened me to LC problems, whereas discussing teachings and doctrines ad nauseum, even when compared to the Bible, only hardened my strongholds.

I must have an accumulated five hundred posts or so over the years, addressing this very concept. It just amazes me that some still find this approach an unacceptable waste of time.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For me personally, and I assume many others also, taking the approach of hypocrisy and unrighteousness (including matters of abuse) opened me to LC problems, whereas discussing teachings and doctrines ad nauseum, even when compared to the Bible, only hardened my strongholds.

This is an excellent reason to discuss the actions and mis-actions of various ones (including Lee) relative to the ministry that they think they are following. And if that is a worthy goal (and it is for the very reasons you state) then let's do that and stick to it.

If the goal is to demonstrate the very error in the teachings and note that it is inconsistent with the Lord (and that is also a very worthy goal) then let's do that. But there seems to be a mixture of the two in a way that confuses the basis of the analysis. 77150 says it is not about Lee. Yet it would appear that if the point is Lee's ministry, then it is about Lee. And if Lee can't even produce a single, complete, coherent ministry that is understood the same way by both the flock and the shepherds, then there is a problem with the ministry. All without even putting it up against the scripture.

And it also is about the BBs and TC because they are the ones who are supposedly the best at "living out" the Christian life as redefined by Lee and his ministry. That is the crux of the LRC. A version of the Christian life based on the ministry of Lee. And if you ask the average member to consider that, they can get confused if they actually heard some of the rhetoric surrounding the excommunication of John I or TC. There is a serious disconnect. That undermines the current authority structure of the LRC. And puts the basis of authority in question.

And when it is learned that Lee is the source of the authority for such unrighteousness, then we return to the main problem. Will LRC members think that whatever Lee said could be wrong. Will they see it as a house of cards with a naked emperor. Or will they turn on the "If Lee said it then it must be true and OK" mindset and just let the unrighteousness run amok.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For me personally, and I assume many others also, taking the approach of hypocrisy and unrighteousness (including matters of abuse) opened me to LC problems, whereas discussing teachings and doctrines ad nauseum, even when compared to the Bible, only hardened my strongholds.

I for one have really appreciated your contributions regarding this. As a matter of fact it is the hypocrisy and unrighteousness towards Ingalls, Mallon et al that precipitated my departure from the Local Church. At that point there were no forums discussing teachings so I'm not sure how hardened I would have been. In my experience and observation the last domino to fall for former members is dealing with the particular teachings of Witness Lee. (The next to last would be the abject adoration of Witness Lee, which is the hardest thing on the heart and mind). Obviously it is different with every individual, but the point would be is that everything is open for discussion here on this forum. If somebody finds a particular topic disturbing or uncomfortable then they have the option of simply not participating in that thread. Nobody should feel obligated to participate in every thread!

I must have an accumulated five hundred posts or so over the years, addressing this very concept. It just amazes me that some still find this approach an unacceptable waste of time.

I think you are confusing people looking for clarification with claiming it is a waste of time. I really urge you to review what OBW and Igzy have posted. They really express what the frustration that people like me (and them I assume) have with this whole thread. Please note that I am NOT trying to pit you or 77150 against anybody else - that is not the point. We are not just dialoging with each other here....there is a wider audience here, and I think we all should be considering them as well.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What you and OBW keep saying is true, but that is not the point.

The goal is not "flawed" for those inside the program. I know, I was there, and so were you. Who knows how many lurkers are out there who would be interested to know if the Blendeds were even faithful even to their own flawed mission?

For me personally, and I assume many others also, taking the approach of hypocrisy and unrighteousness (including matters of abuse) opened me to LC problems, whereas discussing teachings and doctrines ad nauseum, even when compared to the Bible, only hardened my strongholds.

I must have an accumulated five hundred posts or so over the years, addressing this very concept. It just amazes me that some still find this approach an unacceptable waste of time.

You tend to see things in black and white. I never said the point didn't have merit. As a matter of fact I went out of my way to say it did have merit. I never said it was an "unacceptable waste of time." I was just giving another perspective on it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You tend to see things in black and white.

You may well be right.

But after further thought, I am usually one who looks for ways in which both parties can be right, in order to ameliorate conflicts. Also, I rarely tend to extremes. These are not the traits of one who sees things in black and white. But ... before I go too far here, isn't it those secular humanists who demand that nothing be viewed in terms of absolutes?

Sometimes seeing things in terms of black and white is just the right way to be.