God's economy vs Deputy authority

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And this, to me, is what this age is all about. Learning to hear the voice of the Lord Jesus and respond accordingly. How do you respond when they quarantine TC? How do you respond when they threaten to quarantine you? How do you respond when you learn JI has left the LC?

Do you say "the elders should deal with this?" or do you stand up and speak? If you stand up, do you speak in your flesh?

Suppose you do speak up, suppose you don't bend when they threaten to excommunicate you, suppose you are bold and don't walk in your flesh. Well then they will lay traps, how do you respond to the traps? Does this cause you to turn more to your spirit and prayer? If so the response will be to intensify the attacks and even see expressed hatred.

Even if you are not "officially" quarantined you will still be "isolated". How do you deal with that? Does that cause the fellowship with the Lord to get deeper? Because after all that is what this age is all about.

And if I have to cite the primary sickness in the Recovery, it would be not honoring the Lord and upholding Him as the Head, and instead following a man. How many times have we seen LC leaders acting as man-pleasers and not followers of Jesus Christ? How often did I hear that "every one says they follow Jesus," but the true test is whether we can follow the brothers, and be one with them?

The recent quarantine exposed this all too well. Both sides claimed they were "fighting for the truth," when actually they were just picking sides, and siding with man. Who really stood for the Lord?

During the chaos of events leading up to the quarantine, I posted how I pleaded with the leading brothers to care only for the church. I was serving under 3 elders who were all employees of Cleveland. I noted the tremendous conflict of interest that surfaced because of that. The new leader sent by TC took strong offense to my pleas and demanded that I apologize for saying this in front of others.

These brothers were absolutely convinced that the church must side with TC to reject LSM and the quarantine. They never considered the needs and wants of the many saints, and hence, half of them finally decided to get up and leave. No one spoke up because it would be just a waste of time. It was one sister from another place who said it all, "this is just a fight between ministries, and it should not involve the church." We needed more like her.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And if I have to cite the primary sickness in the Recovery, it would be not honoring the Lord and upholding Him as the Head, and instead following a man. How many times have we seen LC leaders acting as man-pleasers and not followers of Jesus Christ? How often did I hear that "every one says they follow Jesus," but the true test is whether we can follow the brothers, and be one with them?

It goes to the teaching of deputy authority and delegated authority which ties brothers to be man-honoring.
By contrast a brother or sister can have spiritual authority, but not considered to be a deputy authority or delegated authority.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Terry

It goes to the teaching of deputy authority and delegated authority which ties brothers to be man-honoring.
By contrast a brother or sister can have spiritual authority, but not considered to be a deputy authority or delegated authority.

The sister first showed me the article in a booklet, which John So had published after he had read the article from her. He added a paragraph to it, published it, and he and others then distributed it, I assume. The turmoil was sky high at that time.

The following lnk is critical in defining the line that was crossed that purportedly "caused division" in the Local Churches. Actually, the article on deputy authority sets up the substantial matter that caused division.

http://www.twoturmoils.com/ProofofDivision.pdf


Andrew Yu exemplifies the drastic measures taken by leaders in their application of the meaning of deputy authority

http://www.twoturmoils.com/BlindLoya...yAuthority.pdf

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Indiana

The sister first showed me the article in a booklet, which John So had published after he had read the article from her. He added a paragraph to it, published it, and he and others then distributed it, I assume. The turmoil was sky high at that time.

The following lnk is critical in defining the line that was crossed that purportedly "caused division" in the Local Churches. Actually, the article on deputy authority sets up the substantial matter that caused division.

http://www.twoturmoils.com/ProofofDivision.pdf


Andrew Yu exemplifies the drastic measures taken by leaders in their application of the meaning of deputy authority

http://www.twoturmoils.com/BlindLoya...yAuthority.pdf

Perhaps I misunderstand all of the events clearly. However, as I currently understand it the problem was this: PL was a sexual predator who worked for LSM. The elders in Anaheim didn't have jurisdiction over who LSM hires or fires, so they needed to fellowship with WL over getting rid of PL. To make this a more serious issue the meeting hall of the church is connected to the LSM ministry office of PL so PL continuing in his office at the LSM reflected badly on the church and the elders. To also make things worse, the building that the LSM was in belonged to LSM, not to the church in Anaheim. As a result JI, AK, and Godfried did not have the authority to oust LSM or PL.

It seems very obvious to me, and perhaps I am missing something, that if the church in Anaheim did not meet in the Hall at Ball road, but instead had their own meeting hall, completely under the jurisdiction of the church, then they would have had the authority to deal with this properly. Likewise, if the church was not so intertwined with the ministry this would have been much less of a big deal to the church and much more of a big deal to the LSM.

For example, I suppose that the church in Anaheim paid many of the fees for maintaining and keeping up the hall on Ball Rd. If they had left as tenants that would have put a significant financial strain on the LSM. Likewise without the standing orders of the churches LSM would have been out of business.

So to me the hypocrisy was teaching that the administration of the church is local while allowing yourself to be in a situation as tenants of LSM. Teaching that the church is not for the ministry but the ministry is for the church when in reality your personal financial arrangement was just the opposite.

What would have been much more effective, once they realized that WL had them by the "b#**s" and that he had set it up this way would have been simply, with the help of JS and BM, to get a second meeting hall as a decision voted on by the church. Once you have a new meeting hall, look at your contract with LSM and when it expires walk away from it. There was no reason to make a huge issue over it with JS talking about occupations and following a man. This probably would have taken one or two years at the most, with the help of decent legal advice they probably could have been out of the lease in six months.

Once the tables were turned and it was clear WL's empire would collapse because of PL's sins then perhaps he would have taken them more seriously. But if not, at least the church is no longer in a hypocritical stance, they can deal with sin as they see fit and continue to fellowship with the other saints.

It is highly unlikely that WL could have "excommunicated" the church in Anaheim in the way TC was excommunicated because then all the saints nationwide would have heard why the church had taken this stand. Also, it would be impossible for the rest of the churches to not have learned of this, since this was Anaheim. Also, AK, JI, BM, JS, and JF represent a very large portion of the LRC, no way WL could have kept the sins of his son hidden.

So instead of being "rebellious" they are merely sticking to the teaching that the ministry and church are separate.

[OBW]

My recollection concerning the Ball Rd property was that it was spoken of as a combined training center, LSM office and printing facility, and place for the church in Anaheim to meet. If that was not the intent, then a whole lot of people were constantly speaking out loud about an error in perception. That the building was to also house the Anaheim assembly of the Local Churches was not simply some afterthought or concession — at least not from what we understood in Dallas at the time.

Yes, it was the LSM and training aspects that lured so many to go work part-time or full-time to build it. But it was always understood that it was also a church. For anyone to suggest to the average member that the church there was at the mercy of some business and its degenerate office manager is to turn the tables on the understood reality. In fact, if the average member in most places had heard of what was actually going on there in Anaheim in the late 80s, they would have demanded that PL be removed from the premises as an unfit "front man" to even speak to them on the phone as a representative of the ministry that they so ardently followed. They would have demanded better and Lee would have been forced to oblige.

But certain ambitious men saw that keeping it unknown granted them favor with Lee, who somehow could not bring himself to give certain controls of his ministry to anyone outside his family, no matter how corrupt he family actually was. And in the process applied the corruption to himself.

In the context of the outpouring of free labor and hospitality, to suggest that it was all for the creation of a nicer office for a corrupt lecher rather than for the benefit of the local members and the churches in general is to mock their sacrifice. And Lee did just that when he essentially dismissed JI and others who insisted that PL have nothing to do with the churches and with the ministry they served. I clearly have doctrinal differences with the LRC in many ways, but little complaint about the average member other than their unwillingness to see beyond what they love about their culture and community. For anyone o suggest that it is simply a matter of the legalities of whose name is on the deed for the property on Ball Rd is to mock their service to both the LSM and the church in Anaheim and pit one against the other.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

For anyone to suggest that it is simply a matter of the legalities of whose name is on the deed for the property on Ball Rd is to mock their service to both the LSM and the church in Anaheim and pit one against the other.

Bad conclusion.

I just don't understand the regular pot shots at that other poster?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bad conclusion.

I just don't understand the regular pot shots at that other poster?

I don't follow your "bad conclusion" comment.

As for the "pot shots" comment, I read through all of the posts in one sitting. At the end, this one comment I recalled reading stuck in my mind. I was not considering who wrote it. I had to look back to figure out what you were talking about.

It was something that a person like me who is steeped in reading law (tax law) and parsing through verbiage tends toward. That is, to take note of the legalities and let the simply rule. Sort of like when someone sues because someone calls them a bad name.

Sometimes the problem is that the "bad name" is only relevant within a context that the law does not properly delve into. (And in the Harvest Hills lawsuit, a judge finally ruled that it was not their business unless there was proof that it has malicious and capricious — something never assert, and possibly acknowledged as not true.)

I cannot remember the context. On one occasion, I think before one of the trainings, I attended a meeting of the church in Anaheim wherever it was that they were meeting at the time that the Ball road property had been purchased, but no work done. At that time, despite the multitude of obvious references to the LSM, and the fact that the CiA clearly could never use such a large building, it was already clearly also the coming residence of the CiA.

Yes, we create a corporation and register it under sec 503(c) or other related provision as a nonprofit. And in this case, the corporation was a ministry. And legally that corporation can hire anyone it wants to do anything it wants (as long as the actions wanted are legal). But that is in the legal realm. In the spiritual realm — in the realm of the people of God — that distinction is only so meaningful when there is something wrong with the spiritual realm. Ministry, whether the simple acts of a preacher, evangelist, missionary, etc., or more concerted efforts of organizations like Focus on the Family or Living Stream Ministry, are part of the workings of the church as a whole, and of assemblies in particular. If they are not, then they are somehow outside of the fellowship of believers coming along to simply dump stuff on us for a "profit" (or to make a living at "no profit").

That is legal. But within the household of God, it is not right. It is not righteous. And you can probably point to numerous organizations that do not entirely maintain the kind of transparency that you might think is required. But we point derisively at the "ministers" that thumbed their noses at their governing bodies when they were found in sin (Jimmy Swaggert is a good example) and note that others did the righteous thing and stepped aside. There are are all kinds of shades in between.

That is what I am saying. LSM is church even though not a church. Focus on the Family is church. These are seen by insiders and outsiders as part of the whole of the Christian mission which is about the church which is the people, not the organizations or the buildings.

There was much to consider in ZNP's post. I did not need to jump on teh bandwagon for that. I noted, in my typically wordy way, that we do ourselves a disservice to think that we can divorce church and LSM just because there are documents. It may be legally so, but it is not spiritually so. The LSM is an integral part of the existence of "Local Churches" — at least it was at that time.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

My recollection concerning the Ball Rd property was that it was spoken of as a combined training center, LSM office and printing facility, and place for the church in Anaheim to meet...

I am not certain because I did not see the deed to the property. But, when in Irving I was very clear that my service was to the LSM ministry. I am relatively certain that the property was purchased by LSM and the donations were to LSM. Therefore the Irving property was in the name of LSM. It combined a meeting hall of the church in Irving with what is otherwise a LSM center, it housed the printing, publishing (music, etc) and residence of WL. But the meeting hall was referred to as "a training center". So although I am not 100% absolutely certain that the property in Irving belonged to LSM that was certainly my understanding and feel I am more than 95% certain that this is the case. Therefore, would the church in Irving have the right to tell PL to vacate the premises? No, it is not there premises. Do church elders have the right to tell LSM who to employ? No. These are not difficult concepts.

However, does the church in Irving have to meet on that property as a tenant to LSM and pay rent? No. Do saints in the church in Irving have to serve in the ministry of LSM? No. Do the saints have to provide hospitality if the LSM wants to give a training? No.

Assuming the situation in Anaheim was the same, the church could have held their meetings elsewhere, refused to serve in LSM and refused to provide hospitality for trainings. All three could have been done in a way that could not in any way be construed as being "rebellious" though it would require a high level of discretion. I think had they done those three things WL would have been forced to get rid of PL.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

However, does the church in Irving have to meet on that property as a tenant to LSM and pay rent? No. Do saints in the church in Irving have to serve in the ministry of LSM? No. Do the saints have to provide hospitality if the LSM wants to give a training? No.

Assuming the situation in Anaheim was the same, the church could have held their meetings elsewhere, refused to serve in LSM and refused to provide hospitality for trainings. All three could have been done in a way that could not in any way be construed as being "rebellious" though it would require a high level of discretion. I think had they done those three things WL would have been forced to get rid of PL.

What makes this so difficult was that Irving initially was composed of immigrants from other LC's who moved there to "serve the ministry." Irving existed solely for WL and his ministry. WN called these types of churches ministry centers or work centers. Since WL had appointed the elders in these two centers, he supposedly had the right to remove and replace these elders, which he eventually did.

I believe there is no way to extricate the church from the ministry in such a place as Irving or Anaheim. Even the repulsive stories of PL could not provide the tipping point. Even brothers ready to re-enact "wild west justice" and go after PL with a gun did not succeed. WL only needed to call other leaders from around the globe, and cash in on his established credit. He had done it before, and was almost Clinton-esque in his ability to escape scandal ... and accountability.

I watched a 60 Minutes special on Michael Morton the other day. What a horrific story of a man wrongly incarcerated for life for the brutal death of his wife. Without even time to mourn her death, he was immediately targeted by a young and ambitious DA, yet without any evidence at all, and all the evidence which would have exonerated him was suppressed. The story had me in tears.

After he was finally released, due to years of work by the Innocence Project to expose prosecutorial abuses, Michael was asked to comment about the legal system that nearly destroyed him, he said, "I try to be very forgiving ... revenge, I know, doesn't work, but accountability works, it's what balances out, it's the equilibrium, it's the social glue, because if you're not accountable, then you can do anything."

Chilling words, yet spoken by him so graciously. Immediately I thought about WL and LSM.

If you're interested, this clip is well worth the watch.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am not certain because I did not see the deed to the property. But, when in Irving I was very clear that my service was to the LSM ministry. I am relatively certain that the property was purchased by LSM and the donations were to LSM. Therefore the Irving property was in the name of LSM. It combined a meeting hall of the church in Irving with what is otherwise a LSM center, it housed the printing, publishing (music, etc) and residence of WL. But the meeting hall was referred to as "a training center". So although I am not 100% absolutely certain that the property in Irving belonged to LSM that was certainly my understanding and feel I am more than 95% certain that this is the case. Therefore, would the church in Irving have the right to tell PL to vacate the premises? No, it is not there premises. Do church elders have the right to tell LSM who to employ? No. These are not difficult concepts.

However, does the church in Irving have to meet on that property as a tenant to LSM and pay rent? No. Do saints in the church in Irving have to serve in the ministry of LSM? No. Do the saints have to provide hospitality if the LSM wants to give a training? No.

Assuming the situation in Anaheim was the same, the church could have held their meetings elsewhere, refused to serve in LSM and refused to provide hospitality for trainings. All three could have been done in a way that could not in any way be construed as being "rebellious" though it would require a high level of discretion. I think had they done those three things WL would have been forced to get rid of PL.

Interesting question (which I do not know the answer to): Does the church in Irving pay rent? Does Anaheim? If so, on what basis? (I don't mean legal basis, but the criteria that determines the rent.)

But from the very beginning, it was contemplated that the building in both places would also house the local assembly. It was not some afterthought. It seems hard to spiritually extricate the two in both cases even though there probably is a legal answer.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is highly unlikely that WL could have "excommunicated" the church in Anaheim in the way TC was excommunicated because then all the saints nationwide would have heard why the church had taken this stand. Also, it would be impossible for the rest of the churches to not have learned of this, since this was Anaheim. Also, AK, JI, BM, JS, and JF represent a very large portion of the LRC, no way WL could have kept the sins of his son hidden.

This was spin doctoring to label those meeting with the Church in Anaheim who took that stand as "riotous". A way of damage control so the rest of the recovery would not be affected by reports of Phillip Lee's behavior.
I would ask this of those reading this forum, is it "riotous" to object to immoral behavior and the condoning of it?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

This was spin doctoring to label those meeting with the Church in Anaheim who took that stand as "riotous". A way of damage control so the rest of the recovery would not be affected by reports of Phillip Lee's behavior.
I would ask this of those reading this forum, is it "riotous" to object to immoral behavior and the condoning of it?

Riotous would refer to the way in which you objected, not to the reason why. As a Christian how you do something is also important, not just why you did something.

So objecting to immoral behavior is a Biblical requirement, whereas condoning immoral behavior is an action to which you will be held accountable.

My spiritual childhood was in an environment filled with "spin doctoring". I learned very early that all behavior was subject to spin and the enemy would never give you the benefit of the doubt or take into account the context. I learned to assume that comments and actions would be taken out of context. That is why the standard in the NT is to be "beyond reproach" or to "avoid the appearance of evil".

"We are not ignorant of Satan's devices" and that includes spin, taking comments and actions out of context, etc.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Riotous would refer to the way in which you objected, not to the reason why. As a Christian how you do something is also important, not just why you did something.

So objecting to immoral behavior is a Biblical requirement, whereas condoning immoral behavior is an action to which you will be held accountable.

During the chaos in Anaheim, we heard about the saints being out of control, and "what a shame that John could not control his saints." As a result, some brothers were encouraged to write "shame on you" letters to John Ingalls and the other elders.

Nobody was asking why they were out of control.

If I am out in the street screaming "fire, fire," and you don't hear what I am saying, then I also appear "out of control."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Riotous would refer to the way in which you objected, not to the reason why. As a Christian how you do something is also important, not just why you did something.

So objecting to immoral behavior is a Biblical requirement, whereas condoning immoral behavior is an action to which you will be held accountable.

So if you say these brothers and sisters were riotous in the Church of Anaheim meeting hall, would you say how they objected was due to outrage?
I say to describe the brothers and sisters as riotous is to also say they were outraged how immoral behavior is given a passover.
These were normal Christians with a sensitive conscience.
How can the churchlife be turned upside down when light becomes dark and dark becomes light as the norm?
Even when Phillip Lee subsequently is excommunicated, another group of elders (Ed Marks and co) reverse the decision and basically say Phillip Lee was wrongly excommunicated for immoral behavior.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And if I have to cite the primary sickness in the Recovery, it would be not honoring the Lord and upholding Him as the Head, and instead following a man. How many times have we seen LC leaders acting as man-pleasers and not followers of Jesus Christ? How often did I hear that "every one says they follow Jesus," but the true test is whether we can follow the brothers, and be one with them?

The recent quarantine exposed this all too well. Both sides claimed they were "fighting for the truth," when actually they were just picking sides, and siding with man. Who really stood for the Lord?

The Lord said the way that leads to life is narrow and few there be that find it. When I read Heb 11 I don't get the impression that those listed represented the "majority" of God's people. If faith, hope and love were common then they wouldn't be precious. One of the criteria in deciding that a stone is a "precious" stone is that it is rare. If this was an easy path to take then where would the glory be? To be a follower of Jesus is a high calling that leads from glory to glory. Didn't Paul say that "all had forsaken him"? Wasn't that similar to the Lord's experience at the crucifixion? I don't really see how the genuine experience of Christ would be any different.