The LCS Factor

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Hi Matt, a little statement and rebuttal, if you don't mind.

Do you concede that there are true believers in the Roman Catholic church? Can some not love the Lord and his word yet sit in the midst of all the idols surrounding them?

I think they can.

I concede there are. Yes, some can love the Lord in the midst of all the idols surrounding them.

And yes. They are in an environment that is in bondage and under the strong control of a hierarchy that is not of the Lord. I believe the RCC is less controlling than the LC has been in the past 20 years, but it is heavily leavened. This is clear to all.

Would you encourage any believer in the Lord that you know to join the RCC? Why not?

Originally Posted by Shawn

[COLOR=blue]I wish that you could show some of the mercy and compassion that you have referenced in point E. Some of the churches have grown through and out of the LSM way of doing things, if your point were true, every single member of the LC would still have a rabid loyalty to WL. Then and only then could you point the finger of all being usurped by idolatry.

Today I meet and fellowship in a church that had its roots in the LC/LSM and has since been growing out of it. I find your black and white portrayal to be baseless and troubling.

Sorry if I am not properly demonstrating these attributes. For clarity, mercy is only granted under repentance by the Lord. I'm not the Lord so I'm not in a position to grant anyone mercy on these issues because idolatry is not a personal offense against me. It is an offense against the Lord. He is in the position to grant mercy. Part of the challenge of this thread has been that there was disagreement about the fact that idolatry came in very early on. I went back 50 years as a starting point.

As for compassion, I believe that I have demonstrated this over a very long period of time by the suffering I went through to moderate on the other forum allowing all to have their voice and point their guns at me as they felt it appropriate or necessary. If you choose to measure me because of the content of this one thread, then I would have to agree with your assessment.

I assure you that each one of us has been guilty of idolatry. No exceptions. Our hearts are dark. However, the points I have been making on this thread are about the systematic idolatry introduced and propogated by Lee. Be assured that some of it still exists, including in your locality. I know of at least one example there that is quite clear within your leadership.

It was by the mercy of God that the Midwest broke free from the LSM. Do you believe that the Midwest would have gotten free if the LSM did not quarantine Titus Chu? This was the everlasting lovingkindness of God. If this had not happened, your locality would still be further under the sway of the LSM/LC.

That's not about 20 or 30 years into the past. It's very close to the present.

Do you realize how devilishly the LSM/LC has behaved to try to maintain their control over the localities in the Midwest? It is something to consider closely. Just because a number of localities ended up siding with Titus and this caused them to "schism" off of the LSM/LC does not make these localities suddenly healthy. It puts them on a better path. If they return to old habits then you end up right back where you were, just different names at the top of the list.

My emphasis has always been on encouraging and exhorting everyone to return to the Head. That's it.

Originally Posted by Shawn

Your fixation on idolatry seemed to be locked in the 70's and 80's condition of the church at that time. You make accusations based on events that go back 20 or 30 years; a time when all LC's were either towing the line as one group. I hope in the next posts you might consider the conditions then and now and recognize the difference.

I'm not fixated on the past. I am using the past to supply objective facts that counter the specific thoughts of some that the LC went from some glorious status to a degraded status.

I already recognize the difference in the Midwest. I've travelled through Pittsburgh and have been to a meeting there. I've travelled to other areas of the Midwest and have seen that there is a new found freedom in various localities. There is also still a lot of confusion and the leadership is not clear. I can be specific on this issue. I agree that the break from the LSM was a huge step in the right direction. When an addict is in recovery, they have to confront facts and be thorough. The same is true for us in regards to deception.

In closing, I know the points I have made on this thread have been strong. They have been strong enough to cause a reaction from many directions. I do understand where you are coming from and I don't have a hard heart or mean spirit towards you.

Matt

[Peter Debelak]

Matt:

I have many thoughts and I have not fully digested your many posts, which obviously have much thought behind them. I will post more thoroughly my responses and thoughts, but here I want to present what I see as a conundrum for me that your take on idolatry presents.

1 Corinthians 5:

11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

I agree with you, that by a definition that can be healthy for allowing the Lord's light to shine on us personally, each and every one of us should be convicted as idolatrous. It is not explicit in the Word, but in humility and under His light, each of us should be convicted. The Lord knows I have.

The question presented on this thread, however, is not just how we interact ourselves before the Lord - but rather what the Word tells us about interacting with others. Your speaking here, it seems to me, is geared toward three points: 1) to cause each of us to be transparent and honest before the Lord (this is good and healthy); 2) to convict others that they are idolatrous; 3) to establish a proper response once idolatry is recognized.

If we all adopted your take, that each and every person in the LC is idolatrous by the definition that Paul spoke so very strongly about, then - at least for me - there are many meals and invitations to dinner by LC members I must decline. According to the Word of God and your definition of idolatry (as rooted in the Pauline definition), don't you agree I should decline these invitations to dinner? I have to tell you, even if I can't articulate why, it would violate my conscience to decline such invitations. And I don't believe I would be violating Paul's word in 1 Corinthians 5:11 by accepting them.

I am approaching this subject matter from several directions, I know. It may appear that I am scattered on this. I am not - well, not for myself, as I have had to have many nights of repentence before the Lord for replacing Him as the pre-eminant one. But my lack of clear articulation is not an indication of grasping for straws. There is something that just does not sit well with me in your presentation. I read and re-read your explications and I nod often. Yet something does not sit well. Tonight, I read this portion from 1 Corinthians, and the tension within me about this topic hit me again: what of my dear brothers in sisters in Christ, who love Christ, who live for Christ and for their neighbors - and also read a lot of Witness Lee (perhaps even uplift him too much): they may be unhealthy, but as idolators, do I have to decline the invitations to dinner??? I am not being sarcastic with that question...

In Love,

Peter

P.S. Really, Matt, I appreciate not only your thoughts, but your carefulness and thoroughness in what is obviously something you are burdened about. I recall taking BrentB to task very harshly for his characterizations which I felt were not grounded in the same thoroughness, precision and care that your study and presentation has had. Despite my immediate uncomfortable reactions to some of what you have said, I have taken it seriously and taken it seriously before the Lord and as opportunity to dive back into His word. So take my challenge in that light, for what its worth, brother.

P.P.S. (post-post addition) It has occurred to me that you may make a distinction between someone who has been "idolatrous" and someone who is an "idolator." Thing is, since I agree with you that idolatry, by your definition, is a matter of heart, I really can't see the distinction between the two. Perhaps further explanation of the distinction, if you believe there is one, would help.

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

If we all adopted your take, that each and every person in the LC is idolatrous by the definition that Paul spoke so very strongly about, then - at least for me - there are many meals and invitations to dinner by LC members I must decline. According to the Word of God and your definition of idolatry (as rooted in the Pauline definition), don't you agree I should decline these invitations to dinner?

Peter,

First of all, I always appreciate what you have to say regardless of whether we are in agreement in our thinking. You are very thoughtful and provoke others to consider things carefully.

I only saw one question in your post, so I am addressing it. If I missed something please point it out to me.

I was not talking about a physical dinner. I was talking about spiritual food. When a diehard LCer says to you, "Brother Lee taught me this and brother Lee taught me that" in reverence to Lee and then begins to share with you the things that they are appreciating from Lee's ministry isn't your conscience offended?

This isn't about eating physical food. It's about partaking of things offered to idols. The parallel that Paul sets in 1 Cor 10 shows that the children of Israel who ate the manna and drank water from the rock were partaking of Christ (spiritual food). We partake of Him through His Word to us. If we partake of His Word from another man after He has offered it to his idol then there is a problem. This is the core of what Paul was addressing.

Due to the fact that in Paul's time there were still physical idols it was easier for him to paint this picture. Paul made it clear that the object (the idol) was nothing. It was the fact that it had been offered to an idol. It was the act of idolatry on the part of another that made it a problem for those of the House of God to partake.

I've been invited to dinner by the main LC elder in my current locality. By God's amazing arrangement me, my wife and my mom went to their house for dinner. I was free to do this before the Lord. No idolatry. However, there was one portion of our fellowship in which this elder went on a Lee-tangent. He began praising Lee for how he had brought truths into the Body of Christ. He almost quoted portions of the historical progression that you find in the little book called "History of the Local Churches". This was offensive to me. We all sat silently until he finished and then we moved on. I did not receive what he was saying and I was offended inside by it. The rest of our time was good and we had fellowship about other things that were completely unrelated to LC.

Looking back I have thought about whether or not I should have spoken up and let him know that I could not receive what he was speaking about Lee. I am not 100% clear.

However, I am clear he was offering something up to his idol and in my heart I knew it was wrong.

Does this explanation clarify what I am talking about?

Matt

P.S. You mentioned LCers as idolaters in your post. Personally, I have tried to be careful not to use that label. I am pointing at the sin of idolatry. I believe we are justified in Christ and must view each other in this light. However, this does not extend to ignoring sinful deeds. We are asked to confront sinful deeds in sincerity and truth with a right heart towards one another and the Lord. I know my addressment of this subject has brought me into question on this point (my heart towards others). I can't really defend myself on that issue.

[Matt Anderson]

Ohio & Hope,

I am going to take a week to respond. This is due to two things.

1) Work
2) I need to spend time composing my responses to both of you. I need to be substantive in my response and not quick.

In between now and then, I will go mostly silent.

Hope,

I have previously asked you some questions which you have failed to respond to. I know you are busy and will remain busy into next month. I will bring the key questions of concern back forward and request a reply when I reply to all of your questions.

Ohio,

You have brought up some very good points which I both appreciate and am glad to see that you have decided to return to challenging this issue based on the Word. For a while there you were on the attack against my person. I know we have a strong disagreement here and I know you believe that I am just wrong. This hasn't changed the fact that I respect you as a brother in the Lord. I do. I have not appreciated some of your attack directed beyond what I am saying and at me personally.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that some of your primary objections here are rooted in your belief that the "leadership" messed up, but the flock is innocent. Is this correct?

I also realize that you simply do not agree with some of what I am sharing about idolatry in general. I'm not discounting this fact, but I want to see if you are able to acknowledge one of the key aspects of your position.

Note about my question: I have tried to make the basis of my thought well known (as much as possible), so I am not asking for something that I haven't already tried to share from my point of view.

Matt

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Matt

Ohio,

You have brought up some very good points which I both appreciate and am glad to see that you have decided to return to challenging this issue based on the Word. For a while there you were on the attack against my person. I know we have a strong disagreement here and I know you believe that I am just wrong. This hasn't changed the fact that I respect you as a brother in the Lord. I do. I have not appreciated some of your attack directed beyond what I am saying and at me personally.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that some of your primary objections here are rooted in your belief that the "leadership" messed up, but the flock is innocent. Is this correct?

I also realize that you simply do not agree with some of what I am sharing about idolatry in general. I'm not discounting this fact, but I want to see if you are able to acknowledge one of the key aspects of your position.

Yeah Matt, take your time. The pace was far too fast here before.

I never intended to bring "attack against your person." Apologizes to all those, especially you, who got that impression. Throughout this thread and the forum in general, I have only attempted to bring balance to what I feel are extreme views, whether they come from the promoters or the demoters of the LC's. I do not believe, for the most part, that you are "just plain wrong," only that some of your more serious judgments should be reserved for certain leaders and their misbehavior, rather than some application for every member.

I do agree with many of your comments on idolatry, when spoken in the same context they were written. When they are applied indiscriminately upon on N.T. believers, then I have to speak up. Our assessment of idolatry should only go as far as the N.T. authors went. Why even mention idolatry, if all equally bear responsibility? That's like proving all LC'ers are still sinners. Isn't that called "straw man."

Concerning whether the "flock is innocent," the situation is far too complex to say whether all are guilty or only leaders are guilty, (and of what they are guilty of.) That's why I protest generalizations, they spawn prejudices and critical attitudes. They are easy to learn and hard to be cleansed of. I am rejecting both the ones I received inside the LC, and the ones from outside against the LC. I have never been persuaded that stereotypes are positive, whether they be about men in general (or women ), or races, or cultures, or religions.

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I do agree with many of your comments on idolatry, when spoken in the same context they were written. When they are applied indiscriminately upon on N.T. believers, then I have to speak up. Our assessment of idolatry should only go as far as the N.T. authors went. Why even mention idolatry, if all equally bear responsibility? That's like proving all LC'ers are still sinners. Isn't that called "straw man."

Ohio,

Thanks for your comments to me, personally. I know I have frustrated a number of people and they are speaking out of some frustration.

I just did in my last post to Roger.

You are correct that the issue of idolatry shouldn't be applied indiscriminately upon N.T. believers.

Fact: The Local Churches of Witness Lee are a very, very small minority of the Body of Christ. For me to apply comments to the whole of the LC is actually to talk about a small piece of the Body of Christ. It's like talking about a portion of the humorous bone in the arm.

Final Question: Did you or did you not give your allegiance to the "the vision of the church" or "christ and the church" (intentionally or unintentionally)? If I didn't get it quite right, please tell me what you did give your allegiance to. Can you honestly say that you only gave your allegiance to Christ? This is what I am talking about. Right now, I'm asking about you. After you answer this, then begin to ask yourself who did not do this?

Matt

P.S. I'm not trying to make you out to be a bad person through my last question. You are not a bad person. You have a great heart towards others. I'm asking you to bear a true and solemn witness.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Matt

Final Question: Did you or did you not give your allegiance to the "the vision of the church" or "christ and the church" (intentionally or unintentionally)? If I didn't get it quite right, please tell me what you did give your allegiance to. Can you honestly say that you only gave your allegiance to Christ? This is what I am talking about. Right now, I'm asking about you. After you answer this, then begin to ask yourself who did not do this?

Matt,

This is really a non sequitur. Even if Roger answers in the affirmative it doesn't prove anything.

The Bible tells us to love one another. Some have given themselves to love others. The Bible tells us to preach the gospel. Some have sold out for the gospel. The Bible tells us to cleave to what is good and delight in the truth. Many do these things. Are these people then idolaters because their allegiance is to "something other that Christ?" No, they are simply doing what they feel the Bible tells them to do. To cleave to a vision one feels the Bible gives is not wrong. Certainly a person can get imbalanced by emphasizing something too much, but it hardly amounts to idolatry.

The Bible gives us a vision of Christ with his Church. To argue against this is to simply say you haven't read the Bible. Is it all the Bible talks about? No. But it is a big factor. Some love that vision. The vast majority don't love it for itself, but because they feel it is what the Lord loves and has commanded them to carry out.

Trying to make that seem like idolatry is simply barking up the wrong tree.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Matt

Final Question: Did you or did you not give your allegiance to the "the vision of the church" or "christ and the church" (intentionally or unintentionally)? If I didn't get it quite right, please tell me what you did give your allegiance to. Can you honestly say that you only gave your allegiance to Christ? This is what I am talking about. Right now, I'm asking about you. After you answer this, then begin to ask yourself who did not do this?

Matt, what does this mean: "give your allegiance"? Please provide some level of detail so that I can answer adequately. Obviously this question is not a simple one, and is potentially "loaded" to say the least. Hope has already mentioned some scriptures, and I can think of others that had an impact upon me. Maybe it would be wise to differentiate what is "healthy" allegiance and what is "unhealthy" allegiance.

Those Christians, whom I have known over the years, who claimed to only have "allegiance" to Christ, were immature loners, prideful and judgmental. Some had been burnt pretty badly by religion, and could see hypocrisy in every church, hence would never commit themselves to anything.

Btw, what did you think about my earlier comments on idolatry?

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Matt

Peter,

You mentioned LCers as idolaters in your post. Personally, I have tried to be careful not to use that label. I am pointing at the sin of idolatry. I believe we are justified in Christ and must view each other in this light. However, this does not extend to ignoring sinful deeds. We are asked to confront sinful deeds in sincerity and truth with a right heart towards one another and the Lord. I know my addressment of this subject has brought me into question on this point (my heart towards others). I can't really defend myself on that issue.

Matt:

I think I wasn't clear. I mentioned "eating" only because Paul mentioned "not to even eat" with idolators - meaning, I think, not to even spend time with them.

I wasn't addressing your points about eating, I was addressing the fact that Paul specifically told the Corinthians that if there were idolators among them, they should not even eat (i.e. spend time with) such ones - they should, in fact, cast them out. That is, Paul defined idolatry in such a way that necessitated severe action. Does your definition of idolatry require the same severe action? The logic of your definition together with Paul's admonition would require me to refuse to sit down with anyone from the LC.

Secondly, I will challenge you on the "idolatrous"/"idolator" distinction. I am all for being careful not to confuse the person and the sin. But Paul's word in 1 Corinthians 5:11-12 was to Christians, each of which had been justified in Christ. In fact, he said that you don't need to necessarily stay away from unbelievers who are idolatrous (v. 10) - but you must refuse/cast out believers who are idolatrous.

How does one get from being "idolatrous" to being an "idolator"? I'd say, if they perpetuated idolatrous behavior unrepentantly even after being warned of their behavior, they've crossed into "idolator" territory. Thus, if the behavior in the LC is "idolatrous," then I think you skirt the issue by not saying they are "idolators" and all that goes with that. If we are going to be serious about idolatry, then we pursue it to its logical and scriptural conclusions. If the behavior you speak of is idolatry - the same idolatry that Paul was witnessing in Corinth - then we must not even sit down at a table with someone from the LC. Definitions have consequences. Defining something as "idolatry" has this consequence, according to the Word.

At one point, Thankful mentioned certain behavior being "in the principle of idolatry." Given that our response to real idolatry must be so stark (i.e. cast out the idolators), I think it is real dangerous to begin talking about the "in the principle of idolatry".

Does that clarify the point I was trying to make?

Peter

[Paul Cox]

Peter,

What I like about the truth is that it is simple. The Lord didn't put it out of reach of those who aren't so "smart." You have nailed it in a simple way, and that should put the whole "idolatry" thing to rest. But somehow I know it won’t. "Theologians" love to opine.

When Paul told the Corinthians that they shouldn't eat with idolaters, he simply meant not to eat with people who literally worship idols. We must keep the historical context in mind, always, when we read these dated writings.

There were those who literally worshiped graven images, and even offered up their food to these idols. You are right. He meant don't spend time with those who literally bow themselves to idols. It’s not any more complicated than that. Witness Lee had a knack for taking simple teachings in the Bible and blowing them up into mushrooms of “truth.” I think that’s what’s going on here.

If Paul would have had Matt's definition of idolatry in mind, his word about not eating with idolaters would have effectively disbanded the whole church.

According to his definition, those who said they were of Paul, were guilty of worshiping him as an idol. Those who said they were of Apollos, likewise, would have been guilty of idolatry, and so on. The very few in the church in Corinth who didn't engage in "idolatry," would have been forbidden from eating with those who say they are of whomever. Isn't the problem with the Living Stream Church that they basically say: "I am of Lee."

As members of His Body, joined to Him as our ascended Head, we are indeed called upon to extend His mercy and grace to all the brothers and sisters, while at the same time discerning the system. A consciousness of the Body of Christ (and I don't mean "the baaaaaaaahdy") is indeed one of the wonderful things that we have inherited from the teachings of Sparks, Nee, and even to a degree Lee. It balances our selfish tendency to only focus on "Jesus and me."

Branding all the brothers and sisters who remain in the Local Church as “idolaters” it totally without His mercy. The word is clear that if we are harsh and merciless to others, we can expect the same from the Father.

Roger

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by Roger

But somehow I know it won’t. "Theologians" love to opine.

Roger

Is your comment pointed at anyone else but me? If so, please state, for the record, who it is pointed at...

I'm tired of your jabs. Who would ever claim that I was a "theologian"? I wouldn't claim it. Do I think about things. Absolutely, yes. Why? Because my parents raised me in a sect (some say, cult) of Christianity and I've been forced to really think to clear all the crud out of my head.

I'll respond substantively to Peter, because he is bringing forward some very good things for consideration.

Originally Posted by Roger

Branding all the brothers and sisters who remain in the Local Church as “idolaters” it totally without His mercy. The word is clear that if we are harsh and merciless to others, we can expect the same from the Father.

For the record, I haven't done this and I wouldn't do it (branding all as "idolaters"). Did you ever once see me call anyone on the last forum a "cultist"? No. I rarely used the word cult.

I agree with you about mercy, but God is not slack with his mercy. You have to know that he is both holy and full of mercy. The two fit together. If you only focus on the mercy, then you err. If you only focus on the holiness, then you err.

Sorry, but I am going to start calling you out personally on some of your comments from now on.

Matt

P.S. I don't mind your substantive comments. You have a very bad habit of focusing things personally. I put up with it on the other forum as moderator out of care for you. I took a lot of heat for it. Let's call a spade a spade. You misbehaved there. You're doing it again.

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by Matt

Is your comment pointed at anyone else but me? If so, please state, for the record, who it is pointed at...

I'm tired of your jabs. Who would ever claim that I was a "theologian"? I wouldn't claim it. Do I think about things. Absolutely, yes. Why? Because my parents raised me in a sect (some say, cult) of Christianity and I've been forced to really think to clear all the crud out of my head.

I'll respond substantively to Peter, because he is bringing forward some very good things for consideration.



For the record, I haven't done this and I wouldn't do it (branding all as "idolaters"). Did you ever once see me call anyone on the last forum a "cultist"? No. I rarely used the word cult.

I agree with you about mercy, but God is not slack with his mercy. You have to know that he is both holy and full of mercy. The two fit together. If you only focus on the mercy, then you err. If you only focus on the holiness, then you err.

Sorry, but I am going to start calling you out personally on some of your comments from now on.

Matt

P.S. I don't mind your substantive comments. You have a very bad habit of focusing things personally. I put up with it on the other forum as moderator out of care for you. I took a lot of heat for it. Let's call a spade a spade. You misbehaved there. You're doing it again.

Matt,

You can call me out all you want to. I'm not scared of you. When you try to dominate a thread with your personal views, with volumes and volumes of posts, you come across as a "theologian."

I thought it reasonable that you start an idolatry thread. You insist that you would rather make idolatry the main focus of abuse in the Local Church. Many here don’t agree with that view, but your barrel ahead anyway.

Over at the Bereans forum you could shut me down and lock my threads whenever you wanted to. Over here you can probably effectively do the same. Go for it. I don't care. You want to talk about misbehavior on the other forum, your hands are not clean. You struggled hard to stay moderator over there, now there is almost nothing left to moderate.

Roger

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Matt

I believe the RCC is less controlling than the LC has been in the past 20 years, but it is heavily leavened. This is clear to all.

This is not "so clear" to me. Have you been to Mexico? or Brazil? or to a traditional Italian family? May I suggest that life in the FTTAnaheim is similar to life in Rome, and life in the American LC's is similar to American RCC's.

Originally Posted by Matt

Sorry if I am not properly demonstrating these attributes. For clarity, mercy is only granted under repentance by the Lord.

There are far too many verses about mercy, which do not mention repentance, for this to be "clear." Here's a few ...

"Blessed are the merciful, they shall obtain mercy.

"I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.

"He who shows mercy in cheerfulness ...

Originally Posted by Matt

I assure you that each one of us has been guilty of idolatry. No exceptions. Our hearts are dark. However, the points I have been making on this thread are about the systematic idolatry introduced and propagated by Lee. Be assured that some of it still exists, including in your locality.

Now you are making idolatry synonymous with sin. "All have sinned and come short ..." The aching question for me is simple, if all Christians are guilty of idolatry, then why is this an LC/LSM matter? This is like trying to convince all LC folks of sin. We know! You don't have to tell us.

Originally Posted by Matt

I know of at least one example there that is quite clear within your leadership.

This is serious. Care to elaborate?