The LCS Factor

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Hi Matt,

The Drug abuser was only an example; my point was the lack of experience that is leading you to conclusions that are lacking substantiation, as evidenced by the abundance of counterpoints to your arguements from LC'ers.

Your response has been to address the example and not the 800 pound gorilla, of lack of experience that are weakening your argument.

I never said one does not treat the drug abuser, only that drawing from the experiences of one who has been there is the most effective way.

Dear Shawn,

In what I have bolded above, it seems you are adding to the “Matt does not have enough experience to speak as he has done on this thread” theme.

I feel I should speak to Matt’s "experience" since that argument seems to keep coming up. I think it is better for me to do this than for Matt to have to continue to stand up alone to the 800 pounds worth of "counterpoint" punches that he has received on this thread.

I'd like to respectfully point out that Matt does not have a lack of experience when it comes to the topic of spiritual abuse in the Local Churches, which is reason for this thread. In brief he is qualified to speak because he is a 2nd generation LCer (this thread is about those from the 2nd generation) who is now an adult survivor of spiritual abuse carried out by an idolatrous, abusive LC leadership. And he didn't just survive, I might even venture to say, he overcame in this matter.

Today He is a fervent lover of Jesus and of every member of the body of Christ including those still in the LSM/LC. He has a heart that is open and willing to fellowship with any and all, at any time. He also loves the Word of God word for word. He is in a position to see the LC in terms of idolatry, having been sacrificed on one of the altars of Lee. He cares enough about those who did this to him and to many of his friends, to share with them what he learned in the process of recovering. He reads the Bible outside the Lee garlic room now. You would be astounded to hear the things God has shown him in the Old Testament, and not just about idolatry. He has shared very little on this forum of what he has learned there--in the Scriptures (O.T.), which, by the way Paul told Timothy were able to make him wise unto salvation.

I note that the punches have mainly been made against his person and experience, not against his biblical arguments or the historical facts he has presented about Lee’s history. One of the striking things missing against Matt's biblical presentations has been solid biblical refutation. I admit that there has been some, but it is worthy of note that this was done mainly by Peter Debelak, who is also a 2nd generation LCer.

Matt may not have experience as an LC leader who is saturated with the teachings of Lee and is qualified to abuse, but he most definitely has experience of being on the receiving end of such. If you and others are trying to say he didn't know Lee's teachings well enough to speak to them, them you have no basis to say that, not knowing the facts.

Matt has a high capacity for absorbing information. He has been like that since early childhood. He grew up in an environment where Lee’s teachings were the main diet. He heard them day after day in his own home, which he shared with the small army of sisters who lived with us over the years. When we left, I encouraged him to read life studies and I even read them to/with him, hoping they would help him. After we were out, we spent a number of years working through family problems that forced us to face our past and dig down to the level of our wrong beliefs and find what lay at the root of them. We had to rethink Lee's teachings and discover what the Bible actually teaches about what he said. We (including Matt) had many, many discussions about Lee’s teachings among ourselves and with other ex Local Churchers, using the Bible as our guide through them. The Lord brought brothers like Bill Mallon and John Ingalls for extended visits to our home a number of times and Matt had fellowship with them one on one, especially with Bill.

I’d like to ask just what experience do all the counterpointers have to be able to speak about this topic? Maybe the 800 lb. gorilla is their inexperience with regard to understanding 2nd generation abuse. How many of them have had the experience of being sacrificed on Lee's altar? (I don’t have the time here to share about how this happened to Matt, but maybe I will later.) How many of them have taken the time to follow up with 2nd generation LCers or to help them recover? How much time have they spent studying the Scriptures on their own, without the Lee veil? So, again, maybe the 800 lb. gorilla is their inexperience, not Matt’s.

Matt mercifully did not end up in one of the categories introduced in the opening post of this thread, as many of his friends did. As I said, I suspect he may have more right to speak here than many of those who have been doing so. He has helped other 2nd generation LCers recover. Have any of the naysayers here done that?

Honestly, Shawn, when I saw some of the posts accusing Matt that he was acting like WL as the oracle, I felt deeply ashamed that any one would speak this way to a young man who survived their 1st generation-created system and yet loves them enough to be here dialoguing with them. I can assure you he has a real life outside of this forum with enough involvements with family, job, and other Christians to fill his hands. I would not be surprised to see him leave here. In fact, I think I would recommend it. I am considering doing the same and allowing all of you to have your chats with one another and remember the glory days of old until Jesus comes, without having to think about possible explanations for our past that are uncomfortable. I haven’t asked the Lord about that yet, so I don’t know if He will let me leave, but I am going to be asking.

I have wept over what happened among us. I have seen others do the same. Shouldn’t we be weeping at the broken down walls of God’s house (family) and the heaps of rubble (His wounded children) left behind? Shouldn’t we be weeping in response to realizing how much abuse and destruction took place among us?

Shouldn’t we all humble ourselves and ask the Lord to have mercy on us. Shouldn’t we all repent for what happened among us because we all played a part in creating an environment that opened the door for abuse. If God is weeping, shouldn’t we join him?

Thankful Jane

[Thankful Jane]

I wrote this a few weeks ago in response to a post by Terry, but decided not to post it then. Today, I think I should. It is l-o-n-g, which some complain about, so I please forgive. There is no short way to tell the story included in this. I also think my writing style is in my DNA, so it's hard to change. If long is bad to you, then I suggest you just don’t read this!!!

Originally Posted by Terry

Jane, when I learned of your story, blessD's, Bill W's, and who knows how many more, I have empathy. When one member of the Body suffers, we all suffer. I have.

Thank you, Terry. What you said brought back the memory of an experience that I had a few years ago that I think I should share.

First, let me say that I appreciate your gentle heart. To have genuine empathy for others and to express how we feel in words of comfort is the normal response when we learn about people who have been hurt by people in places of power. It shows we have a compassionate heart like His. Because I have been so thoroughly helped by God and so healed by His love, I honestly don’t think I need others to feel sympathy for me and am not seeking sympathy whenever I mention what happened to me. However, God has taught me that it is very good for us as members of His family to strongly express our feelings of love and care for one another and also to accept such expressions of love.

In January 2006, about 3 months after our book was published, I had a very, very unusual experience with the Lord which I will never forget. It gave me a very personal and real look at His heart of love for us.

One day, I was at home sitting at my computer writing with no travel plans in mind and three or four days later I was in Anaheim on a whirlwind visit of 4 days. I felt like I had been picked up by the Spirit and transported there. I won’t share how this came about, but it had the handiwork of God stamped all over it, as did the whole trip. My son, Matt, was with me. From the time our feet touched the ground until the time we departed, we were carried by the Spirit from one heaven-made appointment to the next. The Lord set the agenda as the days unfolded, and we hardly had time to eat, sleep, or change clothes.

What I want to share is about the experience I had with 4 different brothers on that trip and what God showed me as a result.

The first brother is one that I met 35 years ago and had not seen since that time. While Matt and I were with him and with two others having breakfast in a restaurant, the Lord appeared. I won’t share particulars of what happened there in our fellowship, but the Spirit was so awesomely present for a period of time that even the waitress and people near by were stopped and listening. Afterwards, Matt and I attended a very dry, dull, and dead Christian meeting with the first brother. After that meeting he stopped me and said, “Jane, before you get away, I have to say something ....” Tears welled up in his eyes and he said, “What happened at that restaurant was .... INCREDIBLE!” I said, “Yes, it was!” We both knew the Lord had been there. (And we also both knew that the meeting we had just suffered through had the Lord no where in sight.) He continued to shake his head and show great emotion. He said a little more, the essence of which was that the experience in the restaurant had been a reminder of what it was like to have the Lord present in fellowship. It had moved him to tears. He wanted me to try and tell another brother (an elder among them) what had happened at the restaurant, and he called this elder over to where we sat. I tried to say something to him, but quickly realized this brother had no interest. He was clearly pre-occupied with his own things and service to God and hurried away. The 35-year-ago brother wanted him to know that he had just been with Jesus in a way reminiscent of the past, but there simply were no ears to hear.

Now to the second brother. After lunch that day, another brother came and introduced himself to me. He was an ex-LC elder that I had seen, but never met before. He had disappeared off the radar many years before and I never knew what happened to him. He said a few things to me, left, returned, said a few more things, left, returned, and said more things. Each time he returned, he was becoming more emotional until the third time we were both standing there crying. (Remember we had never met before!)

He told me that someone had given him and his wife a copy of my book and he had been trying to read it, but it was very hard for him. By the third return, he had managed to tell me that he had been hurt by very strong women in his life. He thought that the fact that I had written a book meant I was probably just another strong woman. This was the reason he was having a hard time trying to read it. He told me how much it had helped him to meet me in person and that our meeting had taken that thought completely away. As he shared more he began to cry, and I did also. The Lord’s presence was very strong as we stood there talking and crying. I still have that picture in my mind as clearly as if it had happened yesterday. I had never experienced anything like that before.

Here’s the picture: a man, a Christian brother, who had been deeply wounded by women during his lifetime (both relatives and Christian women), standing before me, a Christian sister, who had been deeply wounded by men in my life (both relatives and Christian men). We were both crying and the Spirit was palpably there crying with us. I felt like we were being given a foretaste of the powerful work of the Spirit to heal every wound and to wash away every hurt and even to remove the memories of all the harm people had inflicted on one another. It was like a miniature of the whole body of Christ with men and women being washed and made whole and restored to one another by the Spirit. I just don’t have the words for it was like, but I knew the Lord was showing me something of His work to come.

Now to the third brother. After this we went to the home of a brother and sister who had invited us to come and visit with them. I had never met either of them before, but had heard the brother’s name before. They had received a copy of my book and had read it. That is why we were invited. We had some small talk, mostly us asking them questions about themselves. Then, the brother turned the conversation to us. He said he had something he wanted to say. He opened his mouth to speak and couldn’t. He looked at me and much to my surprise, he burst into tears. His whole body shook as he wept. I was stunned, as was Matt. He wept a minute or so then he finally spoke. “Sister, what they did to you! I want to tell you how very sorry I am!” He proceeded to vocalize his sorrow for my experience and continued to weep. He was not just crying, he was sobbing and weeping and shaking. I didn’t know what to say or how to respond. I tried to comfort him, saying, “Brother, it’s okay. I am okay. I am thankful for everything.” He said, “No, I need to say it. It was terrible. I am so very, very sorry!” He shed more tears.

Afterwards, as I reflected on what had happened, the Lord showed me that He was using this very caring and tenderhearted brother to show me His own heart. This was how God feels about those who are abused. I will never, ever, ever, forget that experience.

And lastly, the fourth brother. The next day, Matt and I were invited to the home of this brother, whom we had never met before. He had contacted me via email after reading my book. As we sat in his living room and talked a little, all of sudden he stopped talking and began to weep and sob just as the third brother had done. He said (paraphrased to the best of my memory), “What the brothers have done to so many. What they did to me. They just don’t know. The Lord’s heart is so grieved and breaking.” Matt and I began to cry with him. We all sat on the couch together and cried. We prayed together for our Father to forgive those who had hurt others and heal us all.

I’m sharing all this to show what I saw through these experiences about the heart of God towards all of us. Like the first brother, God is grieving for what we have lost that is rightfully ours: His prevailing and powerful presence. Like the picture God gave me in my experience with the second brother, God wants to and will wash and heal and restore us one to another, both male and female, as we communicate and confess our faults one to another. Like the third brother, He is in agony of heart for the wounded and abused. He loves them so deeply and has hurt with them. Even though they couldn’t see it at the time, He was afflicted with them. Like the last brother, He is full of sorrow over those who have done such damage to their own brothers.

The impression made on me during this trip by these godly brothers who let me see the Lord in the deep feelings of their heart, has remained. I felt I had been given a look into the very heart of love of our longsuffering God.

Right now its hard to type because the memory is also making me cry again. Terry, your post reminded me that God is weeping over us.

He let us see His tears for His people through Jeremiah. At the same time, God also spoke hard words through Jeremiah, because whom He loves He rebukes and chastens. His correction is His love and mercy. His words of warning in the Bible that expose our idolatrous hearts should bring us to our knees with tears of repentance.

....continued in another post ...

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

He has helped other 2nd generation LCers recover. Have any of the naysayers here done that?

Jane,

I can't speak for the other "naysayers" here, but I have helped 1st and 2nd generation LCers recover, and continue to do so by phone, email, and in person. I pray with ex-local church members on a weekly basis for those dear members. But I would never assume that my experience is anything other than a part of the whole, and I know that there are others who are doing far, far more than I am doing.

I was the one who compared Matt to Witness Lee. I certainly didn’t mean it in every respect. It had to do with his insistence upon saying that all who are in the Local Church are engaging in idolatry. He has been quoted on this when he asked for proof. It had to do with what seemed to be an unwillingness to be balanced by the rest of the members here.

Sorry, but I don’t hesitate to mention Matt’s youth. With youth there must be a certain amount of inexperience. It’s only common sense. Watchman Nee, for example, I think, was far too young to be taken too seriously when he wrote the Spiritual Man at only 26. He was a brilliant man, but the work was mostly cerebral.

Jane we were all there. When one man came forth and insisted that what he was saying was the only correct viewpoint, we were all called "naysayers."

Roger

[Former LC member]

Dear Jane,
I am so sorry to hear of your past experience in the LC. There seems to be a lot of hurt people here. And when people are hurt, they have many wounds which when touched, can cause them pain and reactions towards those who touch them. I have not read all this post as I am quite busy. I am thankful also that I have not had such a bad time in the LC as many here in this forum. [We in NZ are a bit removed and I think a bit preserved because of this.] But I do think that members on the forum should speak softly to each other and bind each others wounds. Think of this place as being like a hospital clinic with Jesus as the Great Physician.

[Thankful Jane]

... continuation of post #872 (moved here because the other was too long)

It’s been an hour or so since I wrote the above and I need to add a little epilogue to this last post (and make it even longer, sorry) because of something that just happened. When I started to write the above, I had it in my head that there had been 5 brothers that cried. Every time I have remembered that event, I have thought that there were 5 brothers. Writing this, I went through the events in my mind and every time I could only come up with 4. I went back and found the account in my journal and sure enough, there were only 4, so I set aside my thought that there were 5 brothers who had shed tears and just wrote about the 4. Why am I sharing this now?

Because very shortly after I finished writing the above, I received a phone call from an old brother who was around during the earliest days in California. He has no internet connection and spends much of his time praying. He has been out of the LC for many years. I think this was the 3rd time I have talked to him on the phone over the last few months. I had never met or talked to him before this, but he had written me a letter after he read my book.

When he called, I had just finished reading the post by Hope about Benson jumping to conclusions and acting on them, and I was feeling very sad about the brothers allowing Benson to operate with wrong information without telling him. Surprisingly, this brother was calling to ask me to stand with him in prayer for Benson who was particularly on his heart at the time. His prayer was very heartfelt and moving. As he prayed, he began to cry, and I started crying, too. He stopped and asked me to pardon him that he just had such intense feeling about this. We both cried as we finished praying.

This brother told me that in the not too distant past (months I believe) he had a vision in which God was weeping through him over Witness Lee. In it, he said there was another man who was wielding a cane which he understood to be Witness Lee’s authority. He didn’t know who that man was at the time, but later God showed him it was Benson Phillips. Since that time he had been praying for Benson. He said that the Lord had shown him that these brothers had been caught up in idolatry and had committed spiritual fornication. Yet, God still loved them intensely. The brothers, however, that God had put around them, had not loved them.

As he shared, I sat there thinking over and over, “How could this be happening?” On the day I decided to write about the 5 “weeping” brothers, and come up short one brother, the Lord sends the 5th weeping brother?! And that after I had just read a post about Benson that made me feel like crying.

Through the last minute and uncannily timed appearance of the 5th tearful brother God reminded me that He is not sleeping. He is very much present and very much involved in all we are doing, even posting on this forum.

So God used the 5th brother’s tearful prayers for Benson, whom I had just read about on the internet before the brother called, to show me that He has watchman on the walls who are not holding their peace day nor night and who are interceding for all His children, and especially for those who are the most egregious of sinners.

Thank you, again, Terry for your post that took me on this little journey. I was exceedingly comforted and encouraged by all of this, so I’m sharing my encouragement with you and with anyone else who made it through another of my long posts J.

Thankful Jane

[Hope]

Hello Matt,

By the way the term was not delegate authority but deputy authority. This was not the exclusive problem. Add to it the concept of "the Work," as a parallel entity to the church and a wrong concept of "oneness." These teachings opened the door to many errant practices.

Hope, Don Rutledge

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Roger

I was the one who compared Matt to Witness Lee. I certainly didn’t mean it in every respect. It had to do with his insistence upon saying that all who are in the Local Church are engaging in idolatry.
He has been quoted on this when he asked for proof. It had to do with what seemed to be an unwillingness to be balanced by the rest of the members here.

Roger, there was no biblical balance offered. All I heard was people's dislike of what Matt said. He did not insist that you agree with him and even acknowledged the disagreements. He didn't shoot the messengers speaking to him, as you all did him. He put a shield on against the punches and stayed at the table. Again, where is the biblical argument you set forth against what Matt said?

Everyone has been screaming about a broad brush. Have you read your O.T. recently? The biggest broad brush user is God when it came to idolatry. He wanted all his people to face the question because they stumbled again and again in their blindness. The LC system was idolatrous to the core having become like Mystery Babylon the Great. God addressed that system in Rev. with with a broad brush, "Come out of her my people." Tell me how the LC system was not like Mystery Babylon? Was Mystery Babylon idolatrous?

No one comes out of the LC unscathed by the idolatrous practices. Are their some who innocently participated? Of course. No one wakes up one day and says, I think I will practice idolatry today. They stumble in the dark. Does ignorance remove guilt? No.

Only one thing can break the back of the devil and the hold he gained over us and that is repentance. What will help people who were damaged and are so deadened they don't even care any more? Thorough repentance by those who built, supported, perpetuated, loved, defended the LC and who still care.

Originally Posted by Roger

Sorry, but I don’t hesitate to mention Matt’s youth. With youth there must be a certain amount of inexperience. It’s only common sense. Watchman Nee, for example, I think, was far too young to be taken too seriously when he wrote the Spiritual Man at only 26. He was a brilliant man, but the work was mostly cerebral.

Jane we were all there. When one man came forth and insisted that what he was saying was the only correct viewpoint, we were all called "naysayers."

Roger

I'm not talking about Matt's youth. I was talking about his experience.

BTW, he is 35 not 26. He hasn't written a book on authority and a movement hasn't sprung up around him with his book governing the leadership of it. He isn't WN and he isn't WL. Saying so in anyway is just plain mean.

Also, I didn't hear any naysayers when I was there. I heard nothing. Weren't you a part of that deafening silence?

Thankful Jane

[Thankful Jane]

Yesterday I heard a brother with his wife as witness to the truth of what he said, tell about the trip to Taiwan in 1968 by 142 (I think) brothers and sisters from the U.S. He confessed that about half way through that trip he realized they were all being used by W. Lee to demonstrate to the folks in Taiwan that the Lord was blessing him in the U.S. He wasn't sure what to think of that, but has a clear memory of realizing it. He also remembers seeing some "opposers" picketing outside the meeting halls with signs and shouting some things.

Also, he told about an experience on that trip that where silence speaks volumes. He said they were in some kind of public transportation station. WL told Bill Mallon how to line every one up. Bill did so, but had misunderstood and did it wrong. When WL saw what Bill had done, he went ballistic and yelled at Bill for a few minutes for not doing exactly what he had told him, humiliating hiim in front of everyone. Guess what everyone said when that happened?

Nothing.

Anyone posting on this forum remember that?

That was clearly a time to speak. How many more things happened that were answered with silence? Are the silent guilty? Or, were they just innocently loving the Lord? When decades later good, innocent people silently bowed to the decrees of W. Lee concerning John I, Bill M, etc. decrees which were clearly against the body of Christ and the teachings of the Bible about how to treat brothers, were the silent ones just innocently there loving the Lord when they agreed to break fellowship with those brothers? Were they bowing to the demands of God or of Lee? If not God, then wasn't that idolatry?

Thankful Jane

[Thankful Jane]

Here is an excerpt from an article I received this past weekend written about Poul Madsen. I can make the whole article available if any are interested:


Poul Madsen versus Witness Lee

In early 1957, Madsen travelled to Taiwan and India with his wife and Austin-Sparks. He characterized this visit as a disappointment.36 In Taiwan he met, among others, Witness Lee. Lee held gigantic meetings where some 5000 believers would gather for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. During the six weeks they spent in Taiwan, the Madsens grew increasingly surprised and perplexed.

During one specific gathering, Lee suddenly turned towards Madsen, enquiring: “What is the local church?” Madsen responded that the local church is the total sum of all genuine Christians within a certain geographical area. Lee then “corrected” him in public by reeling off 10 criteria which had to be fulfilled in order for a local church to be rightly constituted. One of these criteria, Lee asserted, was rightly appointed elders. Madsen immediately countered: “I totally disagree!” Madsen felt more and more that Lee, instead of leading a Christian church, had established an organization ruled with a rod of iron and characterized by exclusiveness.

If we ignore the typical culture shock which most first-time visitors to the so-called Third World encounter,37 the tone in the letters he sent back to Denmark was chiefly positive - “Everywhere, however, we have been received with a heartfelt sincerity which has truly touched us.”38 Even Madsen’s observation of the “spiritual training” within the church with the newly converted ones seems to be positively taken - “personal desires, inclinations and peculiarities had to be put aside in favor of the much larger goal of serving the whole, i.e., serving Christ in His Body.”39 It was much later when Madsen’s anxiety came to the surface:

As previously mentioned, many of the assemblies in Taiwan have gone through schism. They have been through painful struggles. Much is still going one which causes grief and sadness. This is evident, in particular, with the large work connected with Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Everywhere in the Far East, these assemblies struggle with serious internal difficulties.40

Later Madsen observed that Witness Lee had moved from Taiwan and relocated to the U.S.:

This talented man now follows a new line of thought. Many have a hard time accepting his teaching. He needs much prayer so that his gifting and energy will be used in the best way possible for the Lord. He wants to serve the Lord with his whole heart. However, Watchman Nee’s name is now connected to things which many feel he would not approve of if he knew about it.41

In spite of an earlier respectful reference to the Chinese leaders, Madsen’s anxiety is specified every time these very same individuals are mentioned in Mod Målet:

Witness Lee and Stephan [sic] Kaung have received American citizenship. They are very energetic and attract hundreds of people. I feel a deep anxiety when I reflect on their work. They have been entangled in something fatally exclusive and sectarian, in spite of their rich giftings. We must keep them in our prayers.42

After having studied Nee’s book The Normal Christian Church Life Madsen thought (in hindsight) he was able to detect a seed of the exclusivity he witnessed with Witness Lee’s work in Taiwan. After Lee moved to the U.S. and became even more extreme, Madsen asserted this was a direct result of Lee rigidly following the principles laid out by Watchman Nee.43 Madsen observed that Nee’s teachings had a positive impact in many places which gather around the message of the Cross and its significance for the individual believer. However, Madsen believed he saw a danger in an overemphasis on the subjective. The church-oriented books, in turn, according to Madsen have had harmful effects.44

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Yesterday I heard a brother with his wife as witness to the truth of what he said, tell about the trip to Taiwan in 1968 by 142 (I think) brothers and sisters from the U.S. He confessed that about half way through that trip he realized they were all being used by W. Lee to demonstrate to the folks in Taiwan that the Lord was blessing him in the U.S. He wasn't sure what to think of that, but has a clear memory of realizing it. He also remembers seeing some "opposers" picketing outside the meeting halls with signs and shouting some things.

Also, he told about an experience on that trip that where silence speaks volumes. He said they were in some kind of public transportation station. WL told Bill Mallon how to line every one up. Bill did so, but had misunderstood and did it wrong. When WL saw what Bill had done, he went ballistic and yelled at Bill for a few minutes for not doing exactly what he had told him, humiliating hiim in front of everyone. Guess what everyone said when that happened?

Nothing.

Anyone posting on this forum remember that?

That was clearly a time to speak. How many more things happened that were answered with silence? Are the silent guilty? Or, were they just innocently loving the Lord? When decades later good, innocent people silently bowed to the decrees of W. Lee concerning John I, Bill M, etc. decrees which were clearly against the body of Christ and the teachings of the Bible about how to treat brothers, were the silent ones just innocently there loving the Lord when they agreed to break fellowship with those brothers? Were they bowing to the demands of God or of Lee? If not God, then wasn't that idolatry?

Thankful Jane

How convenient it was for Witness Lee to take the young Americans on a so-called “tour” of the “church life” in Taiwan, when none of them could speak or read Chinese to be able to get a clear picture of the situation in Taiwan, and in turn Witness Lee could “show off” his success in the U.S. My impression as a member of the LC was that these people who actually visited Taiwan had “truly seen the light.” They had seen the real fruit of teachings regarding the LC, Witness Lee’s teachings specifically, and had the assurance that this was truly the way to go to touch reality and to “build the church.” Of course, they had seen only what Witness Lee wanted them to see and then were used to convince others of the veracity of his teachings and the “local church movement.”

I remember from the first time I visited an LC meeting in Houston how adamant each member was regarding not only the reality of the scriptures (which greatly appealed to me) but on the other hand also their vehemence regarding THE Local Church. It is like you could not have the one without the other. This was a real “hook” for capturing others for this movement: genuine love of the Lord and the scriptures and good intentions to give ourselves for the building of the church, the REAL bride of Christ. The amazing thing is all along Witness Lee kept preaching “only Christ.” We were told never to add anything when in reality the movement was “Christ and THE church.”

I agree with Thankful Jane that strict adherence to directives of Witness Lee surely was/is idolatry as it interferes with one’s seeking the Lord Himself.


bookworm

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Roger, there was no biblical balance offered. All I heard was people's dislike of what Matt said.

I have to respectfully disagree. I went back over the thread and reviewed it as much as time would permit me. Post after post included verses to refute what Matt was saying. Actually, it was not a matter of disliking what Matt said, but rather disagreeing with what he said.

Here is a bibilically balancing view that I am still waiting for Matt to answer:

from Roger
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."

Roger

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Roger

I have to respectfully disagree. I went back over the thread and reviewed it as much as time would permit me. Post after post included verses to refute what Matt was saying. Actually, it was not a matter of disliking what Matt said, but rather disagreeing with what he said.

Here is a bibilically balancing view that I am still waiting for Matt to answer:

Roger

Thanks, Roger for this example. I missed this argument before, my bad. I did not review everything but was speaking from my general impression. I guess I didn't read this one closely enough at the time to grasp the point you were making.

Let me restate what you are saying here. You are saying that according to your understanding of Matt's definition of idolatry those who said they were "of" certain ones were idolaters. Later Paul says not to eat with idolaters, so then you say that Matt's definition would mean the whole church needed to disbanded.

Matt can speak for himself, but I don't see that this example fits what I heard Matt define. I wouldn' say that what was going on in Corinth related to saying "I am of" was the same as what we did in the Local Churches. There was someting happening in Corinth in seed form that was headed the wrong direction. If those with Apollos had put out everyone else, or had broken away and formed their own group saying they would submit absolutely to Apollos and whoever did not do this was not the true church and would not be received, then then Matt's definition might fit.

In the event that Appollos's followers had become exclusive and insisted on everyone following Apollos as God's man, the "not to eat with" directive would probably work out easily because I doubt Apollos's bunch would want to eat with the rest.

I think there is a difference between the situation in the Local Churches and that in Corinth. Corinth looks good by comparison.

TJ

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Thanks, Roger for this example. I missed this argument before, my bad. I did not review everything but was speaking from my general impression. I guess I didn't read this one closely enough at the time to grasp the point you were making.

Let me restate what you are saying here. You are saying that according to your understanding of Matt's definition of idolatry those who said they were "of" certain ones were idolaters. Later Paul says not to eat with idolaters, so then you say that Matt's definition would mean the whole church needed to disbanded.

Matt can speak for himself, but I don't see that this example fits what I heard Matt define. I wouldn' say that what was going on in Corinth related to saying "I am of" was the same as what we did in the Local Churches. There was someting happening in Corinth in seed form that was headed the wrong direction. If those with Apollos had put out everyone else, or had broken away and formed their own group saying they would submit absolutely to Apollos and whoever did not do this was not the true church and would not be received, then then Matt's definition might fit.

In the event that Appollos's followers had become exclusive and insisted on everyone following Apollos as God's man, the "not to eat with" directive would probably work out easily because I doubt Apollos's bunch would want to eat with the rest.

I think there is a difference between the situation in the Local Churches and that in Corinth. Corinth looks good by comparison.

TJ

I can see your point, Jane. But let me ask a further question. It is clear from the book of Galatians that those who "came down from James," perhaps had indeed taken their preference of an apostle to the same extreme as those who are devoted to Witness Lee. Would you say that they were engaging in idolatry? Was the idol James, or was it the Old Testament Law?

Not a trick question. They are beyond my ability to concoct. Just wondering.

Roger

PS I am the chief of those who speak from “my general impression.” Thanks for helping me to be more thourough.

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by Roger

... their preference of an apostle to the same extreme as those who are devoted to Witness Lee.

And the "broad brush" complaint still applies: Not everyone in all the local churches were/are devoted to Witness Lee. For many of us he was (and remains) a valued bible teacher and no more.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Thanks, Roger for this example. I missed this argument before, my bad. I did not review everything but was speaking from my general impression. I guess I didn't read this one closely enough at the time to grasp the point you were making.

Let me restate what you are saying here. You are saying that according to your understanding of Matt's definition of idolatry those who said they were "of" certain ones were idolaters. Later Paul says not to eat with idolaters, so then you say that Matt's definition would mean the whole church needed to disbanded.

Matt can speak for himself, but I don't see that this example fits what I heard Matt define. I wouldn' say that what was going on in Corinth related to saying "I am of" was the same as what we did in the Local Churches. There was someting happening in Corinth in seed form that was headed the wrong direction. If those with Apollos had put out everyone else, or had broken away and formed their own group saying they would submit absolutely to Apollos and whoever did not do this was not the true church and would not be received, then then Matt's definition might fit.

In the event that Appollos's followers had become exclusive and insisted on everyone following Apollos as God's man, the "not to eat with" directive would probably work out easily because I doubt Apollos's bunch would want to eat with the rest.

I think there is a difference between the situation in the Local Churches and that in Corinth. Corinth looks good by comparison.

TJ

What were the Corinthians doing that Paul said: "Do not even eat with such a one..."?

Is everyone in LSM-abiding churches doing something equivalent?

If so, should I turn down meal invitations?

If not, is there something other than affiliation with an "LSM-church" which determines whether the "idolatry" is so bad that, as in Corinth, I should refuse and reject certain believers?

Peter

[Thankful Jane]

Just a quick note to say that I was able to read the recent posts for the first time this morning, and I plan to respond as soon as I can. I have a packed week and will be out of pocket (away from a computer) for most of it. Thanks for your patience, and thanks for your good responses and questions.

Thankful Jane

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Roger, there was no biblical balance offered. All I heard was people's dislike of what Matt said. He did not insist that you agree with him and even acknowledged the disagreements. He didn't shoot the messengers speaking to him, as you all did him. He put a shield on against the punches and stayed at the table. Again, where is the biblical argument you set forth against what Matt said?

Everyone has been screaming about a broad brush. Have you read your O.T. recently? The biggest broad brush user is God when it came to idolatry. He wanted all his people to face the question because they stumbled again and again in their blindness. The LC system was idolatrous to the core having become like Mystery Babylon the Great. God addressed that system in Rev. with with a broad brush, "Come out of her my people." Tell me how the LC system was not like Mystery Babylon? Was Mystery Babylon idolatrous?

Dear Jane,

I did introduce a biblical balance. I said that the Bible does give us ground to be "for" things which in the extreme might not be Christ. We can be for the truth, the gospel, for loving others, for helping children, for discipleship, even for the "vision" of Christ and the Church," that is if we are for Jesus Christ first and we see being for these things as a pure expression of our love for him and (and here is the test) we don't let being for any of those things or any others come between us and other believers.

Matt seemed to be saying that if you are for "the vision of Christ and the Church" you are ipso facto probably in idolatry. I can see how you could be because many who are for these things let them divide. But it ain't necessarily so. Matt seemed to be saying it was necessarily so.

One question is, Is idol the right word? For example, is baptism an idol to the Baptists? Is predestination an idol to the Calvinists? Is tongue-speaking an idol to Pentecostals? If you say these people are into idolatry too then I'll respect your argument because then I'll understand it. But it's possible your first reaction will be "it depends," which is exactly what the counter-argument to you and Matt is here.

I will concede, however, that the LC system plainly set its members up to easily fall into idolatry, by emphasizing things to the point of making them a basis of fellowship, e.g. the local ground, the "ministry," the "recovery," etc. Just about everything that they claimed they had that no one else had or possibly even could have without their help, permission, blessing, franchise rights, whatever.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Much has been said concerning idolatry in Israel, and we all could find many O.T. scripture to build a case, but I still have a gnawing question -- why did the Lord never address idolatry in the gospels. The Lord rebuked the Jewish leaders severely, even calling them "snakes" to their face, but never brought up the word "idol" or its many variants. This troubles me.

The Lord did address many serious heart matters repeatedly, such as hypocrisy, loving traditions of men, lording it over others, stubbornness, unbelief, etc. but He never once mentioned idolatry in Israel, when He walked the earth. Why is that? Did He forget? In fact, the N.T. is dead silent on idolatry until Stephen brought up Israel's history in Ac 7.41-43.

The Lord also nearly put no responsibility on the sheep. He placed it all squarely and pointedly and repeatedly on their leaders, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, fools, serpents, blind hypocrites!"

When the N.T. finally confronted idols for the first time, it was circa A.D. 50, at the Acts 15 council, which was supposed to be all about circumcision and the way of salvation. Since James et. al. were overwhelmed by the testimonies of Simeon and the plain truths of scripture, James decided to divert their attention to "abstain from things sacrificed to idols." Talking about changing the subject! It was Jewish pride and religious prejudices in Jerusalem which first introduced the topic of idolatry to the church. Interestingly, when Paul did finally travel to Europe, and confronted the rampant Greek idolatry in Athens and Corinth, he played down the matter of "abstaining," and instead instituted the first "don't ask, don't tell" policy (I Cor 10.25).

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Roger, there was no biblical balance offered. All I heard was people's dislike of what Matt said. He did not insist that you agree with him and even acknowledged the disagreements. He didn't shoot the messengers speaking to him, as you all did him. He put a shield on against the punches and stayed at the table. Again, where is the biblical argument you set forth against what Matt said?

There is enough "Biblical balance" in this one recent post of mine, to meet all your requirements.

Martin Luther, in the early 16th century, as he was facing all the power of the Pope at the Diet of Worms, said that he would not budge unless convicted by "plain reason or the scriptures." Both have been offered here in abundance. Neither has been heard.

[Shawn]

Sorry for the 800 pound gorilla remark, it was a little too colorful and off base, I will try to avoid uneeded hyperbole in the future.

I would say that the LC was not devoid of healthy teachings, I have heard quotes that 80 percent of the teachings of WL were founded in the brethern movement. Therefore, on the basics Christ was recognized as the preeminient One. This was clear in my understanding of the teachings of Witness Lee.

WL was not the minister of the age and is not perfect, but there was the element of experiencing Christ that is in his ministry and as such, can lay the ground work for a healthy practice of the church.
Many used his teachings and eventually brought him into an unhealthy exclusive understanding and practice of the church.

Do you remember he wrothe the book "Experiencing Christ?" he didn't write "Eexperiencing the Church" and if you look at that book there are ample references to knowing the Lord Jesus, that can be used in any Sunday School class to have a better understanding of how to know and live Jesus.

Today, there are many problems, that had their start early on in his ministry, but to ignore some of the teachings that were helpful will only cause the adjusting to go on to counter statements like "all who have attended are decieved, or the ministry was influensed by Satan. Sorry, I don't have the direct references and I have to run, please correct if I'm wrong.

Grace to you!

Shawn

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Sorry for the 800 pound gorilla remark, it was a little too colorful and off base, I will try to avoid uneeded hyperbole in the future.

I would say that the LC was not devoid of healthy teachings, I have heard quotes that 80 percent of the teachings of WL were founded in the brethern movement. Therefore, on the basics Christ was recognized as the preeminient One. This was clear in my understanding of the teachings of Witness Lee.

Do I need to write in 18 font to make the point that WL was not the minister of the age and is not perfect, but there was the element of experiencing Christ that is in his ministry and as such, can lay the ground work for a healthy practice of the church.
18 Font again, Many used his teachings and eventually brought him into an unhealthy exclusive understanding and practice of the church.

Do you remember he wrothe the book "Experiencing Christ?" he didn't write "Eexperiencing the Church" and if you look at that book there are ample references to knowing the Lord Jesus, that can be used in any Sunday School class to have a better understanding of how to know and live Jesus.

Today, there are many problems, that had their start early on in his ministry, but to ignore some of the teachings that were helpful will only cause the adjusting to go on to counter statements like "all who have attended are decieved, or the ministry was influensed by Satan. Sorry, I don't have the direct references and I have to run, please correct if I'm wrong.

Grace to you!

Shawn

Shawn,

Can out of the same mouth come blessing and cursing?
With the tongue (can) we Bless God and curse men?
Does a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
Can the fig tree bear olive berries?

Witness Lee's ministry is the epitome of blessing and cursing; bitter and sweet, as you have clearly noted above. Can such a thing be? How do you justify your position?


16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. 17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

No one denies the dark side of Witness Lee's ministry, so how can darkness and light coexist? You're going to need more than a bigger font ....

Nell and James (Ch. 3)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

Can out of the same mouth come blessing and cursing?
With the tongue (can) we Bless God and curse men?
Does a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
Can the fig tree bear olive berries?

Witness Lee's ministry is the epitome of blessing and cursing; bitter and sweet, as you have clearly noted above. Can such a thing be? How do you justify your position?

History is filled with many, too many, gifted Christians, even great men of God, who both "blessed and cursed." Luther, Darby, and Lee come to mind. Just because James asked "How can it be?" doesn't mean it never was, nor never will be. James' word is more of a godly challenge than a statement of fact.

1. Luther spoke poorly of Jews and the Swiss reformers, like Zwingli.
2. Darby heaped more condemnation on Muller than any normal man could bear.
3. WL smeared the reputation of Ingalls et. al.

"These things, my brothers, ought not to be so." -- James 3.10

Amen, brother James! Lord, be merciful to us all.

[Cal]

I've seen some things pretty close to cursing on these boards, and blessing from the same mouths (fingers?). I would hate to think that someone would say of me that because I was harsh with some at times in my life (and who hasn't been?) that means I've never blessed anyone either.

James isn't saying that blessing and cursing cannot come out of the same person, he's saying it should not. Otherwise we're all doomed.

[Paul Cox]

Yes, and every church in the world, and every minister in the world is doomed. Could it be that the Lord has, because of the words of James, totally discarded His Church?

Roger

[Nell]

Silly me. What was I thinking?

Nell

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by Roger

Yes, and every church in the world, and every minister in the world is doomed. Could it be that the Lord has, because of the words of James, totally discarded His Church?

Roger

Sorry, let me put it a little differently. As we survey the globe, is it possible to find a church or group of churches who it cannot be said of them that that both "blessings" and "cursing" come from them?

Someone has brought up different ministers from the past. But let's just take Witness Lee, for example. We were all there testifying of how blessed we were from the words spoken during his open ministry. Yet, at the same time, he was quick to "curse" those who disagreed with him.

I put the words blessings and curse in quotes because both words can be open to interpretation. When Witness Lee opened his mouth to condemn people like John Ingalls, it was clearly a curse, but to many it was a kind of a blessing.

So I guess that brings up a question. How do you define blessing, and how do you define cursing? Someone said that they heard cursing come from this board. I don’t think so.

To bless someone is to speak well of them and ask God’s favor upon what they are doing. So to curse someone must mean to ask God to hinder and foil someone or even to condemn them.

I have been cursed by some in the Local Church before. It was prayed that things would not go well in my life, and whenever anything did go wrong, it was said that the reason was because I was “against The Ministry” (The Lord did vindicate in the end). I don’t think I’ve seen that kind of thing here.

Maybe I’m all wet, but I think you have to view James’ words in light of what we see happening around us. Otherwise, as soon as we find out that a minister has had cursing coming from his mouth, then we would have to totally discard everything we were blessed with from him before.

I don’t think this is off-topic. Being cursed by someone in the Local Church is a terrible abuse.

Roger

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by Ohio

History is filled with many, too many, gifted Christians, even great men of God, who both "blessed and cursed." Luther, Darby, and Lee come to mind. Just because James asked "How can it be?" doesn't mean it never was, nor never will be. James' word is more of a godly challenge than a statement of fact.

1. Luther spoke poorly of Jews and the Swiss reformers, like Zwingli.
2. Darby heaped more condemnation on Muller than any normal man could bear.
3. WL smeared the reputation of Ingalls et. al.

"These things, my brothers, ought not to be so." -- James 3.10

Amen, brother James! Lord, be merciful to us all.

Pardon me, but it appears that this thread has deteriorated to the smoke and mirrors kind of maneuverings most often seen with lawyers and certain prominent politicians who point out, “it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.”
How about letting the Word of God speak to us instead of our trying to manipulate it?

If there were to be a forum for those whose ancestors were abused by Martin Luther or by Darby, let those persons speak. But don’t shoot them down because of what they are sharing just for the sake of argument and on the false pretense of “presenting a balanced view.” Let the truth be stated.

bookworm

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

As long as people are willing to compromise and tolerate unrepentant sin and appreciate "the good works" of the sinner, sinful behavior will continue. Why repent if none are willing to hold you accountable? This is hypocrisy. This is leaven. This is meat sacrificed to idols. This is bad fruit. It really doesn't matter who does it. It's wrong. Sin is sin...call it what it is. God does not tolerate sin. He sent His Son to pay the price for our sinful behavior. What an affront to that ultimate sacrifice. What an affront! Does God drink of the guilded cup of the "good Witness Lee" with Lee's works of darkness inside? I don't think so. Whatever is holy and clean is of God. Witness Lee's righteousness is as filthy rags. So is mine. So is yours.
Nell

Whoa ... Nelly!

Yes, we need accountability, repentance for wrongdoings, rejection of the leaven of hypocrisy, but to liken my posts to "eating meat sacrificed to idols" is totally absurd.

Originally Posted by bookworm

Pardon me, but it appears that this thread has deteriorated to the smoke and mirrors kind of maneuverings most often seen with lawyers and certain prominent politicians who point out, “it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.” How about letting the Word of God speak to us instead of our trying to manipulate it?

If there were to be a forum for those whose ancestors were abused by Martin Luther or by Darby, let those persons speak. But don’t shoot them down because of what they are sharing just for the sake of argument and on the false pretense of “presenting a balanced view.” Let the truth be stated.

Am I now under attack for attempting to be fair and balanced, puttings events into perspective? Bookworm, are you now the one who alone can "state the truth"? Since when has “presenting a balanced view” become a "false pretense." Am I now a "smoke and mirrors" magician, since I brought some church history into the picture? Am I now the one who "parses words" like a former president of ours? Am I now compared to crooked politicians?

Does anyone else feel this way about my posts?

Shall I become as nasty as those who disagree with me?

That would be easy.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Shall I become as nasty as those who disagree with me?

That would be easy.

Please don't.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Am I now under attack for attempting to be fair and balanced, puttings events into perspective? Bookworm, are you now the one who alone can "state the truth"? Since when has “presenting a balanced view” become a "false pretense." Am I now a "smoke and mirrors" magician, since I brought some church history into the picture? Am I now the one who "parses words" like a former president of ours? Am I now compared to crooked politicians?

Does anyone else feel this way about my posts?

Shall I become as nasty as those who disagree with me?

That would be easy.

I was simply pointing out the fact that those who do make statements that are in line with the subject matter of this thread in the Spiritual Abuse Forum should not be jumped on for stating what occurred. I did not personally attack you. I just noted how sad it is that persons making statements regarding spiritual abuse in the LCS have been subjected to barbs from those who do not care to face these facts and for some reason feel compelled to defend the LCS.
I respect the word of those who make these statements. I do not feel the need to question them or to question the scriptures they share. You will note I have not made that many statements on this thread; therefore I am in no way insisting that “I alone can state the truth.”

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Whoa ... Nelly!
Yes, we need accountability, repentance for wrongdoings, rejection of the leaven of hypocrisy, but to liken my posts to "eating meat sacrificed to idols" is totally absurd.
Am I now under attack for attempting to be fair and balanced, puttings events into perspective? Bookworm, are you now the one who alone can "state the truth"? Since when has “presenting a balanced view” become a "false pretense." Am I now a "smoke and mirrors" magician, since I brought some church history into the picture? Am I now the one who "parses words" like a former president of ours? Am I now compared to crooked politicians?
Does anyone else feel this way about my posts?
Shall I become as nasty as those who disagree with me?
That would be easy.

You're A Okay in my book!

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Ohio

...Yes, we need accountability, repentance for wrongdoings, rejection of the leaven of hypocrisy, but to liken my posts to "eating meat sacrificed to idols" is totally absurd.

I didn't single you out, Ohio. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Am I now under attack for attempting to be fair and balanced, puttings events into perspective? ... Since when has “presenting a balanced view” become a "false pretense." ...

Since when has "fair and balanced" become scriptural?

This is what Jesus said about leaven: Matt. 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Is that fair? Is that balanced? Do you think he whispered "betware"? I don't.


This is what Jesus said to the hypocrites about their hypocrisy:
Matt. 23:26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Was that fair? Was that balanced?

What about this? Is this fair?
Mark 11:15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; 16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. 17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves. 18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.

Please provide me some scripture verses that prescribe the Christian's responsibility to be "fair and balance". Define "fair". Fair according to what standard: political correctness, moral relativism, or the truth of God's word?

Nell

[aron]

Originally Posted by bookworm

Pardon me, but it appears that this thread has deteriorated to the smoke and mirrors kind of maneuverings most often seen with lawyers and certain prominent politicians who point out, “it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.”
How about letting the Word of God speak to us instead of our trying to manipulate it?

If there were to be a forum for those whose ancestors were abused by Martin Luther or by Darby, let those persons speak. But don’t shoot them down because of what they are sharing just for the sake of argument and on the false pretense of “presenting a balanced view.” Let the truth be stated.

bookworm

I have been abused by Luther. Some of his writings are terrible! Seriously. He fulminates in what he supposes to be some 'holy rage', or something. He writes with neither charity nor any other christian spirit.

Yet he has written words which brought the light of salvation to my view which I have rarely seen outside the Bible.

Luther could be narrow, pinched, crabby, miserable, and mean. Judgmental, horrible, nasty stuff. But at the same time God used him mightily.

I have read some of Lee's writings, some of the FPR characterizations of the 'rebels' come to mind, that are as nasty and unchristian as any you could imagine. I don't recommend reading it. It is really unchristian stuff. And I don't mind calling him on it. At the same time, some of his writings brought me light.

I think christian teachers and christian leaders can be capable of both good and bad. Luther never repented of his vituperations of others, as far as I know. Only God knows where he, Lee, or anyone else stands.