The book of James and the LRC

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I feel the burden of the book of James and the burden of this forum are the same. Posting on this forum is not evidence that you cannot make the transition from the LRC but it is evidence that you have a burden for those making this transition.

Thankyou for this word of wisdom.

This is exactly the point I wanted to make on the "thread with no name" about Steve Isitt's articles.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thankyou for this word of wisdom.

This is exactly the point I wanted to make on the "thread with no name" about Steve Isitt's articles.

If you write a letter to the church in Ephesus, as the Apostle John did, you cannot assume that the writer has left their first love merely because the Lord says the church in Ephesus has. This is, in my opinion, the error Witness Lee makes.

James does not refer to himself as one of the 12 tribes, but as "a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ". The fact that he is writing to the "12 tribes" should not lead to the assumption that he does not understand the change from the OT to the NT.

Second, you cannot write to the "church in Ephesus" unless there is such a place with such a name. The church in Thyatira is not going to assume that this letter were to them, that would be ridiculous. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that there were believers in Jesus who considered themselves "the twelve tribes in the dispersion". Once again, this is Witness Lee's mistake (in my opinion). He assumes that this label was created by James, that assumption is not supported by this book. On the contrary the logical conclusion is that this label already existed and James was writing to this group.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

James does not refer to himself as one of the 12 tribes, but as "a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ". The fact that he is writing to the "12 tribes" should not lead to the assumption that he does not understand the change from the OT to the NT.

WL misunderstood James 2.17 (faith without works is dead) like so many others have, thinking that James was assaulting the the way of faith. Being placed in the Bible just a page or two after Hebrews chap 11, probably didn't help either.

WL continually made a case against "natural" relationships, interpreting them as "honey" which would contaminate the offerings. He solidified his case against James with the same reasoning, concluding that James rose to prominence in Jerusalem, not because of spiritual maturity, because of this. With so much "wisdom" in Lee's arsenal, it is just unbelievable to me that he would ever include his own sons in his ministry.

[aron]

There are a couple of reasons in the Bible for viewing James with less than sanguinary eyes. First, John writes in chapter 7 of his gospel that "Even his brothers did not believe into Him". When John was writing the gospel, the brothers/family of Jesus had risen into prominence. John is telling the believers that the brothers/family had missed the whole earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. They weren't there. The only time they show up in the narrative is to argue with their brother.

Now, some have told me that this was just to show that Jesus trod the lonely path, and wasn't an indictment against His brothers' later prominince. But I read it as, John is looking at the "leaders of the church" and pointedly reminding everyone that they weren't even there. They missed the boat in the gospels. Why are they now in charge?

Secondly, is Paul's remark in Galatians: "Some came from James" and Peter shrunk back from the Gentiles. Paul could have said, "Some came from Jerusalem" or something like that. But he said "some came from James".

Thirdly, when discussing the resurrection of Jesus, Paul says, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ ... appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."
(1 Corinthians 15:3-8 ESV)

Again, James is late on the scene. Why, then, did the Desposyni (the family) end up running the show? Because they were family, not because they knew what was going on. Blood trumped revelation. Eusebius tells us (approvingly) in HE 7.9.1 that they had their own special chair, "the throne of James", that was kept by the desposyni as a revered keepsake.

All of which doesn't mean I agree with Lee, nor his reasoning. I don't. I just wanted to point out why some folks might hold James with less regard than others.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

There are a couple of reasons in the Bible for viewing James with less than sanguinary eyes. First, John writes in chapter 7 of his gospel that "Even his brothers did not believe into Him". When John was writing the gospel, the brothers/family of Jesus had risen into prominence. John is telling the believers that the brothers/family had missed the whole earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. They weren't there. The only time they show up in the narrative is to argue with their brother.

Now, some have told me that this was just to show that Jesus trod the lonely path, and wasn't an indictment against His brothers' later prominince. But I read it as, John is looking at the "leaders of the church" and pointedly reminding everyone that they weren't even there. They missed the boat in the gospels. Why are they now in charge?

Secondly, is Paul's remark in Galatians: "Some came from James" and Peter shrunk back from the Gentiles. Paul could have said, "Some came from Jerusalem" or something like that. But he said "some came from James".

Thirdly, when discussing the resurrection of Jesus, Paul says, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ ... appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."
(1 Corinthians 15:3-8 ESV)

Again, James is late on the scene. Why, then, did the Desposyni (the family) end up running the show? Because they were family, not because they knew what was going on. Blood trumped revelation. Eusebius tells us (approvingly) in HE 7.9.1 that they had their own special chair, "the throne of James", that was kept by the desposyni as a revered keepsake.

All of which doesn't mean I agree with Lee, nor his reasoning. I don't. I just wanted to point out why some folks might hold James with less regard than others.

This is not logical. According to the verse in ICorinthians 15 Paul is saying that the Lord appeared to James before he appeared to Paul. So if we accept that Paul's vision and ministry is part of the New Testament on what basis would the appearance of the Lord to James have? He appeared to James after the apostles, but he appeared to Paul after the apostles too.

Second, isn't this verse a testimony from the Apostle Paul that the Lord had appeared to James? Doesn't that contradict the idea that James didn't have the vision? Again, this verse seems to destroy this theory.

The verse in Galatians does, in my opinion shine a light on James and give him responsibility for the pressure on the Christians to be separate from the Gentiles. However, Paul was there when Stephen was stoned. Does that mean he didn't have the vision? Peter denied the Lord, does that mean he didn't have the vision. Peter and Paul make mistakes, but they have the vision. James might have made a mistake (the verses in Galatians only give responsibility to James, they don't actually say he did the deed) so therefore he doesn't have the vision?

As for the verses in John 7 it appears they are far more general than just an indictment on James lack of faith. Besides, James having a lack of faith prior to Peter's denial of the Lord, or Paul's participation in the persecution of Christians merely provides background prior to the Lord appearing to him.

The book of James should be judged based on the book. I don't judge Paul's books based on his persecution of Christians. I don't judge Peter's letters based on his denial of the Lord.

Witness Lee said:

"However, to call these believers in Christ the twelve tribes, as God’s chosen people in His Old Testament economy, may also indicate the lack of a clear view concerning the distinction between Christians and Jews, between God’s New Testament economy and the Old Testament dispensation, that God in the New Testament has delivered and separated the Jewish believers in Christ from the Jewish nation, which was then considered by God as a “perverse generation” (Acts 2:40)."

I disagree. You call someone by their name, we have no evidence that James "named" them the "twelve tribes in the dispersion". If Jewish believers were referring to themselves in this way it does indicate that they were not clear, the fact that James wrote to them only indicates he had a burden for them.

[ZNPaaneah]

James explains why we were deceived by Witness Lee. I think this is something that everyone who visits this forum wants to know. How was I deceived? How do I prevent it from happening again?

1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.

If you are not familiar with the word “upbraideth” it means to find fault with someone, to scold. God is not here finding fault, on the contrary our experience in the LRC showed we had some basic failings and if we pray God will provide the wisdom we need. Later in the book he spells out exactly what should have exposed Witness Lee to us as a fraud and why we didn’t see it.

1:6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

Surely we questioned the things we saw in the LRC. Didn’t you see saints publicly shamed in the meetings? Did you question that without wavering, or when you were told that focusing on the negative things is “death” did you get driven by the wind and tossed? I am very thankful for my experience in the LRC because they taught me you cannot waver. When I was younger I spent a lot of time on the ocean. There is only one good way to take on heavy seas and that is head on. If you turn to the side you will be flipped, if you try to run with the waves they will drive you into the rocks. In the LRC it was the same. If you are going to rebuke BP then you have to do it head on, to his face, in a meeting with a hundred witnesses.

1:7-8 For let not that man think he shall receive anything of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

The LRC taught me I could not be double minded. Almost immediately I was called into a meeting in Houston with RG, JD, and a number of other elders and was told “I already had 2 strikes against me”. No one told me what the two strikes were but I understood this to mean that if I got another one of these mysterious strikes I would be excommunicated. So I had to decide “LRC or conscience”? I decided if I wasn’t true to my conscience I didn’t want to be in the LRC. So I decided to ignore the warning.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Eusebius tells us (approvingly) in HE 7.9.1 that they had their own special chair, "the throne of James", that was kept by the desposyni as a revered keepsake.

Did you mean E.H. 7.19.1, which is titled "The episcopal seat of James"?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did you mean E.H. 7.19.1, which is titled "The episcopal seat of James"?

Right. That was what I was referring to.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

But I read it as, John is looking at the "leaders of the church" and pointedly reminding everyone that they weren't even there. They missed the boat in the gospels. Why are they now in charge?

If you receive James 1 you would never be deceived by WL.



1. In the church there is no “super spiritual” brother, there is no “Minister of the Age” or “super apostle” like Witness Lee or Watchman Nee. Likewise there are no small, insignificant brothers. Referring to saints as being “rich” in the word, or in life is a major red flag. V.9-10
2. There is a blessing in enduring the trials and temptations. Our experiences were not a waste, they were a blessing. V.12
3. The reason we got ensnared into the LRC is we were drawn away by our own lusts. Perhaps the idea that you were special or better than other Christians was the lure. Any discussion of special revelation, special blessing, or proper ground is a major red flag. V. 14-15
4. If you justify the LRC saying “how could this be false if the teachings are good” know that “every good gift is from above”. The “truths” didn’t come from Witness Lee, the truths came from God. Any talk of “having the riches” is a red flag, if the gift is a good gift it comes from God, not from WL or WN. We may not have known this at the time, but it should be clear to us now. V. 17
5. “Be ye doers of the word not hearers only” v. 22. Too many in the LRC were nothing but hearers. How many preached the gospel, or raised up churches, or took care of small group meetings? Listening to messages and then thinking you are something spiritual is just deceiving yourself. Talking about preaching the gospel without actually doing it should be a big red flag.
6. Pure religion is to visit the fatherless and widows v.27. If you are not doing that then your worship is not pure. Anytime numerous meetings are emphasized over visiting those in need then that should be a big red flag.
7. Pure religion is to keep yourself unspotted from the world v. 27. Daystar should have been a major red flag. PL running the LSM should have been a major red flag.

When someone tells you that you don’t need to listen to James, then that is a big red flag. Without the book of James the Bible is incomplete, you are incomplete, and the door is left open for you to be led away by your own lusts, by your lack of wisdom, and by deceiving yourself.

[Cal]

What's interesting to me is that the LC was continually talking about being "the expression of Christ" and being "the testimony of God." Well, James tells us what that looks like. So you would think that it would be a favorite book of the LC. Because, as ZNP said, it tells us exactly what pure religion means--it means you care practically for the needs of the those who truly need help.

Love, in essence, means seeking the good of others at your own expense.

I've found that there are a lot mental barriers to the gospel, but caring for people in genuine love, especially when it involves sacrifice and becoming humble, is the most irresistible testimony that Christ's love is real in us. There is very little defense against it. It just melts people's hearts.

But Lee didn't like the language of James. I don't think he was against kind works. I just think he expected "clear" teachers to constantly be referring to "God's economy" like he did. James got in the way of his doctrine of the supremacy of "God's economy" above all other concepts, so he had to level a salvo against it. But in doing so he minimized a major factor of the testimony of God.

Imagine if LCers, with all their devotion and absoluteness, focused on good works in the community. I guarantee they would have grown and spread the gospel more than they have. Also, by having an attitude of care for the weak, they would have been far less likely to mistreat their own.

Also, care for others would mean reaching out more to other Christians, which would have resulted in less barriers, and more of the oneness they claimed to seek.

Ironically, the book they minimized was just the one they needed, and we all need.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Imagine if LCers, with all their devotion and absoluteness, focused on good works in the community. I guarantee they would have grown and spread the gospel more than they have. Also, by having an attitude of care for the weak, they would have been far less likely to mistreat their own.

For example, consider the things said by Sherman Robertson to Steve and relayed in his testimony on this forum.

1. “You don’t belong in the Lord’s Recovery.”
a. Who is qualified to make that determination. The very act of saying this indicates a major red flag. To put yourself in the position of the Lord is to say that you are the “super spiritual” brother and that Steve is an insignificant brother. This should raise up a major red flag.
b. There is a blessing in enduring this. The proper way to respond is head on, which is what Steve has done in posting this testimony, in writing directly to Sherman and in going on the internet when they ignore him. Steve is the one being perfected and growing as a result of this experience.
c. This comment as well as many other attacks were prompted by Steve’s attempt to evaluate the new way and its impact on the church. If people are walking in the light they would welcome and encourage this kind of assessment. I evaluate my progress as a teacher every year. I put down my goals at the beginning of the year and then evaluate how well I did in hitting these goals in the middle and end of the year. I do this in conference with my principal. However, if the errors were a result of the leaders in the recovery being enticed by their lusts then they will not welcome this kind of evaluation and instead will attack you for doing this. Therefore these attacks reveal the sins in their heart and are a major red flag.
d. In Steve’s testimony you can see many positive and wonderful experiences that he had, including his time in Taipei with the “New Way”. However, know that every good gift is from above. The Recovery has no monopoly on experiences of God. Threatening to kick someone out of the Recovery by saying “you don’t belong in the Lord’s Recovery” does not in any way separate you from the grace of God. Your experiences were not a result of being in the LRC, they were a result of being in Christ.
e. “Be ye doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving yourself”. Seeking the truth is to be a doer of the word. Preaching the gospel, writing gospel tracts, raising up home meetings, these are all proper and healthy activities for a Christian. The fact that LSM and the elders want to completely control this, and even do everything in their power to prevent you from writing your own tract by ignoring you is a major red flag.
f. Pure religion is to visit the “fatherless” and “widows”. These are the people with no influence and power. In a society where men are the one with jobs, not having a father makes you powerless. Not having a husband makes you powerless. When you are in a church where it is all about power, influence, who you know, etc. then that is a major red flag.
g. The LRC has become a franchise church of LSM. This means that the elders and LSM leaders have “become spotted by the world”. This is a major red flag.