NIGEL TOMES: LSM’s ‘Authority & Submission’ Tampers with the Trinity

[UntoHim]

LSM’s ‘Authority & Submission’ Tampers with the Trinity
Watchman Nee’s Eternal Subordination Error

PDF File posted below
**If anybody knows who to post the entire document in it's native format into the forum as a post,
please feel free to do this at your earliest convenience.**

-

[Drake]

This article by Nigel Tomes could have provided clarity to an interesting and important subject. Unfortunately, he quickly reverts to leaps of logic, faulty reasoning, and inaccurate representations.

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

This article by Nigel Tomes could have provided clarity to an interesting and important subject. Unfortunately, he quickly reverts to leaps of logic, faulty reasoning, and inaccurate representations.

Provide an example for our consideration. Otherwise your comment is without actual point. Just a generic claim with no substance.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by OBW

Provide an example for our consideration. Otherwise your comment is without actual point. Just a generic claim with no substance.

Generic perhaps but not without substance.

I'm glad you asked because I was willing to let it go at that thinking it might just be me. But since you forced me to think about it.....

Like the articles found in the Washington Post I know a hit piece when I read one. I have seen many hit pieces from the economic professor Tomes and this is but another one of his twisted weaves.

And there is merit to looking at the forest and not just the trees. For example, a view of the forest in this case is taking EFS and the heretical implications of it and then slapping that label on Watchman Nee without ever proving Watchman Nee embraced EFS. Then he quotes someone who argues that anyone who believes in EFS must be a heretic because the essential Trinity would be changed and yet he never proves that the economical Trinity is limited to the starting point of incarnation or time. Then he makes it sound as if his sources are addressing Watchman Nee directly but he did not show that either. He also tees up Witness Lee to appear to disagree with Watchman Nee's view on authority and submission but explains this through innuendo as if there were problems with it.

And then of course, he never provides a comparison of authority and submission teachings but prefers to take the easy way out by simply dismissing it and thereby apparently avoiding aN obvious universal truth. Does anyone who believes in God think this does not exist outside of the economical Trinity? On this point he apparently has views as applied to gender relationships but doesn't develop this to prove the point. Maybe he knows what a landmine looks like and prefers to sidestep it. He never explains his personal view in this article on that point, maybe elsewhere.

This type of thinking works for economics with so many variables that most things need not and cannot be proven, just argued and so the adage that if you stack all the economists end to end they would never reach agreement. Yet, this does not work so well for theological dissertations. I'm sure Dr. Tomes is a genius in his field of training but not this one.

Anyway, his papers look authentic and educational but when you step back and look at the forest, and not just circular path he takes the reader on, through the bramble bushes, across the creek, up the cliff, over hill, over dale then a twisted matrix of trails emerge seemingly related but not necessary parts of a whole.

But that is just my "generic" view.

Having said that I am certain that this article will be a big hit here. Most will scarf it up!

Thanks for asking.

Drake

[Indiana]

)L

Originally Posted by Drake

This article by Nigel Tomes could have provided clarity to an interesting and important subject. Unfortunately, he quickly reverts to leaps of logic, faulty reasoning, and inaccurate representations.

Drake

Hi Drake. Speaking of faulty reasoning and inaccurate representations, I gave you opportunity to critique my website lordsrecovery.us and you agreed to do it. But did not get back to me. But then neither did Ron Kangas when I asked him to explain himself after his false representation of me publicly in an international conference. Neither has any blending brother or elder been able to explain to me or to the churches why I am not received by them in the churches.

Nigel accurately exposed a wrong teaching by Nee on Noah's curse. He explained accurately also why LSM needed to correct this error in their publications. They have ignored him. But that exposure of a clearly inaccurate teaching of Nee's caused me to look closely at LC teaching on the covering of Noah, which is a teaching that bolsters their idea of authority and submission, which has bred the most destructive practice in the LC and borne its most egregious fruit. And, it all began with Nee in Shanghai in his post-suspension ministry when spiritual authority was foremost on his mind, and submission to it was imperative.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Generic perhaps but not without substance.

I'm glad you asked because I was willing to let it go at that thinking it might just be me. But since you forced me to think about it.....

Like the articles found in the Washington Post I know a hit piece when I read one. I have seen many hit pieces from the economic professor Tomes and this is but another one of his twisted weaves.

But that is just my "generic" view.

Having said that I am certain that this article will be a big hit here. Most will scarf it up!

Thanks for asking.

Drake

The closest thing I know to the Washington Post is all the "hit pieces" on afaithfulworddotcom during the quarantines of Titus Chu, Nigel Tomes, etc.

LSM invented FAKE NEWS even before WaPo, NYT, and the MSM made it popular.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Indiana

)L

Hi Drake. Speaking of faulty reasoning and inaccurate representations, I gave you opportunity to critique my website lordsrecovery.us and you agreed to do it. But did not get back to me. But then neither did Ron Kangas when I asked him to explain himself after his false representation of me publicly in an international conference. Neither has any blending brother or elder been able to explain to me or to the churches why I am not received by them in the churches.

Nigel accurately exposed a wrong teaching by Nee on Noah's curse. He explained accurately also why LSM needed to correct this error in their publications. They have ignored him. But that exposure of a clearly inaccurate teaching of Nee's caused me to look closely at LC teaching on the covering of Noah, which is a teaching that bolsters their idea of authority and submission, which has bred the most destructive practice in the LC and borne its most egregious fruit. And, it all began with Nee in Shanghai in his post-suspension ministry when spiritual authority was foremost on his mind, and submission to it was imperative.

Brother Nigel,

It is said that the best way to help people understand the problem of radical Islam is to inform them of the true character of their leader, Mohammed. We can learn about him and their belief system by studying carefully his thoughts and practices - since their belief system originated with him, his ideas, and his actions.

A current co-worker with Stephen Kaung (former Nee coworker) points out that the Bible is a truthful book revealing the true condition of God's people - including its leaders!

“......Thus, we see the twelve forefathers of the Israelite nation born from such a chaotic and disarrayed family situation (Jacob's). Usually when we talk about our ancestors we always speak of them in such grandiose and mystical fashion. The Chinese always praise virtue and conceal evil, so no matter how horrid our ancestor was you never speak of it; you only mention their greatness. Thank God that the Bible is the only honest thing. I’ve read much history and autobiographies, never was there a book more truthful than the Bible. The Holy Spirit recorded everything just as it was. Even as people we always try to show the good and conceal the bad, we wish for others to see our good side: how we love the Lord, how wonderful and blissful our family is. The Bible isn’t so, it tells it like it is, this is how real the Bible is. Many religious books are so hypocritical, they obscure the evils. Thank our God for the Bible is the most truthful book.
"In reality, the history of the Israelite forefathers was so despicable and unsightly. Brothers and sisters, when the Lord Jesus was on earth He was true and He desires for us to be as well: if it is, then let it be so. We ought to be honest, there’s no need to be fake or hypocritical. But I also understand that if we are completely real, we’ll likely offend others, and if we see something good in others we like to compliment them. We all enjoy this type of treatment, but the Bible says otherwise. Some may find it amusing when they read about Jacob’s family, but it is imperative for us to see the honesty and truth behind it. The Bible describes some events in great detail so that we may understand the true condition.”

Some thoughts:

Not many in the Local Churches would think that Watchman Nee could have been seriously wrong in any of his teachings or impure in motive or intention in any significant way in the church life; yet, our concepts about our Local Church "father" were greatly altered when we heard about the Watchman Nee that Lily Hsu knew in Shanghai.

The exposure of his over-the-top teachings on authority and submission were eye-opening to me and I felt that his exposure would be key to understanding their history, and certain crucial problems that plague them today.

Your exposure of his exposition on Noah's curse opens the way for full examination of his teaching on the covering of Noah, which is a major component of his teachings on submission to deputy authority.

Now, his teaching you brought up on the triune God becomes the penultimate and leading error to address on the weightiest of issues - authority and submission in the Local Churches.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Not many in the Local Churches would think that Watchman Nee could have been seriously wrong in any of his teachings or impure in motive or intention in any significant way in the church life; yet, our concepts about our Local Church "father" were greatly altered when we heard about the Watchman Nee that Lily Hsu knew in Shanghai.

The exposure of his over-the-top teachings on authority and submission were eye-opening to me and I felt that his exposure would be key to understanding their history, and certain crucial problems that plague them today.

Your exposure of his exposition on Noah's curse opens the way for full examination of his teaching on the covering of Noah, which is a major component of his teachings on submission to deputy authority.

Now, his teaching you brought up on the triune God becomes the penultimate and leading error to address on the weightiest of issues - authority and submission in the Local Churches.

So true. An analogy would be to take a mathematical formula believed to be true, but is faulty. As you apply the formula, you're led into error. Same applies to the teaching and practices of deputy authority, you're led into error.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

Generic perhaps but not without substance.

I'm glad you asked because I was willing to let it go at that thinking it might just be me. But since you forced me to think about it.....

Like the articles found in the Washington Post I know a hit piece when I read one. I have seen many hit pieces from the economic professor Tomes and this is but another one of his twisted weaves.

And there is merit to looking at the forest and not just the trees. . . .

I would agree that sometimes there is something in the forest that is not seen tree-by-tree.

But when you are trying to determine the value of something as significant as the line of reasoning that Nee used to put A&S/SA into the Christian landscape, it is worthwhile to actually see where he starts and how he goes through it. If you simply note that it seems spiritual, or that it "hangs together," that might not be enough. I did some significant review of the first couple of chapters several years ago and came to see that if you just brush through the first chapters and accept the little that they say as true, the rest follows. But if you take the time to ask whether that little in the first chapters is actually sound (logically, grammatically, spiritually, biblically, etc.) there were some problems that had to be overcome to continue on to the rest of it. And without those chapters and their groundwork, you never get to rest.

Besides, when you insist on viewing it from 40,000 feet, you miss that there are details that just aren't quite right. Like declaring that no one had the position to complain or do anything about certain persons because they had some "position." Only God could deal with them. That is simply not true. The Bible is full of stands against that.

But if you start by agreeing that the declaration that there is "authority and submission" in the verses in chapter 1 of the book, then you have bought Nee's false word substitution.

And it is in the trees. You need to show why the first chapter is even correct before you get to the rest. It is because authority and submission is given such a high and lofty place that Nee goes on to chapter 2. And then what is in chapter 2 is so important that you can now go on to chapter 3. If you are just taking it all in isolation without any critical thinking, then it probably is cohesive and has a good "forest" kind of effect. But when you start at the entrance to the forest and find pine beetles attacking the pines, and labels on the Aspens declaring them to be White Oak, then you begin to wonder if you are following a marine biologist on a fact-finding trip through the woods. He may make it all fit together and look pretty, but it is full of factual errors. He may think the beetles are simply symbiotic with the trees. And that anything with a white bark is a White Oak.

And that coconuts are migratory.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

So true. An analogy would be to take a mathematical formula believed to be true, but is faulty. As you apply the formula, you're led into error. Same applies to the teaching and practices of deputy authority, you're led into error.

And the problem with the teachings of Nee and Lee is that they too often cannot make the scripture support what they want to say, so they find an analogy that fits what they want. They tricked us into thinking that if there is an analogy that supports it, then it must be true.

But there are analogies that support evil. And support gross error. Analogies are only useful in demonstrating what you already have determined to be true. They are not evidence that it is true. I doubt that they thought of what they were doing in that way. But the effect was to say something was true, but rather than actually support it soundly from the Bible, they provided an analogy. Proves nothing. Supports nothing.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would agree that sometimes there is something in the forest that is not seen tree-by-tree.

But when you are trying to determine the value of something as significant as the line of reasoning that Nee used to put Authority and Submission and Spiritual Authority into the Christian landscape, it is worthwhile to actually see where he starts and how he goes through it. If you simply note that it seems spiritual, or that it "hangs together," that might not be enough. I did some significant review of the first couple of chapters several years ago and came to see that if you just brush through the first chapters and accept the little that they say as true, the rest follows. But if you take the time to ask whether that little in the first chapters is actually sound (logically, grammatically, spiritually, biblically, etc.) there were some problems that had to be overcome to continue on to the rest of it. And without those chapters and their groundwork, you never get to the rest.

Besides, when you insist on viewing it from 40,000 feet, you miss that there are details that just aren't quite right. Like declaring that no one had the position to complain or do anything about certain persons because they had some "position." Only God could deal with them. That is simply not true. The Bible is full of stands against that.

But if you start by agreeing that the declaration that there is "authority and submission" in the verses in chapter 1 of the book, then you have bought Nee's false word substitution.

And it is in the trees. You need to show why the first chapter is even correct before you get to the rest. It is because authority and submission is given such a high and lofty place that Nee goes on to chapter 2. And then what is in chapter 2 is so important that you can now go on to chapter 3. If you are just taking it all in isolation without any critical thinking, then it probably is cohesive and has a good "forest" kind of effect. But when you start at the entrance to the forest and find pine beetles attacking the pines, and labels on the Aspens declaring them to be White Oak, then you begin to wonder if you are following a marine biologist on a fact-finding trip through the woods. He may make it all fit together and look pretty, but it is full of factual errors. He may think the beetles are simply symbiotic with the trees. And that anything with a white bark is a White Oak.

And that coconuts are migratory.

Such careful and critical thinking as this will bring a highly controversial subject into the light.


This is from Nell 2015 on a thread she started called "The Sin of Noah?".

[QUOTE=Nell;42909][SIZE="2"]Genesis 9:18-27
18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

(Nell continued)
I recently took another look at these verses and I would like to make a few observations about what the verses actually say.

Rather than “deputy authority” the verses are the obvious account of an interaction between a father and his sons…it's a family matter.

“The sin of Noah”? This passage does not contain the word “sin”. The Bible doesn’t call what Noah did “sin”. He and his family were just off the boat and the earth had been wiped clean. He was apparently new to the vineyard business. What these verses discuss may have occurred at Noah's first harvest of wine when he drank too much and it put him to sleep. Then, he was uncovered “within his tent”.

Speaking to "deputy authority", Noah may have been uncovered in his tent, but to the outside world, Noah was covered ... by his tent.

He didn’t go bar-hopping. He didn’t go out carousing around with the boys, get drunk and take his clothes off. He was drunk and naked in the privacy of his own tent. Since the Bible doesn’t call it sin, should we presume to call sin what the Bible does not? Even though sin is implied, is there enough evidence to convict? Since it is not specifically stated in the Word, Noah's actions could have been unintentional so I can give him the benefit of the doubt.

Noah’s son Ham saw his father’s nakedness and went out and talked about it to his brothers. Shem and Japheth respected their father by simply covering him up. If there is a lesson to these verses, IMHO, here it is. In a family, you’re always going to see things you wish you hadn’t seen. There will be things you don’t want to see. In a family, “nakedness” is always a possibility. Parents aren’t perfect and their behavior will be exposed to the children. Of course, this doesn't excuse bad or sinful behavior of parents toward young children. In this passage though, Noah's sons are adults, so that's the context I'm addressing......

Nell

There was some more to her sharing, but what she has shared shows that she isn't just accepting Nee's line of reasoning but has made "observations about what the verses actually say", and what they don't say.

"When you are trying to determine the value of something as significant as the line of reasoning that Nee used to put Authority and Submission and Spiritual Authority into the Christian landscape, it is worthwhile to actually see where he starts and how he goes through it."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

And the problem with the teachings of Nee and Lee is that they too often cannot make the scripture support what they want to say, so they find an analogy that fits what they want. They tricked us into thinking that if there is an analogy that supports it, then it must be true.

Just like the Noah analogy. Just as Noah should be covered, "the brothers" should be covered. What that amounts to is any issues are covered over and become hidden.
Quite contrary we have the Nathan/David analogy that is conveniently glossed over. It doesn't support what the ministry wants to say or do because it doesn't support the deputy authority principle.

[Drake]

OBW ". But if you take the time to ask whether that little in the first chapters is actually sound (logically, grammatically, spiritually, biblically, etc.) there were some problems that had to be overcome to continue on to the rest of it. "

So you disagree that in the whole universe only God is authority.

Is that right?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

OBW ". But if you take the time to ask whether that little in the first chapters is actually sound (logically, grammatically, spiritually, biblically, etc.) there were some problems that had to be overcome to continue on to the rest of it. "

So you disagree that in the whole universe only God is authority.

Is that right?

Drake

So predictable, Drake.

Either we accept Nee's and Lee's extreme Chinese views on submission, or we must be like anarchists believing "in the whole universe only God is authority."

The Bible, my friend, is balanced and between those two extremes.

[Evangelical]

There is only one authority, of the Father, as there is only one God. If we speak of multiple authorities, i.e. each person of the Trinity having an authority of their own, this is tri-theism.

The Bible says the authority the Son has is given to Him by the Father. If one person gives another person authority, then obviously the person from whom the authority was given is the higher authority and there is a kind of authority-submission structure.

“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” Matthew 28:18. Jesus did not say "I have all authority". He said "I have been given all authority". Indicating there is one in higher authority to Him, who is the Father.

There is equality in the authority between the Father and the Son only in the sense of the Son and the Father sharing the same authority. However we should keep in mind from whom the authority comes (the Father) and to whom the authority was given (the Son).

The problem for those that do not accept there is authority "structure" in the Trinity is that there are bible verses saying there is and these are self-explanatory:

Matt 8:9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me.

Some bible versions have put this plainly , eg the NLT:

1 Cor 15:28 Then, when all things are under his authority, the Son will put himself under God's authority, so that God, who gave his Son authority over all things, will be utterly supreme over everything everywhere.

So we can understand that the equal authority the Father gave the Son is temporal, it is not eternal. 1 Cor 15:28 indicates the circumstance by which the Son will give up the authority the Father gave Him for a time. There is no bible verse which reverses the situation in 1 Cor 15:28 in a future time. There is no bible verse that says the Son revokes his place of submission under God's authority. Therefore this submission is understood to be eternal.

This authority structure can be understand not as each person of the Trinity having their own authority, but of each person of the Trinity sharing the one authority of the Father. The Father is the source of the authority, and he gives it to the Son. So there is a kind of authority-subjection between the Father and the Son but the Son only has the authority the Father has given him for the purpose of achieving the Father's will.

The problem is some theologians take the Nicene creed too seriously, they use it in a rigid way for which it was never intended. As Lee said, it is incomplete, or, it does not go into such detail, nor is it intended to. They tend to interpret the bible from the Creed, rather than the other way around.

So we are faced with a choice. The Nicene creed speaks of equality between the Persons of the Trinity "in all respects". The bible says otherwise.

The practice of Catholicism and Orthodoxy of holding onto traditions and myths rather than the Scripture, also applies to this issue where the Creeds are elevated to a position above the bible in order to reject what the bible actually says. It is only because of an attempt by Constantine to unite Christianity under one doctrine ie the Nicene Creed, that this matter is even an issue. Without the Creeds, the bible does not say that the Father, Son and Spirit are "equal in all respects". It is impossible to conclude that doctrine from the Scripture alone. If it were, they would have had no need to create the Nicene Creed in 325 AD, and could have pointed to a few bible passages that would resolve the dispute. We should keep in mind that the chief purpose of the Nicene creed was to combat the idea that the Son was a created being.

I note that one citation in the article appeals to church tradition , not Scripture, as a reason for why EFS is wrong, and this is my point:

This way of understanding the immanent Trinity does run counter to the pro Nicene
tradition, as well as the medieval, Reformation, and post-Reformation Reformed traditions that grew
from it. According to traditional Trinitarian theology, the will is predicated of the one undivided essence
[substance, or nature] so that there is only one divine will in the immanent Trinity.”

It is claimed that there is only one divine will in the Trinity yet we find the Son in Luke 22:42 saying "yet not my will..", indicating that the Son has a will independent of the Father, and John 10:18 where Jesus speaks of giving his life voluntarily.

These verses clearly show Christ having an independent will from the Father, and at this moment I believe Christ was still as much a part of the "immanent Trinity" while on the Earth as he was a billion years before.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Such careful and critical thinking as this will bring a highly controversial subject into the light.


This is from Nell 2015 on a thread she started called "The Sin of Noah?".

Genesis 9:18-27
18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

(Nell continued)
I recently took another look at these verses and I would like to make a few observations about what the verses actually say.

Rather than “deputy authority” the verses are the obvious account of an interaction between a father and his sons…it's a family matter.

“The sin of Noah”? This passage does not contain the word “sin”. The Bible doesn’t call what Noah did “sin”. He and his family were just off the boat and the earth had been wiped clean. He was apparently new to the vineyard business. What these verses discuss may have occurred at Noah's first harvest of wine when he drank too much and it put him to sleep. Then, he was uncovered “within his tent”.

Speaking to "deputy authority", Noah may have been uncovered in his tent, but to the outside world, Noah was covered ... by his tent.

He didn’t go bar-hopping. He didn’t go out carousing around with the boys, get drunk and take his clothes off. He was drunk and naked in the privacy of his own tent. Since the Bible doesn’t call it sin, should we presume to call sin what the Bible does not? Even though sin is implied, is there enough evidence to convict? Since it is not specifically stated in the Word, Noah's actions could have been unintentional so I can give him the benefit of the doubt.

Noah’s son Ham saw his father’s nakedness and went out and talked about it to his brothers. Shem and Japheth respected their father by simply covering him up. If there is a lesson to these verses, IMHO, here it is. In a family, you’re always going to see things you wish you hadn’t seen. There will be things you don’t want to see. In a family, “nakedness” is always a possibility. Parents aren’t perfect and their behavior will be exposed to the children. Of course, this doesn't excuse bad or sinful behavior of parents toward young children. In this passage though, Noah's sons are adults, so that's the context I'm addressing......

Nell

There was some more to her sharing, but what she has shared shows that she isn't just accepting Nee's line of reasoning but has made "observations about what the verses actually say", and what they don't say.

"When you are trying to determine the value of something as significant as the line of reasoning that Nee used to put Authority and Submission and Spiritual Authority into the Christian landscape, it is worthwhile to actually see where he starts and how he goes through it."

Concerning the sin? of Noah, I think "uncovering nakedness" means more than merely seeing someone naked and not doing anything about it. So God punished Noah's son quite harshly, merely for seeing their dad in the nude? I think any thinking person would question this view. God surely cannot be so petty, and people at the time surely would not be so prudish.

Verse 24 indicates something much more than simply seeing his father in the nude:

24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

I have perused the Jewish literature about this matter, afterall, the Old Testament is their Scripture.

Interestingly I found views ranging from Noah's son performing some kind of sexual act, to "uncovering Noah's nakedness" to mean sleeping with Noah's wife or even castration.

It is likely that Noah's son took the opportunity to take advantage of Noah's nakedness for sexual purposes, as did Lot's daughters who got him drunk to have sex with him. It was possibly not only Noah's daughters that were incestuous, but also his sons. If this is true, then I think it is appropriate to call it a sin.

If Noah's sons were not that way inclined, then I think Noah's son wishing to castrate him is a plausible view. It is a fact that after this event, Noah had no more children. It was possibly a jealous son who wished to do something to his father to ensure that he did not have any more sibling rivals. The view is such that Noah cursed Ham by his fourth son Canaan, because Ham must have injured Noah with respect to a fourth son.

There is a possibility of scripture tampering - making a very shocking event sound better by referring to it as "uncovering nakedness". In reality it could have been incest or castration. Hence the apparent jump between the crime? or "sin" and the punishment.

If this is true, then Nee's view on this passage as applying to deputy authority and submission is really blown out of proportion. It's possible that it has nothing to do with exposing Noah's sins, but about what the sons did to him which was far far worse.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Concerning the sin? of Noah, I think "uncovering nakedness" means more than merely seeing someone naked and not doing anything about it. So God punished Noah's son quite harshly, merely for seeing their dad in the nude? I think any thinking person would question this view. God surely cannot be so petty, and people at the time surely would not be so prudish.

Verse 24 indicates something much more than simply seeing his father in the nude:

24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

I have perused the Jewish literature about this matter, afterall, the Old Testament is their Scripture.

Interestingly I found views ranging from Noah's son performing some kind of sexual act, to "uncovering Noah's nakedness" to mean sleeping with Noah's wife or even castration.

It is likely that Noah's son took the opportunity to take advantage of Noah's nakedness for sexual purposes, as did Lot's daughters who got him drunk to have sex with him. It was possibly not only Noah's daughters that were incestuous, but also his sons. If this is true, then I think it is appropriate to call it a sin.

If Noah's sons were not that way inclined, then I think Noah's son wishing to castrate him is a plausible view. It is a fact that after this event, Noah had no more children. It was possibly a jealous son who wished to do something to his father to ensure that he did not have any more sibling rivals. The view is such that Noah cursed Ham by his fourth son Canaan, because Ham must have injured Noah with respect to a fourth son.

There is a possibility of scripture tampering - making a very shocking event sound better by referring to it as "uncovering nakedness". In reality it could have been incest or castration. Hence the apparent jump between the crime? or "sin" and the punishment.

If this is true, then Nee's view on this passage as applying to deputy authority and submission is really blown out of proportion. It's possible that it has nothing to do with exposing Noah's sins, but about what the sons did to him which was far far worse.

All speculation here.

Same as Nee's teachings on Noah, i.e. authority and submission.

Our theology should not be based on speculations, inferences, and theories, but on the plain words of scripture, especially those O.T. stories referenced in the N.T.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Ohio

All speculation here.

Same as Nee's teachings on Noah, i.e. authority and submission.

Our theology should not be based on speculations, inferences, and theories, but on the plain words of scripture, especially those O.T. stories referenced in the N.T.

Hi Ohio,

It seems you responded the same way, initially, when Watchman Nee was first exposed; but, later even the hardest core reader was convinced by the facts presented in, My Unforgettable Memories: Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church.

Genesis 9 is a mystery. But this does not mean that we let two men conjecture for us what this chapter is about. Many expositors throughout the centuries, and today, studied this chapter and came up with much different results than did Nee and Lee, and I think their material is worthy of our perusal and also our thoughtful consideration.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

All speculation here.

Same as Nee's teachings on Noah, i.e. authority and submission.

Our theology should not be based on speculations, inferences, and theories, but on the plain words of scripture, especially those O.T. stories referenced in the N.T.

I think the Jewish oral traditions add value on such passages. Plain literal interpretation of the bible is not always correct. This is why we have bible versions that are nonliteral and yet are more accurate in meaning than the literal ones.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think the Jewish oral traditions add value on such passages. Plain literal interpretation of the bible is not always correct. This is why we have bible versions that are nonliteral and yet are more accurate in meaning than the literal ones.

Evangelical, let me remind you of the obvious -- none of the Bible's major teachings are based on historical language-specific idioms.

The recovery, however, is quite different. MOTA authoritative leadership and member submissions to that authority are based on spurious interpretations of the Noah story carefully crafted by Nee and Lee. Apostle Paul rightfully calls this a system of error, built upon the sleight of men using numerous winds of teachings.

There are far more Biblical warnings to ministers, elders, and shepherds than there are to the members regarding their obedience to church leaders. Witness Lee broke every single Biblical instruction concerning leadership, from the treatment of others, to the handling of money, to the treatment of the ministry of the word of God, to the management of his own family.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evangelical, let me remind you of the obvious -- none of the Bible's major teachings are based on historical language-specific idioms.

The recovery, however, is quite different. MOTA authoritative leadership and member submissions to that authority are based on spurious interpretations of the Noah story carefully crafted by Nee and Lee. Apostle Paul rightfully calls this a system of error, built upon the sleight of men using numerous winds of teachings.

There are far more Biblical warnings to ministers, elders, and shepherds than there are to the members regarding their obedience to church leaders. Witness Lee broke every single Biblical instruction concerning leadership, from the treatment of others, to the handling of money, to the treatment of the ministry of the word of God, to the management of his own family.

Nees view was based on the view of uncovering the nakedness of the parent.

I've just presented alternatives such as from Judaism that puts the blame on the son for something far worse than merely seeing daddy naked.

If you were smarter you would realize what Ive presented destroys Nees argument if its not about uncovering daddys sin but about preventing him from having an unwanted younger brother.

[Cal]

Where is the evidence that God approved of or supported Noah's curse?

I agree that the story is about familial dysfunction. Noah was wrong to get drunk and naked, his son was wrong to tell everybody about it and Noah was wrong to curse his son and even his grandson, who wasn't even involved.

IMO, the story is telling us what happens to relationships when we live according to the flesh.

On a more basic level the story is showing, vividly, that the judgment of the flood did not solve man's basic sin problem. Man was just as fallen as before. Another solution was still needed.

I don't think the story has anything to do with authority. Why even think to go there in the first place? Unless you have a predisposition toward extreme authority like... the Chinese do? Again, where is the biblical evidence that God stood behind Noah's curse?

It's amazing that people can create whole theologies based on analogies that the Bible does not even confirm. That's very dangerous exegesis if you ask me. And now here a bunch of people are arguing about this imagined and unconfirmed theology. Astounding when you think about it. Lives get affected by stuff like this.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Nees view was based on the view of uncovering the nakedness of the parent.

I've just presented alternatives such as from Judaism that puts the blame on the son for something far worse than merely seeing daddy naked.

If you were smarter you would realize what Ive presented destroys Nees argument if its not about uncovering daddys sin but about preventing him from having an unwanted younger brother.

If I was "smarter" then I would realize things from the Bible that the Bible can not even realize.

Right, Evenjelly?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Where is the evidence that God approved of or supported Noah's curse?

I agree that the story is about familial dysfunction. Noah was wrong to get drunk and naked, his son was wrong to tell everybody about it and Noah was wrong to curse his son and even his grandson, who wasn't even involved.

IMO, the story is telling us what happens to relationships when we live according to the flesh.

On a more basic level the story is showing, vividly, that the judgment of the flood did not solve man's basic sin problem. Man was just as fallen as before. Another solution was still needed.

I don't think the story has anything to do with authority. Why even think to go there in the first place? Unless you have a predisposition toward extreme authority like... the Chinese do? Again, where is the biblical evidence that God stood behind Noah's curse?

It's amazing that people can create whole theologies based on analogies that the Bible does not even confirm. That's very dangerous exegesis if you ask me. And now here a bunch of people are arguing about this imagined and unconfirmed theology. Astounding when you think about it. Lives get affected by stuff like this.

Since Brother Igzy is smarter he realizes that the best interpretation of the Noah story is to use the rest of Bible to interpret these verses.

[Drake]

Igzy) "On a more basic level the story is showing, vividly, that the judgment of the flood did not solve man's basic sin problem. Man was just as fallen as before. Another solution was still needed. "

Yes, I agree.

Igzy) "Where is the evidence that God approved of or supported Noah's curse? "

Probably the first biblical recorded instance of fulfillment of the curse on Canaan was Joshua 16:10 and 17:12-13.

I am still thinking about why Canaan was selected for a direct hit on the curse. History shows Ham's other sons and their descendents went on to found great empires Egypt and Babylon. Although it is thought provoking that when the descendents of Cush were taken captive they were exposed to a similar shame as Noah (Isaiah 20:4).

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy) "On a more basic level the story is showing, vividly, that the judgment of the flood did not solve man's basic sin problem. Man was just as fallen as before. Another solution was still needed. "

Yes, I agree.

Igzy) "Where is the evidence that God approved of or supported Noah's curse? "

Probably the first biblical recorded instance of fulfillment of the curse on Canaan was Joshua 16:10 and 17:12-13.

I am still thinking about why Canaan was selected for a direct hit on the curse. History shows Ham's other sons and their descendents went on to found great empires Egypt and Babylon. Although it is thought provoking that when the descendents of Cush were taken captive they were exposed to a similar shame as Noah (Isaiah 20:4).

Drake

Those verses give no evidence that God backed the curse.

I'm not saying the curse had no effect. Certainly it did. Words are powerful. Unfortunately especially negative ones.

But still the fact that Noah's curse had impact and effect is no evidence that God approved of or backed the curse. It may simply be a stark warning to watch what we say (Matt 12:36).

Imagine the effect Noah's curse had on his young grandson. Don't you think the boy loved and looked up to Noah? But Noah, in a fog of hangover and embarrassment (been there myself), said something he probably regretted the rest of his life (done that too). What do you think his grandson's self-esteem was like after that? What do you think the fruit of that was?

It may still be true that the interpretation that Noah was issuing some sort of righteous judgment is correct. But nothing of what we know about what Jesus taught supports this. Jesus never intimated that authority figures, because they are authority figures, get to curse people because they got embarrassed. And look at the fruit of Nee and Lee's take on this passage. It resulted in nothing but lording, bullying and people being taken advantage of (like the sisters Philip Lee molested who were swept under the rug.)

Sorry, I don't buy it. I think Nee's interpretation of this is completely missing what God intended to say.

[Cal]

Doesn't everyone see how Nee and Lee's deputy authority teaching puts people in an impossible position?

Even in this discussion some are tending to agree with Nee and Lee because they are afraid not to. Because they are afraid of disagreeing with the deputy authority.

Don't you see how this compromises people, and the truth? Don't you see how it hinders people from following their consciences and what they feel God is telling them to do?

It is a horrible and insidious teaching. Unfortunately, when you buy into it you cannot even give such an idea consideration, because the deputy authority has spoken, and you have no choice but to agree with him.

I believe in authority, but not that kind of authority. No way. That is the way of the blind leading the blind. God cannot work with that kind of teaching. God cannot correct a group that follows it. Their path is set by the deputy authority and they cannot waver from it. Even God cannot stop them.

Of course, those who believe it cannot begin to consider such an idea, because, well, you get the point....

[Drake]

"Igzy) "Those verses give no evidence that God backed the curse.

I'm not saying the curse had no effect. Certainly it did. Words are powerful. Unfortunately especially negative ones.

But still the fact that Noah's curse had impact and effect is no evidence that God approved of or backed the curse. It may simply be a stark warning to watch what we say (Matt 12:36). "


Igzy, you are making a case for deputy authority. I know you will flip out at the very thought of that but stay with me.

If, as you suggest, God did not approve of the curse Noah issued on Canaan, He allowed it to take effect nonetheless. On what basis would God allow it to be fulfilled? You've already argued that what Noah did was unkind, hurtful to his grandson, done in a fog of hangover stupor, embarrassed about being found in a compromising situation he lashed out at little Canaanito (whose only fault may have been a nasty habit of double dipping in the hummus or whatever mischievous things little boys did in Mesopotamia).

Let's pretend for the moment that you and Noah are just alike in character and judgement per your own comparison. Let's also assume for the moment that you know as much about Canaan as Noah did at the time and he was unjustified in cursing Canaan. Then Canaan's brothers charge off and build the mega empires of Egypt and Babylon and some 900 years later when Joshua conquers the land of Canaan we see Canaan descendents inducted into forced labor. That, you argue, is because Noah in a moment of indiscretion said something he should not have and words have impact and God had nothing to do with any of that.

Seriously?

Or, is it more plausible that Noah issued a curse to Canaan because he knew something about Canaan that you don't or God inspired Noah because in His foreknowledge He saw that the Canaanites would become polluted with the Amorites, the race of giants, and established in the land of promise? After all, extermination edicts of entire communities were issued by God for that very reason (Numbers 13) in the land of Canaan. Though we are discussing the curse of Canaan we cannot forget the blessing of Shem and Japheth in the same breath. In fact, the whole course of human destiny was set in place by Noah's curse and blessings. It seems obvious that if Noah issued a curse in a "fog of hangover" , he in the very same breath issued blessings too. God fulfilled the curse of Canaan and the blessing to Shem and is and will fulfill the blessing of Japheth. I think it is more likely that Noah having already proven himself a faithful servant, God entrusted him yet again with the destiny of mankind even though it was a mistake on Noah's part that facilitated it. The evidence is in the fulfillment and course of history that ensued. The case for deputy authority is strengthened if God had nothing to do with the curse or blessings yet allowed them to set the whole course of human history.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

"Igzy) "Those verses give no evidence that God backed the curse.

I'm not saying the curse had no effect. Certainly it did. Words are powerful. Unfortunately especially negative ones.

But still the fact that Noah's curse had impact and effect is no evidence that God approved of or backed the curse. It may simply be a stark warning to watch what we say (Matt 12:36). "

Igzy, you are making a case for deputy authority. I know you will flip out at the very thought of that but stay with me.

If, as you suggest, God did not approve of the curse Noah issued on Canaan, He allowed it to take effect nonetheless. On what basis would God allow it to be fulfilled?
Drake

By that logic, God backed and approved of David's murder of Uriah, because David ended up with Bathsheba and Solomon became king.

By that logic, Hitler was the deputy authority, because God allowed him to kill 6 million Jews, which led to the re-establishment of Israel.

By that logic, Pontius Pilate was the deputy authority, because he ordered the execution of Jesus, which redeemed the world.

You mistake God's sovereign use of the mistakes of men with his approval of what those men do.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

By that logic, God backed and approved of David's murder of Uriah, because David ended up with Bathsheba and Solomon became king.

By that logic, Hitler was the deputy authority, because God allowed him to kill 6 million Jews, which led to the re-establishment of Israel.

By that logic, Pontius Pilate was the deputy authority, because he ordered the execution of Jesus, which redeemed the world.

You mistake God's sovereign use of the mistakes of men with his approval of what those men do.

No, I don't think God approves of the sins, mistakes, failures of anybody. He allows it and he uses it but He does not excuse it or approve it.

Your Hitler reference is meant to inflame and is an argument against absurdity. Fact is, through David's sin of murder he did produce Solomon from Bathsheba who became an antecedent of Christ. Further evidence that God did not approve of David's sin is found in the description of the lineage of Christ where it is stated she" was the wife of Uriah the Hittite" .Evidence that God used it is plain in that Christ was produced.

With Noah, it is hard to say whether Noah cursed Canaan on his own or God inspired him. What we do know is that God allowed what Noah said to come to pass in the Scripture and in history. That is evidence that God enforced Noah's curse and blessing.The question is why? I would say because God chooses to work through man..... imperfections and all.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If I was "smarter" then I would realize things from the Bible that the Bible can not even realize.

Right, Evenjelly?

I gave you an opportunity to be free from the interpretation about Noah and his sons that supports Nee's view about the authority and submission, by looking to how it is interpreted in Judaism.

Reading and interpreting the bible "as written" without understanding the context, history and meaning of the times is a shortcoming of Nee's interpretation style is it not? Yet you would prefer to stick to his similar style of interpretation it would seem.

Is it not possible that the verse which is said to be about "coverings and uncovering of daddy's nudity" not about that at all, but about a wayward son who wants to castrate his father?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I gave you an opportunity to be free from the interpretation about Noah and his sons that supports Nee's view about the authority and submission, by looking to how it is interpreted in Judaism.

Reading and interpreting the bible "as written" without understanding the context, history and meaning of the times is a shortcoming of Nee's interpretation style is it not? Yet you would prefer to stick to his similar style of interpretation it would seem.

Is it not possible that the verse which is said to be about "coverings and uncovering of daddy's nudity" not about that at all, but about a wayward son who wants to castrate his father?

I would characterize this interpretation as "myths and unending genealogies" which Paul cautioned us to avoid.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

With Noah, it is hard to say whether Noah cursed Canaan on his own or God inspired him. What we do know is that God allowed what Noah said to come to pass in the Scripture and in history. That is evidence that God enforced Noah's curse and blessing.The question is why? I would say because God chooses to work through man..... imperfections and all.

Drake

Regardless, it establishes nothing about spiritual authority, unless you are someone who wants to abuse spiritual authority or someone who for some reason is willing to be abused by it.

In other words... no proof text, just subjective interpretation. And you don't give someone rule over your life based on such thin gruel.

As I said in post #27, the Nee/Lee authority model is untenable because it threatens the integrity of the consciences of followers.

For instance, one can not know if followers of Lee follow him because they agree with him or because they are afraid not to. And give the authority model they follow, one can never really know, sometimes not even them.

[Drake]

Igzy) "Regardless, it establishes nothing about spiritual authority, unless you are someone who wants to abuse spiritual authority or someone who for some reason is willing to be abused by it. "

Igzy, that is just your opinion. You are ignoring the biblically obvious in favor of your private interpretation.

Let's consider this. Here is a man, Noah, who through faith built a big boat that saved the human race. Then he drank too much sangria and his son Ham did something that caused Noah to curse Ham's son but bless Shem and Japheth. A very long while later what Noah spoke in that curse and blessing came to pass. We see in the scriptures and human history the fulfillment of the curse and blessings.

That is authority and it can only come from God. In the New Testament a Roman Centurion asks the Lord Jesus to heal his servant. The Lord starts to go to the soldier's house but the soldier says it is not necessary because he, like the Lord Jesus, is also a man under authority and things can happen just by his word and they do. Therefore the Lord only needed to speak the word to accomplish the healing. What Noah spoke came to pass and therefore with him there also was authority. And since, it was related to the fulfillment of God's purpose in the bringing forth of the Messiah it is spiritual authority. When you pass somebody who has been pulled off to the side of the road by a policeman you know that authority has been exercised. It does not matter how much sangria the cop indulged in the night before or even if he is feeling a little irritable because of it. The Lord commended the faith of the Centurion because he recognized authority. All authority comes from God whether one recognizes it or not.

Drake

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Doesn't everyone see how Nee and Lee's deputy authority teaching puts people in an impossible position?

Even in this discussion some are tending to agree with Nee and Lee because they are afraid not to. Because they are afraid of disagreeing with the deputy authority.

Don't you see how this compromises people, and the truth? Don't you see how it hinders people from following their consciences and what they feel God is telling them to do?

It is a horrible and insidious teaching. Unfortunately, when you buy into it you cannot even give such an idea consideration, because the deputy authority has spoken, and you have no choice but to agree with him.

I believe in authority, but not that kind of authority. No way. That is the way of the blind leading the blind. God cannot work with that kind of teaching. God cannot correct a group that follows it. Their path is set by the deputy authority and they cannot waver from it. Even God cannot stop them.

Of course, those who believe it cannot begin to consider such an idea, because, well, you get the point....

Of course, there is much detail to add to make the picture of devastation vividly clear.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Doesn't everyone see how Nee and Lee's deputy authority teaching puts people in an impossible position?

Even in this discussion some are tending to agree with Nee and Lee because they are afraid not to. Because they are afraid of disagreeing with the deputy authority.

Don't you see how this compromises people, and the truth? Don't you see how it hinders people from following their consciences and what they feel God is telling them to do?

It is a horrible and insidious teaching. Unfortunately, when you buy into it you cannot even give such an idea consideration, because the deputy authority has spoken, and you have no choice but to agree with him.

I believe in authority, but not that kind of authority. No way. That is the way of the blind leading the blind. God cannot work with that kind of teaching. God cannot correct a group that follows it. Their path is set by the deputy authority and they cannot waver from it. Even God cannot stop them.

Of course, those who believe it cannot begin to consider such an idea, because, well, you get the point....

You are presenting one side of the equation -- the deleterious effects of fear on the adherents of these abusive teachings.

What about the other side? The last thing Drake and company want to discuss is how quickly Lee's degenerate sons learned about their family "powers" without even knowing salvation. During the heyday of the New Way, while Daddy was in Taiwan, Phillip became acting Deputy Authority over all the global company of workers and elders. Not being satisfied with that, he looked upon all the fair young office volunteers with illusions of entitlement. Who could deny him? On a smaller scale, he possessed all the perks of a Chinese emperor. Was he not also surrounded by loyal handlers like Benson Phillips, who would quickly rush to his defense, clean up the mess, and silence the victims?

Such scenarios exactly explain why the New Testament NEVER consolidates authority with one human leader. Leadership in the body of Christ was always a safe collective of approved men of God. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, etc. were never a type of N.T. elders or ministers. Rather These men were. TYPES OF CHRIST. And only Christ. The N.T. specifically instructs us of this. For any N.T. leader, like Nee or Lee, to assume the mantle of Noah or Moses is extremely dangerous to the body of Christ. It usurps the rightful place of His Son, the Head over all things to the church, which is His body.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy) "Regardless, it establishes nothing about spiritual authority, unless you are someone who wants to abuse spiritual authority or someone who for some reason is willing to be abused by it. "

Igzy, that is just your opinion. You are ignoring the biblically obvious in favor of your private interpretation.


Drake

Just my opinion? You are ignoring the Biblically obvious:

The soothing tongue is a tree of life, but a perverse tongue crushes the spirit. Proverbs 15:4

The words of the reckless pierce like swords, but the tongue of the wise brings healing. Proverbs 12:18

Gracious words are a honeycomb, sweet to the soul and healing to the bones. Proverbs 16:23-24

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O LORD, my rock and my redeemer. Psalm 19:14

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. James 3:9-10

Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. Galatians 6:1

So instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 2 Corinthians 2:7

Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. 2 Thessalonians 3:15

He must gently reprove those who oppose him, in the hope that God may grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 2:25

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. Matt 5:22

It's clear that Noah's outburst was contrary to the nature God wishes us to express.

Yes, Noah was an authority, so his words had far-reaching impact. That is why those in authority must be extra-careful with their words. But Noah abused his authority and his words brought not life, but destruction. If his cursing brought about the evil, unbelieving Canannites then that is nothing to brag about. That is not the fruit God wishes our words to produce.

Suppose Noah had held his tongue. Suppose he had taken another approach and gathered his family together for a gentle and godly lesson in respecting the privacy of the imperfect, of humbly helping and supporting those who stumble and, yes, even of respecting authority. Imagine if all his sons and grandchildren had been inspired by that and other gentle lessons to be great leaders of faith how different the Canaanites, and history, might have turned out.

No, if God used Noah in that moment, it was no different that how he used other evil acts to eventually show forth his glory. But I do not believe he approved of Noah's words or actions, because they are just against His nature. And the verses above prove that.

[Cal]

Show me someone who says God himself cursed a whole nation because one person told everyone about how his dad got drunk and naked, and I'll show you someone who has an agenda to abuse so-called spiritual authority.

The curse was Noah's, not God's.

Words have impact.

Watch what you say, especially if you are leader of God's people.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Suppose Noah had held his tongue. Suppose he had taken another approach and gathered his family together for a gentle and godly lesson in respecting the privacy of the imperfect, of humbly helping and supporting those who stumble and, yes, even of respecting authority. Imagine if all his sons and grandchildren had been inspired by that and other gentle lessons to be great leaders of faith how different the Canaanites, and history, might have turned out.

Same can be said regarding LC history and it's various turmoils. How different history might have turned out if grace and love had prevailed?
Whether one wants to admit or not, just as Igzy says, words have impact. Whether it's giving grace or giving condemnation, words have impact.

[Evangelical]

For anyone who wants a good overview by Don Stewart see

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/...tewart_747.cfm

The dominant view historically speaking has been of Noah doing Gods will in cursing a wayward son. Its about respecting authority figures.

Those merely giving their uninformed opinions or saying that Noah sinned by cursing Canaan because its against Gods nature of love are like those who say gay marriage is right because of Gods loving nature.

Noah was the most righteous person and that is still the case when he cursed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

For anyone who wants a good overview by Don Stewart see

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/...tewart_747.cfm

The dominant view historically speaking has been of Noah doing Gods will in cursing a wayward son. Its about respecting authority figures.

Those merely giving their uninformed opinions or saying that Noah sinned by cursing Canaan because its against Gods nature of love are like those who say gay marriage is right because of Gods loving nature.

Noah was the most righteous person and that is still the case when he cursed.

Evan you just seem addicted to speculations in your defense of Lee and his justification for the errant teaching of Deputy Authority.

Noah and his wife had no more sons after this horrible event. Yep, that proves that Ham must have castrated his father.

Perhaps the fact that Noah and his wife were approaching 700 years old had something to do with it?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evan you just seem addicted to speculations in your defense of Lee and his justification for the errant teaching of Deputy Authority.

Noah and his wife had no more sons after this horrible event. Yep, that proves that Ham must have castrated his father.

Perhaps the fact that Noah and his wife were approaching 700 years old had something to do with it?

Many bible scholars think this story is an euphanism for something deserving of a curse on a whole tribe. I am not going beyond orthodox interpretations.

I think you need to drop your concepts..consider what Jewish and Christian scholars have to say.

For example a Roman Catholic apologist writes


Ham was trying to usurp his father's authority by sleeping with his mother. Perhaps that's why he told his brothers what he'd done, rather than keeping it a secret. This reflects a pattern found elsewhere in the Old Testament, especially where sons resent fathers for showing favor to siblings. For example, Jacob's son Reuben sought to undermine his (Jacob's) favored half-brother Joseph by taking his father's concubine - for which he received a paternal curse (see Gen 29:32; 35:22; 49:3-4). Likewise, Absalom resented the plans of his father, King David, to give the throne to one of his younger half-brothers, Solomon. In response, Absalom drove King David out of Jerusalem and then slept with his father's concubines - right in public - to signify his seizure of royal power...'
(Scott Hahn, A Father Who Keeps His Promises, p 87-88, Charis Servant Publications, Ann Arbor, 1998)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Many bible scholars...

You would reject these very same bible scholars if they contradicted Witness Lee.

Face it, guys. You are afraid to contradict Lee. Everything is about Lee.

Okay, chime in now. Deny it. Let's go around and around in the mindless defense of Lee. I'll play along. I'll be the bad guy. The future depends on that. Oh glory.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Many bible scholars think this story is an euphanism for something deserving of a curse on a whole tribe. I am not going beyond orthodox interpretations.

I think you need to drop your concepts..consider what Jewish and Christian scholars have to say.

For example a Roman Catholic apologist writes


Ham was trying to usurp his father's authority by sleeping with his mother. Perhaps that's why he told his brothers what he'd done, rather than keeping it a secret. This reflects a pattern found elsewhere in the Old Testament, especially where sons resent fathers for showing favor to siblings. For example, Jacob's son Reuben sought to undermine his (Jacob's) favored half-brother Joseph by taking his father's concubine - for which he received a paternal curse (see Gen 29:32; 35:22; 49:3-4). Likewise, Absalom resented the plans of his father, King David, to give the throne to one of his younger half-brothers, Solomon. In response, Absalom drove King David out of Jerusalem and then slept with his father's concubines - right in public - to signify his seizure of royal power...'
(Scott Hahn, A Father Who Keeps His Promises, p 87-88, Charis Servant Publications, Ann Arbor, 1998)

Sleeping with your father's pretty concubine (like Reuben or that guy in Corinth) is a world of difference from raping your own mother.

But I understand EvenJelly is stuck on this, and wants me to "drop my concepts" like Ham apparently dropped his drawers.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You would reject these very same bible scholars if they contradicted Witness Lee.

Face it, guys. You are afraid to contradict Lee. Everything is about Lee.

Okay, chime in now. Deny it. Let's go around and around in the mindless defense of Lee. I'll play along. I'll be the bad guy. The future depends on that. Oh glory.

In a way they do contradict Lee/Nee. Lee/Nee never departed from the mainstream view on this issue.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sleeping with your father's pretty concubine (like Reuben or that guy in Corinth) is a world of difference from raping your own mother.

But I understand EvenJelly is stuck on this, and wants me to "drop my concepts" like Ham apparently dropped his drawers.

Why aren't you or others doing your own research? I don't see you presenting anything from eminent theologians. You are just taking it for granted that Lee/Nee were correct that it was about seeing daddy's 700 year old manhood. In other words, your view is closer to Lee/Nees than what I am presenting, and yet you would rather defend Lee/Nee than accept the possibility that Ham raped his mother.

[TLFisher]

"“China is famously Confucian.” Jackson Wu explains,79 “Confucianism...is socially hierarchical...All social interactions are regulated by the principle of the subordinate deferring to the superior. Thus, authority is central to ethics, values, and identity.” Hence, Watchman Nee’s authority-submission dogma resonates with Chinese Confucian values."

Have no opinions. Just submit. I doubt if brothers approach marriage as they do authority-submission doctrine. There's not going to be a healthy happy marriage life. Rather one of resentment and withholding feelings on account of the wives.
Contrary to authority-submission teaching, advice I've heard older brothers give to newlywed couples, is marriage is practically one of mutual submission. The husband will be wrought with difficulty if he expects absolute submission from his bride. Of course if a bride Is loved as husbands are charged to love their wives in Ephesians 5, she will set her will to submit to her husband. Love produces willful submission.
How come this hasn't worked in the local churches? It's because there's an absence of love and there's an absence of mutual submission.

[TLFisher]

"The lack of open discussion among LSM’s leadership reflects a number of factors. First Local Church adherents have been thoroughly indoctrinated with this authority doctrine. W. Nee assigned absolute authority to God’s deputy authority; they answer to God alone. He taught: “God appoints authority...Whether or not a deputy authority is wrong is nobody else's business...We have to...submit to deputy authority...If a deputy authority makes a mistake, we do not...bear any responsibility for his mistake...God only requires [our] obedience.”89 To challenge an LSM doctrine is perceived as an affront to “God’s oracle,” his deputy authority—an act of rebellion. Hence, the doctrine itself puts a “severe chill” on discussion or debate, even when a teaching, like this one, is manifestly erroneous and does serious damage."

When I read these sentences by Nigel, I've heard much the same from other serving brothers. My late uncle who was a responsible brother in many localities. I heard much the same from him. Nigel knows what he's talking about.
I can only say brothers who take this way take there will be temptation to abuse, because that's a fruit of the teaching is abusive behavior. There's no checks and balances for deputy authority to be accountable to brothers and sisters.
If a deputy authority rebuked your child whether in a righteous or unrighteous manner, would you go along with it because even as a parent your obedience to the deputy authority is required?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In a way they do contradict Lee/Nee. Lee/Nee never departed from the mainstream view on this issue.

Whatever Lee did, you would have agreed with him. That's why trying to convince staunch LCMers is generally pointless, because they are incapable of disagreeing with Lee. The reason is because they are afraid to, and the reason they are afraid to is because they have been taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines.

Good reason tells us those doctrines cannot be true because they compromise the minds and consciences of people. They, effectively, can override God's direct speaking to individuals.

This is not to say that people aren't given authority. But man's authority, even if it comes from God, is never absolute. No man, secular or spiritual, has the right to expect people to violate their own consciences or senses of God's leading.

Nee and Lee applied an extreme and warped view of authority and leveraged distorted interpretations of stories like the Noah curse to produce blind followers.

In the end we all will stand before God and will only have to account for our own consciences. We will not have to account because some teacher produced a following that told us all that if we didn't submit to and obey him we were off the mark.

The Lord is wise and we all have direct access to him to find the truth for ourselves. This doesn't negate that part of that is recognizing God's speaking when it comes from others or maintaining humility about ourselves.

But the bottom line is all those things, ultimately, require us to exercise our consciences to be clear about them. Therefore, by definition, the conscience is the final word. And though we can give advice to people, none of us has the right to presume to override people's consciences, except when their actions violate the rights of others. But that does not normally come into play when considering whether some teacher is "God's authority."

Therefore, Lee's authority doctrine is a direct affront to the conscience of man. It manifestly produces people, some of whom are on this board, who cannot think independently of what he taught. This is obviously dangerous and certainly cannot be God's will.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

This article by Nigel Tomes could have provided clarity to an interesting and important subject. Unfortunately, he quickly reverts to leaps of logic, faulty reasoning, and inaccurate representations.

Drake

Knowing that one of LSM's chief polemics wrote this, I consider Tomes' article to be right on the mark.

LSM's promotion of the aberrant teachings surrounding Authority & Submission have produced a history leadership characterized by the following:

• Rejection of Accountability: Witness Lee rejected all ministerial accountability. Any critique, either from within or without, was met with brute force. Like the Pharisees of old, they "stoned" all the prophets God sent to them.
  
  
• Pattern of Abuse: The public pattern of shaming and humiliation established their hierarchy and produced a systemic system of abuse. I often concluded that this program produces bullies out of beloved brothers. This feature was witnessed nationally, regionally, and locally. Their views of authority often drove brotherly love from the church life.
  
  
• Usurping the Headship of Christ: "Fellowship" from headquarters often prevented the Son of Man from walking in the midst of the churches. The ability of brothers and elders to directly follow the leading of the Head of the body was circumvented by mandates from "The Ministry."
  
  
• Obsession with Succession: With an established construct of one-man leadership firmly embedded in all dedicated members, the inevitable result was bitter infighting as to who was the next "oracle of God." The quarantines of Titus Chu and Dong Yu Lon were motivated by such ambitions.
  
  

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obsession with Succession: With an established construct of one-man leadership firmly embedded in all dedicated members, the inevitable result was bitter infighting as to who was the next "oracle of God."

Actually it's worse. They are not fighting about who was going to be the next oracle of God, they are fighting to keep Witness Lee as the only oracle of God. To many, God stopped speaking 20 years ago when Lee died. So now, all they have is a "paper oracle". God stopped speaking, God stopped "recovering" - all the "high peak truths" have been released, and the only thing left to do is repeat and regurgitate. For better or for worse, the movement is frozen in time. Let us pray that some will wake up, and see that God is still indeed active and speaking among his people today. "He is not God of the dead, but of the living." (Mark 12:27)
-

[Drake]

Igzy "Whatever Lee did, you would have agreed with him. That's why trying to convince staunch LCMers is generally pointless, because they are incapable of disagreeing with Lee. The reason is because they are afraid to, and the reason they are afraid to is because they have been taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines. "

Wow.

Evangelical, I never really thought of you as "afraid" and "taken captive" but there you have it above in black and white. Therefore, it must be true. Your well researched scriptural arguments are pointless. Your logical presentations are a waste of time. Your propensity to appeal to the reason in a man is ineffective because you are afraid and have been taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines. Did you know that? I must confess I had no clue. Who knew? Glad that has been cleared up.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy "Whatever Lee did, you would have agreed with him. That's why trying to convince staunch LCMers is generally pointless, because they are incapable of disagreeing with Lee. The reason is because they are afraid to, and the reason they are afraid to is because they have been taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines. "

Wow.

Evangelical, I never really thought of you as "afraid" and "taken captive" but there you have it above in black and white. Therefore, it must be true. Your well researched arguments are pointless. Your logical presentations are a waste of time. Your propensity to appeal to the reason in a man is ineffective because you are afraid and have been taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines. Did you know that? I must confess I had no clue. Who knew? Glad that has been cleared up.

In similar vein we could say they are incapable of agreeing with Lee. They seem to be in a world of their own making. The "anti-Lee sect".

This is evident because even when I post articles from well known tv-evangelist Don Stewart they are reacting as if I am quoting from the Recovery Version footnotes. Likewise, a Protestant now Catholic apologist is not good enough for them.

The funny thing is I'm said to be staunch here, but in Alternative views I'm said to be not that deep in the Recovery because I use the internet and a leading brother said don't use the internet in the 1970's before the internet even existed. Isn't it silly?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In similar vein we could say they are incapable of agreeing with Lee. They seem to be in a world of their own making. The "anti-Lee sect".

This is evident because even when I post articles from well known tv-evangelist Don Stewart they are reacting as if I am quoting from the Recovery Version footnotes. Likewise, a Protestant now Catholic apologist is not good enough for them.

The funny thing is I'm said to be staunch here, but in Alternative views I'm said to be not that deep in the Recovery because I use the internet and a leading brother said don't use the internet in the 1970's before the internet even existed. Isn't it silly?

You think like that because you are afraid and taken captive. Therefore, why should anyone listen to you?

You see, if folks had to argue and debate you on the merits of your posts that might lead to having to agree with something you said, regardless of who you reference be it the Pope, or a Protestant minister, or a respected theologian , and if that were to happen that might imply an agreement with Witness Lee on something and then the very fabric of the universe would unravel. Therefore, given the choice of the fabric of the universe unravelling or retreating to a happy place where all will be safe in the knowledge that the issue is all about you because you are afraid and have been taken captive, well, it is a simple choice, then isn't it?

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

if that were to happen that might imply an agreement with Witness Lee on something and then the very fabric of the universe would unravel. Therefore, given the choice of the fabric of the universe unravelling or retreating to a happy place where all will be safe in the knowledge that the issue is all about you because you are afraid and have been taken captive, well, it is a simple choice, then isn't it?

This is unreal, come back to reality.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

This is unreal, come back to reality.

Huh? Where did I lose you?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

This article by Nigel Tomes could have provided clarity to an interesting and important subject. Unfortunately, he quickly reverts to leaps of logic, faulty reasoning, and inaccurate representations.

Drake

Contrary to Drake's standard "talking points" for all loyal LSM'ers, Nigel Tomes accurately dissects faulty Trinitarian theology with the deleterious consequences many of us have lived with in the LC's, i.e. abuse of authority.

Carefully read the following and consider your own experiences in the LC:

Watchman Nee attempted to anchor his authority/submission doctrine in the eternal being of the essential Trinity. He presented authority as the overriding attribute of the Trinity. This allowed W. Nee to assert that “Once we touch God’s authority, we touch God Himself...Meeting God’s authority is the same as meeting God ...Offending God’s authority is the same as offending God Himself. A Christian should submit to authority.” Yet the Bible never says “God is authority;” it says “God is love” (1 Jn. 4:8, 16), “God is light” (1 Jn. 1:5) and “God is Spirit” (Jn. 4:24).

By inserting authority into the Godhead, W. Nee elevated authority above its place in the divine order. This issued in the exaggerated emphasis on authority and submission which characterizes LSM’s Local Church until today. What does this teaching produce? W. Nee described the desired outcome: “In order to practice submission, the first thing to ask is who is above me...Whenever any brother or sister or co-worker goes to a place, he or she has to find out who his or her authority is.” Moreover Witness Lee echoes these sentiments: “Whenever the brothers and sisters are together, each one should keep the order and take his proper place, whether he is above or below others or on the right or the left...In God's house there is only the question of God's authority and order.” A hierarchical view of God produces a hierarchical church & society.

One all too clear example haunted us in the LC's for years. Publicly we learned and talked about "local" churches, each of them locally governed by a healthy eldership not subject to outside influences, unlike those "evil" denominations. In actuality, however, the local eldership had very little say in the direction of the church under their care. Workers at headquarters completely directed the elders in all major decisions. They liked to call it simple "fellowship," but in reality it was hierarchy and control. Buck the program and abusive sanctions would follow.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In similar vein we could say they are incapable of agreeing with Lee. They seem to be in a world of their own making. The "anti-Lee sect".

False. I agree with Lee on many things.

Now, disprove my assertion about you. Tell me what you disagree with him about.

And Drake, nice try with the sarcasm, but you could help us all by telling us what you disagree with Lee about, too.

I'll say it again. Lee's authority doctrine is craven psychological pressure to agree with him, to discount evidence against him, and to champion evidence in his favor.

I'm not anti-Lee, but I am anti-Lee-as-MOTA and spiritual bully. There is a difference.

I wish you guys could appreciate these subtleties.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Huh? Where did I lose you?

Probably when you brushed aside a serious assertion with nothing but dripping sarcasm.

The fact is, Drake, it is very unlikely that you would agree with Lee on EVERYTHING or not be willing to honestly discuss what you disagree with him about unless there were some aberrant psychology at work. And it is much less likely that almost every staunch LCMer would behave the same way without something highly abnormal going on.

Name one group in history where everyone agreed with and defended everything their leader ever said or did that wasn't a personality cult.

Why can't you guys disagree with him on anything or discuss your disagreements with him? Sure sounds like mind control and fear to me. Do you think someone who is being controlled in such a way would know it? Probably not. And if they refuse to consider the possibility they probably will never discover it.

As I said, I agree with Lee on many things. But the stuff that seems wrong to me I feel free to disagree with him about.

That's the difference between me and you. You don't feel free to disagree with him. You forget I was in the LCM for years. I know the mindset, don't try to BS me about it.

Now, bring on the sarcasm since it seems the only defense at this point.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

You think like that because you are afraid and taken captive. Therefore, why should anyone listen to you?

You see, if folks had to argue and debate you on the merits of your posts that might lead to having to agree with something you said, regardless of who you reference be it the Pope, or a Protestant minister, or a respected theologian , and if that were to happen that might imply an agreement with Witness Lee on something and then the very fabric of the universe would unravel.

This is more disingenuousness than I'm used to see coming from you, Drake.

So I must be hitting close to home.

In the first, place. I have debated with Evangelical many times. So please don't accuse me of not doing that.

(My frustration with him, and you, is that neither of you seem at all open to the idea that Lee was in error about anything. Debating with people with closed minds starts to feel pretty pointless. So eventually I feel to point out that their minds are closed. Your sarcastic response did nothing to change my feelings about that.)

In my experience Evangelical cherry-picks stuff from the Internet that agrees with him and then acts like that establishes his position as a winner. Well, as you both should know, it ain't necessarily so. That's why I don't do that. I could find a lot more quotes that contradict Lee about a lot of things, but if I did it wouldn't faze you. You'd just say everyone else was unclear.)

What I did is produce many verses from the Bible itself that basically show that Noah's behavior violated direct teachings from the Bible on how we are to behave, especially when in leadership and positions of correction. I think those verses at least justified re-consideration of the knee-jerk belief that Noah's curse was righteous.

How did Evangelical respond? By equating my argument with those who justify gay "love." You call that a reasoned argument?

I wish Evangelical would quote Bible instead of Google.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Many bible scholars think this story is an euphanism for something deserving of a curse on a whole tribe. I am not going beyond orthodox interpretations.

The problem is that most of what the commentators refer back to (prior commentators) were mired in finding a support for almost any kind of racism against blacks. Even if only a passive "it's genetics" kind of racism.

Commentators are too often simply supplying opinions. Many of their opinions at least bring some clarity to what is actually said. But mostly there is either clear words upon which to opine, or there are other references to it that provide a basis to go beyond what is written. Many bible scholars thinking anything that is not clearly there is just that — thinking. It is opinion. It needs more than the thought that it could be an euphemism — even by a number of people — for it to be so.

Reading commentators is quite difficult. And in the time in which the older ones were writing, they were a somewhat limited group. Few outside their numbers could hope to understand enough about things to question their conclusions. And then you have something said like "this might be a euphemism for something else" followed by someone reading that, and thinking "yeah, that could be right." Now there are more than one who has this idea. Nothing that makes it so. Just an idea. And so others join in because there have been some that said it. Now, in 2017, we read a group of commentaries and capitulate the words in the actual text to the opinion that there is something else going on.

There is a good chance that if the originators of those comments had been writing in 2017, then would have been more tentative in what they said about it. They would know that there is nothing making their conjecture true. But they would not be incorrect to suggest that it could be true, but without anything to make it so.

And more and more the preachers who refer to various commentators would read that, along with many others and see that there is a variety of opinion. Then in their sermon they might acknowledge that there is such a variety of opinion, even stating some of the notions, then typically move on to stick to the text and avoid the unsupported opinions.

What I'm saying is that when you find commentators — even more than one, or one of some stature — that takes a position that is not clearly there in the text (scripture), it is never obvious that it is the right opinion. Just an opinion.

I note that the reasons for the eventual call for the extermination (if that is rightly understood that way) of the Canaanites was not that the father of their tribe exposed Noah, but that they refused to acknowledge and worship God, and instead fought against God did detestable things in their worship of their false gods. There is no link back to Noah or that curse.

[Drake]

Ref 59.

Igzy, sarcasm?

Oh no, that was hyperbole, figurative language, an exaggeration to make a point. And the point was that most in this forum will not agree with Evangelical because by doing so THEIR universe begins to unravel, the one collectively constructed by the group to explain everything that ever went bad, every gripe, offense, disagreement, misunderstanding, and yes, legitimate objections too. I will grant you, it is a very small universe, but nevertheless every bit as important as the real universal to most here. Brothers like Evangelical are a threat to this universe because he presents logical arguments, scripturally based, outsources references, and makes a compelling case in nearly every post. I learn something every time he posts.

Now, I addressed your charge of Evangelical being " afraid " and "taken captive" with hyperbole because yours too was an exaggeration. The point you were making was that Evangelical should be understood as one that is unable and unwilling to listen to reason. Yours and others in this forum. So, rather than deal with the argument based on its merits, find agreement with him where it may be found, agree to disagree when you do, you instead engaged in an ad hominem attack, a fallacy in argumentation. By casting Evangelical as afraid and taken captive you can dismiss his points. He can't help himself, you see.

If Evangelical would have declared upfront his intentions to refute Witness Lee's teachings he would have been a genius in this forum, his approach comprehensive, his arguments compelling, instant credibility. He would have been a net contributor to the universe constructed here.

Drake

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy "Whatever Lee did, you would have agreed with him. That's why trying to convince staunch LCMers is generally pointless, because they are incapable of disagreeing with Lee. The reason is because they are afraid to, and the reason they are afraid to is because they have been taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines. "

Wow.

Evangelical, I never really thought of you as "afraid" and "taken captive" but there you have it above in black and white. Therefore, it must be true. Your well researched scriptural arguments are pointless. Your logical presentations are a waste of time. Your propensity to appeal to the reason in a man is ineffective because you are afraid and have been taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines. Did you know that? I must confess I had no clue. Who knew? Glad that has been cleared up.

Quite honestly the point is missed unless I have misinterpreted Igzy's post.
How I received what Igzy was saying "taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines" equates to fearing man more than fearing God. "What the brothers say" bears more weight than the Word or our human spirit.
When the term "get right with the brothers" is used, that implies whether one is a brother or sister, they cannot communicate with the one out of favor until that brother or sister "gets right with the brothers".
Ever take time to read Hear the Cases article? A clear indication what happens to be taken captive by the deputy authority doctrine. If a co-worker (James Lee) says something, it must be true. Thus there became a couple not welcome to meet with the Church in Vista.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ref 59.

Igzy, sarcasm?

Oh no, that was hyperbole, figurative language, an exaggeration to make a point. And the point was that most in this forum will not agree with Evangelical because by doing so THEIR universe begins to unravel, the one collectively constructed by the group to explain everything that ever went bad, every gripe, offense, disagreement, misunderstanding, and yes, legitimate objections too. I will grant you, it is a very small universe, but nevertheless every bit as important as the real universal to most here. Brothers like Evangelical are a threat to this universe because he presents logical arguments, scripturally based, outsources references, and makes a compelling case in nearly every post. I learn something every time he posts.

Now, I addressed your charge of Evangelical being " afraid " and "taken captive" with hyperbole because yours too was an exaggeration. The point you were making was that Evangelical should be understood as one that is unable and unwilling to listen to reason. Yours and others in this forum. So, rather than deal with the argument based on its merits, find agreement with him where it may be found, agree to disagree when you do, you instead engaged in an ad hominem attack, a fallacy in argumentation. By casting Evangelical as afraid and taken captive you can dismiss his points. He can't help himself, you see.

If Evangelical would have declared upfront his intentions to refute Witness Lee's teachings he would have been a genius in this forum, his approach comprehensive, his arguments compelling, instant credibility. He would have been a net contributor to the universe constructed here.

Drake

Drake, I have been in your "universe" at least as long as you. I know it personally through my own eyes and through the eyes of others. I know the good, and I know the bad. Been there done that.

You know this, and that's why you can never address my claims of corruption at LSM. That is the so-called "poison" which your leadership fears so much.

.................................................. ...............

And please go read Evangelical's comments on the Thessalonians and the Bereans in the thread, "Major Error's of WL Teachings ..." and tell me whose universe is unraveling.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ref 59.

The point you were making was that Evangelical should be understood as one that is unable and unwilling to listen to reason. Yours and others in this forum. So, rather than deal with the argument based on its merits, find agreement with him where it may be found, agree to disagree when you do, you instead engaged in an ad hominem attack, a fallacy in argumentation. By casting Evangelical as afraid and taken captive you can dismiss his points. He can't help himself, you see.

It's not an ad hominem attack if it is true. And it manifestly is. And the reason I know is because I've lived it. Ohio lived it and many others have. We have spoken of our experiences. You have not respected them. We have told you of history you seem to have hidden from. You have had no reply. You seem to be somewhat in denial, to say the least.

We've given you chances to demonstrate otherwise. Yet again and again when the chips were down, you have not stepped up and been completely honest. Like I said, tell me one major thing you disagree with Witness Lee about. I dare you. Are you afraid, or do you really agree with him on everything?

Do you think completely agreeing with a man is normal? Do you think thousands of people completely agreeing with him is normal? Tell us why. Make the case for this being normal behavior.

Do you think God is going to punish you if you disagree publicly with him? Isn't that a fear of yours? Then admit it. Are you also afraid of admitting you are afraid? If everyone should be afraid of disagreeing with Lee then why not tell us all plainly why that is so, instead of manifestly acting that way and then pretending you are not.

What is it about Witness Lee that causes you to behave that way? Is it him or just the authority doctrine? Or both? Either way it seems very irrational to me. And like I said, I know, because I used to think the way you do. So when I say what it is, I'm not talking out of my rear, and it's not ad hominem.

NOTE: This is very much on topic for this thread. Because this is what the authority doctrine comes down to--fear of anything but complete obedience to and protection of the authority figure.

This is the laboratory. You are one of the test cases. Guess what your case is demonstrating.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

We've given you chances to demonstrate otherwise. Yet again and again when the chips were down, you have not stepped up and been completely honest. Like I said, tell me one major thing you disagree with Witness Lee about. I dare you. Are you afraid, or do you really agree with him on everything?

Do you think completely agreeing with a man is normal? Do you think thousands of people completely agreeing with him is normal? Tell us why. Make the case for this being normal behavior. Do you think God is going to punish you if you disagree publicly with him? Isn't that a fear of yours? Then admit it. Are you also afraid of admitting you are afraid? If everyone should be afraid of disagreeing with Lee then why not tell us all plainly why that is so, instead of manifestly acting that way and then pretending you are not.

What is it about Witness Lee that causes you to behave that way? Is it him or just the authority doctrine? Or both? Either way it seems very irrational to me. And like I said, I know, because I used to think the way you do. So when I say what it is, I'm not talking out of my rear, and it's not ad hominem.

Drake, do you agree with Witness Lee that Genesis 9.25 is justification for the slavery of African Americans?

Drake, do you agree with Nee's and Lee's teachings here?

W. Nee & W. Lee both appeal to Noah’s blessing on his two sons, Shem & Japheth and his curse upon Ham to illustrate submission to God’s deputy authority. W. Nee asserts, “Ham’s descendents were to be slaves, put under others’ authority, for generation after generation,” due to exposing Noah’s nakedness. Plus W. Lee says “According to history and geography, Shem, Noah's 1st son, was the forefather of the Hebrews, the Jews. Ham, his 2nd son, was the forefather of the black people. Ham's son was Cush, the forefather of Ethiopia. Japheth, Noah's 3rd son, was the forefather of the Europeans.” Hence, Noah’s three sons are identified as the ancestors of 3 ethnic-racial groups—the Jews, “black people,” and “the Europeans.” He then declares, “Ham has been cursed…he became a slave of slaves. Has this been proved by history or not? It has.” (p. 450) Hence, W. Lee says “Ham…was the forefather of the black people.” “Ham has been cursed…he became a slave of slaves.” This, W. Lee says, has been proven by history--black slavery was the fulfillment of Noah’s curse upon Ham. Thus a hierarchical Trinity based on authority/submission is used to justify the hierarchical subjugation of Blacks.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ref 59.

And the point was that most in this forum will not agree with Evangelical because by doing so THEIR universe begins to unravel, the one collectively constructed by the group to explain everything that ever went bad, every gripe, offense, disagreement, misunderstanding, and yes, legitimate objections too. I will grant you, it is a very small universe, but nevertheless every bit as important as the real universal to most here. Brothers like Evangelical are a threat to this universe because he presents logical arguments, scripturally based, outsources references, and makes a compelling case in nearly every post. I learn something every time he posts.

Drake

Wait, what? Is this for real? Can he really believe this?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Wait, what? Is this for real? Can he really believe this?

Now you know what we've been dealing with for years.

[Drake]

Igzy "It's not an ad hominem attack if it is true. And it manifestly is. And the reason I know is because I've lived it"

Igzy, there are two fallacies in this short opener.

First, an ad hominem attack is not determined whether it's true or not. Often it is.

Second, your experience of being afraid and taken captive is not transferable to others.

This is the universe you and others here have created based on your experiences. Until you accept that others could have a different experience from yours then you will always be stuck in a one track argument, resort to ad hominem, and ask irrelevant questions as you did in the rest of your post. Though I confess I did get a chuckle from the circular reasoning of "afraid to admit your afraid".

Here's the bottom line. I do not have one sliver of fear about any thing you have mentioned. I am completely free from anyone controlling me or my thoughts. After four decades in the Lords Recovery I have never been afraid nor has anyone tried to control me. Ever.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Wait, what? Is this for real? Can he really believe this?

Absolutely he believes it. At best it is a severe case of group think in this place. It could be something worse....

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Terry

Quite honestly the point is missed unless I have misinterpreted Igzy's post.
How I received what Igzy was saying "taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines" equates to fearing man more than fearing God. "What the brothers say" bears more weight than the Word or our human spirit.
When the term "get right with the brothers" is used, that implies whether one is a brother or sister, they cannot communicate with the one out of favor until that brother or sister "gets right with the brothers".
Ever take time to read Hear the Cases article? A clear indication what happens to be taken captive by the deputy authority doctrine. If a co-worker (James Lee) says something, it must be true. Thus there became a couple not welcome to meet with the Church in Vista.

Terry,

I have acknowledged on more than one occasion that if I had experienced what some did I am not sure how I would have reacted. But also, I often hear some describe an experience that I can relate to yet we had very different outcomes.

I simply have never been afraid of fearing man in the Lords Recovery, any man. I explained once about a strong disagreement with something that was said and when brought up to a leading brother he said "don't worry about it, the speaking was not for you, just enjoy the Lord." But again, I am aware that others may have had a different experience.

Drake

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

Absolutely he believes it. At best it is a severe case of group think in this place. It could be something worse....

Drake

Wow, no way. I'm going to take this next week away from the forum and pray for my brother Drake.

God bless.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

False. I agree with Lee on many things.

Now, disprove my assertion about you. Tell me what you disagree with him about.

And Drake, nice try with the sarcasm, but you could help us all by telling us what you disagree with Lee about, too.

I'll say it again. Lee's authority doctrine is craven psychological pressure to agree with him, to discount evidence against him, and to champion evidence in his favor.

I'm not anti-Lee, but I am anti-Lee-as-MOTA and spiritual bully. There is a difference.

I wish you guys could appreciate these subtleties.

I've been posting about how the story of Noah could have been about castration or incest. That seems different to what Lee taught. He would probably disagree with me and stick to the traditional interpretation.

Like I wrote to Drake:

"even when I post articles from well known tv-evangelist Don Stewart they are reacting as if I am quoting from the Recovery Version footnotes".

As Drake said, this is a sign of "severe case of group think".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I've been posting about how the story of Noah could have been about castration or incest. That seems different to what Lee taught. He would probably disagree with me and stick to the traditional interpretation.

Adding something to what he said is not the same a contradicting something he said.

Tell me something major that he taught that you are willing to disagree with.

Son of man being Son-ized? (Romans 1:4)

Satan dwelling in man's flesh?

Man becoming God?

Any old thing will do, unless it's so minor to be insignificant.

How about you Drake?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Wow, no way. I'm going to take this next week away from the forum and pray for my brother Drake.

God bless.

Why thank you. Appreciate that.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy, there are two fallacies in this short opener.

First, an ad hominem attack is not determined whether it's true or not. Often it is.

Second, your experience of being afraid and taken captive is not transferable to others.

Simply speaking a tough word is not ad hominem. Ad hominem is attacking the person in a plainly below-the-belt way. I can be tough, I know. But it's important to me to be fair.

By your logic it is never appropriate to, for example, say someone is in denial. But you can't really think that because you just accused me of being in denial. So by your definition you made an ad hominem attack against me.

But I won't hide behind that, because I think it's more important to be honest and open and not hide behind claims of ad hominem attacks.

You said experiences weren't transferable. But your attitude since you came to this board is that your experience diminishes contradictory testimonies somehow, or at least makes it so you don't have to seriously consider them. Doesn't that imply your experience should transfer to others?

But I've admitted to having good experiences in the LCM. I seriously consider them. The issue, however, is not that good experiences don't happen there. The issue, at least for many here, is the over-abundance of bad experiences coupled with doctrinal claims which put pressure on people to not leave the movement, which are classic features of abusive groups.

You've read many testimonies of these bad experiences and had ample time to study major abuses such as what happened in the Great Lakes area, with Philip Lee, and so forth. Yet your reply has been to simply imply that "none of that happened around me" so you guess the stories can be brushed aside or even ignored.

What you see as frustrating hyper-negativity toward the LCM here is really the fruit of frustration of the way, over and over, you guys try to deflect and downplay real and serious stories of abuse. Which is what Ohio refers to in post #68.

Please forgive us, but it is disheartening when you talk to people who claim to have a corner on the truth who don't seem to know how to be fully honest. Why should anyone believe you have much to offer those seeking truth when you can't seem to be able to do that?

So, what am I supposed to do? Just say that kind of behavior makes sense? I don't think it does. Maybe in your world, but most of what I know about your world tells me that there is a lot of denial there. If that sounds ad hominem or irrelevant, I'm sorry. But I think bringing it up is necessary.

I'm here not because I want the LCM to end, but because I want the hurting to stop. If that's a failing I'll gladly own it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Adding something to what he said is not the same a contradicting something he said.

Tell me something major that he taught that you are willing to disagree with.

Son of man being Son-ized? (Romans 1:4)

Satan dwelling in man's flesh?

Man becoming God?

Any old thing will do, unless it's so minor to be insignificant.

How about you Drake?

My views would diverge in the area of eschatology and the Creation account of Genesis. I don't really see the gap theory in Genesis and I lean towards Preterism and a highly symbolic view of Revelation.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My views would diverge in the area of eschatology and the Creation account of Genesis. I don't really see the gap theory in Genesis and I lean towards Preterism and a highly symbolic view of Revelation.

I don't see these as that major. Plus nothing here is going to put you at odds when it comes to expected behavior. Do you disagree with anything about the church, church life or the inner life?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't see these as that major. Plus nothing here is going to put you at odds when it comes to expected behavior. Do you disagree with anything about the church, church life or the inner life?

eschatology and the return of Christ is not major?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

eschatology and the return of Christ is not major?

Ends times stuff is highly speculative. Disagreements are common. Most people can't even keep up with all the details.

I was more thinking about things that might raise the eyebrows of the leaders. For example, disagreeing with the whole "minister of the age" line of thinking. Or disagreeing that the LCM represents "God's recovery." Or disagreeing that we are "becoming God."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ends times stuff is highly speculative. Disagreements are common. Most people can't even keep up with all the details.

I was more thinking about things that might raise the eyebrows of the leaders. For example, disagreeing with the whole "minister of the age" line of thinking. Or disagreeing that the LCM represents "God's recovery." Or disagreeing that we are "becoming God."

Well it seemed major to me. Eschatology is important and connected to a number of Lee's teachings concerning the return of Christ and even the role and purpose of the Recovery (Jesus can't come back unless... etc). A full preterist view that the rapture, tribulation or Christ's coming has already passed I'm sure would raise eyebrows. I'm not full preterist but see the rapture differently than Lee would I presume.

You asked for "any old thing will do" but it seems you have limited my choices to three or so topics. I don't really disagree with those things you stated. I'll keep thinking, I really will.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

You think like that because you are afraid and taken captive. Therefore, why should anyone listen to you?

You see, if folks had to argue and debate you on the merits of your posts that might lead to having to agree with something you said, regardless of who you reference be it the Pope, or a Protestant minister, or a respected theologian , and if that were to happen that might imply an agreement with Witness Lee on something and then the very fabric of the universe would unravel. Therefore, given the choice of the fabric of the universe unravelling or retreating to a happy place where all will be safe in the knowledge that the issue is all about you because you are afraid and have been taken captive, well, it is a simple choice, then isn't it?

There are those on this forum who are not debating him on certain points because we do agree with WL. Our universe has not unraveled. For example, Witness Lee taught that a counterfeit bill is not completely wrong, it is 99% correct. The 1% where it is not correct, that is what identifies it as counterfeit.

I may not agree with 99% of WL, but I do agree that it is certain teachings of his that cause all the trouble: MOTA and Ground of the church.

I even created a thread where I showed that if they eliminated those two teachings they could eliminate being viewed as a cult.

In my opinion, and I could be wrong, but I think that WL primarily repackaged existing brethren teachings, pretended they were his, and then sold them as his. There are some very strange teachings sprinkled in like the double S spirit that may very likely have originated with him. He also probably coined some phrases that he was very insistent on taking credit for (again suggesting that he and others were well aware that most of his teachings were not original but lifted from others). I imagine someone who was an expert in both brethren teaching and WL could highlight the very few "original" tidbits that could be credited to WL, but most of those would be things I have chosen to discard, ignore or feel were wrong.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well it seemed major to me. Eschatology is important and connected to a number of Lee's teachings concerning the return of Christ and even the role and purpose of the Recovery (Jesus can't come back unless... etc). A full preterist view that the rapture, tribulation or Christ's coming has already passed I'm sure would raise eyebrows. I'm not full preterist but see the rapture differently than Lee would I presume.

You asked for "any old thing will do" but it seems you have limited my choices to three or so topics. I don't really disagree with those things you stated. I'll keep thinking, I really will.

Except for partial rapture and millennial discipline, the LCM view is pretty standard pre-trib stuff.

But do you tell anyone else about these things? Do you ever say to any of your LCM friends, "I think Witness Lee was wrong about this point"?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

He also probably coined some phrases that he was very insistent on taking credit for (again suggesting that he and others were well aware that most of his teachings were not original but lifted from others).

Lee always sold "the sevenfold-intensified Spirit" like it was one of his greatest revelations. But he probably got it from the Amplified Bible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In my opinion, and I could be wrong, but I think that WL primarily repackaged existing brethren teachings, pretended they were his, and then sold them as his.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Lee always sold "the sevenfold-intensified Spirit" like it was one of his greatest revelations. But he probably got it from the Amplified Bible.

Interesting find, Igzy.

Let me provide an interpretation for one of those "Recoveryisms" we used to regularly hear:

"Standing on the shoulders" of other Christian authors: Plagiarism by WL

The reference to Isaiah 11.2 is also interesting since it provides description to the Seven Spirits before His throne:

1. Spirit of Jehovah
2. Spirit of wisdom
3. Spirit of understanding
4. Spirit of counsel
5. Spirit of might
6. Spirit of knowledge
7. Spirit of the fear of Jehovah

Which rest upon the Christ, the shoot out of the stock of Jesse.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In my opinion, and I could be wrong, but I think that WL primarily repackaged existing brethren teachings, pretended they were his, and then sold them as his.

One for example was The Economy of God. Not so much a Brethren teaching, but notes taken from a conference another brother gave.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Terry

One for example was The Economy of God. Not so much a Brethren teaching, but notes taken from a conference another brother gave.

Yes, many of WL's teachings were variations of teachings given by T. Austin-Sparks.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Having said that I am certain that this article will be a big hit here. Most will scarf it up!

Not me. Although I like to agree with Dr. Tomes, I don't always.

Actually, I didn't read the article until today. I was more interested in the discussion about Noah.

Let me say, if I understand Tome's argument, I think it is a stretch. In the first place, I'm not sure I don't believe in EFS. In the second, even if it EFS is true that doesn't necessarily support Lee's authority model anyway.

And I disagree with argument that says if EFS is true that boils down to that the Son has a different essence than the Father. The fact is, that there is a Father and Son shows they are in some way different. If they are the same in every way then the distinction is completely meaningless. Therefore there must be a difference and that difference must be eternal and essential.

But just what does "essential" mean. Well, as always with the Trinity, it often boils down to subjective registrations of what we think the words used to discuss it mean. We say God is of one "essence" but we think of that essence as a cloud of stuff. But God's essence is not just stuff. In fact, I would argue that the most important part of his essence is something that is very difficult to define. But I guess the closest I can get is to call it a "moral idea in its reality." We say God is love. But is love a stuff? No, love is something that is alive and has a kind of consciousness and moral substance. The same for righteousness, wisdom and relationship.

I think the key to the Trinity is to think of it in terms of relationships rather that "stuff." God has a relationship with himself. Is that one or two? It is both. The Father is God in himself and the Son is God in his image of himself, what he sees when he considers himself. Yet these two have a relationship. So in that relationship the image (Son) can by definition only do what the source (Father) does or tells him to do, because the Father is the origin. Yet since the Son is God's perfect self-image, he is equal to the Father in every single way except for the distinction between the two, and thus not subordinate, but just one.

So just as my self-image is subordinate to me, God's is to him. Yet since my self-image, if I was as moral and psychologically healthy as God, would be exactly me, except for the distinction, so we would be co-equal. I think full salvation will bring us to the consciousness where we regard our self-image in the manner the Father regards the Son. This in the end is "finding your soul."

Anyway, regardless. I don't think either view validates or negates Lee's authority model. His model is wrong because it is not supported by scripture and manifestly always-and-ever produces rotten fruit.

So as the Apostle John wrote: "Remember, the sins of some people are obvious, leading them to certain judgment. But there are others whose sins will not be revealed until later." It's the same with doctrines. Some aren't revealed for what they are until they are put into practice. Let's authority model is such a doctrine.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Like the articles found in the Washington Post I know a hit piece when I read one. I have seen many hit pieces from the economic professor Tomes and this is but another one of his twisted weaves.

This type of thinking works for economics with so many variables that most things need not and cannot be proven, just argued and so the adage that if you stack all the economists end to end they would never reach agreement. Yet, this does not work so well for theological dissertations. I'm sure Dr. Tomes is a genius in his field of training but not this one.

Anyway, his papers look authentic and educational but when you step back and look at the forest, and not just circular path he takes the reader on, through the bramble bushes, across the creek, up the cliff, over hill, over dale then a twisted matrix of trails emerge seemingly related but not necessary parts of a whole.

But that is just my "generic" view.

Having said that I am certain that this article will be a big hit here. Most will scarf it up!

Thanks for asking.

Drake

I find it quite amusing that our friend Drake, a regular defender of LSM, would so casually dismiss every single paper penned by Dr. Nigel Tomes, who was a former co-worker in the Lord's Recovery, until that bogus hit piece was authored a decade ago in Whistler quarantining the GLA. I would like to know what part our friend Drake had in those quarantines and excommunications in the GLA, which included the writer Tomes.

Obviously if Tomes' papers were simply fake news "hit jobs" akin to WaPo's numerous pieces on "Russian collusions," then someone with Drake's extensive credentials would not waste his time here on this insignificant "group-think, bitter, cult" forum of ex-LC members.

Actually, Tomes' piece here appeared to be a "dud" to me at first glance, since Trinitarian theological speculations are not my cup of tea. But after Drake took notice, and I looked further into the paper, I now realize that Tomes is now dismantling the entire Recovery construct by taking the axe to the root of their false basis of authority.

Long overdue Nigel!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Except for partial rapture and millennial discipline, the LCM view is pretty standard pre-trib stuff.

But do you tell anyone else about these things? Do you ever say to any of your LCM friends, "I think Witness Lee was wrong about this point"?

Well yes, post-meeting discussions at the lunch table on various parts we agree or disagree with do happen.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I find it quite amusing that our friend Drake, a regular defender of LSM, would so casually dismiss every single paper penned by Dr. Nigel Tomes, who was a former co-worker in the Lord's Recovery, until that bogus hit piece was authored a decade ago in Whistler quarantining the GLA. I would like to know what part our friend Drake had in those quarantines and excommunications in the GLA, which included the writer Tomes.

Obviously if Tomes' papers were simply fake news "hit jobs" akin to WaPo's numerous pieces on "Russian collusions," then someone with Drake's extensive credentials would not waste his time here on this insignificant "group-think, bitter, cult" forum of ex-LC members.

Actually, Tomes' piece here appeared to be a "dud" to me at first glance, since Trinitarian theological speculations are not my cup of tea. But after Drake took notice, and I looked further into the paper, I now realize that Tomes is now dismantling the entire Recovery construct by taking the axe to the root of their false basis of authority.

Long overdue Nigel!

Good point. WL's teachings condemned hierarchy to the max and yet WN and WL teach that the Triune God is a hierarchy. If we are being replaced molecule by molecule with the Triune God, which is a hierarchy it would stand to reason that the expression of this God, the church, would also be a hierarchy.

Clearly this shows the fundamental hypocrisy in this WL and WN's teaching. If you agree with WL that hierarchy is an expression of fallen Christianity then you have to say he has made a fundamental error in his doctrine of the Trinity.

On the other hand if you agree with WL's teaching on authority and submission then you have to throw out all his teachings condemning Christianity for hierarchy.

Also this paper seems to finally make sense of these verses in Matt 18:

18 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

If you understand this question of "who is greatest" in the context of "Authority and Submission" the Lord's word completely blows a hole in WN and WL's teaching.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well yes, post-meeting discussions at the lunch table on various parts we agree or disagree with do happen.

I'm happy to hear that. I stand corrected. That's the second time in a week.

In my day we dare not disagree with Lee. Just wasn't done.

[Ohio]

This is what I consider the heart of Nigel's paper ...

Asian Cultural Concept ‘baptized’ as an Eternal Trinitarian Principle

“China is famously Confucian.” Jackson Wu explains, “Confucianism...is socially hierarchical...All social interactions are regulated by the principle of the subordinate deferring to the superior. Thus, authority is central to ethics, values, and identity.” Hence, Watchman Nee’s authority-submission dogma resonates with Chinese Confucian values. Dennis McCallum astutely observes that “Late in his career, [Watchman] Nee... developed some doctrinal aberrations...These areas had to do with a heavy emphasis on authority & submission ...The emphasis on delegated human authority was in perfect harmony with Confucian ethics.” Dr. G. Wright Doyle concludes that the Chinese culture encourages authoritarian leadership. He alleges “All observers have noted the authoritarian nature of Chinese leadership, from Imperial times to the present.” Jackson Wu agrees that Chinese “culture encourages authoritarian leadership and an unwillingness to show weakness...”

These observations raise the spectre that Watchman Nee’s authority-submission dogma was the result of “human projection misidentified with divine revelation.” Via Watchman Nee’s authority-submission dogma the Asian cultural concept of an authority hierarchy was ‘baptized’ as an eternal “principle” of the Triune God. Teresa Zimmerman-Liu has argued that Watchman “Nee contextualized the message of Western missionaries to China.” W. Nee’s authority/submission dogma represents a further example of this process. Yet, there is a significant difference; styles of worship can be contextualized, producing an Asian style of worship. But the Triune God cannot be contextualized; there is neither an Oriental Trinity, nor an Occidental Trinity. There’s simply the ontological Trinity. W. Nee projected authority onto the Triune God, resulting in an Asian Trinity.

An Asian Trinity? Is it really true that the LC's have an Asian flavor, not just because of an abundance of Asians, but because the God presented to the LC's is an "Asian-flavored" God. Not a God of love, but a God of authority. Not a God who blesses brotherly love, but a God who blesses blind submission.

Moses could not enter the Good Land because he misrepresented God by striking the rock twice. (Numbers 20.11-12) W. Nee's authority-submission dogma has also grossly mischaracterized our God. What many typical American Christians initially interpreted as spiritual and revelatory teachings, was actually W. Nee projecting Chinese cultural norms of authority and submission into his own version of the Trinity. It took time to see the fruit of this error in action.

This, I believe, strikes at the root of LC error. Out from this faulty self-serving portrayal of an authoritarian God comes the promotion of papal-like leaders in the Recovery titled the "Minister of the Age" and the "acting god." These human leaders rob us of the Headship of Christ by becoming mediators in place of Christ. They have ruled the Recovery as the Gentiles rule the nations with an iron hand, lording it over the people of God.

[Cal]

Let me say I do think that one's view of the Trinity does seem to have a far-reaching effect on their view of things. It's really interesting. Or said another way, one's view of life is often reflected in their view of the Trinity.

If you think authority is very important, you might see authority in the Trinity.

If you think oneness is important, you might see oneness in the Trinity.

If you value diversity, you might see that.

I see all three. But more than all those what I see in the Trinity is relationship. To me that is really what it's all about. Relationship is so important that the one God even has relationship within himself.

He values our relationship with him and with each other more than anything. That is why the first and second commandments are love God and love people.

Lee didn't really see this that much I don't think. He valued the oneness of the Trinity, and somewhat discounted the diversity. He never seemed to get however that all of life really about how we relate to three things: God, others and ourselves.

His authority model actually works against that. How many relationships have been broken because Lee's authority model superseded all else?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

How I received what Igzy was saying "taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines" equates to fearing man more than fearing God. "What the brothers say" bears more weight than the Word or our human spirit.
When the term "get right with the brothers" is used, that implies whether one is a brother or sister, they cannot communicate with the one out of favor until that brother or sister "gets right with the brothers".
Ever take time to read Hear the Cases article? A clear indication what happens to be taken captive by the deputy authority doctrine. If a co-worker (James Lee) says something, it must be true. Thus there became a couple not welcome to meet with the Church in Vista.

Aside from the lack of scriptural support for the teaching of Deputy Authority, it seems like those who are in support of it really don’t understand the inevitable problems it creates. I’m not out to be dismissive of what people say they have or haven’t experienced, but at least speaking from my own experience, I don’t think the authoritarianism always manifests itself overtly.

When you look at the LCM environment, you see people who are often afraid to voice concerns. There are people who feel it is better to just drop issues instead of trying to resolve the issue. People get told to not worry about something. All of these things are evidence of authoritarianism and the fearing of man.

I had a situation where a ‘responsible’ brother approached me and gave me a talk about dating. The essence of that his talk was to let me know that if I knew what was good for me, I would discuss anything related to dating with the brothers. And he wanted me to consult with him specifically.

Even before the conversation was over, I was enraged that he had dared to approach me in that way. However, because it all was done suggestively or in a way that he purposely portrayed as being “optional fellowship,” there was nothing I could do about it, without making myself look bad in front of bystanders. Consider if I had reacted strongly to what he said and let him know it was inappropriate. I might have been told to “drop the issue” or to “not worry about it.” When I later expressed my disgust with what happened to someone else, this person asked me why I didn’t stand up to the 'responsible' brother. Well it’s nice to think it would be so easy to do that, but the reality is completely different. Especially when the person who is approaching someone else directs that person to not object to what has been spoken.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Aside from the lack of scriptural support for the teaching of Deputy Authority, it seems like those who are in support of it really don’t understand the inevitable problems it creates. I’m not out to be dismissive of what people say they have or haven’t experienced, but at least speaking from my own experience, I don’t think the authoritarianism always manifests itself overtly.

When you look at the LCM environment, you see people who are often afraid to voice concerns. There are people who feel it is better to just drop issues instead of trying to resolve the issue. People get told to not worry about something. All of these things are evidence of authoritarianism and the fearing of man.

I had a situation where a ‘responsible’ brother approached me and gave me a talk about dating. The essence of that his talk was to let me know that if I knew what was good for me, I would discuss anything related to dating with the brothers. And he wanted me to consult with him specifically.

Even before the conversation was over, I was enraged that he had dared to approach me in that way. However, because it all was done suggestively or in a way that he purposely portrayed as being “optional fellowship,” there was nothing I could do about it, without making myself look bad in front of bystanders. Consider if I had reacted strongly to what he said and let him know it was inappropriate. I might have been told to “drop the issue” or to “not worry about it.” When I later expressed my disgust with what happened to someone else, this person asked me why I didn’t stand up to the 'responsible' brother. Well it’s nice to think it would be so easy to do that, but the reality is completely different. Especially when the person who is approaching someone else directs that person to not object to what has been spoken.

Yes, you may have been told to drop the issue or don't make a mountain out of a molehill. It comes down to previous points I've made before. LSM/DCP apparently go into bunker mode whenever there's a counter. Brothers don't want to be put on defensive. That's the bottom line.
Take Steve Isitt for example. Nearly 6 years ago he wanted to make an appointment with DCP. There was no openness by DCP to receive an appointment. This is a recurring theme with rare exceptions. No matter how big or how minute the issue is. There's no counterpoint to be received.
In most instances a deacon/elder/co-worker may say something publicly or privately. Any rebuttal, counterpoint, etc is "stonewalled".
Many elders come across as passive aggressive. Few are downright aggressive. Deputy authority encourages aggressive behavior in an authoritarian way. Few come across as meek and humble and that's because deputy authority encourages authoritarian behavior. Whether passive or not. It's as if at any given moment deputy authority is a card to be utilized and not for elders/co-workers to conduct themselves humbly or meekly.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Drake

I simply have never been afraid of fearing man in the Lords Recovery, any man. I explained once about a strong disagreement with something that was said and when brought up to a leading brother he said "don't worry about it, the speaking was not for you, just enjoy the Lord." But again, I am aware that others may have had a different experience.

Drake, in a previous post I referred to passive aggressive behavior. This is a good example. The brother you were speaking to was taking a stand, but passively letting you make a choice. Enjoy the Lord as he suggested. Should you had taken the position "I'm not going to let this go", there would have been negative repercussions. As it would have been received as you rebelling against his authority. Rather many brothers in that position it's not a matter of rebellion nor a matter of authority, but a matter of honest mutual fellowship.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Terry,

I have acknowledged on more than one occasion that if I had experienced what some did I am not sure how I would have reacted. But also, I often hear some describe an experience that I can relate to yet we had very different outcomes.

I simply have never been afraid of fearing man in the Lords Recovery, any man.

I explained once about a strong disagreement with something that was said and when brought up to a leading brother he said "don't worry about it, the speaking was not for you, just enjoy the Lord." But again, I am aware that others may have had a different experience.

Drake

Drake, did you sign that letter of allegiance to Witness Lee in early 1986?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Terry

Drake, in a previous post I referred to passive aggressive behavior. This is a good example. The brother you were speaking to was taking a stand, but passively letting you make a choice. Enjoy the Lord as he suggested. Should you had taken the position "I'm not going to let this go", there would have been negative repercussions. As it would have been received as you rebelling against his authority. Rather many brothers in that position it's not a matter of rebellion nor a matter of authority, but a matter of honest mutual fellowship.

Terry,

The brother was more concerned about the person not the teaching. The Lord then had an opportunity to supply grace. The concern just disappated.

Yet there were other tines when more fellowship was required for some situation . Again, always a supply of grace and never a force fit.

Drake

[Cal]

The problem with Lee's authority doctrine is that it demonstrably forces people under it to shelve their consciences for the sake of "submission."

I've noticed when the LCM says "submission" they really mean "obedience." But these words don't mean the same thing.

The difference between "submission" and "obedience" is that "submission" allows for dissent for reasons of conscience. There is no teaching in the Bible that forces followers of leaders to compromise what they feel God is directly commanding them to do. We are to obey the Bible (interpreted wisely) absolutely, but not leaders.

Drake's story of his problem he took to a leader is an example of the insipid way the LCM allows for "dissent." In their view if you disagree with leadership strongly you can go to them so they can convince you they are right. Once they feel they've graciously explained things well enough to you, you are expected to agree and/or shut up. If you continue to disagree it shows you are "not under the Head" and are a rebel. There is no scenario in the LCM where you can honestly say, "I must obey my conscience and part ways" and the leaders respect that. As far as they are concerned that is rebellion and back-sliding.

That's not submission, that's absolute obedience.

However, the two truths "obey your leaders" and "let each be fully persuaded in his own mind" cannot co-exist without the concession that (1) we need to respect those who part ways with us for reasons of conscience and (2) the logical corollary that we must allow for and respect other gatherings in our locality.

If we insist our gathering is THE gathering then we are not respecting the consciences of others. (As evidence, there are many groups which meet as the church in the city which have no affiliation with LSM, and the LCM respects or recognizes none of them. This proves they are not truly for oneness except oneness that is centered around them.)

Lee's authority doctrine is designed to enforce compliance with his movement. It is not biblical. It's a conglomeration of Chinese Confuscianism, bad Bible interpretation and a self-serving agenda.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem with Lee's authority doctrine is that it demonstrably forces people under it to shelve their consciences for the sake of "submission."

I've noticed when the LCM says "submission" they really mean "obedience." But these words don't mean the same thing.

The difference between "submission" and "obedience" is that "submission" allows for dissent for reasons of conscience. There is no teaching in the Bible that forces followers of leaders to compromise what they feel God is directly commanding them to do. We are to obey the Bible (interpreted wisely) absolutely, but not leaders.

Drake's story of his problem he took to a leader is an example of the insipid way the LCM allows for "dissent." In their view if you disagree with leadership strongly you can go to them so they can convince you they are right. Once they feel they've gracious explained things well enough to you, you are expected to agree and/or shut up. If you continue to disagree it shows you are "not under the Head" and are a rebel. There is no scenario in the LCM where you can honestly say, "I must obey my conscience and part ways" and the leaders respect that. As far as they are concerned that is rebellion and back-sliding.

That's not submission, that's absolute obedience.

However, the two truths "obey your leaders" and "let each be fully persuaded in his own mind" cannot co-exist without the concession that (1) we need to respect those who part ways with us for reasons of conscience and (2) the logical corollary that we must allow for and respect other gatherings in our locality.

If we insist our gathering is THE gathering then we are not respecting the consciences of others. (As evidence, there are many groups which meet as the church in the city which have no affiliation with LSM and the LCM respects or recognizes none of them. This proves they are not truly for oneness except oneness that is centered around them.)

Lee's authority doctrine is designed to enforce compliance with his movement. It is not biblical. It's a conglomeration of Chinese Confuscianism, bad Bible interpretation and a self-serving agenda.

I think the analogy of a guitar is very helpful for me to understand these truths. On the one hand each string is attached to the bridge which is immovable. Honor the king, obey those that rule over you, etc. On the other hand each individual string is attached to a tuner which must be tightened or loosened to be properly tuned. That is equivalent to "let each be fully persuaded in their own mind". If this is done according to God's design you will have a symphony with many different voices tuned together. Singing and playing in tune is an expression of the "oneness". However, when one voice stifles and eliminates all other voices, they can claim it is for the oneness but instead you are eliminating the symphony.

Jesus is the conductor, the church is the orchestra. You may have some well know soloists, but when a single name dominates you no longer have a symphony (I am of Peter, Apollos, etc). Yet it is the Lord's symphony you are damaging. Hence, "if anyone offends one of these little ones in the orchestra it were better for him that millstone be hung around his neck and he be cast into the sea".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

However, when one voice stifles and eliminates all other voices, they can claim it is for the oneness but instead you are eliminating the symphony.

Lee is the GOTA. The Guitar string Of The Age.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Lee is the GOTA. The Guitar string Of The Age.

I thought Lebron James was the GOAT.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I thought Lebron James was the GOAT.

That's the Greatest Of All Time. I'm sure some LCMers think that describes Lee as well.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I've noticed when the LCM says "submission" they really mean "obedience." But these words don't mean the same thing.

The difference between "submission" and "obedience" is that "submission" allows for dissent for reasons of conscience. There is no teaching in the Bible that forces followers of leaders to compromise what they feel God is directly commanding them to do. We are to obey the Bible (interpreted wisely) absolutely, but not leaders.

Drake's story of his problem he took to a leader is an example of the insipid way the LCM allows for "dissent." In their view if you disagree with leadership strongly you can go to them so they can convince you they are right. Once they feel they've graciously explained things well enough to you, you are expected to agree and/or shut up. If you continue to disagree it shows you are "not under the Head" and are a rebel. There is no scenario in the LCM where you can honestly say, "I must obey my conscience and part ways" and the leaders respect that. As far as they are concerned that is rebellion and back-sliding.

A quote from the HWFMR the locality I was visiting last Sunday morning:

"The most important task for each of us is to put ourselves into God's hand in a quiet, patient, prayerful, consecrated, and obedient way and wholeheartedly seek after His leading."

So what if God's leading isn't corresponding to what the leading brother's desire? You would be marked as a rebel.
Is anyone so bold to say the elders/co-workers who left in the late 80's or in more recent years were no longer under the headship of Christ? I can't say that because I believe they were. It just so happened their obedience to His leading was no longer compatible to the direction LSM was taking.