Evaluation of Elders

[TLFisher]

Thanks to PriestlyScribe bringing it to my attention:

"Concerning the appointment and qualification of co-workers and elders, we can view this from two angles. On the one hand, we should follow the Scriptures. On the other hand, based on our long-term history, we know that some of our co-workers have been harmed because there has been no evaluation of their service. Today in various big companies and government organizations there are examinations with grades. Even diplomatic officials must take examinations... I absolutely believe that if we had systematically evaluated the co-workers in Taiwan over the past thirty years, the co-workers would have been more fruitful than they are today. The same applies to the elders... In the Bible we cannot find any length of time for the service of an elder. According to our understanding, it seems as if an elder should serve his whole life, like a justice on the Supreme Court. If an elder is constantly learning and making progress and is truly an elder among the saints, this is all right. But if one has been an elder for twenty or thirty years, and the church under his management is only mediocre, this proves that the time has come for him to voluntarily yield his position to someone who is younger but more qualified and experienced... In this way the churches can have a new beginning and a new hope." Witness Lee

Crucial Words of Leading in the Lord's Recovery, Book 1: The Vision and Definite Steps for the Practice of the New Way

[TLFisher]

Many of us have been indoctrinated with the concept elders/co-workers were representatives of God's government thus considered having "Spiritual Diplomatic Immunity".

leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. Matthew 5:24

Here's a situation; you're an elder in a locality and there's a brother in your locality you refuse to speak to. This goes on for well over a year. The elder can go on taking the Lord's Table week after week, month after month, and year after year without needing to be reconciled to his brother.

What do you, as an attendee of the Church in _______ do when there's nothing in place to evaluate an elder or a co-worker?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

"Concerning the appointment and qualification of co-workers and elders, we can view this from two angles. On the one hand, we should follow the Scriptures. On the other hand, based on our long-term history, we know that some of our co-workers have been harmed because there has been no evaluation of their service.

I absolutely believe that if we had systematically evaluated the co-workers in Taiwan over the past thirty years, the co-workers would have been more fruitful than they are today. The same applies to the elders... In the Bible we cannot find any length of time for the service of an elder.

According to our understanding, it seems as if an elder should serve his whole life, like a justice on the Supreme Court. If an elder is constantly learning and making progress and is truly an elder among the saints, this is all right. But if one has been an elder for twenty or thirty years, and the church under his management is only mediocre, this proves that the time has come for him to voluntarily yield his position to someone who is younger but more qualified and experienced... In this way the churches can have a new beginning and a new hope." Witness Lee

I'm not sure why this was posted, and what was the intention in posting it, but at the time this was spoken, I think WL should have been paying more attention to the moral fiber of his own ministry, and the "character" of the one placed in charge of LSM, commonly known as "The Office."

This quote seems to be nothing more than justification for WL going back to Taipei and taking over, firing the existing elders and hiring 80 young ministry loyalists as new elders.

[Paul Cox]

Witness Lee's concept of bearing fruit is strictly the increase of head count, and nothing more. You are right, Ohio, Witness Lee should have been paying more attention to the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Even if he insisted that fruit was strictly numbers, then he should have looked inward for why the Lord's 'blessing' started to wane from the Living Stream Church. It had little to do with elders not learning enough over the decades and all to do with his own elevation to near deity while at the same time covering up gross immorality right in his own ministry office.

The problem with Witness Lee was that it was always somebody else's fault and not his. Reminds me of another Anointed One who occupies the highest office in our land.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not sure why this was posted, and what was the intention in posting it, but at the time this was spoken, I think WL should have been paying more attention to the moral fiber of his own ministry, and the "character" of the one placed in charge of LSM, commonly known as "The Office."

This quote seems to be nothing more than justification for WL going back to Taipei and taking over, firing the existing elders and hiring 80 young ministry loyalists as new elders.

Primarily in relation to a current event and secondly it's in contrast to the teaching of deputy authority.

Many may agree with you it's a time specific word trying to exhort longtime elders to step aside and let younger brothers take the lead. As it was older elders that were viewed as holding back the new way. Many on this forum would say the younger elders were "yes men". As they did not have the experience in life the older elders had.

However there's also been the slogan "the minister of the age". For the reader, if you believe Witness Lee was and is the minister of the age, how can you reject this word? If you have something in place to evaluate elders, I believe would provide policeman in localities so abuses as testified in Southern California would not transpire.

At least here locally as I have witnessed, elders tolerate "condemning all other Christians, and boasting in all their own riches" in prophesying meetings. If that doesn't require evaluating, that's not an environment I want to raise my children in.

[TLFisher]

Question for everyone's consideration, what approach should be taken when an elder is unable to remain impartial on a matter?

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Terry

Question for everyone's consideration, what approach should be taken when an elder is unable to remain impartial on a matter?

Is the elder directly or indirectly involved in the matter?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

Question for everyone's consideration, what approach should be taken when an elder is unable to remain impartial on a matter?

A judge, prosecutor or juror who is unable to remain impartial on a matter should be recused. What is the evidence that supports this assertion?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Is the elder directly or indirectly involved in the matter?

Directly involved or indirectly involved yet fully aware, but their word or their silence on the matter affects the outcome?

It could be something as general as which brother to bring in as a deacon or elder.
Or it could be something rare, specific, and serious as in Matthew 18:16.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Terry

Question for everyone's consideration, what approach should be taken when an elder is unable to remain impartial on a matter?

Terry my brother I believe your question is too ambiguous for anyone to give you a clear answer. This is why you are getting questions about your question. So unless you feel it hits too close to home, can you just come out and give us some details about the situation. No need to give any names or places, just a more specific explanation of the situation.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Terry my brother I believe your question is too ambiguous for anyone to give you a clear answer. This is why you are getting questions about your question. So unless you feel it hits too close to home, can you just come out and give us some details about the situation. No need to give any names or places, just a more specific explanation of the situation.

Unto, it was vaguely brought out in the previous post. Ok, I'll elaborate further.

A prior church I met with within the last 5 years, a brother I'm acquainted with became a deacon. Knowing the background of the family life, I wondered about the decision makin process. Was it due to satisfying the assembly's procedure in becoming a deacon or was it due being discipled directly by the assemblies' elder/pastor?

As for the Matthew 18:16 example, if you're an elder brought into the situation as a witness and either the offended or offender is a fellow elder, there could perceived conflict of interest in regard impartiality versus personal favoritism.

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality.1 Timothy 5:21

Do you follow through as a witness or being aware of your own partiaity, you step aside in support of someone unbiased?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

Unto, it was vaguely brought out in the previous post. Ok, I'll elaborate further.

A prior church I met with within the last 5 years, a brother I'm acquainted with became a deacon. Knowing the background of the family life, I wondered about the decision makin process. Was it due to satisfying the assembly's procedure in becoming a deacon or was it due being discipled directly by the assemblies' elder/pastor?

As for the Matthew 18:16 example, if you're an elder brought into the situation as a witness and either the offended or offender is a fellow elder, there could perceived conflict of interest in regard impartiality versus personal favoritism.

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality.1 Timothy 5:21

Do you follow through as a witness or being aware of your own partiaity, you step aside in support of someone unbiased?

Unbiased or clueless? If I read you correctly a decision was made which you feel offends your conscience, but that is only because you know the family situation. Does knowing the family situation make you a compromised witness? No, you have witnesses who have witnessed something.

You don't recuse a witness because they might be "biased". You examine their testimony.

[OBW]

ZNP is right. The problem is if someone like an elder is the one who is going to make a judgment and they are already biased as to the outcome, or have an outward appearance of a lack of separateness from the parties or decision to be made.

If they are merely like witnesses for a purpose, then they should be heard. It is also appropriate for someone to question, for the record, whether their association with the person or their participation in some discipleship might either blind them to reasons contrary to their assertions, or might cause others to simply accept their assertions despite some evidence that runs contrary.

But, on the other hand, if there is nothing that is known to be contrary to a person's taking on the role of (say) deacon, the fact that a pastor or elder has some personal knowledge should not disqualify his/her valid input. That would be somewhat like suggesting that Peter should have had no say in the question about what to do with the Gentile believers who were not following OT ordinances. He got a direct word from God and had been in close fellowship with many of the Gentiles after their conversion, even partaking in their food. This would tend to suggest that Peter should have disqualified/recused himself.

And I know that none of us are going there.

I know that we have been hurt by poor leaders. But we cannot take the position that they are never to be trusted or that we need to do everything for ourselves. There is ample evidence in the NT that having teachers, leaders, elders, deacons, etc., is a good thing for the functioning of the church. Don't let bad apples cause a permanent "FDA warning" against eating apples of any kind.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

ZNP is right. The problem is if someone like an elder is the one who is going to make a judgment and they are already biased as to the outcome, or have an outward appearance of a lack of separateness from the parties or decision to be made.

If they are merely like witnesses for a purpose, then they should be heard. It is also appropriate for someone to question, for the record, whether their association with the person or their participation in some discipleship might either blind them to reasons contrary to their assertions, or might cause others to simply accept their assertions despite some evidence that runs contrary.

But, on the other hand, if there is nothing that is known to be contrary to a person's taking on the role of (say) deacon, the fact that a pastor or elder has some personal knowledge should not disqualify his/her valid input. That would be somewhat like suggesting that Peter should have had no say in the question about what to do with the Gentile believers who were not following OT ordinances. He got a direct word from God and had been in close fellowship with many of the Gentiles after their conversion, even partaking in their food. This would tend to suggest that Peter should have disqualified/recused himself.

And I know that none of us are going there.

I know that we have been hurt by poor leaders. But we cannot take the position that they are never to be trusted or that we need to do everything for ourselves. There is ample evidence in the NT that having teachers, leaders, elders, deacons, etc., is a good thing for the functioning of the church. Don't let bad apples cause a permanent "FDA warning" against eating apples of any kind.

Interesting post OBW. In principle I agree with what you and ZNP have had to say. I will need to elaborate later on this thread or on another thread.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I know that we have been hurt by poor leaders. But we cannot take the position that they are never to be trusted or that we need to do everything for ourselves. There is ample evidence in the NT that having teachers, leaders, elders, deacons, etc., is a good thing for the functioning of the church. Don't let bad apples cause a permanent "FDA warning" against eating apples of any kind.

"Poor leaders" is a misnomer.

Apostle Paul says, "Beware of dogs! Beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilators!"

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If I read you correctly a decision was made which you feel offends your conscience, but that is only because you know the family situation. Does knowing the family situation make you a compromised witness? No, you have witnesses who have witnessed something.

ZNP, Witnesses who witness something may or may not make a difference. In regard to Matthew 18, as I understand it's not what they can offer verbally as a witness but to participate as a third party to somehow reconcile two parties brothers or sisters in conflict.
My emphasis in quoting 1 Timothy 5:21 is in regard to elders. The key phrase being "doing nothing in a spirit of partiality". The following verse in 1 Timothy 5:22 begins by saying "Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily".

Elders responsibility is not strictly to be their church's administrators, but spiritually "for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account." They cannot be those who quickly react before knowing the facts.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

ZNP, Witnesses who witness something may or may not make a difference. In regard to Matthew 18, as I understand it's not what they can offer verbally as a witness but to participate as a third party to somehow reconcile two parties brothers or sisters in conflict.
My emphasis in quoting 1 Timothy 5:21 is in regard to elders. The key phrase being "doing nothing in a spirit of partiality". The following verse in 1 Timothy 5:22 begins by saying "Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily".

Elders responsibility is not strictly to be their church's administrators, but spiritually "for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account." They cannot be those who quickly react before knowing the facts.

Again, it is very difficult to read these cryptic posts.

It appears you feel an elder has "laid his hands on someone hastily" and that was done in a "spirit of partiality".

This would be impossible to judge based on the information you have provided. It seems the elder has chosen someone from a family that has had a history with the church but the person in that family that has been chosen is in your opinion unfit or immature.

The act of selecting church leaders very often leads to a rift in the congregation. Personally I think this is a process I would want to have nothing to do with. If you raise up the saints in a locality through the gospel, establish the meetings and build this meeting up into a church, you will then be in a position to make these decisions. Also, you will be in a position to do this process without feeling the pressure of politics.

However, if your "appointment" was political to begin with you have no choice but to make your decision according to the same partiality that you were chosen with.

So what you are probably being offended at is an offense that has been there for quite some time.

This reminds me of an interesting story about the church I am currently meeting with. The original pastor did just that, he came from Texas to NY, preached the gospel, built up a meeting and established a church. He then contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion during an operation in the hospital prior to when they could test for AIDS. At this same time the Lord called another pastor who had done the same thing in India to leave India and come to NY for the gospel. He had raised up 3 churches and had a congregation of several thousand but felt he needed to drop everything and heed the Lord's call. So he was preaching the gospel on the streets of NY when he came in contact with someone who gave him a gospel tract from our congregation. He decided to come out and visit. When he arrived he met a man he mistook to be the gardener who said "What took you so long?" It was the first pastor who was dying of AIDS, but happened to be working in the yard at the time. He had prayed, the Lord had spoken to him and apparently he recognized this man to the be the one the Lord had sent in answer to his prayers.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Again, it is very difficult to read these cryptic posts.

It appears you feel an elder has "laid his hands on someone hastily" and that was done in a "spirit of partiality".

This would be impossible to judge based on the information you have provided. It seems the elder has chosen someone from a family that has had a history with the church but the person in that family that has been chosen is in your opinion unfit or immature.

The act of selecting church leaders very often leads to a rift in the congregation. Personally I think this is a process I would want to have nothing to do with. If you raise up the saints in a locality through the gospel, establish the meetings and build this meeting up into a church, you will then be in a position to make these decisions. Also, you will be in a position to do this process without feeling the pressure of politics.

However, if your "appointment" was political to begin with you have no choice but to make your decision according to the same partiality that you were chosen with.

So what you are probably being offended at is an offense that has been there for quite some time.

This reminds me of an interesting story about the church I am currently meeting with. The original pastor did just that, he came from Texas to NY, preached the gospel, built up a meeting and established a church. He then contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion during an operation in the hospital prior to when they could test for AIDS. At this same time the Lord called another pastor who had done the same thing in India to leave India and come to NY for the gospel. He had raised up 3 churches and had a congregation of several thousand but felt he needed to drop everything and heed the Lord's call. So he was preaching the gospel on the streets of NY when he came in contact with someone who gave him a gospel tract from our congregation. He decided to come out and visit. When he arrived he met a man he mistook to be the gardener who said "What took you so long?" It was the first pastor who was dying of AIDS, but happened to be working in the yard at the time. He had prayed, the Lord had spoken to him and apparently he recognized this man to the be the one the Lord had sent in answer to his prayers.

I do not think speaking in generality is being cryptic. Certainly with the LC history we have seen through this forum, there has been a pattern of partiality and condemnation without investigation. I had been doing a word search and suprised to see partiality mentioned 19 times in the Bible. I regret the message I am getting at is not obvious.

Allow me to place it in these terms:
Brothers are quarantined (Nigel Tomes, Titus Chu, etc)
you must honor the feeling of the body.
Based on reading www.afaithfulword.org, it is co-workers leading Living Stream Ministry, as representatives of the Body who express the feeling of the Body.
Based on this definition from our brothers at DCP, partiality endorsed as a standard practice.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

I do not think speaking in generality is being cryptic. Certainly with the LC history we have seen through this forum, there has been a pattern of partiality and condemnation without investigation. I had been doing a word search and suprised to see partiality mentioned 19 times in the Bible. I regret the message I am getting at is not obvious.

Allow me to place it in these terms:
Brothers are quarantined (Nigel Tomes, Titus Chu, etc)
you must honor the feeling of the body.
Based on reading www.afaithfulword.org, it is co-workers leading Living Stream Ministry, as representatives of the Body who express the feeling of the Body.
Based on this definition from our brothers at DCP, partiality endorsed as a standard practice.

1. The "Sister's rebellion" was a smokescreen created by WL to distract attention from the sins of the WL cohort in the Daystar debacle. WL was willing to defame and damage innocent bystanders to hide the truth. That suggests how ugly the truth was.
2. The PL incident could have been handled a dozen different ways that would have resulted in PL no longer managing affairs and without the split that took place in the 80s. The fact that WL chose the path he did demonstrates how ugly the truth was that PL was hiding.
3. JI and others were booted out who would not condone the illicit behavior of PL. They were replaced with compliant brothers willing to cover their eyes, ears and mouth. BP and RG then brought in "company men" KR and EM to assist in this charade.
4. JI was not the only elder to stand up to WL, elders in Taipei were replaced wholesale, other elders in Asia were maligned, and some elders in the US, Europe, etc. were removed.
5. By this point the message was clear from Anaheim to every locality that the entire system was one of partiality. That is why you have "The Blendeds". There might be an elder somewhere who feels he doesn't need to behave in such a shameful way, For example TC stepped on LSM's toes so they call in the Blendeds to excommunicate him.

So then if you have a small locality in the LRC who had nothing to do with all of this, why do they stay in the LRC? Simple, either they want canned messages every week because they are too lazy to seek the Lord's speaking for themselves or they see the value added in fellowshipping with the other churches and think they can walk the line between being faithful to the Lord or being a sell out, they sit on this wall like Humpty Dumpty. In the end they have to choose, like John Meyers.

So then the LRC is composed of the monkeys (see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil), the henchmen (the Blendeds), the toady's (EM, etc), the lazy pretenders, and Humpty dumpty who either leaves (John Meyers) or they are pushed (TC).

There is no need to wait for the ugly conclusion to diagnose the disease of "partiality". As soon as brothers express "respect of persons" the disease has shown its ugly head. For example, the discussion of what great spiritual apostles WN and WL are. The discussion of how the LRC is more spiritual than other Christian assemblies, as soon as brothers are measured and judged by "how absolute they are for the ministry". These are all examples of the disease of having respect of persons and it is evil. These ones who are "rich in the spirit" are the same ones who drag you before the judge and sue you. What you are really doing is despising the saints who are supposedly "not rich in the Spirit or in the word".

[OBW]

Seems that we are all talking around at different aspects of the same problem. Terry is looking for a principle. ZNP is looking at specific issues of the LRC history. And Terry’s desire for a principle may be driven by different aspects of that same history.

But one of the problems that I see is that we still are too reliant on individuals to appoint rather than to take part in the process. I realize that this seems problematic in terms of the few examples we have in the NT. But remember that we only have “data” on the very early start-up. A time when there was no “history” in Christ for so many of the people involved.

So in some cases it would appear that Paul managed to find someone(s) who were well enough “versed” in the OT underpinnings, coupled with evidence of true understanding upon conversion to take the lead. In other cases, he left someone(s) behind to continue to teach while observing the new believers as they grew in faith, eventually coming to appoint some to take over the leadership.

But after that, despite some popular claims of all elders serving under election by an apostle, there is no actual evidence that this is so. In fact, it would seem that in Paul’s last years, enough of Asia Minor would desert him that he referred to it as “all in Asia.” Yet we do not find their elders treated as un-appointed. Or answering to someone else. And they did not cease to be churches on account of their desertion.

In this day and age, some groups/denominations appoint all the preachers. You get who the HQ sends you. Others rely on the selection of the particular assembly, although some kind of credentials are often needed to establish the “applicant” as being a group member in good standing and with reasonable training.

But in almost all cases, after that, it is the local assembly that is responsible for establishing its board — elders, deacons, or both. The elders/deacons may have some ability to deal with staff and to make decisions concerning direction, practice, etc. But even that is subject to scrutiny since there is the ever-looming election process.

This is a problematic process in some ways because it can put the very qualified out of favor over irrelevancies and put the very unqualified into position through political means or favoritism.

But it is funny that for all the claims (by some) that these voted positions are not scriptural, it would appear that the worst abuses of power are on the part of those whose position is by appointment. And it is often because the very appointment process is cancerous to the top. It is a closed system with no answerability to anyone but God. And they claim that they know God’s will so they can effectively ignore Him if it is not true because they think they are following. Why? Because they say they are.

So, returning to Terry’s concern, it would seem that the most honest position is that, whether by appointment or influence on a system of voting, those who have position need to be honest and upright in all they do. They need to be up-front with the reasons for their recommendations or their appointments. They need to be honest concerning reasons for their position. And if their “job” includes appointment, they need to be more than willing to do it all with full accountability and with input from all interested sources.

The “how” of this is far beyond my ability to direct or dictate (as if I could dictate anything). But wherever we are, I think that honorable men and women need to become part of the process within the system wherever they are. I know that is nearly impossible within some groups, including the LRC. And that could be a good reason to seek out different groups. Not saying to cut anyone off or declare them heretical. Just join with those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

Witness Lee's concept of bearing fruit is strictly the increase of head count, and nothing more. You are right, Ohio, Witness Lee should have been paying more attention to the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Even if he insisted that fruit was strictly numbers, then he should have looked inward for why the Lord's 'blessing' started to wane from the Living Stream Church. It had little to do with elders not learning enough over the decades and all to do with his own elevation to near deity while at the same time covering up gross immorality right in his own ministry office.

The problem with Witness Lee was that it was always somebody else's fault and not his. Reminds me of another Anointed One who occupies the highest office in our land.

It bothers me when anyone bad mouths Br Lee. I have meet him several times during my year in Anaheim Calf. and there is no other man I have met in my life that was total given to God and the Church.I think if this person had ever met him he would agree... Br Lee and his life was total before God now how many of us could clam that. I you don't have a positive post about others in the Church or Christians, then you should not post here I only speak for my self but I think this post should be deleted because it is not what we are about.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

It bothers me when anyone bad mouths Br Lee. I have meet him several times during my year in Anaheim Calf. and there is no other man I have met in my life that was total given to God and the Church.I think if this person had ever met him he would agree... Br Lee and his life was total before God now how many of us could clam that. I you don't have a positive post about others in the Church or Christians, then you should not post here I only speak for my self but I think this post should be deleted because it is not what we are about.

Dear Guest,

The sole reason I have ever "bad-mouthed" Lee or another minister is that they have hurt people. They have hurt God's children.

I realize you have met a sweet and personable man whom many have loved, including myself. But I loved other brothers too. Our love for Lee should not be greater than our love for others, since our love should be without partiality and without respect of persons.

Witness Lee hurt people in order to maintain his own pristine image. Had he not done that, using the power he once had for evil, then this forum would not exist.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dear Guest,

The sole reason I have ever "bad-mouthed" Lee or another minister is that they have hurt people. They have hurt God's children.

I realize you have met a sweet and personable man whom many have loved, including myself. But I loved other brothers too. Our love for Lee should not be greater than our love for others, since our love should be without partiality and without respect of persons.

Witness Lee hurt people in order to maintain his own pristine image. Had he not done that, using the power he once had for evil, then this forum would not exist.

Ohio,

Unreg was not addressing your love for Br Lee compared to other brothers. He/she was objecting to bad-mouthing Br. Lee.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Ohio,

Unreg was not addressing your love for Br Lee compared to other brothers. He/she was objecting to bad-mouthing Br. Lee.

Maybe I should inform UnReggie that Brother Lee bad-mouthed every Christian he ever spoke of, except of course those few selects on his MOTA list.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

It bothers me when anyone bad mouths Br Lee. I have meet him several times during my year in Anaheim Calf. and there is no other man I have met in my life that was total given to God and the Church.I think if this person had ever met him he would agree... Br Lee and his life was total before God now how many of us could clam that. I you don't have a positive post about others in the Church or Christians, then you should not post here I only speak for my self but I think this post should be deleted because it is not what we are about.

I met him, on several occasions. My personal, face to face encounters with him were in Irving, though I did meet him in Anaheim and Taipei as well. No doubt about it, he had the appearance of a godly man. However we all must make account for our actions. Daystar, the sister's rebellion, and the way in which the PL mess was handled were not the actions of a godly man. Had he made full confession and restitution I would agree that we should move on, but he didn't.

Likewise anyone who teaches the Bible is held to a higher standard and is put under a much bigger microscope. This is as it should be. As a result anything that he taught should be inspected and evaluated.

Finally, I "ate" lunch with PL once. This person did not have the slightest appearance of godliness, on the contrary he appeared fleshly and carnal. That does speak to WL as a father (the children are a testimony to the parents) and it speaks to his judgment since PL was running the business side of the LSM at the time.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Terry

Many of us have been indoctrinated with the concept elders/co-workers were representatives of God's government thus considered having "Spiritual Diplomatic Immunity".

leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. Matthew 5:24

Here's a situation; you're an elder in a locality and there's a brother in your locality you refuse to speak to. This goes on for well over a year. The elder can go on taking the Lord's Table week after week, month after month, and year after year without needing to be reconciled to his brother.

What do you, as an attendee of the Church in _______ do when there's nothing in place to evaluate an elder or a co-worker?

Yes, what do you do when an elder refuses to reconcile and yet continues "offering at the altar"?