The book of James and the LRC

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Cassidy, your whole line of thinking is off-base and reflects very poor reasoning.

Just because certain things which do not reflect God's nature are recorded in the Bible as matters of record, it does not therefore follow that a whole book of direct teaching could in the same manner not reflect God's nature.

Things that are said or done in a biblical retelling of history are one thing. Direct teaching and decree are something else.

We have to surmise that when a writer of a book of the Bible, especially a NT book, in the first person makes a direct declaration of truth and decree then that declaration reflects God's thought, nature and command.

What you are doing is, again, a form of equivocation. You are mixing multiple meanings of "inspired." Yes, the entire telling of a story is inspired. No, Peter's actual claiming the Jesus should not go to the cross was not inspired. But the telling of the story and the overall lesson the story is trying to teach us is inspired. But when it comes to direct teaching, we have to conclude it is inspired, whether Solomon taught it or James taught it.

Igzy,

Here is my 50,000' view.

Witness Lee had many glowing things to say about the book of James and those may be found in the footnotes on the RcV for anyone interested in looking into the matter.

The book of James is like other books, some more, some less, in that it contains things that are God's speaking and things that are not. One can argue about specifics but there are some things which are obviously not God's speaking such as Peter's speaking, Satan's speaking in Gen 3, Job's friends. Another example is the quoting of the uninspired as Holy Writ book of Enoch in Jude.

The things that are not considered God's speaking in the book of James are very specific and they have to do with keeping the law. James apparently held a view that Christians must keep the law. That is a mixture for we know very clearly from Paul's writing that keeping the law is not in a believer's remit. That mixture about the law is recorded there for good reason and we can see the negative results in the book of Acts and Galatians and the problems that mixture created.

To regard the book of James as somehow exempt from the same considerations as other books in the Bible, that is, having parts that are not God's speaking is not rational or logical.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Igzy,

Here is my 50,000' view.

Witness Lee had many glowing things to say about the book of James and those may be found in the footnotes on the RcV for anyone interested in looking into the matter.

The book of James is like other books, some more, some less, in that it contains things that are God's speaking and things that are not. One can argue about specifics but there are some things which are obviously not God's speaking such as Peter's speaking, Satan's speaking in Gen 3, Job's friends. Another example is the quoting of the uninspired as Holy Writ book of Enoch in Jude.

The things that are not considered God's speaking are very specific and they have to do with keeping the law. James apparently held a view that Christians must keep the law. That is a mixture for we know very clearly from Paul's writing that keeping the law is not in a believer's remit. That mixture about the law is recorded there for good reason and we can see the negative results in the book of Acts and Galatians and the problems that the mixture created.

To regard the book of James as somehow exempt from other books in the Bible which have a portions that are not God's speaking is not rational or logical.

Well, again, you are blurring the distinction between historical record and direct teaching to try to hold your point together.

An example of historical record that does not constitute teaching is when in Acts 1:26 the disciples cast lots (dice) to choose the successor to Judas. Does the fact that is part of the inspired record imply that their lot casting was inspired? Not necessarily. In fact, most believe that practice was improper, but regardless that's how Matthias was selected. (This is an example of why pattern theology (the basis of the local ground) is a little dicey (pun intended).)

But a direct teaching is something else. I believe we should take those as instructive and inspired as much as we can.

When you say that Christians need not keep the law, the question is what do you mean by "keep the law." Do you mean ceremonial law, civil law, or moral law? If the first two, I agree. If the last, I disagree. Jesus himself said that none of the law would pass away. But since Paul said ceremonial law had been done away with, we can conclude that's not the law Jesus was referring to. Since civil law governed a culture so foreign to ours that it cannot be followed specifically, we don't need to keep it. Though we can gain general wisdom from it.

But the moral law continues. Adultery was wrong 3000 years ago, and it is wrong now. We need to keep that law.

So James was not wrong to say we need to keep the law. What's wrong is interpreting what he said to include the ceremonial and civil law, and then using that to say he was off in some way. Unfortunately, that's what you and WL are doing.

The perfect law of liberty is the moral law. It is the truth that sets your free. Of course, the Spirit is the reality of truth of the law.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, again, you are blurring the distinction between historical record and direct teaching to try to hold your point together.

An example of historical record that does not constitute teaching is when in Acts 1:26 the disciples cast lots (dice) to choose the successor to Judas. Does the fact that is part of the inspired record imply that their lot casting was inspired? Not necessarily. In fact, most believe that practice was improper, but regardless that's how Matthias was selected. (This is an example of why pattern theology (the basis of the local ground) is a little dicey (pun intended).)

I also like the maxim that here in Acts 1.26 the biblical record is descriptive, but not prescriptive.

Such was the case of Nee's "local ground" teachings. Yes, Revelations 2-3 are descriptive concerning "one church / one city," but the Bible is completely silent concerning this in a prescriptive way. One makes this teaching even more onerous is the obvious contradictions which exist in the plain text of the New Testament.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I also like the maxim that here in Acts 1.26 the biblical record is descriptive, but not prescriptive.

Such was the case of Nee's "local ground" teachings. Yes, Revelations 2-3 are descriptive concerning "one church / one city," but the Bible is completely silent concerning this in a prescriptive way. One makes this teaching even more onerous is the obvious contradictions which exist in the plain text of the New Testament.

Just so I'm clear, some parts of the Bible are descriptive, not prescriptive. So the fact that Judas went and hung himself is merely telling me what happened and not recommending that I do the same. This principle applies to the verses that WN and WL use to build their teaching about "the ground of oneness". None of the verses used were prescriptive, they were descriptive yet WN and WL, blissfully unaware of this maxim used these verses to prescribe a very critical teaching.

However, when it came to dissing parts of the Bible WL didn't like, say Proverbs, or Psalms, or James, or Job then all of a sudden he is misapplying this principle, talking about how some verses in the Bible are descriptive not prescriptive, and then applying it to verses that are prescriptive.

So then he ignores a basic principle when it is inconvenient, and in other places completely misapplies it to force his square peg doctrine into a round hole.

Now I can see saying that this is evidence that WN was a poor Bible teacher, fair enough, but for WL isn't this proof he was a false teacher?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just so I'm clear, some parts of the Bible are descriptive, not prescriptive. So the fact that Judas went and hung himself is merely telling me what happened and not recommending that I do the same.

Sounds like I have just prevented a disaster.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sounds like I have just prevented a disaster.

I too breathed a sigh of relief when I read that statement.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sounds like I have just prevented a disaster.

There are some that would take exception to that.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, again, you are blurring the distinction between historical record and direct teaching to try to hold your point together.

An example of historical record that does not constitute teaching is when in Acts 1:26 the disciples cast lots (dice) to choose the successor to Judas. Does the fact that is part of the inspired record imply that their lot casting was inspired? Not necessarily. In fact, most believe that practice was improper, but regardless that's how Matthias was selected. (This is an example of why pattern theology (the basis of the local ground) is a little dicey (pun intended).)

But a direct teaching is something else. I believe we should take those as instructive and inspired as much as we can.

When you say that Christians need not keep the law, the question is what do you mean by "keep the law." Do you mean ceremonial law, civil law, or moral law? If the first two, I agree. If the last, I disagree. Jesus himself said that none of the law would pass away. But since Paul said ceremonial law had been done away with, we can conclude that's not the law Jesus was referring to. Since civil law governed a culture so foreign to ours that it cannot be followed specifically, we don't need to keep it. Though we can gain general wisdom from it.

But the moral law continues. Adultery was wrong 3000 years ago, and it is wrong now. We need to keep that law.

So James was not wrong to say we need to keep the law. What's wrong is interpreting what he said to include the ceremonial and civil law, and then using that to say he was off in some way. Unfortunately, that's what you and WL are doing.

The perfect law of liberty is the moral law. It is the truth that sets your free. Of course, the Spirit is the reality of truth of the law.

Igzy,

I don't disagree with any of your points concerning the moral , ceremonial laws.

However, I think you giving James a pass to justify your point because it is clear from the biblical record that the Jewish believers were not only keeping the law but were zealous for the law.

Case in point:

Acts 21:20 "....You observe, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews who have believed; and all are zealous for the law. "

James was the leading brother in Jerusalem.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Igzy,

I don't disagree with any of your points concerning the moral , ceremonial laws.

However, I think you giving James a pass to justify your point because it is clear from the biblical record that the Jewish believers were not only keeping the law but were zealous for the law.

Case in point:

Acts 21:20 "....You observe, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews who have believed; and all are zealous for the law. "

James was the leading brother in Jerusalem.

No one denies this. Everyone agrees that the record in Acts condemns James on this point. The record in Acts also condems Saul of Tarsus, yet for some reason no one doubts that he "had the vision".

Peter made a mistake and denied the Lord. Paul was less than the least of the saints, persecuting some even to death. James was zealous for the law.

It turns out that it is very common for the vision to be given to the person who has made a very big error in this very same area. Kind of like a rebound from repenting for a sin they had committed.

So then, if you receive the ministry of Peter and Paul as being inspired, then it is hypocritical to use the account in Acts to justify rejecting the ministry of James.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Igzy,

I don't disagree with any of your points concerning the moral , ceremonial laws.

However, I think you giving James a pass to justify your point because it is clear from the biblical record that the Jewish believers were not only keeping the law but were zealous for the law.

Case in point:

Acts 21:20 "....You observe, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews who have believed; and all are zealous for the law. "

James was the leading brother in Jerusalem.

No doubt Paul was more clear on some things than James. But it's also possible that James was more clear on some things than Paul.

But the real question is this, are you saying there are some things commanded in the book of James that we specifically can ignore? If so, which are they?

I'm not baiting. I believe there are some things in the NT that we can de-emphasize now, that are less valid now that they were in the first century. For example, prohibiting women from teaching. I don't think that is a commandment regarding nature, but rather circumstance. I've just seen too many examples of anointed females teachers.

The problem I have with Lee's approach to James is although James was clearly a very Jewish Christian, I do not believe the main reason his book is in the NT is to demonstrate someone who was less than clear. If anything the point is to show that God needs different perspectives to state his whole case.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

No doubt Paul was more clear on some things than James. But it's also possible that James was more clear on some things than Paul.

But the real question is this, are you saying there are some things commanded in the book of James that we specifically can ignore? If so, which are they?

I'm not baiting. I believe there are some things in the NT that we can de-emphasize now, that are less valid now that they were in the first century. For example, prohibiting women from teaching. I don't think that is a commandment regarding nature, but rather circumstance. I've just seen to many examples of anointed females teachers.

The problem I have with Lee's approach to James is although James was clearly a very Jewish Christian, I do not believe the main reason his book is in the NT is to demonstrate someone who was less than clear. If anything the point is to show that God needs different perspectives to state his whole case.

Igzy, I don't consider your response as baiting, just healthy debate.

Yes, I think James' propensity toward keeping the law is not something we believers need to practice. He has many other edifying points but keeping the OT law was a mixture. Then the question comes up why are such teachings allowed to be included. Some variation is there to show different perspectives as you said, however, I believe that God also includes things to show us what not to do. OT law keeping was a big problem to the early church as previously shown. We can all learn from that.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Igzy, I don't consider your response as baiting, just healthy debate.

Yes, I think James' propensity toward keeping the law is not something we believers need to practice. He has many other edifying points but keeping the OT law was a mixture. Then the question comes up why are such teachings allowed to be included. Some variation is there to show different perspectives as you said, however, I believe that God also includes things to show us what not to do. OT law keeping was a big problem to the early church as previously shown. We can all learn from that.

Okay, but here's a problem. Once you generally undermine the book of James, you may undermine some things he taught that God doesn't want us to lose sight of, that are top shelf stuff.

For example, James knew what he was doing when he seemed to challenge the teaching of justification by faith. He knew Paul taught it. He wasn't committing an ignorant error that somehow God and creative theologians have saved. He was saying if you don't have works you don't have faith, perhaps not even saving faith. He was tweaking Paul's teaching, or at least the misapplication of it.

So in other words, James may not exist primarily to tell us not to take law-keeping too far. It may exist primarily to tell us not to take disregarding the law too far!

Here's another piece of evidence. Every serious Christian I've ever seen since I left the LRC--I mean those who walk the walk and don't just talk the talk--highly regard the book of James. That says something.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Every serious Christian I've ever seen since I left the LRC--I mean those who walk the walk and don't just talk the talk--highly regard the book of James. That says something.

Amen!

"All scripture is breathed out of God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16

The emphasis in quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 is when I have heard criticisms of whether a book such as James belongs of the Bible or not, I remember that verse.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, but here's a problem. Once you generally undermine the book of James, you may undermine some things he taught that God doesn't want us to lose sight of, that are top shelf stuff.

For example, James knew what he was doing when he seemed to challenge the teaching of justification by faith. He knew Paul taught it. He wasn't committing an ignorant error that somehow God and creative theologians have saved. He was saying if you don't have works you don't have faith, perhaps not even saving faith. He was tweaking Paul's teaching, or at least the misapplication of it.

So in other words, James may not exist primarily to tell us not to take law-keeping too far. It may exist primarily to tell us not to take disregarding the law too far!

Here's another piece of evidence. Every serious Christian I've ever seen since I left the LRC--I mean those who walk the walk and don't just talk the talk--highly regard the book of James. That says something.

Yes, James flies in the face of many beloved WL teachings. How about "true religion" or "don't be a hearer only". It seems to me that every group that goes seriously wrong it is because they have become hearers only and not doers, or they have forgotten what true religion is.

James said "no man can tame the tongue" yet WL ignored this, hired an expensive legal team and did his darnedest to do just that. If they had tamed the tongue that would be a work of faith, not a work of a legal team.

James talks about how you have respect for the rich and it these same people who sue you. James had the LRC pegged.

The conclusion of James is that the miseries are come upon the rich, their gold is cankered and their garments are moth eaten. Isn't this the case with WL and his ministry? In his arrogance he dismissed the book of James and now he is the one who is being dismissed.

[Cassidy]

Igzy,

Okay, but here's a problem. Once you generally undermine the book of James, you may undermine some things he taught that God doesn't want us to lose sight of, that are top shelf stuff.

I understand that concern but it is manageable. Early in my christian life I was very bothered about a direct teaching of Jesus. The one about if you committed certain sins you should pluck your eyes out or cut your hand off. A brother got me through that one but it did not cause me to lose sight of everything else in the gospels or that particular book. (ZNP, that is a direct teaching but don't go doing anything drastic! )

For example, James knew what he was doing when he seemed to challenge the teaching of justification by faith. He knew Paul taught it. He wasn't committing an ignorant error that somehow God and creative theologians have saved. He was saying if you don't have works you don't have faith, perhaps not even saving faith. He was tweaking Paul's teaching, or at least the misapplication of it.

I do not know if James was tweaking Paul's teaching or the misapplication of it. Maybe he was. However, I do not see a conflict between the two teachings as I view one as the cause and the other as the proof. One is about life and the other is about living. I have no quarrel with those who think the two are utterly incompatible but I myself do not think there is an issue with both standing side by side.

So in other words, James may not exist primarily to tell us not to take law-keeping too far. It may exist primarily to tell us not to take disregarding the law too far!

I don't agree with this as pertains to believers because it is impossible to keep the law and as James says if you break one point you've broken the whole. The law was a child conductor and at some point the child conductor is no longer needed. I am also fine with teaching children the 10 commandments and others parts but once they are regenerated Christ has come. I also think the law liberally should be applied to rowdy teenagers.

Here's another piece of evidence. Every serious Christian I've ever seen since I left the LRC--I mean those who walk the walk and don't just talk the talk--highly regard the book of James. That says something.

It does say something but it is not definitive. 2000 years ago some might have considered that if all the Christians in Jerusalem are zealous for the law then that should be considered as relevant.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Yes, I think James' propensity toward keeping the law is not something we believers need to practice. He has many other edifying points but keeping the OT law was a mixture. Then the question comes up why are such teachings allowed to be included. Some variation is there to show different perspectives as you said, however, I believe that God also includes things to show us what not to do. OT law keeping was a big problem to the early church as previously shown. We can all learn from that.

This is the issue with the WL version of the Book of James. They cannot read this book without mixing into it the account of him in Acts.

So they teach that the Book of James teaches both the NT and keeping the law as a mixture. Because this is what they read in Acts, not in the Book of James.

James
1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

The book of James makes it clear you cannot have a muddled, double minded view of the gospel. This may very well be a result of his repenting of having this view earlier in his life.

However, to support the assertion that James teaches us to keep the law they do not quote the Book of James, they quote the accounts in Acts and Galatians.

This would be like explaining Paul's teaching about "I am crucified with Christ" by teaching about how he dragged off Christians to be put to death. It may very well be that there is a strong contrast with his past, but it indicates his repentance for his sins.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is the issue with the WL version of the Book of James. They cannot read this book without mixing into it the account of him in Acts. So they teach that the Book of James teaches both the NT and keeping the law as a mixture. Because this is what they read in Acts, not in the Book of James.

That right. My old friend Cassidy said the same thing the other day. He's still looking thru the epistle of James for that verse that says Christians should follow the law, "Duh, I know it's in there somewhere, Bro Lee said so ..."

Actually I'm laughing at myself too. I just recently read thru James to make sure that verse was not there. I'm hard on ole Cass at times but I still love him in Christ.


Hey did you see CountMeWorthy in that group hug? It's named after her. Where she been?

[Cassidy]

"This is the issue with the WL version of the Book of James. They cannot read this book without mixing into it the account of him in Acts."

ZNP,

Guilty as charged.

But why is it a problem to include James' epistle, the acts of James in the book of Acts, and the account mentioned in Galatians to get a complete rounded view of James' teaching and practice?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The book of James makes it clear you cannot have a muddled, double minded view of the gospel. This may very well be a result of his repenting of having this view earlier in his life.

However, to support the assertion that James teaches us to keep the law they do not quote the Book of James, they quote the accounts in Acts and Galatians.

This would be like explaining Paul's teaching about "I am crucified with Christ" by teaching about how he dragged off Christians to be put to death. It may very well be that there is a strong contrast with his past, but it indicates his repentance for his sins.

Same can be said about Mark. Acts has a negative account of Mark and later on in Paul's epistles, there's an affirming word about Mark. Clearly something happened between the account in Acts and later as seen in Colossians, 2 Timothy, and Philemon.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Here is my 50,000' view. The book of James is like other books, some more, some less, in that it contains things that are God's speaking and things that are not.

The things that are not considered God's speaking in the book of James are very specific and they have to do with keeping the law. James apparently held a view that Christians must keep the law.

James said, "whoever keeps the whole law, yet stumbles in one point, has become guilty of all." (2.10)

That doesn't sound like an exhortation that Christians must keep the law. In fact, it sounds like the opposite.

Please come down to earth and provide some scripture to support your view.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

James said, "whoever keeps the whole law, yet stumbles in one point, has become guilty of all." (2.10)

That doesn't sound like an exhortation that Christians must keep the law. In fact, it sounds like the opposite.

Please come down to earth and provide some scripture to support your view.

Play fair, wouldn't it be easier for him to quote WL than to quote scripture?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Play fair, wouldn't it be easier for him to quote WL than to quote scripture?

From the vast, free online ministry resources at LSM.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

The book of James is like other books, some more, some less, in that it contains things that are God's speaking and things that are not. One can argue about specifics but there are some things which are obviously not God's speaking such as Peter's speaking, Satan's speaking in Gen 3, Job's friends. Another example is the quoting of the uninspired as Holy Writ book of Enoch in Jude.

The things that are not considered God's speaking in the book of James are very specific and they have to do with keeping the law. James apparently held a view that Christians must keep the law. That is a mixture for we know very clearly from Paul's writing that keeping the law is not in a believer's remit. That mixture about the law is recorded there for good reason and we can see the negative results in the book of Acts and Galatians and the problems that mixture created.

To regard the book of James as somehow exempt from the same considerations as other books in the Bible, that is, having parts that are not God's speaking is not rational or logical.

Witness Lee, Life Study of James, Chapter 10 Sect 3
To say, “If the Lord wills,” is rather objective and is quite much according to the tone of the Old Testament. But to be led of the Spirit, to walk in the Spirit, and to do what our spirit constrains us to do are subjective and are much more according to the New Testament.

"I certainly have no intention of belittling James or his Epistle. However, I must truthfully point out that after many years studying this book, I have learned that this Epistle is very Jewish and has a strong color, tone, taste, and atmosphere of the Old Testament. If we did not have the fourteen Epistles of Paul, we might be influenced by the book of James to go back to Judaism. Although we appreciate and need James’ emphasis on practical Christian perfection, we still need to be very clear that much of his Epistle has the tone, color, and atmosphere of the Old Testament."

This is WL's take on the expression "If the Lord wills" in the book of James, chapter 4. It is a good example of how WL belittles the book. The burden of James is clearly for those having trouble making the transition from the OT to the NT (it is written "to the 12 tribes in the dispersion"). So the governing principle here might be Paul's word in
1Cor
9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

This is clearly a lesson that WL did not learn. He feels that it "belittles" the book that the book is "Jewish" and has the taste of the Old Testament.

So then the next question is "who understood Paul better, Witness Lee or James?"

Perhaps one reason the book of James is in the Bible is because people may think they understand Paul when they really don't.

Perhaps, instead of "not intending to belittle James" it might have been better if he had "intended to learn from James". The arrogance of this "Bible teacher" is repulsive.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Witness Lee, Life Study of James, Chapter 10 Sect 3. To say, “If the Lord wills,” is rather objective and is quite much according to the tone of the Old Testament. But to be led of the Spirit, to walk in the Spirit, and to do what our spirit constrains us to do are subjective and are much more according to the New Testament.

"I certainly have no intention of belittling James or his Epistle. However, I must truthfully point out that after many years studying this book, I have learned that this Epistle is very Jewish and has a strong color, tone, taste, and atmosphere of the Old Testament. If we did not have the fourteen Epistles of Paul, we might be influenced by the book of James to go back to Judaism. Although we appreciate and need James’ emphasis on practical Christian perfection, we still need to be very clear that much of his Epistle has the tone, color, and atmosphere of the Old Testament."

Some may say that we are just here to "bad-mouth" Lee, but why should he get a free pass with his critique of James, and then no one has license to apply the same vigor to critique Lee's ministry. If this is not arrogant, then what is? The Bible says that Lee and his work should have been "above reproach" as James was.

If a Christian writes a book on Lee's teachings, then LSM & DCP will sue him all the way to the Supreme Court. Then, based on the same standard, should not James, the brother of our Lord, come back and sue Lee for how he has disparaged his own epistle? Were it not for our own liberties on the Internet, this forum might have been shut down long ago by LSM lawsuits.

Don't you just love the way Lee was "led of the Spirit, walked in the Spirit, and did what his spirit constrained him to do," as he allowed his sons Philip and Timothy to molest the female staff, robbed the saints via Daystar, slandered John Ingalls and many others for standing up to LSM abuses, sued every Christian writer that got in his way, etc. and etc. and so forth. Don't you just love the way Lee's teachings "are more subjective and much more according to the New Testament" than James' "mixed" views on "practical Christian perfection."

For anyone who watched the History channel mini-series "The Bible" on the other night, the hypocrisy of the chief priests was vividly displayed as they maneuvered to crucify the Lord and yet provide every appearance that they were remaining faithful to God's word in the Law. The hypocrisy at LSM is so reminiscent of that which was witnessed 2,000 years ago in the temple in Jerusalem by Israel's leaders.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some may say that we are just here to "bad-mouth" Lee, but why should he get a free pass with his critique of James, and then no one has license to apply the same vigor to critique Lee's ministry.

Perhaps if we are going to bad mouth Lee we should begin with

"I certainly have no intention of belittling WL or his ministry. However, I must truthfully point out..."

I love the use of "truthfully". I guess he realized much of what he pointed out wasn't truthful.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Perhaps if we are going to bad mouth Lee we should begin with

"I certainly have no intention of belittling WL or his ministry. However, I must truthfully point out..."

I love the use of "truthfully". I guess he realized much of what he pointed out wasn't truthful.

I'll do just that. Thank you!

[ZNPaaneah]

"There has been to some extent an atmosphere of fear brought in among the saints and among the churches, bringing the conscience of the saints into bondage. I believe this has been done by an over-stressing and distortion of the teaching concerning Deputy authority. This has brought the saints into a condition where they are fearful to follow their conscience, to be one with their spirit, and sometimes to speak their genuine concerns." (John Ingals as quoted by WL in the elder's training, book 10, chapter 6, section 9).

His point is not that there is no basis for this teaching but that it is distorted so that saints are fearful to speak their genuine concerns. On the one hand it is critical for a church to have "deputy authority". Someone has to pay the electric bill. Someone has to open the mail. Someone may need to speak to someone who is unruly or disruptive. However, Matt. makes it very clear that if you are going to discipline a brother you need to "tell it to the church and if the church refuses to hear him then...". This telling it to the church is not the elders saying that they have decided to discipline this person but it is an opportunity for this saint to share their case. This never happened in my experience in the LRC and I saw several saints excommunicated.

James
2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

To me the distortion of the teaching on "deputy authority" is when you have the faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons. The best example of this is the MOTA. The combination of the teaching of "deputy authority" and "MOTA" is a poisonous mixture.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"There has been to some extent an atmosphere of fear brought in among the saints and among the churches, bringing the conscience of the saints into bondage. I believe this has been done by an over-stressing and distortion of the teaching concerning Deputy authority. This has brought the saints into a condition where they are fearful to follow their conscience, to be one with their spirit, and sometimes to speak their genuine concerns." (John Ingals as quoted by WL in the elder's training, book 10, chapter 6, section 9).

Have not read this before. Had names not been mentioned, the quote could easily pass as the present condition. Just shows times has not changed how the deputy authority teaching keeps brothers and sisters silenced out of fear.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

His point is not that there is no basis for this teaching but that it is distorted so that saints are fearful to speak their genuine concerns. To me the distortion of the teaching on "deputy authority" is when you have the faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons. The best example of this is the MOTA. The combination of the teaching of "deputy authority" and "MOTA" is a poisonous mixture.

Healthy church leadership always has the safeguards of both plurality, accountability, and the scripture. The Recovery lost all of these, mainly due to distortions of the teachings on "deputy authority." This deputy authority had no peers and answered to no one. He was never balanced by other elders or church leaders. He used distorted teachings, such as Noah's curse on Ham, to hold the adherents in fear. That distortion provided the cover of darkness for every failure of Lee, including those of his profligate sons. His teachings provided the sole interpretation by which scripture could be read. In case of conflict, Lee's interpretations always superseded the plain words of scripture.

Coupled with this was the notion that the MOTA could "see" things no one else could. He was a "seer" of the unseen. Whereas mere mortals could see abuse, manipulations, unrighteousness, distortions, man-pleasing, hypocrisy, etc. at LSM, the MOTA would "see" rebellious lepers attacking God's Economy to bring the kingdom of the heavens to this earth, and the leader He raised up to bring His people into the New Jerusalem.

Or so, as I was taught to believe.