Contact with Fuller Seminary

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1Cor 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

It occurs to me that this verse is central to most of the threads on this forum.

1. "If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator" certainly applies to most of the concerns about PL, JI, JS, etc.
2. "...covetous" can certainly be applied to the entire Daystar fiasco.
3. "...idolater" can be a reasonable understanding of the MOTA teaching and all of the strange behaviors that have grown out of that.
4. "...railer" could refer to the behavior of many LC leaders, most notably TC, but others have also been mentioned to have this particular characteristic.
5. "...drunkard" -- haven't heard much about this other than some very brief references to TL, WL's other son.
6. "...extortioner" could refer to the way in which LSM forces churches to buy their books, or the way in which elders are forced to pledge loyalty to LSM, or the way in which meeting halls are seized, or the way in which TC was quarantined, etc.

Therefore, for all the sins and shortcomings mentioned here on this forum, shouldn't the biggest one be that too many of the saints in the LC ignored Paul's admonition in ICor 5:11?

[UntoHim]

Actually 1 Cor 5:11 is not even central to this thread, much less to most of the threads on this forum. The personal sins of Phillip Lee are actually a miniscule part of what should concern people about the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church. These teachings and practices are based upon the person and work of Witness Lee, and the problems that arose from the misconduct of his son(s) were merely a symptom of a vast and comprehensive sickness that has prevailed upon the entire movement since Lee took control. (Maybe even before, but that is for older people to decide)

A cursory review of John Ingalls’ book tells us that his concerns were not really based upon the sins of Phillip Lee, but rather that “the nature of the Lord’s recovery has changed”. Surely this involved much more than the antics of a silly and foolish man who held no official position of spiritual authority. The causes for the turmoil of the late 1980s ran much deeper and wider than Phillip Lee. The very fact that such a person could have any influence in one single local church, much less an entire movement, speaks volumes about the real character, intentions and motives of the prime mover of the Local Church.

Nevertheless, the sins and shortcomings of any man should not be the focus of any thread within this forum. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. That includes all the members of our little community….of the members of this forum, of the Body of all believers and even of every man who has ever lived, save for the One who’s glorious and powerful resurrection we will celebrate in a number of hours. My earnest hope and prayer is that this forum can be a place where the final and ultimate focus is upon the Person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ. Oh Father may it be so.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually 1 Cor 5:11 is not even central to this thread, much less to most of the threads on this forum.

As I understand it this thread is about contacting a 3rd party outside of the LRC to mediate between RG, BP and JI. This is based on the assumption that mediation is a prescribed path by the NT. I am challenging that assumption and asking, based on this verse, if this is really the prescribed path. You can safely argue that "reconciliation" is the prescribed goal, but 1Cor 5:11 did lead to reconciliation.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The personal sins of Phillip Lee are actually a miniscule part of what should concern people about the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church. These teachings and practices are based upon the person and work of Witness Lee, and the problems that arose from the misconduct of his son(s) were merely a symptom of a vast and comprehensive sickness that has prevailed upon the entire movement since Lee took control. (Maybe even before, but that is for older people to decide)

My question is that had the admonition in 1Cor5:11 been followed would it really have become a vast and comprehensive disease? A corollary of this would be a second question why. For example, after the Daystar debacle it would have been quite reasonable for the saints to listen to those from the far east and conclude that WL and his sons were covetousness. But they didn't, why? Is the lure of being "special", "God's unique move on earth" enough to cause someone to ignore the NT admonitions, and if so, shouldn't "how WL deceived the LRC" be a major focus when looking at WL's teachings? I would think so, and therefore 1Cor 5:11 is critical to prove that WL did deceive.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

A cursory review of John Ingalls’ book tells us that his concerns were not really based upon the sins of Phillip Lee, but rather that “the nature of the Lord’s recovery has changed”. Surely this involved much more than the antics of a silly and foolish man who held no official position of spiritual authority. The causes for the turmoil of the late 1980s ran much deeper and wider than Phillip Lee. The very fact that such a person could have any influence in one single local church, much less an entire movement, speaks volumes about the real character, intentions and motives of the prime mover of the Local Church.

Yes, I agree. I would say that the nature of the LRC changed when saints decided it was OK to overlook fornication, covetousness, idolatry and extortion. I would also say the nature of the LRC changed when saints stopped being guided by the admonitions of the Apostle's in the NT. Therefore, 1Cor 5:11 becomes critical to demonstrating that the nature had changed.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Nevertheless, the sins and shortcomings of any man should not be the focus of any thread within this forum. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. That includes all the members of our little community….of the members of this forum, of the Body of all believers and even of every man who has ever lived, save for the One who’s glorious and powerful resurrection we will celebrate in a number of hours. My earnest hope and prayer is that this forum can be a place where the final and ultimate focus is upon the Person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ. Oh Father may it be so.

I think this idea, that we should not be focused on the sins and shortcomings of any man, is based on the Lord's word in the NT that we should "not judge lest we be judged, for with what judgement you judge you shall be judged". But that admonition does not apply to every man. The Lord allows us to judge ourselves because: "judge not yourself for with what judgement you judge yourself you shall be judged" just doesn't have the same edge to it.

[OBW]

If the goal of this thread is reconciliation, then I believe that Indiana is going about it in the wrong way.

The reason that reconciliation is needed is that certain remaining leaders of the LRC effectively ousted JI and others, using lies to hide the truth that was behind the events of the mid to late 80s. BP and RG claimed early on that JI's problem was strictly "local" and had nothing to do with the LSM. But reality was that the LSM ruled the churches, with none effected more than the two where the LSM resided.

But no matter the cause of the problems, the ongoing problem is that BP, RG, RK, etc., will not discuss the matters with anyone, especially anyone outside of their ranks. I see only two ways that this will begin to change.

The first, and least meaningful would be some kind of near death-bed reflection that causes them to recognize their error. But if their attempt at some kind of apology or reconciliation is as feeble as was Lee's it will be near pointless.

The second would be for someone that they respect to point at the error in their ways. Sort of like Nathan did to David, although I doubt they would respond well if the "pointing" is as direct as Nathan did to David. And they don't respect Indiana. They want him to go away. They probably wish that they had the authority that Constantine gave to the leadership to silence even minor variations as heresy. That would allow them to drive him away for good.

So even if this Dr. Mouw could ever be such a person, he is now seen as being called into action by the one they despise. It reduces any possibility of respect by the BBs to near zero. Or at least collective respect. Individually, they may respect him, but as a group, there is a pressure to keep in line. The dirt that the past holds over all of them is strong.

The BBs may have been successful at getting Passitano (sp?) and company to change their tune. But it was not at the behest of an outsider. It was at their request to change their image with the larger Christian community. And they didn't actually have to change to do it. Just look like it. Spin their teaching to the outsiders without changing anything.

At times, I think that the only kind of reconciliation that can happen with the LRC is that you capitulate in full. Even then you are only allowed into the outer court. Still a bit of a leper.

And wanting to be reconciled with the LRC is like wanting to be reconciled with your favorite dictator, or with those running the Spanish Inquisition. It seems that it is better to leave the LRC as the one that has been excommunicated and let them come back and show that they have changed. Constantly trying to reconcile with them demonstrates that they are right and you are wrong. If they are actually wrong, why do you want back in with them.

For both JI and Indiana, I understand the desire for reconciliation. Their position is more like when God spoke through the prophets saying that He wanted Israel to return to His ways, in which case he would be so wonderful to them. But as long as the naughty children refuse to listen to wise counsel, there can be no reconciliation.

Let the LRC come to you. They have effectively been excommunicated from you. Reconciliation in that situation requires that they change. Not you. To grovel for their allowing you is to desire to follow in their folly so that fellowship can be restored, and you follow them into their excommunication. A little like sending someonw to prison for rehabilitation and then at the first parole hearing, note that they are still thieving murderers, and since you can't let them back into your society, you ask them if you can join them in prison.

I am not closed to there ever being the needed reconciliation. But in the correct sense, the ones who are now treated as sinners (Matt 18) are the BBs, not JI or Indiana. And there is no sign that the BBs are changing. So they remain sinners. The last thing you want is to join them in their sin.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My question is that had the admonition in 1Cor5:11 been followed would it really have become a vast and comprehensive disease? A corollary of this would be a second question why. For example, after the Daystar debacle it would have been quite reasonable for the saints to listen to those from the far east and conclude that WL and his sons were covetousness. But they didn't, why? Is the lure of being "special", "God's unique move on earth" enough to cause someone to ignore the NT admonitions, and if so, shouldn't "how WL deceived the LRC" be a major focus when looking at WL's teachings? I would think so, and therefore 1Cor 5:11 is critical to prove that WL did deceive.



Yes, I agree. I would say that the nature of the LRC changed when saints decided it was OK to overlook fornication, covetousness, idolatry and extortion. I would also say the nature of the LRC changed when saints stopped being guided by the admonitions of the Apostle's in the NT. Therefore, 1Cor 5:11 becomes critical to demonstrating that the nature had changed.

ZNP, weren't you there too? Didn't we all wear blinders while we were there, at least in regard to a lot of things?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

ZNP, weren't you there too? Didn't we all wear blinders while we were there, at least in regard to a lot of things?

If you are referring to Daystar, no. I arrived in the Summer of 78.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

ZNP, weren't you there too? Didn't we all wear blinders while we were there, at least in regard to a lot of things?

Prior to coming to this forum I was concerned that I had been too strong in rebuking the elders in Texas, learning the back story has given me a lot of peace that I was in fact in tune with the Lord in my speaking and actions. (Some felt I may have incited the rebellion of the YP meeting in Irving that PL was in charge of, and others blamed me for GW fading from the forefront).

Daystar was before my time. I never wore blinders concerning PL. I had an immediate aversion to him the first time I met him and once I learned of the hypocrisy concerning the LSM closing their eyes to his sins I rebuked the LSM representatives at the very first opportunity.

I was not present during the "railing" that TC apparently did against elders and leaders in his area.

I was not aware of the extortion on elders from the LSM until coming to this forum, though I was aware that NY had boxes of books they never wanted to purchase.

When I read of TC's quarantine I wrote a response for Tomes website that he posted.

However, I was in Houston and then in Irving when RG began to develop his teaching which I have to believe grew into the teaching on MOTA. I regret that I was not more vocal in speaking against it, but at the time his teaching comprised several verses from Phil., RG's testimony, and a little "wink wink" implying that he knew a secret. There was nothing as bold and blatant as the quarantine on TC for "not being absolute for the entire ministry of WL". However, in my response to that I did take note of how offensive it was to make that a basis for excommunication.

I have said this before, but WL and the elders in Texas were never a major factor in my being in the LRC. My biggest concern was that I was sacrificing everything for something that was phony. As a result I was very quick to rebuke things that I felt clearly needed to be rebuked. I was never concerned about being excommunicated for standing for righteousness. My fear was that I might reject the Lord's speaking. I was threatened several times with excommunication, some saints did what they could to make my life miserable, first after I ignored the threats, and then it got worse after I rebuked BP in a Lord's Table meeting. They refused to let me continue to attend trainings, but in hindsight that was the Lord's mercy. They also refused to let me attend the FTTT, so I moved from Texas to NY, then to NH, and then when NY was desperate to send someone I was sent.

Even though I grew up in Houston with EM and KR I was ostracized from that inner circle, once again, in hindsight that was the Lord's mercy. I was always able to fellowship with many wonderful and genuine saints, being ostracized from the BB's was a non concern for me, I never had the slightest interest in being a "full timer" even though I had served full time for a number of years (Irving for 18 months and Taipei for 12 months).

[Indiana]

After receiving the email (below), I called DCP as I have previously shared. I also called Ron Kangas at LSM and left him a voice mail asking him for an appointment in person to discuss his issues with me that he made known in a general way in Ecuador. I told him he needed to make clear to me why he regards me as one of the most evil speakers on the internet, yet does not support his statements about me with examples from my writings. I said, in effect, "Let us sit down to fellowship and consider if I have spoken anything that was not true.

I have not "yet" heard from him.


Email March 28

Dear Mr. Isitt,

Thank you for your email that you sent dated March 1, 2012, and the second dated March 15, 2012. I know that you have also stopped by the president's office a couple of times wanting to make an appointment with Dr. Mouw. This is to acknowledge that we have received your inquiries addressed to Dr. Mouw and others in your second email.

President Mouw and Dean Loewen have have taken your emails under advisement and have reviewed your request for an appointment to discuss the matters you have raised. Drs. Mouw and Loewen consider this an internal matter of the Local Churches and they will not address the matter as a theological institution. Due to his travel schedule and other commitments, Dr. Mouw will not be able to meet with you.

Thank you for your patience as we reviewed your written request.

Sincerely,
Wendy S. Walker
Executive Assistant to the President and Trustees
Office of the President
Fuller Theological Seminary
135 No. Oakland Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91182

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually 1 Cor 5:11 is not even central to this thread, much less to most of the threads on this forum. The personal sins of Phillip Lee are actually a miniscule part of what should concern people about the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church.

Technically true, but ...

PL was LSM's "Office Manager." ALL WORKER ACTIVITIES around the globe were to be under his direction. ALL workers, from Anaheim to Zealand, including Stuttgart, HAD to be reported to Phillip Lee. John So and other church leaders learned this and immediately departed from the Recovery, and rejected all contact with WL and LSM.

As with the Watergate fiasco of '73, the coverup was far worse that the crime. The coverup of PL's immoralities was orchestrated by WL himself. This is why so many leaders lost all faith in WL. Then he went on to discredit any and all who had the guts to speak out for righteousness sake.

Yes, Ingalls wrote and spoke out that “the nature of the Lord’s recovery has changed,” but that was as much to do with the "leadership" of PL as anything else. WL had removed himself from the scene, and all leaders from around the globe were instructed to report to PL, his "most trusted co-worker." Surely “the nature of the Lord’s recovery has changed” for such a profligate character to be in charge.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually 1 Cor 5:11 is not even central to this thread, much less to most of the threads on this forum. The personal sins of Phillip Lee are actually a miniscule part of what should concern people about the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church. These teachings and practices are based upon the person and work of Witness Lee, and the problems that arose from the misconduct of his son(s) were merely a symptom of a vast and comprehensive sickness that has prevailed upon the entire movement since Lee took control. (Maybe even before, but that is for older people to decide)

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes, Ingalls wrote and spoke out that “the nature of the Lord’s recovery has changed,” but that was as much to do with the "leadership" of PL as anything else. WL had removed himself from the scene, and all leaders from around the globe were instructed to report to PL, his "most trusted co-worker." Surely “the nature of the Lord’s recovery has changed” for such a profligate character to be in charge.

Didn't Witness Lee handpick elders from afar throughout the migrations and consolidations of the 70's? Seems like the culture that came of age with Daystar and Max Rappaport -- must have been fertile ground for the Philip Lee/Anaheim/Southeast/Stuttgart fiascos a decade later.