Major Errors of Witness Lee’s Teaching

[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?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

LC leaders have never responded to attempts at reconciliation.

What LC planet are you living on?

The power of guanxi networks is that reconciliation is not possible. Once you've violated the network you're done forever. Quite effective, if you think about it.

Lee gave a few messages on reconciliation, but look at Steve Isitt's experience: the messages were merely a sop for the conscience and a fig leaf of Christian orthodoxy. When anyone actually tried to address the issues leading to rupture, they'd run into the real "principalities and powers" of the LC. Lee was a pawn of these forces, like all LC members were.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The power of guanxi networks is that reconciliation is not possible. Once you've violated the network you're done forever..

But the good news is that Post-Protestant Guanxi Network is a description, not a name. So it's fine - unless, of course, you're a Christian needing reconciliation, before you can offer your gift at the altar.

Look at Dong Yu Lan and Titus Chu - they can't be reconciled to Anaheim without kow-towing, and the culture forbids it. Their cultural paradigm offers two choices: either abject servility or the abyss. So they and their followers are stuck in a culturally-induced limbo.

Contrasted to Paul, who even after a ministry dust-up with Barnabas and John Mark, apparently was able to maintain peace with them. See e.g., 1 Cor 9:6 and Col 4:10.

And why do you think message boards like this exist? Because there isn't mechanism in the LC to address hurts and wrongs. Do you think the Baptists and Presbyterians have to resort to anonymous forums to address what happeneds there? Again, consider Steve Isitt's experience: transparency isn't allowed. People have "no heart" for examination, reflection, acknowledgement, healing and change. Instead there are OT types of "leprosy" and "rebellion" and "replastering".

Once one sees it for what it is, the mental strong-hold loses its strong hold. (2 Cor 10:3,4)

[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.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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

Concerning offenses between brethren, the bible never really addresses the matter of the offenses being caused by brethren in church leadership.

cf. Matt 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.

Jesus nowhere addresses the matter of "the church" being the one causing the offense. If we can't tell it to the church, who can we tell it to?

I don't intend to debate you about this in the context of the LC, this is just something I have never considered and your post brought it to mind.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Concerning offenses between brethren, the bible never really addresses the matter of the offenses being caused by brethren in church leadership.

cf. Matt 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.

Jesus nowhere addresses the matter of "the church" being the one causing the offense. If we can't tell it to the church, who can we tell it to?

This is silly. The church does not offend, rather people do, and leaders do.

Paul specifically instructed Timothy how to handle offenses and sins by church leaders:

Do not listen to an accusation against an elder unless it is confirmed by two or three witnesses. Those who sin should be reprimanded in front of the whole church; this will serve as a strong warning to others. I solemnly command you in the presence of God and Christ Jesus and the highest angels to obey these instructions without taking sides or showing favoritism to anyone.

Here it is obvious that leaders should be held to higher standards, and because of their public position, their sins should be made public for all to be admonished.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is silly. The church does not offend, rather people do, and leaders do.

Paul specifically instructed Timothy how to handle offenses and sins by church leaders:


Here it is obvious that leaders should be held to higher standards, and because of their public position, their sins should be made public for all to be admonished.

I note no sense of a plurality of churches in the scripture in such case.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I note no sense of a plurality of churches in the scripture in such case.

It's not about some "sense of a plurality of churches," but about holding leaders accountable who happen to sin.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's not about some "sense of a plurality of churches," but about holding leaders accountable who happen to sin.

Yes and it only works within ones own church. Because there is a plurality of churches, holding leaders accountable who sin doesn't work. It doesn't work across denominations. For example, if you have an issue with a Catholic Priest what are the Baptist going to do about it? This is a practical reason for having one church per city.

It also highlights where ecumenism doesn't work. So Catholics and Baptists may join together for a service, but if the Baptist thinks the Catholic priest committed a sin (for example, praying to an idol) but the Catholics don't, then nothing that Baptist can do. The only effective thing the baptist can do is to stick with his baptist church.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Concerning offenses between brethren, the bible never really addresses the matter of the offenses being caused by brethren in church leadership.

What about Galatians 2:11?

1Tim 5:19-21?

James 3:1?

Matt 18:15-17?

Eph 4:32?

Col 3:12-15?

[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.