Major Errors of Witness Lee’s Teaching

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Theories of how things were in olden times only take us so far.

Both of your corollaries are based on the verse "let each be fully persuaded". Shouldn't there be other corollaries based on "obey your leaders"?

1. If you are unable to obey your leaders it is a sin (rebellion to the word of God). Either on your part or on the part of the leaders.

therefore

2. If you have separated because of offense you are required to notify the offending party prior to taking the Lord's table.

3. Likewise, if you have been notified that there are those offended by your sins you are required to first be reconciled before you can take the Lord's table.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Both of your corollaries are based on the verse "let each be fully persuaded". Shouldn't there be other corollaries based on "obey your leaders"?

I only had one corollary, it is based on the combination of the two truths.

It's only rebellion if you focus on that one verse to the exclusion of the other. Both verses taken together can only mean that conscience trumps leadership. Obeying leaders plainly cannot be an absolute requirement.

Conscience includes God's direct leading. For example, if I feel God is leading me to move to another city and my elder says I shouldn't, I still have to follow my leading if it doesn't change and he should honor that. Outside of strong feelings of leading otherwise, we should follow leaders.

Of course, some might say, well, that gives people an "out" to claiming "leading" they don't really have. But if you are going to mistrust the integrity and inner registrations of others the church can't work in the first place. Plus it is contrary to Jeremiah 31:34/Hebrew 8:11:

"No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD.

Conscience actually trumps everything, because in order to know if anything is right, including obeying leaders, your conscience must tell you. There is no registration of right and wrong without conscience.

So when you say, obey your conscience except when it contradicts your leaders, you are really saying, obey your conscience except when your conscience tells you not to obey your conscience. Which is absurd.

[ZNPaaneah]

If you accept the basic premise of "deputy authority" then the absolute is to obey Jesus Christ who is Lord. Therefore if obeying the leaders among you requires you to not obey Jesus then that would be the basis for not obeying them, but it therefore requires that the leaders have sinned and have not reconciled that offense.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you accept the basic premise of "deputy authority" then the absolute is to obey Jesus Christ who is Lord. Therefore if obeying the leaders among you requires you to not obey Jesus then that would be the basis for not obeying them, but it therefore requires that the leaders have sinned and have not reconciled that offense.

In the case of the LCM, there are plenty of sins they have not reconciled. So that point is moot.

But in general, I believe that God raises up leaders for certain flocks. If I join that flock I should respect the leaders there. But if I choose to leave that flock the leaders no longer have sway over me. Whether I leave the flock is between me and the Lord. It's not for anyone else to say whether my reasons were proper or not. Romans 12 simply requires me to be "fully persuaded in my own mind."

Why would I leave the flock? The issues might be practical or moral. For example, I may just move, or I may decided the Lord is leading me to leave for a positive reason, or I may decide that I disagree with certain practices, for example like suing other Christians.

The LCM creates false restrictions that say you must meet with the church in the city (which of course is them) and so have no good reason to leave because they are the only legitimate place to meet. I disagree with this fundamentally, in part because it forces member to compromises their consciences if they disagree with certain teachings or practices.

I think it is manifestly clear that such restrictive expectations are not the place of leaders to try to enforce (or Internet posters to try to support). But suppose I do leave a group because I, say, don't like the music. Is that legitimate? Obviously it is a pretty shallow reason. At the same time, it's still between me and the Lord. It's not for anyone else to comment on unless I start as discussion about it. Some might scream "Such an attitude will create a free-for-all!" But the only people who say that are those who (1) have an interest in controlling others and (2) who do not trust people to follow the Holy Spirit. Both attitudes are antithetical to the New Testament reality.

Even when we follow leaders it is the Lord who prompts us in real-time to do so. And if he prompts us not to, or we believe he does, we have to obey that leading, not men.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

In the case of the LCM, there are plenty of sins they have not reconciled. So that point is moot.

My point is that the very clear rule concerning Christian meetings given to us by both Jesus and the apostles is that if you have an offense with another member you need to first be reconciled before you can partake of the Lord's table. Why doesn't this rule trump all others concerning meeting?

There is no rule about what you should "name" your fellowship, but there is this rule. Why make a huge deal over something that is non existent in the NT while ignoring the one rule that is spoken repeatedly in black and white?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My point is that the very clear rule concerning Christian meetings given to us by both Jesus and the apostles is that if you have an offense with another member you need to first be reconciled before you can partake of the Lord's table. Why doesn't this rule trump all others concerning meeting?

There is no rule about what you should "name" your fellowship, but there is this rule. Why make a huge deal over something that is non existent in the NT while ignoring the one rule that is spoken repeatedly in black and white?

Who is ignoring this major rule which trumps all others? We certainly believe in reconciliation and forgiveness before partaking. If someone is not in right standing they are refused communion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Who is ignoring this major rule which trumps all others? We certainly believe in reconciliation and forgiveness before partaking. If someone is not in right standing they are refused communion.

LC leaders have never responded to attempts at reconciliation.

What LC planet are you living on?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Who is ignoring this major rule which trumps all others? We certainly believe in reconciliation and forgiveness before partaking. If someone is not in right standing they are refused communion.

It would seem to me that considering those who are not in the room with you as unworthy to partake of communion in any place is evidence of not rightly recognizing the body of Christ. Maybe your entire group should refrain from any more Lord's tables until they figure our how to reconcile with those they have called mooing cows and spiritual degenerates (in so many words) before they partake again.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Who is ignoring this major rule which trumps all others? We certainly believe in reconciliation and forgiveness before partaking. If someone is not in right standing they are refused communion.

Right. It's always about excluding some offender, never about the leaders admitting being offenders.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Who is ignoring this major rule which trumps all others? We certainly believe in reconciliation and forgiveness before partaking. If someone is not in right standing they are refused communion.

Ed Marks -- I went to him to talk about saints who were offended by his signing the letter and instead I was asked to leave the building.

James Chu -- Lead elder in NYC. I could not have been asked to leave without James Chu's approval.

Benjamin Chen -- this occurred shortly before is death, he also was complicit.

Dennis Cooley -- he was the one that conveyed the elders determination to me.

This is for starters but I imagine when you discuss what happened to Titus Chu, I responded to the letter signed by the Blendeds and think that also rises to the level of sin.

All those who signed the loyalty pledge to Witness Lee. According to the book of James, this is the most serious violation of a cult.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Who is ignoring this major rule which trumps all others? We certainly believe in reconciliation and forgiveness before partaking. If someone is not in right standing they are refused communion.

This is only a LC doctrine. Many, many saints still have outstretched hands hoping for reconciliation, and some have already passed away having never been reconciled.

Sorry Evangelical, but you are seriously short on the facts of history.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My point is that the very clear rule concerning Christian meetings given to us by both Jesus and the apostles is that if you have an offense with another member you need to first be reconciled before you can partake of the Lord's table. Why doesn't this rule trump all others concerning meeting?

There is no rule about what you should "name" your fellowship, but there is this rule. Why make a huge deal over something that is non existent in the NT while ignoring the one rule that is spoken repeatedly in black and white?

I agree. The plain word of the Bible should be our priority, possible suggested ideas should be a distant second.