Stumbling

[TLFisher]

Something I have considered about stumbling, it's not only by what we speak or what we do, but by silence of not speaking when we should or not taking action when we should.
I have read accounts of ones on this forum such as Awoken and Indiana who were stumbled, not because elders did or spoke something to them, but by ignoring them when fellowship was sought.

For the lips of a priest should preserve knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. But as for you, you have turned aside from the way; you have caused many to stumble by the instruction; you have corrupted the covenant of Levi,” says the Lord of hosts. “So I also have made you despised and abased before all the people, just as you are not keeping My ways but are showing partiality in the instruction. Malachi 2:7-9

Now if a person sins after he hears a public adjuration to testify when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt. Leviticus 5:1

Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin. James 4:17

[Freedom]

I'm not sure if Lee ever said anything to explicitly develop his take on "stumbling" others, however, I've seen an interesting view on what those in the LC consider to constitute "stumbling" someone. It usually comes in the form of someone saying: "oh don't do that you might stumble someone". Usually no specific reason is given as to why some action might stumble someone. Most often, I've seen this type of logic applied to arbitrary actions that someone may not want a fellow LCer to engage in.

On the flip side, it is good to consider what really stumbles people in the LC. I think it's safe to say that LCers who live in fear of taking initiative because it might "stumble" someone are not the real people who are out there stumbling others.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

On the flip side, it is good to consider what really stumbles people in the LC. I think it's safe to say that LCers who live in fear of taking initiative because it might "stumble" someone are not the real people who are out there stumbling others.

Last locality I met with, I brought it up with an elder how prophesying is used to put down non-LSM churches. Someone who's visiting might be stumbled by it. For myself, that's why I choose to find another place for my family and I to fellowship. Yes, you could say that type of speaking stumbled me. I was thankful my wife didn't have to hear it being in another room with the children.
Most who consider speaking something might issue in stumbling are not the ones stumbling. Following is from James 3:

For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well. Now if we put the bits into the horses’ mouths so that they will obey us, we direct their entire body as well. Look at the ships also, though they are so great and are driven by strong winds, are still directed by a very small rudder wherever the inclination of the pilot desires. So also the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it boasts of great things.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I'm not sure if Lee ever said anything to explicitly develop his take on "stumbling" others, however, I've seen an interesting view on what those in the LC consider to constitute "stumbling" someone. It usually comes in the form of someone saying: "oh don't do that you might stumble someone". Usually no specific reason is given as to why some action might stumble someone. Most often, I've seen this type of logic applied to arbitrary actions that someone may not want a fellow LCer to engage in.

Why was it that LSM never cared about stumbling "the least of My brothers" when devising their pathetic plans to quarantine others? Yet, when confronting others' actions, they are so quick to bring up the plight of the least of the saints?

LSM, from beginning to end, has conclusively proven that they care only for themselves, and no other LC or individual.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

For we all stumble in many ways.

That's one of the most profound things I've heard anyone say that was not named Jesus Christ. "For we all stumble in many ways." Witness Lee stumbled in many ways. James stumbled in many ways. I and the other posters here on this forum have stumbled in many ways. "For we all stumble in many ways... and the tongue, so easily activated, stumbles so greatly! What a great body a little member can direct!"

The problem, here, was not that Witness Lee stumbled in many ways. It was that we built up a system in which Witness Lee couldn't seem to stumble in any way. We had to cover the drunken Noah! We had to exclaim, "Even when he's wrong he's right!" We had to take things like Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, which had more curses than a drunken sailor, as if it were from the mouth of God.

The root of the problem, to me, wasn't megalomania but a culture that encouraged megalomania to take root and grow. A culture in which, for the sake of the harmonious functioning of the body, the Maximum Brother, the Vicar of Christ, the Deputy Authority, or whatever term given, has to be exempt from James' dictum. And the result of that was ruin.

Now, the Exclusive Bretheren (EB) effectively did this with Taylor, the RCC does this with the Pope, and so forth. Why is it noteworthy here? Perhaps because the inherent values of its native culture allowed such nonsense to grow virulently. When EB teachings hit China through Watchman Nee, they found a receptive soil to take root, grow, flourish, and bear fruit. Today, many thousands in the PRC consider Witness Lee to be (a) god. How many Catholics do that to their Pope? Or EB to their Mr. Taylor or Mr. Hales? Few, if any. But human exaltation really took off in the "virgin soil" of Asian culture: the coherence of the whole society was understood to be dependent upon its orientation toward the Maximum Leader. And the individual only had value in as much as he/she "lined up with the Body". No matter if the Body in question is violating church history, common sense, and plain words of scripture.

We Caucasians swallowed it because it was supposedly divine. But its fruit has been far from divine. No matter how many Bible verses you wave, there are four times as many Bible verses you ignore. And you cannot deny the fruit it's borne (why they don't want you to read the unvarnished history). Back to James' point: what a great Body, the Body of Christ, such a little member like Witness Lee was able to stumble! It's a cautionary tale for all.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why was it that LSM never cared about stumbling "the least of My brothers" ... LSM, from beginning to end, has conclusively proven that they care only for themselves, and no other LC or individual.

When LSM does it to you, it is a correction, a reproof, and a teaching. But when you do it to them, it is an attack, an accusation, and a stumbling.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

Now if a person sins after he hears a public adjuration to testify when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt. Leviticus 5:1

Often in the local churches the concept of stumbling is by what you say or what you do. There is not the consideration when you remain silent or withhold something for benefit of another.

Following is a portion of Watchman Nee's ministry that is related to stumbling.

"We tell others what we like and keep silent about what we do not like. We speak about what is profitable to us and keep silent about things that are not profitable to us. This is also a kind of lying. Many people purposely withhold half of a story. They withhold the things that are profitable to others, especially things that are profitable to their enemies, and remain silent about them. Instead, they talk about things that hurt, damage, or bring loss to others. This is lying. Many people do not speak according to truth and reality, but according to their own likes and dislikes. Many words are not based on facts but on sentiments. Such people speak certain things because they like to speak them, or they speak about certain persons because they like them. They change their tone when the conversation turns to people or things they do not like. This kind of speaking is totally according to one's likes and dislikes. It is speaking according to one's emotion, not according to truth and reality. Please keep in mind that this is lying. Inaccurate words are a serious sin. Willful deception is even more serious, and it is a greater sin before God. We must not speak according to our emotion but according to facts. Either we must not speak at all, or we must speak according to facts and the truth. We cannot speak according to our feeling. If we do, we are lying willfully before God."

To withhold or to remain silent is a type of lying that could result in stumbling.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

"We tell others what we like and keep silent about what we do not like. We speak about what is profitable to us and keep silent about things that are not profitable to us. This is also a kind of lying. Many people purposely withhold half of a story. They withhold the things that are profitable to others, especially things that are profitable to their enemies, and remain silent about them. Instead, they talk about things that hurt, damage, or bring loss to others. This is lying. Many people do not speak according to truth and reality, but according to their own likes and dislikes. Many words are not based on facts but on sentiments. Such people speak certain things because they like to speak them, or they speak about certain persons because they like them. They change their tone when the conversation turns to people or things they do not like. This kind of speaking is totally according to one's likes and dislikes. It is speaking according to one's emotion, not according to truth and reality. Please keep in mind that this is lying. Inaccurate words are a serious sin. Willful deception is even more serious, and it is a greater sin before God. We must not speak according to our emotion but according to facts. Either we must not speak at all, or we must speak according to facts and the truth. We cannot speak according to our feeling. If we do, we are lying willfully before God."

When I read these kinds of quotes from Nee and Lee, I have to wonder to myself if they really meant what they said. I would certainly hope so. Sad to say, the current attitude in the LC is completely contrary to what was spoken in the above quote. I have been conditioned to keep my mouth shut. If I don't agree with what is spoken, I keep my mouth shut. If I don't agree with what I'm asked to do, I keep my mouth shut and find a way to remove myself from the situation. Because of the stigma of disagreeing or expressing a different opinion, the simplest answer seems to be to keep my mouth shut.

[UntoHim]

Where is anything from this Nee quote directly related to the Bible? Not one verse is quoted. And there is a reason that not one verse is quoted - because Nee was not speaking from a biblical perspective but rather from some perspective apart from the Bible. What that perspective was is anybody's guess. The man has been dead and gone for about 43 years now and we will never know what he was actually talking about. This quote sounds more like Confusious than anything in the Bible.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Where is anything from this Nee quote directly related to the Bible? Not one verse is quoted. And there is a reason that not one verse is quoted - because Nee was not speaking from a biblical perspective but rather from some perspective apart from the Bible. What that perspective was is anybody's guess. The man has been dead and gone for about 43 years now and we will never know what he was actually talking about. This quote sounds more like Confusious than anything in the Bible.

And this is the reason that I have been harping on the lack of scripture in both Nee, and especially Lee's messages/books. They "litter" their words with scripture for a portion. We are captured by the amount of references from all over the place. But when it comes to actually providing some real meat to their message, the scripture is suddenly missing. It has gone AWOL. But because we have seen a lot of scripture, it never dawned on us that what is now being said had no connection to any scripture, unless you count that the last 30 minutes has been full of scripture that has nothing to do with the present speaking — speaking that is the reason the whole message/chapter is there for our consideration.

But we didn't consider. We were too snowed by the awesome amount of scripture. Too bad it so often really had nothing to do with the message.

And instead we get their elevation of the Chinese/Oriental culture. I am not saying that there is anything particularly wrong with Chinese culture. Just like American culture it has its strong points and its weak points. But neither is simply God's way. Both are man's way.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Where is anything from this Nee quote directly related to the Bible? Not one verse is quoted.

Certainly it would help to know what part of scripture is Nee basing his words on. As for my post scripture I quoted in regard to Nee's quote was Leviticus 5:1

"Now if a person sins after he hears a public adjuration to testify when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt."

When Watchman Nee said "Many people purposely withhold half of a story", does that not apply to what the Blended brothers have been doing the past 25 years?
It is evident in Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. It is evident in Sacrifice and Sail On.
Just as Ananias and Sapphira withheld a portion for themselves (Acts 5), the blended brothers have been withholding also.
Because accounts of the turmoils have been purposely withheld, local elders, deacons, etc have been believing only half for the past 25 years.

How many brothers and sisters were stumbled by the coworkers lack of transparency?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Certainly it would help to know what part of scripture is Nee basing his words on. As for my post scripture I quoted in regard to Nee's quote was Leviticus 5:1

"Now if a person sins after he hears a public adjuration to testify when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt."

When Watchman Nee said "Many people purposely withhold half of a story", does that not apply to what the Blended brothers have been doing the past 25 years?
It is evident in Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. It is evident in Sacrifice and Sail On.
Just as Ananias and Sapphira withheld a portion for themselves (Acts 5), the blended brothers have been withholding also.
Because accounts of the turmoils have been purposely withheld, local elders, deacons, etc have been believing only half for the past 25 years.

How many brothers and sisters were stumbled by the coworkers lack of transparency?

We probably will never know how many were stumbled. What I think is safe to say is that if all those in the LC were made aware of the truth in regards to some of these things, many would be stumbled at how it was all covered up.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

And we didn't consider. We were too snowed by the awesome amount of scripture. Too bad it so often really had nothing to do with the message.

And instead we get their elevation of the Chinese/Oriental culture. I am not saying that there is anything particularly wrong with Chinese culture. Just like American culture it has its strong points and its weak points. But neither is simply God's way. Both are man's way.

I think we're all partly "holistic" and partly "reductionistic/linear". Certainly Descartes' reductionist methodology became hugely influential in Western thinking, and is rightly credited for the great advances in science, technology, and ensuing prosperity. But the "holistic" approach, where the inscrutable wise man utters some aphorism to his "grasshopper", to reference the tv series Kung Fu, is also attractive. The dawn of the environmental crisis, racial tensions, unpopular war, and gender crisis/feminism of the '60s made us aware of the shortcomings of the Descartian model, where we'd put everything into atomistic "parts" boxes while ignoring the whole. And the Nee model with his holistic vision of the "church" and the loosely jointed logical constructions within captivated our attentions. And we didn't look too closely at those loose constructions. There were Bible verses and there were statements, and they didn't always match, or match consistently, but who cares -- "It's the church!!"

But we didn't realize that it wasn't "simply God's way... it was man's way." Now we're beginning to appreciate that with more clarity. I think that in the continued open discussion, objective reality is beginning to emerge. Like the Bible says, "here a little, there a little." (Isa 28:10)