Confessing your Sins One To Another

[TLFisher]

Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. James 5:16

A LC concept exists that in Christianity, confessing your sins one to another does not include confessing our sins to God.
Thoughts?

[Freedom]

When I was thinking about this, it seemed to me like I may have encountered this notion at various points in time. It drove me to research it a little, and what do I come across, but an excerpt of Watchman Nee claiming that Christians care more about confession to men that to God. I actually find it a little humorous. What proof did Nee have to make such a claim or generalization of Christians? Maybe there are groups that focused on this too much, but it seems more reasonable that Nee made this generalization in order to attack it (straw man argument):

Concerning this matter of confessing sin, there is a bad tendency among Christians to incline gradually more and more to having dealings with men rather than having dealings with God. There are even Christians who do not mention the precious blood at all. They only seek for the peace of conscience with each other, putting God aside completely. Such a situation is most dreadful, since it will end up in their losing the fear of God. Let me most emphatically state: the notion of confession without the need of the precious blood must incontrovertibly emanate from hell. Let us ever keep in mind that in our committing each sin God, not man, is the first one who is being offended…
…
In contrast to David’s heart, we find that Judas the betrayer of the Lord Jesus confessed his sin to men and returned the money; but though Judas cleared up the matter with men, he nevertheless remained a son of perdition. By my saying these things I do not wish to be misunderstood as meaning that we should not confess to one another, because confessing to one another is something right and Biblical for use to do (see James 5:16). I only stress that it is more important to deal with God than with men. We should never reverse that order. We must not put aside God and the precious blood…

From Glory to Glory, Watchman Nee, pg 49
https://books.google.com/books?id=xD...page&q&f=false

[TLFisher]

I would agree with Nee, we should never reverse that order nor have I considered anyone does. Confession of sins is always to God first. Sometimes confessing our sins to another is needed, but the cost is losing face. If you're one who wants to save face, you will never confess your sins apart from God.
I do believe one of results of confessing sins to one another is humility.

[Freedom]

James 5:13-18
13 Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much. 17 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain; and it did not rain on the land for three years and six months. 18 And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth produced its fruit.

I didn’t find too much regarding what Lee had to say about the issue, but as everyone knows, he didn’t care for James. Here is what he has to say regarding the above passage in James:

Although James says a good word concerning prayer in 5:14-16, his way of praying is that of the Old Testament prophets. This is proved by the fact that he uses the prayer of Elijah as an example: “Elijah was a man of like feeling with us, and in prayer he prayed that it should not rain, and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit” (vv. 17-18). James says that Elijah prayed in a prayer. We may admire this prayer and think that it is excellent. Paul, however, does not speak like this. Rather, Paul tells us to pray always in spirit (Eph. 6:18). To pray in spirit is much better, sweeter, and richer than to pray in a prayer. The latter is to pray in the Old Testament way; the former is to pray in the New Testament way. In the case of Elijah, the Lord gave him a particular prayer as a burden, and Elijah prayed that it would not rain. Hence, Elijah prayed in the prayer given to him by the Lord. But today we have the indwelling Spirit abiding in our spirit and interceding for us (Rom. 8:26), and we do not need a special prayer or burden, for we can pray in our spirit unceasingly (1 Thes. 5:17).

If we do not have light from the Lord, we may highly appreciate what James says concerning prayer. But if we are enlightened by the Lord, we shall see that the way of prayer described by James is the Old Testament way. By this we see that James’ writing brings us away from the New Testament practice and back to the Old Testament practice.
Life-Study of James, Witness Lee, Message 14

It is clear that Lee didn’t view the example of prayer put forth in James 5 as being noteworthy. To me, James’ admonition is quite simple: pray for one another and confess to one another. What is so bad about that? Regarding confessing to one another, there isn’t any reason to get weird about group confession or public confession (aka humiliation), but if there are any groups that are guilty of that, the LC is certainly one of them.

In light of what Lee said in this excerpt, I think James provides a contrast to the “spiritual” view of prayer that Lee speaks of. Lee talks about “to pray in spirit” and to “pray in our spirit unceasingly”. What does this all mean? At least in my LC experience, this is just mumbo jumbo that they throw around, and often times, it leads to the notion that praying for normal things is a waste of time or “unspiritual”. In my mind, this is what the whole issue is really about. For whatever reason, Lee didn’t really think it was worth the bother for everyone to pray to each other, or to confess to one another (for the purpose of clearing up offenses). His overly spiritualized stance lead to a lack in these things.

It's interesting that you posted this today as few days ago there's a friend of mine who is a brother in LC asking if Protestant Christians do emphasize confessing to one another more than confessing to The Lord ( side note I'm very disturbed still by some of their members' concept of "us vs denominations" or "us vs Protestants".... In my naive idea we are all the same and it's weird when people ask me I wouldn't call myself a Protestant I would simply say I'm a Christian ) anyways I wasn't sure why he asked this question until I saw your post, realizing that may be a common notion of LC resulting in his question. One person said they did it to free them from guilt yet I cannot agree with it--- in the church I meet with both are equally emphasized , and confessing to one another is simply because we need to maintain accountability, and in cases when we hurt one another we surely need to confess and forgive one another so that God can work into us and heal us . Confessing to The Lord surely is out for our fear and love for God and the fact that we need His blood and grace and this only draws us closer to Him.

[Ohio]

Nee: In contrast to David’s heart, we find that Judas the betrayer of the Lord Jesus confessed his sin to men and returned the money; but though Judas cleared up the matter with men, he nevertheless remained a son of perdition.

Originally Posted by Freedom

When I was thinking about this, it seemed to me like I may have encountered this notion at various points in time. It drove me to research it a little, and what do I come across, but an excerpt of Watchman Nee claiming that Christians care more about confession to men that to God. I actually find it a little humorous. What proof did Nee have to make such a claim or generalization of Christians? Maybe there are groups that focused on this too much, but it seems more reasonable that Nee made this generalization in order to attack it (straw man argument):

I agree with your "straw man argument" comments on Nee, but he did have an interesting take on confessing to man with the case of Judas. Growing up Catholic, and having serious issues of conscience as a teenager in their confessional, I have always had an aversion to John 20.23 because of the extremes that have been employed by the papal system.

Yet James 5.16 and others should be companion verses to balance the truth. Confessing our sins should be first to the Lord, the sole redeeming mediator between God and man, and then when applicable we should confess our sins to one another.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

It's interesting that you posted this today as few days ago there's a friend of mine who is a brother in LC asking if Protestant Christians do emphasize confessing to one another more than confessing to The Lord ( side note I'm very disturbed still by some of their members' concept of "us vs denominations" or "us vs Protestants".... In my naive idea we are all the same and it's weird when people ask me I wouldn't call myself a Protestant I would simply say I'm a Christian ) anyways I wasn't sure why he asked this question until I saw your post, realizing that may be a common notion of LC resulting in his question. One person said they did it to free them from guilt yet I cannot agree with it--- in the church I meet with both are equally emphasized , and confessing to one another is simply because we need to maintain accountability, and in cases when we hurt one another we surely need to confess and forgive one another so that God can work into us and heal us . Confessing to The Lord surely is out for our fear and love for God and the fact that we need His blood and grace and this only draws us closer to Him.

Good points.

The bolded part above is sorely missing in the LC, especially among the leaders. They tend to teach it to young ones, and then forget to practice themselves. Unfortunately, as we all know, what we see means more than what we hear. In other words, LC leaders would like their people to "do as they say, but not as they do."

Secondly, the Bible is filled with recommendations for God's children to remain in a healthy harmony with one another. How much God can change us inwardly by confessing and forgiving one another genuinely from the heart! Is this not the essence of the "Lord's Prayer?" Furthermore, LC leaders like to sidestep this much needed practice by "mechanizing" the Christian life, as if shouting slogans, attending trainings, studying approved messages, and the like can ever replace what God has sanctioned for His children. Their exclusive claims of transformation are easily disproved by the way they treat one another.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

It's interesting that you posted this today as few days ago there's a friend of mine who is a brother in LC asking if Protestant Christians do emphasize confessing to one another more than confessing to The Lord ( side note I'm very disturbed still by some of their members' concept of "us vs denominations" or "us vs Protestants".... In my naive idea we are all the same and it's weird when people ask me I wouldn't call myself a Protestant I would simply say I'm a Christian ) anyways I wasn't sure why he asked this question until I saw your post, realizing that may be a common notion of LC resulting in his question.

I think you make a good point. Those in the LC typically have an "us vs. them" mentality in regards to other Christians. In a way, it's somewhat understandable, because they are certainly not the only group out there who feels like they are competing against other groups. What I see as the main problem, is when they characterize other Christians in a certain way (usually derogatory), and then attack them using that misrepresentation as "evidence" to show how other Christians are wrong. Nee's words are a prime example of that strategy: "Concerning this matter of confessing sin, there is a bad tendency among Christians to incline gradually more and more to having dealings with men rather than having dealings with God. There are even Christians who do not mention the precious blood at all." Like I mentioned, what evidence does he really have to support what he says?

Obviously, if there were lots of Christians like the kind Nee describes, that would be worthy of criticism. That is how so many in the LC get duped, because they hear a statement such as this, and they don't stop for a second to consider whether or not the generalization is true, or if it can be proven. They only focus on how bad it is that there are supposedly "Christians who do not mention the precious blood at all." When LCers hear something like it just further serves as proof to them that they are in the right place. It thus reinforces their notions of superiority.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

What I see as the main problem, is when they characterize other Christians in a certain way (usually derogatory), and then attack them using that misrepresentation as "evidence" to show how other Christians are wrong. Like I mentioned, what evidence does he really have to support what he says?

Obviously, if there were lots of Christians like the kind Nee describes, that would be worthy of criticism. That is how so many in the LC get duped, because they hear a statement such as this, and they don't stop for a second to consider whether or not the generalization is true, or if it can be proven. They only focus on how bad it is that there are supposedly "Christians who do not mention the precious blood at all." When LCers hear something like it just further serves as proof to them that they are in the right place. It thus reinforces their notions of superiority.

Great point ... and so common in the LC.

Not too long before I left, I was with a full-timer co-worker for lunch, and he made another such comment, "we're not like Christians in the denominations who only show up on Sunday morning."

I let the comment pass because disagreeing would be a waste of my time, but I noted it mentally. I thought about all the members of our LC who only showed up on Sunday morning. After leaving the LC, I discovered that no congregation can survive with only Sunday morning attendees. Every congregation has members who work tirelessly to keep things moving forward, otherwise it would fall apart.

But who fact checks these endless comments coming from the ministry? It's the same with our politicians. What they speak are often "factoids" -- spoken long enough until they become "true," and almost a part of the LC mission statement.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I think you make a good point. Those in the LC typically have an "us vs. them" mentality in regards to other Christians. In a way, it's somewhat understandable, because they are certainly not the only group out there who feels like they are competing against other groups. What I see as the main problem, is when they characterize other Christians in a certain way (usually derogatory), and then attack them using that misrepresentation as "evidence" to show how other Christians are wrong. Nee's words are a prime example of that strategy: "Concerning this matter of confessing sin, there is a bad tendency among Christians to incline gradually more and more to having dealings with men rather than having dealings with God. There are even Christians who do not mention the precious blood at all." Like I mentioned, what evidence does he really have to support what he says?

Obviously, if there were lots of Christians like the kind Nee describes, that would be worthy of criticism. That is how so many in the LC get duped, because they hear a statement such as this, and they don't stop for a second to consider whether or not the generalization is true, or if it can be proven. They only focus on how bad it is that there are supposedly "Christians who do not mention the precious blood at all." When LCers hear something like it just further serves as proof to them that they are in the right place. It thus reinforces their notions of superiority.

It's one thing to claim what churches not affiliated with LSM do not do and it's another thing to support than claim.
My question to those whether they're in Renton or another locality:

1. what churches have your visited that doesn't take LSM as the one publication?

2. If you have visited a non-LSM church, do they not mention the precious blood of Jesus?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

It's interesting that you posted this today as few days ago there's a friend of mine who is a brother in LC asking if Protestant Christians do emphasize confessing to one another more than confessing to The Lord ( side note I'm very disturbed still by some of their members' concept of "us vs denominations" or "us vs Protestants".... In my naive idea we are all the same and it's weird when people ask me I wouldn't call myself a Protestant I would simply say I'm a Christian ) anyways I wasn't sure why he asked this question until I saw your post, realizing that may be a common notion of LC resulting in his question. One person said they did it to free them from guilt yet I cannot agree with it--- in the church I meet with both are equally emphasized , and confessing to one another is simply because we need to maintain accountability, and in cases when we hurt one another we surely need to confess and forgive one another so that God can work into us and heal us . Confessing to The Lord surely is out for our fear and love for God and the fact that we need His blood and grace and this only draws us closer to Him.

Unregistered, amen to your portion I have emphasized in bold. I am curious though, your LC friend, where does he get the concept non-LC Christians confess to one another, but not to God?
In my experience confession to God for our sins is first and foremost. Confessing to one another is not a matter of under legalism, but led by the Spirit to be accountable, to clear up offenses, misunderstandings, etc.

I said, “I beseech You, O Lord God of heaven, the great and awesome God, who preserves the covenant and lovingkindness for those who love Him and keep His commandments, let Your ear now be attentive and Your eyes open to hear the prayer of Your servant which I am praying before You now, day and night, on behalf of the sons of Israel Your servants, confessing the sins of the sons of Israel which we have sinned against You; I and my father’s house have sinned. We have acted very corruptly against You and have not kept the commandments, nor the statutes, nor the ordinances which You commanded Your servant Moses. Nehemiah 1:5-7

[HERn]

While I was in the LC I don't think I ever heard that we should confess our sins to one another. Maybe it flew over my head.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Confessing to The Lord surely is out for our fear and love for God and the fact that we need His blood and grace and this only draws us closer to Him.

I think that our confession to the Lord is as natural as breathing. Our very faith itself is based on the confession that we are sinners, and that God loved us and sent His Son who died on our behalf, carrying away our sins and restoring us to a relation with our loving Father. When we say, "Lord Jesus" that seems implicitly (and often explicitly) understood. Now we may enumerate it a lot, or a little, but as Christians we understand that we're redeemed sinners while God is holy and pure and good, and confessing the name of Jesus is our doorway to a restored life of obedience and fellowship.

And it also is common Christian practice to publicly acknowledge our sins in a general way. I remember WL praying, "Lord, we claim Your blood. Cleanse us..." etc. This didn't appear to be an extra-ordinary prayer, but rather reflecting a view common to Christians. At least in that sense, "Confessing your sins to one another" seems to be fairly widespread. How specific, and how public, we need to be probably depends on the nature of the crime. If we need to be specific, fine, but if we don't (especially if it stumbles others) probably we shouldn't.

-----------------------------------------

One aspect where the LC seems aberrant is their idea of public shaming, where the speaker from the podium, who's "more blended" than the audience member, calls that one out by name, and mentions something about their church life, or family life, or spiritual walk, and the member acknowledges the defect. I saw WL do this with TC, even in a ritualized way (TC even used the word "ashamed") and I saw the current Blendeds do this with rank-and-file LC members in conferences.

Another aberrant aspect is the non-reciprocality. If there's some sin, Paul said that leaders should not be publicly accused except by multiple witnesses.

1 Tim 5:19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.

This agrees with Jesus' teaching not to make public the failures of others unless multiple attempts were made by several parties to address the situation.

In the "Deputy God" teaching of the LC, however, this is apparently ignored. It doesn't matter if there are 6 witnesses, everyone must "cover the sins of Noah". To publicly acknowledge leadership failure in the LC is viewed as blatant disrespect and/or rebellion. Members either think that the leadership is so transformed as to be above sin, or that they've got access to a dispensational or positional sanctification not afforded the average person. Neither one of these assumptions is supported by either scripture or common human experience.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Another aberrant aspect is the idea of non-reciprocality. If there is some short-coming, Paul said that leaders should not be publicly charged except with multiple witnesses. This is in accord with Jesus' teaching, not to make public the failures of others unless multiple attempts are made by multiple parties to address the situation.

In the "Deputy God" teaching of the LC, however, this is apparently ignored. It doesn't matter if there are 6 witnesses. Everyone must "cover the sins of Noah". To publicly acknowledge leadership failure in the LC is viewed as rebellion.

As much as there is references to the "New testament ministry", "cover the sins of Noah" is not one of them.
About non-reciprocity, the churchlife in the local churches in it's negative aspect is very much like an altercation in a football game. It's the one who reacts who is penalized.
For example when Mario Sandoval was meeting with the Church in Ontario, due to Samuel Liu's unwillingness to reconcile, Mario reacted and was subsequently refused from fellowship whether in Ontario, Vista, or Chula Vista.
Another example was when Steve Isitt was meeting with the Church in Seattle, due to Joel Kennon's unwillingness to reconcile, Steve reacted and was subsequently refused from fellowship whether in Seattle, Bellevue, Spokane, etc.
Same in principal with many of the former leading ones who names we're familiar with.
There's more scriptural basis for Matthew 18:15-17 or 1 Timothy 5:20, but theses verses are not partial and man-honoring as "cover the brothers" is.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

One aspect where the LC seems aberrant is their idea of public shaming, where the speaker from the podium, who's "more blended" than the audience member, calls that one out by name, and mentions something about their church life, or family life, or spiritual walk, and the member acknowledges the defect. I saw WL do this with TC, even in a ritualized way (TC even used the word "ashamed") and I saw the current Blendeds do this with rank-and-file LC members in conferences.

Another aberrant aspect is the non-reciprocality. If there's some sin, Paul said that leaders should not be publicly accused except by multiple witnesses. This agrees with Jesus' teaching not to make public the failures of others unless multiple attempts were made by several parties to address the situation.

In the "Deputy God" teaching of the LC, however, this is apparently ignored. It doesn't matter if there are 6 witnesses, everyone must "cover the sins of Noah". To publicly acknowledge leadership failure in the LC is viewed as blatant disrespect and/or rebellion. Members either think that the leadership is so transformed as to be above sin, or that they've got access to a dispensational or positional sanctification not afforded the average person. Neither one of these assumptions is supported by either scripture or common human experience.

Public shaming is a whole topic by itself, and it appears WL enjoyed it. Just observe the smug look on his face as he shames his translator in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUn9sGz8gPE

Maybe because Lee abused the public shaming, it caused members to be reluctant to discuss anything publicly. They had enough of the shaming as it was, no need to make themselves vulnerable to anything else.

Speaking for myself, I can say that in the LC environment, there were many times where I wanted to discuss issues which I was struggling with, but I was afraid to talk to anyone lest someone use it as an opportunity to "perfect" or rebuke me.

[HERn]

That brother being "perfected" in the video eventually ended giving some messages at some of the semi-annual trainings, if I remember correctly. I doubt WL would do such a thing with a tongue-tied small potato. But it does suggest that WL saw himself as some kind of "perfector of the age" kind of like a Marines drill Sargent badgering a recruit. To me it was a crass display of power and control that was totally Christ-less. Who gives a rat's behind if it's "god's economy" or "the economy of God"? There is a group-think and the comradery of suffering under a hard master that helps men form groups of loyalty...but it's not Christ or Christ's way.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

That brother being "perfected" in the video eventually ended giving some messages at some of the semi-annual trainings, if I remember correctly. I doubt WL would do such a thing with a tongue-tied small potato. But it does suggest that WL saw himself as some kind of "perfector of the age" kind of like a Marines drill Sargent badgering a recruit. To me it was a crass display of power and control that was totally Christ-less. Who gives a rat's behind if it's "god's economy" or "the economy of God"? There is a group-think and the comradery of suffering under a hard master that helps men form groups of loyalty...but it's not Christ or Christ's way.

I believe with most 17 and 18 year olds who choose to enlist in the armed forces to expect many lessons in perfecting throughout basic training.
However, in our lives among fellow Christians, it is unexpected.
God's Economy or The Economy of God, most brothers I've heard use God's Economy. What's the point since the reference is to God's administration.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

That brother being "perfected" in the video eventually ended giving some messages at some of the semi-annual trainings, if I remember correctly... WL saw himself as some kind of "perfector of the age" kind of like a Marines drill Sargent badgering a recruit. To me it was a crass display of power and control that was totally Christ-less. Who gives a rat's behind if it's "god's economy" or "the economy of God"?

I watched the first few minutes of the video. Culture shock to say the least. I used to be there and counted myself fortunate, like I was in the "inner circle". Getting perfected, so-called, was part of the price of admission.

But perfected to what? To the image of Witness Lee? When I heard the words that his acolytes were so carefully rehearsing in his presence, "The economy of God is to bring forth an organism for the Triune God", it struck me as not entirely wrong, and therefore arguably true in some sense. But so what? I've written hundreds of posts here on this forum, and some of them probably have true statements. Does that mean that everyone has to memorize them verbatim?

How much mutuality was on display in that room, in that video? None. Zip. Nada. Not one iota. So where is the opportunity to 'confess your sins to one another'? It simply doesn't exist.

What is strange about the ministry of WL is that his sentences were placed on bulletin boards and memorized, but parts of the Bible that he couldn't line up with his ministry were ignored, as if nonexistent. If he was forced to acknowledge them at all, he'd downplay them as either irrelevant nonessentials or worse, as "low" or "natural" or "fallen men's concepts" or the like. So his ministry wasn't arguably about the Bible at all. It was about the ministry. The Bible was merely a vehicle towards an end; if he couldn't line it up, it was abandoned.

The concept of "the age of spiritual giants is over; now it is the age of small potatoes"... where did that come from? I never heard one Bible verse supporting it. But it was convenient to the ministry so it was pushed upon the local churches. Again I ask, where is the mutuality here?

Originally Posted by HERn

There is a group-think and the comradery of suffering under a hard master that helps men form groups of loyalty...but it's not Christ or Christ's way.

I remember at one point WL said we should learn from the PRC "Red Guards". Why? Because it seemed to him to be successful. What did it have to do with Christ? Nothing. Jesus even taught, "It should not be this way among you" (Matt 20:25; Mark 10:42; cf 1 Pet 5:3). But WL could ignore such unhelpful parts of the Bible.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

I watched the first few minutes of the video. Culture shock to say the least. I used to be there and counted myself fortunate, like I was in the "inner circle". Getting perfected, so-called, was part of the price of admission.

But perfected to what? To the image of Witness Lee? When I heard the words that his acolytes were so carefully rehearsing in his presence, "The economy of God is to bring forth an organism for the Triune God", it struck me as not entirely wrong, and therefore arguably true in some sense. But so what? I have written hundreds of posts here on this forum, and some of them arguably contain true statements. Does that mean that everyone has to memorize them verbatim?

How much mutuality was on display in that room, in that video? None. Zip. Nada. Not one iota. So where is the opportunity to 'confess your sins to one another'? It simply doesn't exist.

What is strange about the ministry of WL is that his sentences were placed on bulletin boards and memorized, but parts of the Bible that he couldn't line up with his ministry were ignored, as if nonexistent. If he was forced to acknowledge them at all, he'd downplay them as either irrelevant nonessentials or worse, as "low" or "natural" or "fallen men's concepts" or the like. So his ministry wasn't arguably about the Bible at all. It was about the ministry. The Bible was merely a vehicle towards an end; if he couldn't line it up, it was abandoned.

The concept of "the age of spiritual giants is over; now it is the age of small potatoes"... where did that come from? I never heard one Bible verse supporting it. But it was convenient to the ministry so it was pushed upon the local churches. Again I ask, where is the mutuality here?

I remember at one point WL said we should learn from the PRC "Red Guards". Why? Because it seemed to him to be successful. What did it have to do with Christ? Nothing. Jesus even taught, "It should not be this way among you" (Matt 20:25; Mark 10:42; cf 1 Pet 5:3). But WL could ignore such unhelpful parts of the Bible.

Some of the comments posted on that video crack me up: "Who else on earth has spoken like this!? Brother Lee a true apostle of the Living God had a double portion 5 talent Spirit!" What I find sad is that LCers find this teacher/student model of public humiliation (aka "perfecting") to be something completely legitimate. Lee was the supreme leader who always knew best. All others were candidates for his "perfecting".

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

What I find sad is that LCers find this teacher/student model of public humiliation (aka "perfecting") to be something completely legitimate. Lee was the supreme leader who always knew best. All others were candidates for his "perfecting".

Lee's version of the kingdom was, "Me, king; you, dumb." Amazing how many people bought into it, given that it's so blatantly opposed to the word in both spirit and letter.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

When I heard the words that his acolytes were so carefully rehearsing in his presence, "The economy of God is to bring forth an organism for the Triune God", it struck me as not entirely wrong, and therefore arguably true in some sense.

Aron, what you quoted is what I refer to in the local churches as saying a lot to say very little. Phrases like that, there are other words to use in order to connect with brothers and sisters they would resonate with.
I'm sure the intent is not so much to be understood, but to create some distinction and uniqueness apart from the Normal Christian Life.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

What is strange about the ministry of WL is that his sentences were placed on bulletin boards and memorized, but parts of the Bible that he couldn't line up with his ministry were ignored, as if nonexistent. If he was forced to acknowledge them at all, he'd downplay them as either irrelevant nonessentials or worse, as "low" or "natural" or "fallen men's concepts" or the like. So his ministry wasn't arguably about the Bible at all. It was about the ministry. The Bible was merely a vehicle towards an end; if he couldn't line it up, it was abandoned.

I would say the end is New Jerusalem and LSM publications is the vehicle. There is no love, no compassion and no consideration how brothers and sisters are treated because the ends justifies the means. I once heard in the church in Bellevue the brothers speak , "here in the churchlife we don't have to be nice....".
Such is evident.
As for the Bible, portions that cannot measure up to the Economy of God or refers to accountability, etc it's considered natural, low, etc. That's not factual. That's speaking according to one's opinions, hopes, etc. What's factual is all scripture is God breathed. Fine if brother so and so thinks are particular passage is "the low gospel". That's his opinion which is not necessarily mine.
The so-called low gospel is very much needed in the local churches, because the brothers are out of touch when it comes to loving your neighbor as yourself....
Is it any wonder the speaking coming from the LSM pulpit reminds me of 1 Corinthians 13:1?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

I once heard in the church in Bellevue the brothers speak , "here in the churchlife we don't have to be nice....".
Such is evident.

He got that part right. Is it any wonder there are so many "offenses" in the LC? That video shows how the LC works. Whatever brother is in charge has the license to say or do what he wants, all others must submit and take the punches as they come.

Lets say that brother James really was a bad translator and he had volunteered to translate for Lee. If that was the case then he might owe Lee an apology.

We know that wasn't the case because Lee called him up saying: "James you just read that in your good translation to us..." So Lee knew very well his translation ability, he just wanted to make an example of him, and then later on he says: "so surely you are not a good translator..." So what was Lee's purpose? To discredit this brother? For Lee to reinforce his role as commander in charge? All of the above? I'll tell you what, had that been me that happened to, I would not have taken that from Lee.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Freedom

He got that part right. Is it any wonder there are so many "offenses" in the LC? That video shows how the LC works. Whatever brother is in charge has the license to say or do what he wants, all others must submit and take the punches as they come.

Lets say that brother James really was a bad translator and he had volunteered to translate for Lee. If that was the case then he might owe Lee an apology.

We know that wasn't the case because Lee called him up saying: "James you just read that in your good translation to us..." So Lee knew very well his translation ability, he just wanted to make an example of him, and then later on he says: "so surely you are not a good translator..." So what was Lee's purpose? To discredit this brother? For Lee to reinforce his role as commander in charge? All of the above? I'll tell you what, had that been me that happened to, I would not have taken that from Lee.

I can only perceive of three scenarios where I would be intimidated by WL: 1) I believed WL really was a unique vessel appointed by God to be the minister of the age; 2) WL was in control of my salary or status; 3) WL being old was deserving of respect from a oriental perspective.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

He got that part right. Is it any wonder there are so many "offenses" in the LC? That video shows how the LC works. Whatever brother is in charge has the license to say or do what he wants, all others must submit and take the punches as they come.

Lets say that brother James really was a bad translator and he had volunteered to translate for Lee. If that was the case then he might owe Lee an apology.

We know that wasn't the case because Lee called him up saying: "James you just read that in your good translation to us..." So Lee knew very well his translation ability, he just wanted to make an example of him, and then later on he says: "so surely you are not a good translator..." So what was Lee's purpose? To discredit this brother? For Lee to reinforce his role as commander in charge? All of the above? I'll tell you what, had that been me that happened to, I would not have taken that from Lee.

As bad as it was, it really was a mild case. Notice the ingredients. Three parties always present. Perfector, perfectee, willing audience. The power is wielded via the laughing audience. The humbled perfectee like a dog without dignity. The mighty perfector making an example out of every perceived flaw. No one dared to ever come to the perfectee's side, rather relieved that someone else, anyone else, is in the hot seat. Such was LC "entertainment."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No one dared to ever come to the perfectee's side, rather relieved that someone else, anyone else, is in the hot seat. Such was LC "entertainment."

And I find the lack of reciprocity or mutuality to be glaring. Everyone laughs when the perfecting one points out the flaws of the trainee. But what if someone, anyone, dared suggest that anything coming from the perfector was "not so good"? Any footnote, any comment, any "flow", any "leading", any outline section, any phrase? Watch how quickly the laughter dries up and everyone freezes with fear. No!! The perfectees must not question God's Oracle, God's Deputy! Don't be "negative"!!

How can anyone "confess your sins one to another" in such an environment? How can anyone "be subject one to another"? Impossible: the lack of mutuality forbids it.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

As bad as it was, it really was a mild case. Notice the ingredients. Three parties always present. Perfector, perfectee, willing audience. The power is wielded via the laughing audience. The humbled perfectee like a dog without dignity. The mighty perfector making an example out of every perceived flaw. No one dared to ever come to the perfectee's side, rather relieved that someone else, anyone else, is in the hot seat. Such was LC "entertainment."

I guess I might find that video to be a little more shocking than most here. I never saw Lee speak in person, so I never got to witness his "perfecting" first hand. I have only experienced the more subtle types of perfecting that go on. Lee did set the precedent of perfecting in the LC. Perfecting someone usually involves being nit-picky about what someone says. I know I've been corrected for saying "Chinese saints" instead of "Chinese speaking saints". Whats the difference? I don't see the big deal.

It is all too easy to point out flaws in other people. If someone is in a position of leadership and they commonly point out other people's flaws, it really reinforces their position of superiority, unless their subordinates are willing to call them out for who they really are.

Originally Posted by aron

And I find the lack of reciprocity or mutuality to be glaring. Everyone laughs when the perfecting one points out the flaws of the trainee. But what if someone, anyone, dared suggest that anything coming from the perfector was "not so good"? Any footnote, any comment, any "flow", any "leading", any outline section, any phrase? Watch how quickly the laughter dries up and everyone freezes with fear. No!! The perfectees must not question God's Oracle, God's Deputy! Don't be "negative"!!

How can anyone "confess your sins one to another" in such an environment? How can anyone "be subject one to another"? Impossible: the lack of mutuality forbids it.

Lee certainly owed this brother an apology for how he treated him, but obviously everyone was paralyzed in fear, so no one would dare speak out. In a meeting where members of the audience are called upon, there should be an expectation that there will be mutuality. Not so in the LC.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Lee certainly owed this brother an apology for how he treated him, but obviously everyone was paralyzed in fear, so no one would dare speak out. In a meeting where members of the audience are called upon, there should be an expectation that there will be mutuality. Not so in the LC.

True. I would add there is the pretense of mutuality. That's what is spoken, prophesied, etc. Yet when it comes down to practicing mutuality, it is not so. Rather with the deputy authorities, when it comes to expecting mutuality in fellowship, instead expect to be figuratively sucker-punched.
Not until one is blindsided does one realize there is no mutuality in the local churches. Rather it's a matter learning too late to dance with LSM phraseology.