“Can the Local Church Leadership Say, ‘We Were Wrong’?” (An Open Letter)

[Thankful Jane]

I have attached an open letter entitled “Can the Local Church Leadership Say, ‘We Were Wrong’?” which is addressed to Bill Buntain, Dan Sady, and Dan Towle at “A Faithful Word.” The “Introduction” to the letter explains some about the contents of this very lengthy open letter and describes the audiences I am addressing and why. It also explains how the catalyst for my deciding to write both the letter to AFW and the letter to Lyndol Butler was the recent Christian Research Journal in which CRI says “We Were Wrong.”


Please note that the “Lyndol letter” (which is referenced in this letter to the Local Church Leadership) can be found at:

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...read.php?t=619



Thankful

[countmeworthy]

If they believe wholeheartedly they have never said or done anything wrong, how can they admit they were wrong?

The local church leadership can only say they were/are wrong through the conviction of God the Holy Spirit...just as each of us were and are convicted by the Holy Spirit when we were in darkness and when we fall on our faces today.

I think there are very, very few people in Christian leadership (LC and otherwise) who humble themselves when they err. Very few ever admit they make mistakes. (Some DO thankfully but they are far & few between imho.)

As for your letter..... WOW JANE ! I trust and pray for the Blood of Jesus to cover you, protect you and envelop you and your family. I pray for MIGHTY angels of God to encamp themselves around you...and your family.

I pray for the Peace of God to restore the joy of fellowship IN TRUTH in Christ Jesus among all saints.

I find it curious the LSM jumped for joy that CRI under Hank Hanagraaf wrote a piece placing the LSM under favorable light when Lee's ministry trounced Christianity from way back when. Hank and company are still part of Lee's view of 'degraded Christianity'. But perhaps arrogance begats arrogance. Hank is one of the most arrogant and self centered 'christian' leaders around. I used to listen to the Bible Answer Man in the 80s and 90s. I'm not sure if he was hosting it back then. But in the last few years, not only can I not tolerate listening to him but I don't agree with some of his positions.

And P.S. God does hate the works of the Nicolaetons ! So do I.

[OBW]

Thanks for once again spending more time than you probably should to tell the the real "inconvenient truth."

I just wish that we could expect that at least some might find a chink in their "we are right even when we're wrong" attitude. One can only hope and pray.

[Roger]

Hopefully, what has become so obvious to us will become more and more obvious to current LC members who lurk these forums. Humility is the top characteristic of a Christian. Repentance means recognizing that you were wrong and then openly admitting it, and turning around. Anything else is obstinacy and pride.

We have yet to see the Local Church admit to, and openly confess to even the slightest error. After much debating, and a lot of straining, and getting them undeniably cornered, the most anyone can hear from them is "Mistakes were made."

So, LSM, if you are ever willing to show any indication of actually following the Lord, and are willing to say "We were wrong," we are all Obama ears.

Roger

[OBW]

Having never read Nee's Spiritual Authority, it was quite an eye opener to see the gross errors in his reasoning on the matter of what is now called deputy authority. In this one work of fiction, he has denied everything that Paul wrote concerning church discipline and turned it on its head. There is no way to bring a charge against an elder in the LC because they are taught to not even respond. Further, they are taught that they have the authority to silence the ones bringing the charge.

I keep bringing up Nee's logical errors in arriving at his ground of the church doctrine. I must admit that I have always had a sort of nagging consideration that even the things he taught correctly are more because his natural inclination was proper on those points while other points, like the ground, and now the whole spiritual authority thing, were not. He based too much of his teaching on observations of others, stories, and not enough on what the scripture actually said. He added overlays, as did Lee, that did not spring from the scripture, but we forced upon it and made to fit.

For example, in the little book Sit Walk Stand he provides a viable overlay for the whole Christian life through the view from these three positions. But the way he goes about it is not entirely true to the scripture, but instead relies on examples, added metaphors and such. The last time I read it, I was impressed that he was only one additional thought from turning Sit into the "wait on the dispensing" teaching that Lee concocted. And if he had taken it that far, there would be no need to read about Walk and Stand because it would naturally flow from us once enough dispensing had been received. We did not need to study about it.

Yes, many have received spiritual help from some of his books. But even the best of them must be read with care.

[countmeworthy]

OBW wrote:
Having never read Nee's Spiritual Authority, it was quite an eye opener to see the gross errors in his reasoning on the matter of what is now called deputy authority.

Mike, how can you write SA was quite an eye opener if you have never read it ?

I read part of Spiritual Authority a few years ago. I still have it. There WERE some horrible gross errors in his reasoning that appalled me so I stopped reading it. I also have Sit, Walk and Stand. I tried reading it when I was in the LC but could never get through it. I tried reading it last year and I still cannot get through it.

Thank GOD for His WORD. The Holy Spirit truly enlightens me when I read the Word of God, speak it (HIM) and Pray it (HIM).

In this one work of fiction, he has denied everything that Paul wrote concerning church discipline and turned it on its head. There is no way to bring a charge against an elder in the LC because they are taught to not even respond. Further, they are taught that they have the authority to silence the ones bringing the charge.

Did someone tell you or did you read a portion of this book in someone's post ? Just wondering because you wrote you have never read his book.

He based too much of his teaching on observations of others, stories, and not enough on what the scripture actually said. He added overlays, as did Lee, that did not spring from the scripture, but we forced upon it and made to fit.

I think he based a lot of his teachings on his culture as did Lee did. They ought to have looked to God's Word to the Iraelites, the Jews, the Hebrews and Jesus' fullfillment of the law rather than their cultures, imho.

Yes, many have received spiritual help from some of his books. But even the best of them must be read with care.

I've received SOME help for his works...more than I did from Lee's works. But one thing I am grateful for during my tenure in the LC was my encouragement to read, pray the WORD of GOD......before the LS messages came into existence.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Mike, how can you write SA was quite an eye opener if you have never read it ?
...

Did someone tell you or did you read a portion of this book in someone's post ? Just wondering because you wrote you have never read his book.

Jane quoted Spiritual Authority in her letter. I think that's what Mike is referring to.

Nell

[OBW]

Welcome back, Nell.

You are correct. I took some down-time yesterday and read the entire letter. And a Bible study that we have been involved with for the past three years used Sit Walk Stand as part of a study on Ephesians, so I dug it out and read it again.

Despite the help that Nee has given many over the years, there is a lack of true scriptural scholarship that I have begun to see in recent looks through his writings. Since he did rely much on prior writers, those things do come through. But his own direction is too often not actually tied to the scripture, but layered over it and made to fit. Lots of anecdotal things, stories, metaphors. Not a lot of true scriptural analysis, although I would say more than Lee has tended to bring out.

But for any following many of my postings of the months, while I am quite interested in the doctrinal discussions, that pales in comparison to the abuse of authority, the willful division of the body, and the malicious slander of others for the purpose of maintaining a tight grip on a following that keeps buying the same words repackaged year-in and year-out. Jane's latest salvo, which will probably be ignored, or referred to obtusely in another training, is on the mark. And while I disagree with Steve I's underlying motives, he is on the mark to be publishing his findings. With Nigel exposing the BBs for what they are, I would hope that Don could get back to putting his account to paper/electrons.

And I hope that the 70 scholars would take note that they were only partly right. There is more and it is not over. I do not recall whether Jane sent he letter to any of those scholars. She should — at least to some of them.

[countmeworthy]

[quote=countmeworthy;7734]You are probably correct Nell. Good to 'see' ya ! Btw, I plan to make the reunion-retreat this year.

For the sake of those who have not thoroughly read Jane's letter, please refer to section 6 of Jane's letter which speaks of Watchman Nee's book called Spiritual Authority.

Btw, as a side note: Much of main stream Christianity, both the denominations and the WOF charasmatic church follows that formula. But they use Moses as the delegated authority.

And for the record, I recognize and respect Spiritual Authority. The problem with Spiritual Authority as I see it, is the flock sees them as infallible or look the other way or cover for the leaders. As we all grow in the Word of GOD and walk in His Ways by the power of the Holy Spirit leading us, God gives us the Spirit of Discernment to recogonize those who are anointed with Spiritual Authority. These people while strong in the Lord & in His Ways are humble servants of the Lord gently shepherding and exhorting them in the Body of Christ that they too would wax strong in Christ Jesus.

There is a place for covering people in love but not at the expense of the sheep.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Having never read Nee's Spiritual Authority, it was quite an eye opener to see the gross errors in his reasoning on the matter of what is now called deputy authority.

Yes, many have received spiritual help from some of his books. But even the best of them must be read with care.

Now you know why we were advised to not read Spiritual Authority. That alone is why I read all three volumes.

After reading I understood his points about deputy authority, but couldn't quite get behind them, or it.

Strikes me as funny that we were told not to read SA, and yet deputy authority was all over in the LC. Maybe that's why we were discouraged, cuz we'd catch on to what was going on around us, and disagree with it.

The reason, howbeit, that they gave for not reading it was, possible demon possession, not deputy authority.

Now I wonder if deputy authority isn't demon possession.

[Terry]

The open letter CRI had done was based on teaching according to basic Christian orthodoxy. The matter of local church practices would not fall under orthodox teaching matters, but under apologetics.

When pondering the question, Can the Local Church Leadership Say, We Were Wrong?, I remember Witness Lee's final public message as translated, "You must bring this message back, read it once, read it twice, and come together in fellowship with one another. Then you will see that, we, in the past were wrong!"
When the LC leadership viewing themselves as the continuation of Witness Lee's ministry won't fellowship over what Witness Lee spoke, how could LC leadership receive another member of the body bringing light to them?
It is an outrage Witness Lee's appeal was not taken to heart by the brothers in fellowship before the church.
Maybe Jane's open letter will be as easily dismissed as was Witness Lee's word? Jane has made valid points. Going forward there is a need through prayer for hearts to softened, the light of God would expose, and there will be a 180 degree turn.

Terry

[Terry]

I read the following content from a letter to the Blended co-workers from Titus Chu.
http://www.jesusloversincleveland.or...kersJuly06.pdf

From page 16, was Titus saying the same thing? We as the recovery have been wrong which necissitated Titus' appeal for repentance througout the recovery?

"You end your letter by calling on me to repent. Dear brothers, I would like to repent. In fact I feel that, given the present condition and direction of the recovery, we should all repent. May I ask you to join with me in a session of repentant prayer before the Lord for His mercy on us and His recovery?"

To repent indicates taking a 180 degree turn from where you were. To come under a time of repentant prayer is a deeper way to say we were wrong.

Terry

[Thankful Jane]

It’s time for a report on the status of any response from AFW to the open letter entitled, “Can the Local Church Leadership Say, “We Were Wrong?” (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=630 ).


History / Update

5/5/2010
Open Letter published on the Local Discussions forum and also mailed

5/7/2010
Notice of delivery to Dan Towle (accepted, signed )

5/7/2010
Notice of delivery to Dan Sady (accepted, signed)

5/7/2010
Notice of delivery to Hank Hanegraaff (accepted, signed)

5/11/2010
Notice of delivery to Bill Buntain (accepted, signed)

6/5/2010
It’s been close to a month now, and predictably, nary a peep has been heard.



And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil.

For everyone who practices evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his works be reproved.

But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be manifested that they are wrought in God. (John 3:19–21)


Jane C. Anderson

[Thankful Jane]

One of the 74 signers of the 2007 Open Letter to the LSM and Local Church Leadership, who read my open letter to the Local Church leadership, sent the attached letter to the other 73 signers.

Thankful Jane

[KSA]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

One of the 74 signers of the 2007 Open Letter to the LSM and Local Church Leadership, who read my open letter to the Local Church leadership, sent the attached letter to the other 73 signers.

Thankful Jane

I read this letter, and I do not really appreciate it. The author makes some good points, but they are buried under his lengthy diatribe about orthodox Trinitarian theology. It seems that for him the main demarcation line between church and cult is the teaching about Trinity. Therefore, Christian orthodoxy is narrowed to a correct teaching. I cannot agree with this approach. First of all, very few, even among those with theological education, have clear understanding of this teaching (saying nothing about those who do not have such education). Second, I do not think that the main problem with LC is there teaching about Trinity. Once again we are distracted from real stories of real people to abstract theological discussions.
Abused person is abused, even though an abuser is orthodox in his teaching about Trinity.

[UntoHim]

Hi KSA! So good to hear from you my brother.

By "this letter" I assume you are talking about the original posted at www.open-letter.org ?

Your point

"Abused person is abused, even though an abuser is orthodox in his teaching about Trinity"

is well taken, however I think some of the abuse we see in the Local Church can be attributed to Witness Lee's unorthodox (unbiblical) teachings on the trinity. When one only learns about, worships and serves an impersonal "processed triune God", especially those in positions of trust and leadership, it can have a negative affect on how one treats other people. I do not come to this conclusion lightly but from my experience and observation of many years. Actually Jane Anderson gives us a very fine treatment of "this unhealthy dynamic that exists in the LC among leaders and members" in her open letter "Can the Local Church Leadership Say 'We Were Wrong'?" (see section 6 entitled "The Impact of Local Church Theology on the Conscience")

So why was it so cotton picken hard for Witness Lee to say he was wrong - wrong about anything significant? Now I don't think this "unhealthy dynamic" was transferred to the current LC/LSM leadership by osmosis. It was instilled and ingrained in them from years and even decades of listening and studying the teachings of Witness Lee. This would include the mainstay teaching regarding the trinity, "the processed triune God". Lee often made a big deal out of the adage "you are what you eat". Yes, pretty much so.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by KSA

I read this letter, and I do not really appreciate it. The author makes some good points, but they are buried under his lengthy diatribe about orthodox Trinitarian theology. It seems that for him the main demarcation line between church and cult is the teaching about Trinity. Therefore, Christian orthodoxy is narrowed to a correct teaching. I cannot agree with this approach. First of all, very few, even among those with theological education, have clear understanding of this teaching (saying nothing about those who do not have such education). Second, I do not think that the main problem with LC is there teaching about Trinity. Once again we are distracted from real stories of real people to abstract theological discussions.
Abused person is abused, even though an abuser is orthodox in his teaching about Trinity.

Hey KSA, good to "see you" enjoying the summer warmth.

I agree whole-heartedly with your points. For a quarter century I resisted all charges of "cult" against the Recovery based on their complaints of "Trinitarian Orthodoxy." All their accusations about "Modalism" did nothing but harden my resolve and commitment to WL. I treasured verses like Isa 9.6, I Cor 15.45, and II Cor 3.17, and valued all the teachings I had received from WL on these verses.

It was Ingalls' book STTIL which "connected all the troublesome dots" for me. When I first stepped away from the LC's, I thought "this program is sick. It produces bullies out of beloved brothers. What happened to us?" Then I began to research and to become aware of so many stories of abuse, not by the young saints, but by the leaders themselves. Abuses were rampant, from the top to the bottom. The disease was systemic.

Once the Christian leaders outside the Recovery begin to understand this, then they will get to the heart of the problem. People have been hurt in the LC's, and are still hurting. That's what's most important. LC leaders must be made accountable.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Lee often made a big deal out of the adage "you are what you eat". Yes, pretty much so.

And it was bad food. It literally made a knot in my stomach. In short, I just couldn't stomach the LC anymore and had to leave. The eating there was making me sick....literally & physically.

[KSA]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Hi KSA! So good to hear from you my brother.
By "this letter" I assume you are talking about the original posted at www.open-letter.org ?

Hi, Brother!
I meant the letter written by one of the signers in response to CRI.

Your point is well taken, however I think some of the abuse we see in the Local Church can be attributed to Witness Lee's unorthodox (unbiblical) teachings on the trinity.

Spiritual abuse can be seen all across the theological spectrum. It makes me think that its root is not in teachings per se. Of course, teachings are used to implement this abuse, but the root of it, I think, is not in teachings; it's a heart issue. Quite often I see that abuse is a result of insecurities of an abuser. I would recommend a very good book by Marc Dupond "Walking Out of Spiritual Abuse".