Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL?

UntoHim · 12-31-2011, 07:23 AM

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

77150 · 01-05-2012, 11:43 AM

The Experience of Life teaches there are 4 matters that must be cleared up. 2 are relevant to this thread:

1. Unrighteous matters – illegal (For example Daystar)
2. Improper matters or indecent matters (For example the sins of PL)

2nd I am limiting the discussion of this thread to people that are alive. For the purpose of this thread the issue I am raising is how RG, BP, RK and others have dealt with the very public sins with which they were involved. Since WL and PL are no longer alive I will leave that issue with the historians and the Lord Jesus. However, in the case of Daystar I think financial reconciliation should be handled by the LSM so that is not a closed issue.

3rd I am limiting the discussion of this thread to the sphere of the sin committed by the brothers who are currently alive. So writing and publishing a “whitewash” of PL’s sins could be a sin ascribed to RG or RK, but PL’s sins cannot unless there is evidence that a brother was complicit in the sin.

4th According to Witness Lee’s teaching in The Experience of Life sins that involve money should be repaid according to the amount taken and a little extra. Also, in the event that the person harmed cannot be found repayment should be made to the closest relative. If that person also cannot be found then the money should be given to God. Witness Lee suggested that the money be given to the poor (Num. 5:7-8). Proverbs 19:17 says, “He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto Jehovah.”

5th I am limiting discussions to those who have actually been sinned against. If you lost money in Daystar you are invited to post. If you feel that you were lied to then you are invited to post. The purpose of this thread is not so much to make a historical record of the events, but rather to hear from those that feel wronged.

In every example I would ask 3 questions which are also straight from Witness Lee’s teaching in The Experience of Life:
1. Has the way the brother dealt with their sin dispelled the discordant condition between himself and you?
2. Has the way this brother dealt with their sin testified to the salvation of God and thereby given God glory?
3. Have you been benefitted by this brothers repentance?

The purpose of this thread is to measure the actions of those that hold up WL as the MOTA, with their own actions. The letter of quarantine concerning Titus Chu was a solemn testimony by BBs saying they “are seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, which is the New Testament Ministry” (letter of warning Oct 1, 2006). This is according to Romans 2:13 “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.”

UntoHim · 01-05-2012, 02:04 PM

First of all this Daystar situation has been covered extensively on the Forum. I would rather see you find one of those threads and continue on so we don't go over a lot of covered ground.

Secondly, I don't want to see an open discussion of "the way the brother dealt with their sin", especially with current members of the Forum, or with people who were not in leadership positions.

Lastly, I don't think it's a good thing to have a thread in which one of the themes is "to hear from those that feel wronged" This kind of thing will come out from time to time as necessary in the course of our dialogs, but I don't want to make it the focus of any particular thread.

I think this theme of "to measure the actions of those that hold up WL as the MOTA, with their own actions" is more then appropriate for our Forum, and instead of all your limitations, maybe it would be better just to make this the general theme of the thread.

OBW · 01-05-2012, 03:44 PM

Most who have ever been in the LRC have been lied to.

If you heard the excommunication of Max R
If you were around when The Fermentation . . . was written
If you heard the sales pitch for Daystar
If you were told that the sins of PL, if any, are a private matter and not important to you or to any local church
If you were lead to believe that there is such a thing as the "Minister of the Age" or a singular "Oracle of God" in this age

But I do agree that it is better that people speak concerning what they know rather than just what they hear from others.

But once the facts are out on the table, why is the jury limited to the abused rather than any participant? In other words, isn't the discussion of the issue better with much consideration rather than just those who are the "injured." Would justice be served better by having only aggrieved persons prosecute, determine guilt, and mete out punishment? Might be a lot of hangings for minor offenses.

And one more consideration: Are we discussing things in terms of Lee's ministry to demonstrate their duplicity and hypocrisy? Otherwise, it is a little like judging a pirate based on the code of ethics of pirates (or a mafia boss/syndicate based on the way another such mafia boss/syndicate acts).

Ultimately we need to judge Lee's teachings in terms of scripture and sound teaching.

77150 · 01-05-2012, 05:59 PM

This thread is not about the sins or the lies. It is about "dealing with sins". According to WL dealing with sins testifies of God's salvation and gives glory to God. It is not necessary to dredge up "wrongs". Question is very simple, what is your experience of a BB dealing with their own sin? Did they deal with their sin according to the way WL taught?

I asked myself if God overthrows the house of the wicked then why hasn't he? As you said lots of these sins have been hashed out on many of the threads. But here are some problems, first, proving that dead men like WL and PL are sinners would not prompt any action by the Lord on those that remain. Why should I or anyone else be held accountable for WL's sins? This is why I want to limit the discussion to those that are alive.

Second, proving that someone made a mistake in 1987 promoting PL is not enough. Everyone makes mistakes. However, at some point they should have realized their sin and at that point they should have dealt with it. Not doing so, while at the same time condemning others and teaching others to follow "the entire ministry of WL" is hypocrisy.

Third, the Experience of Life is such a fundamental book in the LRC that it is certain that all BBs are familiar with these teachings.

77150 · 01-05-2012, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Most who have ever been in the LRC have been lied to.

If you heard the excommunication of Max R
If you were around when The Fermentation . . . was written
If you heard the sales pitch for Daystar
If you were told that the sins of PL, if any, are a private matter and not important to you or to any local church
If you were lead to believe that there is such a thing as the "Minister of the Age" or a singular "Oracle of God" in this age

But I do agree that it is better that people speak concerning what they know rather than just what they hear from others.

But once the facts are out on the table, why is the jury limited to the abused rather than any participant? In other words, isn't the discussion of the issue better with much consideration rather than just those who are the "injured." Would justice be served better by having only aggrieved persons prosecute, determine guilt, and mete out punishment? Might be a lot of hangings for minor offenses.

And one more consideration: Are we discussing things in terms of Lee's ministry to demonstrate their duplicity and hypocrisy? Otherwise, it is a little like judging a pirate based on the code of ethics of pirates (or a mafia boss/syndicate based on the way another such mafia boss/syndicate acts).

Ultimately we need to judge Lee's teachings in terms of scripture and sound teaching.

The issue is this, if I deal with my sin I should limit the scope to those whom I have sinned. So if you were lied to then that would include you. But, if they never sinned against you personally it would be inappropriate for them to deal with their sin with you personally. So unless you can testify that you were wronged you cannot testify that they didn't deal with the sin.

I am not interested in the sins. I am focused exclusively on how these sins that you have already documented were dealt with.

WL's ministry never says that servants of the Lord are not sinners. What he does teach is how to deal with the sins that you have committed. The BBs condemned TC for not following WL's ministry and said that they themselves were seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL. This is the proof, one way or the other. The document warning about TC was a solemn oath. If they did not deal with their sins according to the way prescribed in The Experience of Life, then they are liars. And, they are using their lies to damage other saints.

TLFisher · 01-05-2012, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

I am focused exclusively on how these sins that you have already documented were dealt with.

WL's ministry never says that servants of the Lord are not sinners. What he does teach is how to deal with the sins that you have committed. The BBs condemned TC for not following WL's ministry and said that they themselves were seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL. This is the proof, one way or the other. The document warning about TC was a solemn oath. If they did not deal with their sins according to the way prescribed in The Experience of Life, then they are liars. And, they are using their lies to damage other saints.

Would this sufficce relating to the late 80's turmoil being brought into light:

"As to the issues you have raised related to the events of the distant past, the brothers here just do not have the heart to reopen old wounds and delve into matters that we believe were resolved many years ago. "

77150 · 01-05-2012, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Would this sufficce relating to the late 80's turmoil being brought into light:

"As to the issues you have raised related to the events of the distant past, the brothers here just do not have the heart to reopen old wounds and delve into matters that we believe were resolved many years ago. "

Can you answer my 3 questions:

1. Did this eliminate the discord?
2. Was this a testimony to God's salvation?
3. Were you benefitted by this?

Also, can you please verify that one of these who spoke this signed that document of 2006. No need to be specific.

PS -- There is no basis whatsoever, based on WL's teaching that sins that were committed a long time ago do not need to "be dredged up". On the contrary you are to deal with every sin that the Lord makes you aware of. This word is a clear testimony that those involved had been made aware. How many BBs? If this is an official stance of the BBs it is the ultimate hypocrisy.

TLFisher · 01-05-2012, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

Can you answer my 3 questions:

1. Did this eliminate the discord?
2. Was this a testimony to God's salvation?
3. Were you benefitted by this?

Also, can you please verify that one of these who spoke this signed that document of 2006. No need to be specific.

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.

The author of what I quoted did not sign any of the 3 letters from 2005 or 2006.

77150 · 01-06-2012, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.

The author of what I quoted did not sign any of the 3 letters from 2005 or 2006.

Moses and David both made mistakes. The difference is that when made aware of those mistakes they dealt with them in a way that testified to God's salvation. To stand with those who proclaim they are seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL and then decide you won't deal with an acknowledged sin because it happened a long time ago is hypocrisy. The discord was a result of the sin, by not rebuking the sin you choose discord. To claim that you are for the oneness of the Body and yet you are choosing discord is hypocrisy. We deal with sins instead of covering them up because we have been redeemed and our spirit has been regenerated. Our conscience will not permit us to just sweep sins under the rug, this is a testimony of God's salvation and it is a glory to God. To sweep this under the rug in this way calls into question the brothers salvation and brings shame to God. Their words and doings are against the Lord of Glory to provoke Him. They are allowing the damage to the saints as a result of their sin, which in this case is the sin of justifying the wicked. Isaiah 3:15 "What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord GOD of hosts."

Isaiah 3:12 "O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."

01-06-2012, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

WL's ministry never says that servants of the Lord are not sinners....

The real trick is: how to separate out all the bull*c*e*n*s*o*r*e*d* of the Blended Brothers, Titus Chu, etc. from anything more substantial if it exists at all.

Solemn oath? LOL! Do you really take these guys seriously? Whistler was a circus performance - P.T. Barnum would have been very proud of the wonderful performers. And the response of most of the intended audience would serve to confirm his observation: "There's a sucker more every minute."

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

MODERATOR NOTE: "91043" aka "AnotherGuest" aka whatever other temporary monikers you have used:
This will be the last post allowed from you until you register on the Forum. If, perchance, you are already registered please go ahead and resume using that moniker. You are free to register for another moniker if you want.
***This was not the first time I had to censor a no-no word out of one of your posts. Watch it!

OBW · 01-06-2012, 02:20 PM

I am working on an index of the old Bereans forum so that it can be referenced more easily. Should have it done in a few days. It is tedious copy/paste and reformat. There are 1185 threads from the beginning of the currently-existing archive. There were others in previous renditions that have been lost forever. My index will be in Excel format so it can be sorted and searched using regular Excel tools.

77150 · 01-09-2012, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.

The author of what I quoted did not sign any of the 3 letters from 2005 or 2006.

To be fair, the reasons why a Christian would want to discuss sins would be to deal with them in a way that eliminates discord, testifies to God's salvation and benefits the victims.

Therefore, if a person is not qualified to deal with the sin since it was not their sin, they are not in a position to do any of these things. In that event it would be understandable that someone would not want to dredge up past sins of others.

So sins committed by PL, TL and WL would all be the responsibility of LSM. Daystar, publication of "Fermentation...", and any other published statements concerning these events would be something that LSM would be qualified to deal with.

2nd of all, "dealing with sins" is taught by WL. Since BBs have testified in a solemn oath that they are seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL it is fair to look at how they have dealt with any and all public sins. But if someone did not sign anything to that effect the situation becomes much murkier. There is no scriptural basis that I am aware of that would compel a brother to discuss the sins of others. So whereas you might feel led by the Lord to discuss this, I cannot see any basis to assume that all would feel the same. Also, the forum becomes a major issue. I might be willing to discuss these issues with you personally yet absolutely refuse to discuss them in a meeting with others who might be damaged by this discussion.

OBW · 01-09-2012, 05:28 AM

I am not sure what it is you mean when you keep referring to whether certain one "signed anything." Do you feel that those who are leaders of the LSM are excused if they did not "sing something" — are not on record with respect to specific things? That the repetition of the content of their error by leadership is excusable as long as they were not the originators of the lie?

Not sure what "signing anything" is supposed to mean and how it limits the discussion.

77150 · 01-09-2012, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I am not sure what it is you mean when you keep referring to whether certain one "signed anything." Do you feel that those who are leaders of the LSM are excused if they did not "sing something" — are not on record with respect to specific things? That the repetition of the content of their error by leadership is excusable as long as they were not the originators of the lie?

Not sure what "signing anything" is supposed to mean and how it limits the discussion.

I am referring to the warning letter concerning TC. This letter was used to essentially excommunicate TC and it was based on the fact that "they were seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL".

If someone did not sign that letter then, no, I am not aware of any solemn oath they have made to "seek to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL". Therefore I do not see that it is reasonable to measure them based on how faithful they have been to WL's teaching on dealing with sins.

Second, not being faithful to WL's ministry would not implicate such a one in hypocrisy concerning TC since they didn't claim that they were.

Third, it would not be evidence of them damaging saints with their lies since they didn't use this claim as an excuse to excommunicate TC. For all I know they were not involved in that in any way.

Fourth, it wouldn't have a very strong impact on the the LRC. The people who signed that letter were being held up as leaders of the LRC. They are claiming that they are "blended" brothers and that they are one. therefore, punching a hole in that facade would implicate the leadership of the LRC.

I have limited the scope of this thread to the BBs that signed that letter for the above reasons. I am not saying anything about anyone else. I hope the above answers your question. If not, I am not saying anything about anyone who is not the focus of this thread, and this thread is focused on those that signed that letter.

[I think RG and BP got the elders during an elders conference to sign a pledge to be one with the ministry. However, as that was not used to excommunicate others you might be able to prove that one of the signatories fell short of that pledge, but it would hardly be enough to warrant the Lord's judgment.]

TLFisher · 01-09-2012, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

I am referring to the warning letter concerning TC. This letter was used to essentially excommunicate TC and it was based on the fact that "they were seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL".

If someone did not sign that letter then, no, I am not aware of any solemn oath they have made to "seek to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL". Therefore I do not see that it is reasonable to measure them based on how faithful they have been to WL's teaching on dealing with sins.

First hat was the exact date this letter was circulated about being faithful to the entire ministry of WL?
When you get into signing of letters specifically related to Titus Chu, there are two types of letters that were signed:
1. Letters signed by a core group of blended brothers from 2005-2006.
2. Letters signed by brothers representing their individual localties.

The latter I have a bigger issue with. It ties back to Nell's post where she references Watchman Nee's Character of the Lord's Worker. Here is a specific example where as much as brothers claim to be faithful to Witness Lee or Watchman Nee's ministry lays a discrepancy between practices and what the ministry says.

One of my issues with localities regarding Titus Chu, at what point where they ministered directly by Titus Chu. Specifically on the west coast US. When was the last time he ministered in Seattle, Portland, Sacremmento, San Diego, etc?
At what point was anything he said worthy of being divisive or heretical?
Why would localities who saw Titus Chu as a non-issue be considered personna non grata?

Ohio · 01-09-2012, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

I am referring to the warning letter concerning TC. This letter was used to essentially excommunicate TC and it was based on the fact that "they were seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL".

If someone did not sign that letter then, no, I am not aware of any solemn oath they have made to "seek to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL". Therefore I do not see that it is reasonable to measure them based on how faithful they have been to WL's teaching on dealing with sins.

Second, not being faithful to WL's ministry would not implicate such a one in hypocrisy concerning TC since they didn't claim that they were.

Subsequent to the letters of excommunication written by the "21 Blendeds," many leaders of regions and churches signed "Letters of Affirmation," which means they whole-heartedly endorsed the Blended Brothers' actions at Whistler. They can be found here ...

afaithfulword.org/corresp/churches.html

Specifically, here is the letter from the Northwest LC's ...

http://afaithfulword.org/corresp/Sta...hwest%20US.pdf

77150 · 01-09-2012, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Subsequent to the letters of excommunication written by the "21 Blendeds," many leaders of regions and churches signed "Letters of Affirmation," which means they whole-heartedly endorsed the Blended Brothers' actions at Whistler. They can be found here ...

afaithfulword.org/corresp/churches.html

Specifically, here is the letter from the Northwest LC's ...

http://afaithfulword.org/corresp/Sta...hwest%20US.pdf

Well then, if a brother endorses TC being judged based on not "seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL" then it is only right that they also be judged by this standard. However, I don't think any individuals failure would implicate the LRC as much as the failure of a BB.

Realistically, apart from BP, RK, RG, and a few other brothers, hypocrisy on this point would only implicate the brother and not the LSM or LRC.

77150 · 01-09-2012, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

First hat was the exact date this letter was circulated about being faithful to the entire ministry of WL?
When you get into signing of letters specifically related to Titus Chu, there are two types of letters that were signed:
1. Letters signed by a core group of blended brothers from 2005-2006.
2. Letters signed by brothers representing their individual localties.

The latter I have a bigger issue with. It ties back to Nell's post where she references Watchman Nee's Character of the Lord's Worker. Here is a specific example where as much as brothers claim to be faithful to Witness Lee or Watchman Nee's ministry lays a discrepancy between practices and what the ministry says.

One of my issues with localities regarding Titus Chu, at what point where they ministered directly by Titus Chu. Specifically on the west coast US. When was the last time he ministered in Seattle, Portland, Sacremmento, San Diego, etc?
At what point was anything he said worthy of being divisive or heretical?
Why would localities who saw Titus Chu as a non-issue be considered personna non grata?

These are great issues, but not really relevant to the very narrow focus of this thread. I am looking for an example of hypocrisy that I could take to the Lord in prayer asking Him to overthrow the house of the wicked, just as His word says. Without such an event then I would be forced to conclude that none of the sins and complaints leveled on this and other forums comes to the level of bringing the Lord's judgement on either the LRC or LSM.

No doubt there are valid complaints concerning PL, concerning TL and concerning WL. RG and BP's endorsement of PL and pushing of the MOTA is certainly suspect, but does it rise to the level of sin that needs to be dealt with publicly? I would think that if there were any blatant lies in "Fermentation..." that this would be something that would be a public sin that would have to be dealt with publicly. However, several days have passed and no one has made such a claim.

TLFisher · 01-09-2012, 11:38 AM

This is from a message given in 1968 and printed as The Practical Expression of the Church. As you will read this message by Witness Lee is scriptural, but I cannot say the BB's have been faithful to this portion of Witness Lee's ministry. There has been a serious lack of receiving liberally or generally. Before I get to the text of Witness Lee's ministry, here is an example of the current mode of receiving:

"There is a church in Riverside, standing on the ground of the oneness of the Body of Christ. It seem that the brother you mention had fellowship not with the church but with an independent group of Christians. Our contact with dissenting ones needs to be according to life and truth and according to the feeling of the Body."

THE PROPER RECEIVING OF THE SAINTS

It is only by being so liberal and general that we can receive all the saints in a proper way. If we are otherwise, we cannot avoid being sectarian in the matter of receiving. If we are special in anything and insist upon that, we will probably not receive those who differ from us in certain matters. But the Apostle said, “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.” What he meant when he referred to “him that is weak in the faith” is illustrated in the following verses: i.e., the matter of eating and keeping of days. By this we are affirmatively told that we must receive the saints who differ from us in these things. Any saint who holds a different opinion or concept regarding the things we are in favor, we must receive, “for God hath received him.” As long as he is a saint, as long as he has received hin, we have no right to reject him. Our receiving must be the same as God’s receiving, no less and no more. God’s receiving is the basis of our receiving. Our receiving must not be according to our taste, our opinion, or our assertion. It must be in accordance with God’s receiving. It must be based upon God’s receiving- nothing else.

God receives people according to His Son. As long as a person receives His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, as his personal Savior, regardless of the concepts he holds regarding all other things, God receives him immediately. Since God receives people in this way, we too must receive people in the same way. Our receiving must be in accordance with God’s receiving. If our receiving differs from His, it means that we are wrong: either we are more narrow or more broad than God. This will cause much trouble and damage to the church life.

God’s receiving is based upon Christ’s receiving, and Christ’s receiving is in accordance with our faith in Him. Whoever believes in Him, He will receive. Whoever receives Him, He will never reject. He said, “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37). Since coming to Him, believing in Him, receiving Him, is the only condition for Christ’s receiving, so we must receive people upon the same basis with nothing added. As long as anyone believes in Christ our Lord, as long as He receives Him as His personal Savior, we must receive him with nothing else required. Regardless of how he may dissent in so many other things, as long as he is a real believer in the Lord, we have no choice but to receive him, for the Lord has received him. This is why the Apostle said, “Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.” We must receive whoever Christ has received. We must have such a proper receiving of all the saints that we may keep the proper unity; otherwise, we can never keep ourselves from being sectarian and causing much confusion and damage to the church life. To practice the church life by keeping the proper unity, such a general receiving is necessary. May the Lord have mercy upon us! (page 66-67)

77150 · 01-09-2012, 04:51 PM

2 Cor 7:2 Receive us; we have wronged no man, we have corrupted no man, we have defrauded no man.

If we refuse to receive WL because he has wronged a man in the false accusations of the “sister’s rebellion”, or if we refused to receive WL because he allowed his son to corrupt saints, or if we refused to receive WL because he defrauded saints as a result of the Daystar debacle that would be Biblical. JS and JI had legitimate Biblical basis to not receive WL. But these were not the issues in casting out TC. No the issue was LSM trainings and publications. The issue was that they “sought to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL” and they felt that TC did not.

However, according to WL “Any saint who holds a different opinion or concept regarding the things we are in favor, we must receive, “for God hath received him.” (WL, The Practical Expression of the Church, page 66-67). The BBs were in favor of the ministry of WL, TC held a different opinion or concept than they did. However, no one disputed that “God had received him”. Therefore, anyone seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL would receive him.

“As long as a person receives His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, as his personal Savior, regardless of the concepts he holds regarding all other things, God receives him immediately. Since God receives people in this way, we too must receive people in the same way. Our receiving must be in accordance with God’s receiving. If our receiving differs from His, it means that we are wrong: either we are more narrow or more broad than God.” (WL, The Practical Expression of the Church, page 66-67). I think that it is clear from the action taken in quarantining TC that the “receiving” of the BBs differs from God’s receiving. Therefore this action is condemned by the ministry of WL as being wrong and being too narrow. Clearly, justifying this action as being the result of “seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL” is hypocrisy.

"As long as anyone believes in Christ our Lord, as long as He receives Him as His personal Savior, we must receive him with nothing else required. Regardless of how he may dissent in so many other things, as long as he is a real believer in the Lord, we have no choice but to receive him, for the Lord has received him." (WL, The Practical Expression of the Church, page 66-67). Justifying your action by accusing TC or any other brother of “dissenting” is also condemned by WL’s ministry. Once again, doing this while also claiming to be “seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL” is hypocrisy. It is deceitful.

"This is why the Apostle said, “Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.” We must receive whoever Christ has received. We must have such a proper receiving of all the saints that we may keep the proper unity; otherwise, we can never keep ourselves from being sectarian and causing much confusion and damage to the church life." (WL, The Practical Expression of the Church, page 66-67). The BBs claim that they are for the “oneness of the Body” while “being sectarian” and “causing confusion and damage to the church life”. They claim that they seek to be “faithful” to the “entire ministry of WL” yet are condemned by WL’s ministry as being sectarian and causing confusion and damage to the church life.

According to the Recovery Version of Galatians, the footnotes in chapter 5:19-21 being sectarian is a work of the flesh.

WL taught in “The Experience of Life” that we need to deal with the flesh. “Romans 8:8, “They that are in the flesh cannot please God.” The Bible has spoken much about the flesh, and at this point it concludes that the flesh cannot please God. If man belongs to the flesh, minds the flesh, and lives by the flesh, whatever he does, either good or bad, cannot please God.” It may be that Abraham was trying to please God when he had a son by Hagar, and it may also be that the BBs were trying to please God when they excommunicated TC and a number of churches, but the Bible and WL teach that “those who are in the flesh cannot please God”.

UntoHim · 01-09-2012, 06:31 PM

The blended brothers are behaving just as Witness Lee behaved. I don't see a lick of difference between the two of them, and over the years, nobody has presented one shred of evidence to show any significant difference between the two. And quoting things that Witness Lee wrote 40 or 50 years ago is much to do about nothing. Witness Lee did not practice the things posted here, and neither do the blended brothers. So? Even Witness Lee was not faithful to the entire ministry of Witness Lee! So why should his closest followers be any different?

TLFisher · 01-09-2012, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The blended brothers are behaving just as Witness Lee behaved. I don't see a lick of difference between the two of them, and over the years, nobody has presented one shred of evidence to show any significant difference between the two. And quoting things that Witness Lee wrote 40 or 50 years ago is much to do about nothing. Witness Lee did not practice the things posted here, and neither do the blended brothers. So? Even Witness Lee was not faithful to the entire ministry of Witness Lee! So why should his closest followers be any different?

UntoHim, for discussion sake a point is being made. To show where claims are false. Nothing is going to change unless at least one blended brother sees that LC practices is not matching LC teachings. He has to realize mistakes were made and it is time to turn away.
Until that time arrives, I believe the blendeds pick and choose which parts of WL's ministry is beneficial and which parts are counterproductive to LSM.

Ohio · 01-09-2012, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The blended brothers are behaving just as Witness Lee behaved. I don't see a lick of difference between the two of them, and over the years, nobody has presented one shred of evidence to show any significant difference between the two. And quoting things that Witness Lee wrote 40 or 50 years ago is much to do about nothing. Witness Lee did not practice the things posted here, and neither do the blended brothers. So? Even Witness Lee was not faithful to the entire ministry of Witness Lee! So why should his closest followers be any different?

This is the real irony. This is why I introduced the "early Lee-later Lee" concept. Lee changed. Many brothers, who thought they "knew" him, could not believe it when they saw "another WL." This is why so many rejected the accounts of John Ingalls and others. When we compare the "early Lee" to much of the "later Lee," the two are filled with contradiction. WL did not practice what he preach. WL broke all the rules he himself taught. He did this all to protect himself, his family, and his legacy.

TLFisher · 01-09-2012, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

UntoHim, for discussion sake a point is being made. To show where claims are false. Nothing is going to change unless at least one blended brother sees that LC practices is not matching LC teachings. He has to realize mistakes were made and it is time to turn away.
Until that time arrives, I believe the blendeds pick and choose which parts of WL's ministry is beneficial and which parts are counterproductive to LSM.

Here's another example of Witness Lee speaking. What he meant specifically, only Witness and God know.

"This is a lesson for us all. Our co-workers and responsible ones in each locality. The brothers and sisters need to open their eyes. We have so much to learn, we have acted wrongly in the past. Including me. I have to admit I have very painful repentance before the Lord. I am very sorry! I am sorry for the body of Christ not only for the brothers and sisters among us, but also the ones in the denominations. You have to bring this message back and read over and over again in mutual fellowship. Then you will see we were wrong before."

Point is LSM could not allow the message to be printed verbatim so there was editing done for the finished product. Compare the above quote to The Experience of God's Organic Salvation Equaling Reigning in Christ's Life, p. 69.

77150 · 01-10-2012, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The blended brothers are behaving just as Witness Lee behaved. I don't see a lick of difference between the two of them, and over the years, nobody has presented one shred of evidence to show any significant difference between the two. And quoting things that Witness Lee wrote 40 or 50 years ago is much to do about nothing. Witness Lee did not practice the things posted here, and neither do the blended brothers. So? Even Witness Lee was not faithful to the entire ministry of Witness Lee! So why should his closest followers be any different?

How is a clear demonstration of the hypocrisy of every single person that signed the document concerning TC "much to do about nothing"?

Without the assertion that "they were the ones who were seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL" and TC wasn't they didn't have a single point to make. They could never have built the case on the unsubstantiated charge that TC was using fleshly means to preach the gospel because that charge had been around a long time and WL never did anything about it. They needed something more.

So then, how is proving that the BBs are speaking lies in hypocrisy to damage the saints and the church in order to promote their sect "much to do about nothing"?

The entire fraud does not rest on "the ground of oneness" or the teaching of the "MOTA". It rests on the BBs "seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL" because once that is false everything else falls too. Likewise, if your concern is for those who are currently in the LRC then you have to address the hypocrisy, lies, and sins of those who are currently in the leadership. There are valid reasons why a saint or elder would not want to discuss WL's or PL's flaws. There is no excuse however in refusing to discuss this very public "warning letter" written as a solemn testimony to all saints and churches. Now you can go through that letter point by point. But, if this one point is false, that "they are seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL" then the entire letter collapses.

77150 · 01-10-2012, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

2 Cor 7:2 Receive us; we have wronged no man, we have corrupted no man, we have defrauded no man.

If we refuse to receive WL because he has wronged a man in the false accusations of the “sister’s rebellion”, or if we refused to receive WL because he allowed his son to corrupt saints, or if we refused to receive WL because he defrauded saints as a result of the Daystar debacle that would be Biblical. JS and JI had legitimate Biblical basis to not receive WL. But these were not the issues in casting out TC. No the issue was LSM trainings and publications. The issue was that they “sought to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL” and they felt that TC did not.

I am wondering if anyone knows of any WL ministry on the above topics. Surely WL spoke on "wronging" others, "corrupting" others and "defrauding" others. I think it adds to the hypocrisy. On one side you have the BB's condemning the righteous unjustly. But, how about the other side of justifying the wicked?

OBW · 01-10-2012, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

They could never have built the case on the unsubstantiated charge that TC was using fleshly means to preach the gospel because that charge had been around a long time and WL never did anything about it.

This has been discussed before some time back. The general thought is that WL was much more restrained when it came to dealing with another Chinese person in the environment of America. He might have destroyed TC years earlier if the audience had been Taiwan. But in front of Americans, he seldom dealt with another Chinese as he did with the Americans or Europeans. It was almost clearly a cultural thing.

So it is not so clear that Lee did not have everything he needed to demote or even cast out TC. But he would never treat TC like he had Max in front of us Americans.

So the fact that TC survived as long as he did after WL died is somewhat surprising. I guess that the BBs knew that despite his abuses, he was generally respected in the GLA and a pretty significant wedge had to be created.

Ohio · 01-10-2012, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

How is a clear demonstration of the hypocrisy of every single person that signed the document concerning TC "much to do about nothing"?

Without the assertion that "they were the ones who were seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL" and TC wasn't they didn't have a single point to make. They could never have built the case on the unsubstantiated charge that TC was using fleshly means to preach the gospel because that charge had been around a long time and WL never did anything about it. They needed something more.

So then, how is proving that the BBs are speaking lies in hypocrisy to damage the saints and the church in order to promote their sect "much to do about nothing"?

I really have to agree with this point.

After the passing of WL, and before the quarantine matters started to heat up, nearly all the workers / full-timers in the GLA, under the direction of TC spent untold hours going back to the writings of WL to ascertain what did WL really say about certain crucial matters.

In this regard, if I could briefly summarize the entire Anaheim - Cleveland controversy in a nutshell, it would be this: Cleveland was following the written ministry of WL, while the Blendeds in Anaheim were following the "live" ministry of WL.

This makes a lot of sense, when we consider that the writings of WL were always sanitized by LSM editors. Eventually, many in the GLA, like myself, came to realize that their version of WL was all too often only a "mirage." The GLA always saw WL from "afar," even in live trainings, and held him in high regard. The Blendeds, however, saw WL for years, up close and personal, and became just like him. The Blendeds saw the "real WL." The GLA never, ever witnessed the many storms first-hand in Anaheim. Their version of history was "spun" by LSM wordsmiths.

This also explains why so many brothers who worked with WL over the years have left him. When the trials came to town, they got to see the real WL in action, and it wasn't pretty. They got to see how WL flexed his muscles behind the scenes. They got to see how WL allowed his son Philip to abuse and molest both LSM staff and leaders around the world, while the rest of us worker-bees around the globe didn't know Philip Lee even existed.

This is why topics on WL hypocrisy should be more important to LC members than all the teachings and threads about modalism, dispensing, trinitarianism, ground of locality, God's economy, oneness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77150 · 01-10-2012, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

This has been discussed before some time back. The general thought is that WL was much more restrained when it came to dealing with another Chinese person in the environment of America. He might have destroyed TC years earlier if the audience had been Taiwan. But in front of Americans, he seldom dealt with another Chinese as he did with the Americans or Europeans. It was almost clearly a cultural thing.

So it is not so clear that Lee did not have everything he needed to demote or even cast out TC. But he would never treat TC like he had Max in front of us Americans.

So the fact that TC survived as long as he did after WL died is somewhat surprising. I guess that the BBs knew that despite his abuses, he was generally respected in the GLA and a pretty significant wedge had to be created.

My point had nothing to do with WL. My point is that since WL had not acted, the BBs had no way to say they were "seeking to be faithful to WL's ministry" while excommunicating TC without a new charge.

Ohio · 01-10-2012, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

I am wondering if anyone knows of any WL ministry on the above topics. Surely WL spoke on "wronging" others, "corrupting" others and "defrauding" others. I think it adds to the hypocrisy. On one side you have the BB's condemning the righteous unjustly. But, how about the other side of justifying the wicked?

I have concluded that we should practice what WL teaches on these subjects, for the most part, because his teachings are based on the scripture, and are helpful.

But when it comes to the way he treated people, we should never imitate the way he treated others. Do what he says, but not what he does.

The Lord's instruction in Matthew 23.3 comes to mind here.

Ohio · 01-10-2012, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

This has been discussed before some time back. The general thought is that WL was much more restrained when it came to dealing with another Chinese person in the environment of America. He might have destroyed TC years earlier if the audience had been Taiwan. But in front of Americans, he seldom dealt with another Chinese as he did with the Americans or Europeans. It was almost clearly a cultural thing.
So it is not so clear that Lee did not have everything he needed to demote or even cast out TC. But he would never treat TC like he had Max in front of us Americans.
So the fact that TC survived as long as he did after WL died is somewhat surprising. I guess that the BBs knew that despite his abuses, he was generally respected in the GLA and a pretty significant wedge had to be created.

WL would never have quarantined his most gifted and fruitful student because TC never spoke against WL or his family, either publicly or privately.

77150 · 01-10-2012, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I really have to agree with this point.

6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
6:18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
6:19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

I believe that it is these 7 things that will prompt the Lord to action.

So then, if you can demonstrate that the warning letter was not done in good faith but was in actuality the “sowing of discord among brethren” then you have the basis to ask the Lord to act. Now I think we have made progress in demonstrating that the statement that the BBs “were seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL” was a lie. That makes them “false witnesses”. So we do have the basis already, but I still think we need to dig some more. Why would they devise this “wicked imagination” in their heart? I don’t know, but I do know it is an abomination to the Lord. Now Nell’s testimony was really enlightening how when they wish to drag their feet in doing the right thing how easy it is for them, yet when it came to excommunicating brothers and churches, wow, their feet could run fast.

There are many topics where the BBs could have valid arguments against bringing them up, this is not one of them. There are also many topics where the BBs could claim plausible deniability, again, this is not one of them. They might be able to argue that their word was taken out of context, or that it had been a careless comment, again this is not one of those scenarios. This is the Achilles heel of the BBs, LSM and the LRC.

If this action can stand under the scrutiny of the Lord’s light, then that is evidence that they acted under the authority of the Lord. If it cannot stand then the Lord never authorized them, and if the Lord never authorized them they are workers of iniquity.

Cal · 01-10-2012, 09:08 AM

Although whether the BBs are faithful to WL is not a useless subject, I've shied away from it because it's very hard to demonstrate due to the fact that WL was all over the place with his ministry and often taught diametrically opposed things without explanation. He also taught things to co-workers that were unique to what he taught publicly. And he privately confided things which were also unique, like his purported reservations about Chu. This gave the BBs the "out" which they've often retreated to--that because of their intimate knowledge of WL they know what he really meant about everything.

The whole argument of who is faithful to the guru is old hat because it just goes round and round. It's a red herring anyway. The BBs' actual error is more fundamental than straying from WL and lying about it. Their real error is claiming that being faithful to WL is a boast they should make before the Lord in the first place. The Lord never tells us to be faithful to a man's ministry. We're supposed to be faithful to Him. So once you get caught up in defending your faithfulness to WL you're already off the path.

The whole business of who is more faithful to WL is like who is king of the playground sandbox. Children think it's important, but grownups know better.

It's disconcerting how many of those who have left the BBs still feel the need to show that they haven't left WL. Do they really think the Lord cares they are faithful to a man's ministry? Or is it a culture they feel the need to genuflect to?

77150 · 01-10-2012, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

The whole business of who is more faithful to WL is like who is king of the playground sandbox. Children think it's important, but grownups know better.

Agreed. However, this is not the question here. The question here is "Was the justification for the excommunication a lie?" Because if it was a lie then there was no justification for it.

Second, it is true that with all of the WL's ministry there might be some wiggle room concerning differing teachings. This is why I initially chose "Experience of Life" and dealing with sins. This was a basic teaching taught in the Full Time Trainings and one that all BBs would have to adhere to.

However, the quote provided is central to the thesis of the letter of warning and it clearly condemns the actions of the BBs in plain language. As a result the only way the BBs can justify their action is by discrediting WL's ministry. It may not be perfect, but it is certainly a valid complaint that any righteous judge, like the Lord Jesus, would respect.

UntoHim · 01-10-2012, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's disconcerting how many of those who have left the BBs still feel the need to show that they haven't left WL. Do they really think the Lord cares they are faithful to a man's ministry? Or is it a culture they feel the need to genuflect to?

This is the point. It all revolves around Witness Lee. Who is most faithful to the person and work of Witness Lee - Not who is most biblical in their teachings and practices. The simple fact is that both the blended brothers and Titus Chu are wholly dedicated to the person and work of Witness Lee. Just as there is not a lick of difference between Lee and the blended brothers, there is not a lick of difference between the blended brothers and Chu. They are all peas in a pod. They teach the same things. They practice the same things. I guess some churches under Chu have let the young people use drums and electric guitars? So? Witness Lee clearly taught that things like music were non-essentials....but did Witness Lee ever let non-essentials become an issue and divide? Of course he did - he did it all the time! So, now the blended brothers are making a big issue out of all sorts of non-essentials. Unfortunately for Chu he is simply out numbered. So he just ended up taking his ball and going home. Then, naturally, the blended brothers ordered all churches under their control to never go and play ball at any of Chu's sandlots.

Much to do about nothing

Cal · 01-10-2012, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

Agreed. However, this is not the question here. The question here is "Was the justification for the excommunication a lie?" Because if it was a lie then there was no justification for it.

Second, it is true that with all of the WL's ministry there might be some wiggle room concerning differing teachings. This is why I initially chose "Experience of Life" and dealing with sins. This was a basic teaching taught in the Full Time Trainings and one that all BBs would have to adhere to.

However, the quote provided is central to the thesis of the letter of warning and it clearly condemns the actions of the BBs in plain language. As a result the only way the BBs can justify their action is by discrediting WL's ministry. It may not be perfect, but it is certainly a valid complaint that any righteous judge, like the Lord Jesus, would respect.

Your point is valid but it's also one that is totally lost on the BBs. They left the solid ground of reason and principles, and embraced the murky world of we're-the-move-of-the-age-so-what-we-do-is-self-justifying a long time ago. With them it is not what they do but who they think they are. It's always been that way with this movement. Even when they're wrong they're right, they think.

I'm not saying you are wasting your time, just that there are a lot of reasons the BBs should consider themselves unrighteous and they are thus far unfazed. As long as they have a following they are going to be open for business.

OBW · 01-10-2012, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

My point had nothing to do with WL.

That will be tough to establish since the statement from which I started was that Lee saw it all and did nothing. Your implication is that Lee had no basis for doing anything, so he didn't. But it would appear that there might be a reason that was not related to the correctness or incorrectness of taking action, but simply culture. That has everything to do with Lee. And it provides a reason that he might not have done what the BBs ultimately did.

And as Igzy has pointed out, Lee said much about many things and many people that we only know about because there have been some that were in the elders' meetings and have since repeated those things. That includes positions on many things about doctrine, theology, and people that were inconsistent with his public ministry.

It makes the inquiry about being "faithful to the entire ministry of WL" rather difficult. If you are an elder or co-worker, what is the "ministry of Lee"? Is it only what the people heard or read? Or does it include what they heard in those private meetings? So what are they being faithful to? The erratic contradictions of the whole man, or just the stuff that managed to get put in print by the LSM?

77150 · 01-10-2012, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This is the point. It all revolves around Witness Lee. Who is most faithful to the person and work of Witness Lee - Not who is most biblical in their teachings and practices. The simple fact is that both the blended brothers and Titus Chu are wholly dedicated to the person and work of Witness Lee. Just as there is not a lick of difference between Lee and the blended brothers, there is not a lick of difference between the blended brothers and Chu. They are all peas in a pod. They teach the same things. They practice the same things. I guess some churches under Chu have let the young people use drums and electric guitars? So? Witness Lee clearly taught that things like music were non-essentials....but did Witness Lee ever let non-essentials become an issue and divide? Of course he did - he did it all the time! So, now the blended brothers are making a big issue out of all sorts of non-essentials. Unfortunately for Chu he is simply out numbered. So he just ended up taking his ball and going home. Then, naturally, the blended brothers ordered all churches under their control to never go and play ball at any of Chu's sandlots.

Much to do about nothing

And that, by definition, is hypocrisy. And if the split with Chu is based on lies, deceit and hypocrisy it was not authorized by the Lord. And if they acted without authorization in excommunicating brothers and churches they are worthy of being judged. Therefore they will be judged by their own words.

The point is that "it all revolves around WL" in word but not in fact. The reality is they have ulterior motives and use "being faithful to WL" as some kind of bogus justification. Expose that lie and the structure they have built up collapses. The point is this is their action that they must be held accountable for. They do not have "plausible deniability". WL was dead. WL never excommunicated TC. If they can complain about being held accountable for WL sins, then this is a case where it is not WL's sin, it is their sin.

77150 · 01-10-2012, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Your point is valid but it's also one that is totally lost on the BBs. They left the solid ground of reason and principles, and embraced the murky world of we're-the-move-of-the-age-so-what-we-do-is-self-justifying a long time ago. With them it is not what they do but who they think they are. It's always been that way with this movement. Even when they're wrong they're right, they think.

I'm not saying you are wasting your time, just that there are a lot of reasons the BBs should consider themselves unrighteous and they are thus far unfazed. As long as they have a following they are going to be open for business.

I am not concerned with how the BBs receive this word, I am concerned with the Lord. I believe that these things happen under His sovereignty. I believe that Christians are supposed to reign in the Kingdom age and during the church age we are being trained. Hence, I believe that if these things are so and the Lord has still not judged it is due to our fault, not unlike the gentile woman praying to the Son of David and being told that the Son of David was sent to Israel. Adjust your prayer and you will get an answer.

77150 · 01-10-2012, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

That will be tough to establish since the statement from which I started was that Lee saw it all and did nothing. Your implication is that Lee had no basis for doing anything, so he didn't. But it would appear that there might be a reason that was not related to the correctness or incorrectness of taking action, but simply culture. That has everything to do with Lee. And it provides a reason that he might not have done what the BBs ultimately did.

And as Igzy has pointed out, Lee said much about many things and many people that we only know about because there have been some that were in the elders' meetings and have since repeated those things. That includes positions on many things about doctrine, theology, and people that were inconsistent with his public ministry.

It makes the inquiry about being "faithful to the entire ministry of WL" rather difficult. If you are an elder or co-worker, what is the "ministry of Lee"? Is it only what the people heard or read? Or does it include what they heard in those private meetings? So what are they being faithful to? The erratic contradictions of the whole man, or just the stuff that managed to get put in print by the LSM?

There was no implication, there was merely the fact. Lee didn't do anything yet the allegation of using fleshly means for the gospel was already being bandied about. Therefore, if you are WL's disciple you must show me what changed to prompt this response. You cannot argue that "WL didn't like to take this action" tell that to Max, tell that to Jane, etc. WL was well able to "excommunicate" TC but didn't. Regardless of whether it was discussed or not, the fact is he chose not to do anything.

Ohio · 01-10-2012, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's disconcerting how many of those who have left the BBs still feel the need to show that they haven't left WL. Do they really think the Lord cares they are faithful to a man's ministry? Or is it a culture they feel the need to genuflect to?

To "outsider" Christians, I agree completely. I do hope, however, that you are not implying that Ohio or 77150 need to show why we have not left the ministry of WL.

As far as "playing in the sandbox," I know lots of folks who could say the same thing about all politicians in Wash DC.

But, on the other hand, if one wants to understand "what really happened" during the recent quarantines, then I think this line of thought provides valuable insight. If nothing more, it does provide an important historical perspective.

Just now I checked, and there were 28 guests on this forum. Maybe somebody is more interested than you think.

77150 · 01-10-2012, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not saying you are wasting your time, just that there are a lot of reasons the BBs should consider themselves unrighteous and they are thus far unfazed. As long as they have a following they are going to be open for business.

If thus far they are unfazed why the obsession with "opposers" in Nell's testimony under the thread "Mark them..."

It seems to me they are scared of their own shadow. They are fleeing when no one is chasing them.

Why so scared to talk to Nell?

The actions with TC, the actions in Brazil, the testimony of Nell. These are not the actions of people who "are unfazed".

UntoHim · 01-10-2012, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

WL was well able to "excommunicate" TC but didn't. Regardless of whether it was discussed or not, the fact is he chose not to do anything.

This was a function of Witness Lee's duplicity more than anything else. Titus Chu was not the only victim of Lee's duplicity and trickery. Lee would send out "spies" (really double-agents!), and these spies would pretend to be sympathetic towards those with genuine concerns, then they would gather information and report back to headquarters in Anaheim. NOBODY was spared from this unethical trickery...not even John Ingalls. It is simply how Witness Lee did business. Actually the blended brothers are rank armatures compared to Lee.

Cal · 01-10-2012, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

If thus far they are unfazed why the obsession with "opposers" in Nell's testimony under the thread "Mark them..."

It seems to me they are scared of their own shadow. They are fleeing when no one is chasing them.

Why so scared to talk to Nell?

The actions with TC, the actions in Brazil, the testimony of Nell. These are not the actions of people who "are unfazed".

I meant unfazed in the sense of feeling compelled to change for the better.

Do you think fear of being wrong compels their irrational actions? I doubt it. I think it's more likely compelled by their feeling that they cannot be wrong.

Ohio · 01-10-2012, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This is the point. It all revolves around Witness Lee. Who is most faithful to the person and work of Witness Lee - Not who is most biblical in their teachings and practices. The simple fact is that both the blended brothers and Titus Chu are wholly dedicated to the person and work of Witness Lee. Just as there is not a lick of difference between Lee and the blended brothers, there is not a lick of difference between the blended brothers and Chu. They are all peas in a pod.

Much to do about nothing

I'm not understanding this.

This is a forum of members and ex-members and topics such as leadership actions, which impact all members, by definition, can not be "much ado about nothing."

We have provided ex-members, like Nell and the Andersons, endless audience, and unlimited bandwith on these forums, but when the new guy 77150 has a new slant or two, the moderator steps in to limit discussion, or at the least, attempts to downplay it.

Unless we address the very attitudes which members and ex-members have towards following the teachings of WL, this forum is irrelevant. Who are we attempting to help?

What am I missing here?

OBW · 01-10-2012, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

And if the split with Chu is based on lies, deceit and hypocrisy it was not authorized by the Lord.

. . . .

The point is that "it all revolves around WL" in word but not in fact.

Are we discussing the actions of the BBs in relation to Lee's ministry ("faithful to the entire ministry of WL") or to the Lord. Seems that the basis for analysis keeps shifting depending on the point being made at the moment.

Analysis under either basis is acceptable. They both tell us something about Lee and the BBs. But if hypocrisy is based on "not authorized by the Lord" then the topic is not relevant to the discussion you want to have.

Try to keep your discussion coherently on the analysis of Lee and the BBs relative to either the public teaching of Lee or the Lord, but not both. Or clarify what needs to be analyzed relative to the teachings of Lee and what needs to be analyzed relative to the teachings of the scriptures. There is a chasm with terrible traps between the two.

Ohio · 01-10-2012, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This was a function of Witness Lee's duplicity more than anything else. Titus Chu was not the only victim of Lee's duplicity and trickery. Lee would send out "spies" (really double-agents!), and these spies would pretend to be sympathetic towards those with genuine concerns, then they would gather information and report back to headquarters in Anaheim. NOBODY was spared from this unethical trickery...not even John Ingalls. It is simply how Witness Lee did business. Actually the blended brothers are rank armatures compared to Lee.

This is another matter altogether.

The fact that WL even believed all of those evil reports which filtered back to him only created more "spies." I found that many LC leaders also learned this pattern of "keeping dirt" on other brothers. These are not the ways of spiritual men, but of those who lust for power over others. Many times TC mentioned the "hell" he went thru because of numerous evil reports about him reaching WL. The sad thing was, that TC did the same to his followers.

The LC program had little appreciation for anyone, except for him at the top. The result was that ambitious brothers became man-pleasers, until the day comes when they are the one at the top. Meanwhile, those truly ambitious ones will jockey for position, backstabbing one another all the time. Looking back, it is just incredible how much WL encouraged and endorsed the infighting which has so characterized the Recovery for decades.

OBW · 01-10-2012, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

What am I missing here?

I think that the problem is that if the analysis is actions based on Lee, then the BBs and TC were mostly cookie-cutter duplicates of the original — Lee. And it turns out that when there was only one sheriff with minions, things went on OK. But once the sheriff dies, (kind of like when Julius Caesar died) there is this attempt to share power. And one-by-one they get bumped off (or take their place as subservient to some presumed stand-out among them) until there is a single leader.

Just peas in a pod.

And the pod isn't big enough for the both of them. (That sounds very ant- LRC dogma when you say it as "this church isn't big enough for the both of us.")

I read Unto's "much ado" as discussing the inter workings of the upper echelons of a crime syndicate. It isn't about law. Or right and wrong. It is about power and being unafraid to wield it.

Discussing the BBs in terms of a seriously flawed ministry is like judging a Mafia war based on the way the Mafia works, or a battle among pirates based on the pirate's code.

So the stated topic is only important if the basis (the ministry of Lee) is truly a sound basis for analysis. Otherwise, it is an effort in futility. It does expose the complete lack of morality of those mired in that way of thinking. But we already knew that.

TLFisher · 01-10-2012, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I meant unfazed in the sense of feeling compelled to change for the better.

Do you think fear of being wrong compels their irrational actions? I doubt it. I think it's more likely compelled by their feeling that they cannot be wrong.

I think you've got it Igzy. Is there no consideration they (the blended brothers) could be wrong? They need a reality check. Other than fearing God first and foremost, there ought to be a fear they could be wrong.
Why would they be unfazed to chnage? My response is found in an earlier post of mine in this thread "according to the feeling of the Body". In their minds the recovery equals the Body of Christ. In practice what is termed "the feeling of the Body" is really LSM leadership. So when deacons, elders, co-workers say they feel to honor the feeling of the body, it really means they do not want to appear in disaccord with the leading co-workers. It comes down to being one with man.
Spiritually each one needs to consider "what if". What if what we've been told is wrong? I believe why a brother like the elder of the Church in Vista is unwilling to learn the other side of the late 80's turmoil is because he could be wrong. Responsible brothers in the so-called recovery were able to drink up what was printed in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion or A Response to Recent Accusations, but they are unwilling to read in entirety what Bill Mallon wrote to Witness Lee in December, 1987 or John Ingalls' Speaking the Truth in Love. Why? because it presents the other side of the coin. Changes the context of what LSM printed about these brothers.
So consider what if? What if being unwilling to learn the other side of this turmoil results in continuing to bear false witness?
Pardon me for going off topic, but I had to respond to Igzy's post.

Cal · 01-10-2012, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

So the stated topic is only important if the basis (the ministry of Lee) is truly a sound basis for analysis. Otherwise, it is an effort in futility. It does expose the complete lack of morality of those mired in that way of thinking. But we already knew that.

I think 77150 was just attempting to establish that the BBs are not even faithful to their stated goal of being faithful to WL's ministry.

My point was simply that the goal itself is flawed, so in one sense who cares if they are faithful, except to establish that they are full of beans.

Of course, we already knew that. But it doesn't hurt to give concrete evidence as to why.

UntoHim · 01-10-2012, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

We have provided ex-members, like Nell and the Andersons, endless audience, and unlimited bandwith on these forums, but when the new guy 77150 has a new slant or two, the moderator steps in to limit discussion, or at the least, attempts to downplay it.

Neither the Andersons nor Nell have posted much here in years. What's your beef with them? (don't answer that, your personal problems with other posters should be kept personal) Nobody gets endless audience or unlimited bandwidth...I couldn't possibly afford it!

Quote:

What am I missing here?

Apparently you've missed the main point I was driving at.
OBW and Igzy answered better than I could (as usual)

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Are we discussing the actions of the BBs in relation to Lee's ministry ("faithful to the entire ministry of WL") or to the Lord. Seems that the basis for analysis keeps shifting depending on the point being made at the moment.

Analysis under either basis is acceptable. They both tell us something about Lee and the BBs. But if hypocrisy is based on "not authorized by the Lord" then the topic is not relevant to the discussion you want to have.

Try to keep your discussion coherently on the analysis of Lee and the BBs relative to either the public teaching of Lee or the Lord, but not both. Or clarify what needs to be analyzed relative to the teachings of Lee and what needs to be analyzed relative to the teachings of the scriptures. There is a chasm with terrible traps between the two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that the problem is that if the analysis is actions based on Lee, then the BBs and TC were mostly cookie-cutter duplicates of the original — Lee. And it turns out that when there was only one sheriff with minions, things went on OK. But once the sheriff dies, (kind of like when Julius Caesar died) there is this attempt to share power. And one-by-one they get bumped off (or take their place as subservient to some presumed stand-out among them) until there is a single leader.

Just peas in a pod.

And the pod isn't big enough for the both of them. (That sounds very ant- LRC dogma when you say it as "this church isn't big enough for the both of us.")

I read Unto's "much ado" as discussing the inter workings of the upper echelons of a crime syndicate. It isn't about law. Or right and wrong. It is about power and being unafraid to wield it.

Discussing the BBs in terms of a seriously flawed ministry is like judging a Mafia war based on the way the Mafia works, or a battle among pirates based on the pirate's code.

So the stated topic is only important if the basis (the ministry of Lee) is truly a sound basis for analysis. Otherwise, it is an effort in futility. It does expose the complete lack of morality of those mired in that way of thinking. But we already knew that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think 77150 was just attempting to establish that the BBs are not even faithful to their stated goal of being faithful to WL's ministry.

My point was simply that the goal itself is flawed, so in one sense who cares if they are faithful, except to establish that they are full of beans.

Of course, we already knew that. But it doesn't hurt to give concrete evidence as to why.

PS: My "Much (to do) ado about nothing" smack talk was just that....smack talk. All it really did was expose my lack of knowledge of Shakespeare.

Ohio · 01-10-2012, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think 77150 was just attempting to establish that the BBs are not even faithful to their stated goal of being faithful to WL's ministry.

My point was simply that the goal itself is flawed, so in one sense who cares if they are faithful, except to establish that they are full of beans.

Of course, we already knew that. But it doesn't hurt to give concrete evidence as to why.

What you and OBW keep saying is true, but that is not the point.

The goal is not "flawed" for those inside the program. I know, I was there, and so were you. Who knows how many lurkers are out there who would be interested to know if the Blendeds were even faithful even to their own flawed mission?

For me personally, and I assume many others also, taking the approach of hypocrisy and unrighteousness (including matters of abuse) opened me to LC problems, whereas discussing teachings and doctrines ad nauseum, even when compared to the Bible, only hardened my strongholds.

I must have an accumulated five hundred posts or so over the years, addressing this very concept. It just amazes me that some still find this approach an unacceptable waste of time.

OBW · 01-10-2012, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

For me personally, and I assume many others also, taking the approach of hypocrisy and unrighteousness (including matters of abuse) opened me to LC problems, whereas discussing teachings and doctrines ad nauseum, even when compared to the Bible, only hardened my strongholds.

This is an excellent reason to discuss the actions and mis-actions of various ones (including Lee) relative to the ministry that they think they are following. And if that is a worthy goal (and it is for the very reasons you state) then let's do that and stick to it.

If the goal is to demonstrate the very error in the teachings and note that it is inconsistent with the Lord (and that is also a very worthy goal) then let's do that. But there seems to be a mixture of the two in a way that confuses the basis of the analysis. 77150 says it is not about Lee. Yet it would appear that if the point is Lee's ministry, then it is about Lee. And if Lee can't even produce a single, complete, coherent ministry that is understood the same way by both the flock and the shepherds, then there is a problem with the ministry. All without even putting it up against the scripture.

And it also is about the BBs and TC because they are the ones who are supposedly the best at "living out" the Christian life as redefined by Lee and his ministry. That is the crux of the LRC. A version of the Christian life based on the ministry of Lee. And if you ask the average member to consider that, they can get confused if they actually heard some of the rhetoric surrounding the excommunication of John I or TC. There is a serious disconnect. That undermines the current authority structure of the LRC. And puts the basis of authority in question.

And when it is learned that Lee is the source of the authority for such unrighteousness, then we return to the main problem. Will LRC members think that whatever Lee said could be wrong. Will they see it as a house of cards with a naked emperor. Or will they turn on the "If Lee said it then it must be true and OK" mindset and just let the unrighteousness run amok.

UntoHim · 01-10-2012, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

For me personally, and I assume many others also, taking the approach of hypocrisy and unrighteousness (including matters of abuse) opened me to LC problems, whereas discussing teachings and doctrines ad nauseum, even when compared to the Bible, only hardened my strongholds.

I for one have really appreciated your contributions regarding this. As a matter of fact it is the hypocrisy and unrighteousness towards Ingalls, Mallon et al that precipitated my departure from the Local Church. At that point there were no forums discussing teachings so I'm not sure how hardened I would have been. In my experience and observation the last domino to fall for former members is dealing with the particular teachings of Witness Lee. (The next to last would be the abject adoration of Witness Lee, which is the hardest thing on the heart and mind). Obviously it is different with every individual, but the point would be is that everything is open for discussion here on this forum. If somebody finds a particular topic disturbing or uncomfortable then they have the option of simply not participating in that thread. Nobody should feel obligated to participate in every thread!

Quote:

I must have an accumulated five hundred posts or so over the years, addressing this very concept. It just amazes me that some still find this approach an unacceptable waste of time.

I think you are confusing people looking for clarification with claiming it is a waste of time. I really urge you to review what OBW and Igzy have posted. They really express what the frustration that people like me (and them I assume) have with this whole thread. Please note that I am NOT trying to pit you or 77150 against anybody else - that is not the point. We are not just dialoging with each other here....there is a wider audience here, and I think we all should be considering them as well.

Cal · 01-10-2012, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

What you and OBW keep saying is true, but that is not the point.

The goal is not "flawed" for those inside the program. I know, I was there, and so were you. Who knows how many lurkers are out there who would be interested to know if the Blendeds were even faithful even to their own flawed mission?

For me personally, and I assume many others also, taking the approach of hypocrisy and unrighteousness (including matters of abuse) opened me to LC problems, whereas discussing teachings and doctrines ad nauseum, even when compared to the Bible, only hardened my strongholds.

I must have an accumulated five hundred posts or so over the years, addressing this very concept. It just amazes me that some still find this approach an unacceptable waste of time.

You tend to see things in black and white. I never said the point didn't have merit. As a matter of fact I went out of my way to say it did have merit. I never said it was an "unacceptable waste of time." I was just giving another perspective on it.

77150 · 01-10-2012, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I meant unfazed in the sense of feeling compelled to change for the better.

Do you think fear of being wrong compels their irrational actions? I doubt it. I think it's more likely compelled by their feeling that they cannot be wrong.

I have sat in small private fellowships with elders and leaders of the church that were incensed at PL's sins and a little more discreetly at WL. I am also aware of at least 1 BB that signed the letter concerning TC that felt coerced.

I do not want to make it appear as justification, however I don't think this forum does a very good job at presenting the real context in putting your name to that paper. The brother in question was married with a kid in college. The church he was an elder of had enough issues with LSM and did not want to attract the spotlight. They also have a rather large unpaid mortgage on the building. At present LSM is a minor irritation, pay for the standing order, then every couple of years give away boxes of books that no one buys. Also it was not hard to feel that TC brought this on himself.

77150 · 01-10-2012, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Are we discussing the actions of the BBs in relation to Lee's ministry ("faithful to the entire ministry of WL") or to the Lord. Seems that the basis for analysis keeps shifting depending on the point being made at the moment.

The question is "Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL"?

I am asking this question because it is central to the credibility of the excommunication of TC.

You cannot answer this question without looking at the Ministry of WL. That does not make WL or his ministry the topic. Nor does it make WL's actions or sins the topic.

However, my motive in asking this question is that there is a promise in Proverbs that "God overthrows the house of the wicked". Teaching unsound teachings does not make you "wicked". However, a false witness who speaks lies with the intention of sowing discord among brethren is by definition "wicked". So, proving that the excommunication of TC was in fact the speaking of lies with the intention of sowing discord would be the basis for me to ask for the Lord to step in and overthrow the house of the wicked.

There is no implied meaning of equating WL's ministry with the Lord. The point is they claimed that in excommunicating TC they were "seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL". Proving that this statement was a lie lays the groundwork to claim that this act was an abomination to the Lord. Therefore, based on the promise in the word of God I can pray that "the Lord overthrow the house of the wicked".

The basis for analysis has not shifted: did the BBs lie.

The motive for doing this analysis has also not shifted: if so, then I would ask the Lord to overthrow the house of the wicked.

Ohio · 01-10-2012, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

You tend to see things in black and white.

You may well be right.

But after further thought, I am usually one who looks for ways in which both parties can be right, in order to ameliorate conflicts. Also, I rarely tend to extremes. These are not the traits of one who sees things in black and white. But ... before I go too far here, isn't it those secular humanists who demand that nothing be viewed in terms of absolutes?

Sometimes seeing things in terms of black and white is just the right way to be.

TLFisher · 01-10-2012, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

I am asking this question because it is central to the credibility of the excommunication of TC.

The basis for analysis has not shifted: did the BBs lie.

77150, I would turn this around and say the illegitimate quarantine oh John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon, and Joseph Fung (who is now with the Lord), gives credence to the illegitimate quarantine of Titus Chu, Nigel Tomes, among other co-workers.
You ask did the BB's lie? I'll put it like this. Those who participate and still speak against the quarantined brothers are bearing false witness. Additionally each time references are made, they are doing further damage to the Body of Christ meeting in the local churches. When a brother and sister are too hardened to forgive or ask forgiveness, that alone speaks of the damage done.

Ohio · 01-10-2012, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

77150, I would turn this around and say the illegitimate quarantine oh John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon, and Joseph Fung (who is now with the Lord), gives credence to the illegitimate quarantine of Titus Chu, Nigel Tomes, among other co-workers.

Hypocrisy breeds hypocrisy. Hypocrisy also damages consciences.

WL never quarantined TC because he never was a threat to WL's power, as the sole leader of the Recovery. TC submitted to WL in all things. During the quarantine of the late 80's, TC went against own better judgment to side with WL, and sign that letter BP wrote. TC knew that John Ingalls and the others were not rebellious conspirators. He even talked to John in private supporting him, that is, until WL made TC get his priorities "right." TC also knew the true character of PL, probably more than any of the American leaders, as they were contemporaries in age back in Taiwan. TC knew that it was absolutely wrong for WL to appoint his son to run LSM, yet he said nothing. TC's silence towards WL' improprieties and unrighteousnesses gave PL and others the opportunity to impugn him for years, and then finally eliminate him.

77150 · 01-11-2012, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hypocrisy breeds hypocrisy. Hypocrisy also damages consciences...

I am well aware of the irony here (the lies and hypocrisy were "faithful" to the ministry of WL). I think this may be what a lot of the objections are for. But that would be for a different thread. Woe to the scribes and pharisees because they make their disciples into sons of Gehenna.

Cal · 01-11-2012, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hypocrisy breeds hypocrisy. Hypocrisy also damages consciences.

Which is why Nee's doctrine of absolute submission is an error. It simply becomes a tool of a corrupt regime. It ultimately leads to hypocrisy.

Cal · 01-11-2012, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

You may well be right.

But after further thought, I am usually one who looks for ways in which both parties can be right, in order to ameliorate conflicts. Also, I rarely tend to extremes. These are not the traits of one who sees things in black and white. But ... before I go too far here, isn't it those secular humanists who demand that nothing be viewed in terms of absolutes?

Sometimes seeing things in terms of black and white is just the right way to be.

What I meant was you tend to think someone is either for something or against it, at least in these discussions. And if they speak reservations about something that means they are against it and want it to cease, when all they may be saying is to look at it from a different angle.

77150 · 01-11-2012, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

2 Cor 7:2 Receive us; we have wronged no man, we have corrupted no man, we have defrauded no man.

If we refuse to receive WL because he has wronged a man in the false accusations of the “sister’s rebellion”, or if we refused to receive WL because he allowed his son to corrupt saints, or if we refused to receive WL because he defrauded saints as a result of the Daystar debacle that would be Biblical. JS and JI had legitimate Biblical basis to not receive WL. But these were not the issues in casting out TC. No the issue was LSM trainings and publications. The issue was that they “sought to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL” and they felt that TC did not.

However, according to WL “Any saint who holds a different opinion or concept regarding the things we are in favor, we must receive, “for God hath received him.” (WL, The Practical Expression of the Church, page 66-67). The BBs were in favor of the ministry of WL, TC held a different opinion or concept than they did. However, no one disputed that “God had received him”. Therefore, anyone seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL would receive him.

“As long as a person receives His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, as his personal Savior, regardless of the concepts he holds regarding all other things, God receives him immediately. Since God receives people in this way, we too must receive people in the same way. Our receiving must be in accordance with God’s receiving. If our receiving differs from His, it means that we are wrong: either we are more narrow or more broad than God.” (WL, The Practical Expression of the Church, page 66-67). I think that it is clear from the action taken in quarantining TC that the “receiving” of the BBs differs from God’s receiving. Therefore this action is condemned by the ministry of WL as being wrong and being too narrow. Clearly, justifying this action as being the result of “seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL” is hypocrisy.

"As long as anyone believes in Christ our Lord, as long as He receives Him as His personal Savior, we must receive him with nothing else required. Regardless of how he may dissent in so many other things, as long as he is a real believer in the Lord, we have no choice but to receive him, for the Lord has received him." (WL, The Practical Expression of the Church, page 66-67). Justifying your action by accusing TC or any other brother of “dissenting” is also condemned by WL’s ministry. Once again, doing this while also claiming to be “seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL” is hypocrisy. It is deceitful.

"This is why the Apostle said, “Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.” We must receive whoever Christ has received. We must have such a proper receiving of all the saints that we may keep the proper unity; otherwise, we can never keep ourselves from being sectarian and causing much confusion and damage to the church life." (WL, The Practical Expression of the Church, page 66-67). The BBs claim that they are for the “oneness of the Body” while “being sectarian” and “causing confusion and damage to the church life”. They claim that they seek to be “faithful” to the “entire ministry of WL” yet are condemned by WL’s ministry as being sectarian and causing confusion and damage to the church life.

According to the Recovery Version of Galatians, the footnotes in chapter 5:19-21 being sectarian is a work of the flesh.

WL taught in “The Experience of Life” that we need to deal with the flesh. “Romans 8:8, “They that are in the flesh cannot please God.” The Bible has spoken much about the flesh, and at this point it concludes that the flesh cannot please God. If man belongs to the flesh, minds the flesh, and lives by the flesh, whatever he does, either good or bad, cannot please God.” It may be that Abraham was trying to please God when he had a son by Hagar, and it may also be that the BBs were trying to please God when they excommunicated TC and a number of churches, but the Bible and WL teach that “those who are in the flesh cannot please God”.

Sept 24, 1996 the elders in Anaheim wrote an apology to PL for the actions that the elders in Anaheim had taken in 1988 in disciplining him. I think this is a clear example of those that forsake the law praise the wicked, but such as keep the law contend with them. Several of those who signed this letter are BBs.

They have forsaken the Law. They praise the wicked. They have spoken lies. They have destroyed others with false witness. They have devised schemes and sown discord among brothers. Even by the standards of the world their actions are evil. They defraud one another (Daystar), they corrupt one another (PL) and they libel one another. Their feet run swiftly when doing evil but are lame and out of joint when asked for righteousness (Nell's testimony). They are proud in their stand (ground of the church), boast in their teachings (MOTA), and they are practiced in shedding innocent blood (sister's rebellion, Joseph Fung, JI, TC, JS, etc.). They have been given space to repent and instead have become more insolent (TC excommunication, recent issue in Brazil). They fabricate lies in order to make merchandise of others (MOTA, "we seek to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL", "FPR", issue with TC was really about publishing and market share).

Jeremiah 6:15Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD

Ohio · 01-11-2012, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Which is why Nee's doctrine of absolute submission is an error. It simply becomes a tool of a corrupt regime. It ultimately leads to hypocrisy.

I have heard that WN's original fellowship on this teaching was balanced with numerous caveats, but LSM removed those warnings and safeguards in their version, thus making it seem that it was the well-respected WN who promoted absolute submission.

Either way, I do think the teaching was greatly influenced by Chinese culture, after all, haven't they had dictators and dynasties since the beginning of time?

Ohio · 01-11-2012, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

What I meant was you tend to think someone is either for something or against it, at least in these discussions. And if they speak reservations about something that means they are against it and want it to cease, when all they may be saying is to look at it from a different angle.

It seemed to me at the time that all the "reservations" were adequately addressed, and some still could not see the importance of 77150's thought.

Sometimes when I want to make a point, I quote you instead of other posters, because I know you are such a nice guy!

Ohio · 01-11-2012, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

Sept 24, 1996 the elders in Anaheim wrote an apology to PL for the actions that the elders in Anaheim had taken in 1988 in disciplining him. I think this is a clear example of those that forsake the law praise the wicked, but such as keep the law contend with them. Several of those who signed this letter are BBs.

They have forsaken the Law. They praise the wicked. They have spoken lies. They have destroyed others with false witness. They have devised schemes and sown discord among brothers. Even by the standards of the world their actions are evil. They defraud one another (Daystar), they corrupt one another (PL) and they libel one another. Their feet run swiftly when doing evil but are lame and out of joint when asked for righteousness (Nell's testimony). They are proud in their stand (ground of the church), boast in their teachings (MOTA), and they are practiced in shedding innocent blood (sister's rebellion, Joseph Fung, JI, TC, JS, etc.). They have been given space to repent and instead have become more insolent (TC excommunication, recent issue in Brazil). They fabricate lies in order to make merchandise of others (MOTA, "we seek to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL", "FPR", issue with TC was really about publishing and market share).

What a concise post for all the issues I have with LSM!

To add insult to injury, PL took that first letter of reinstatement from the Anaheim elders and rejected it. Probably that first letter was prompted by WL, in order to preserve his legacy. The elders then wrote a more "satisfactory" letter and this time signed it. What arrogance! Shows how important signatures are though. Like the lawyers always say, "get it in writing."

Cal · 01-11-2012, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have heard that WN's original fellowship on this teaching was balanced with numerous caveats, but LSM removed those warnings and safeguards in their version, thus making it seem that it was the well-respected WN who promoted absolute submission.

Either way, I do think the teaching was greatly influenced by Chinese culture, after all, haven't they had dictators and dynasties since the beginning of time?

Right. It could never work in large scale in the Western world. Of course, LRCers would say that's because of the inherent rebelliousness and self-will of man. But not so, it's simply that Westerners know better than to mistake submitting to a man with submitting to God. They look around to places like, say China, and see the results of doing that.

Ohio · 01-11-2012, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Right. It could never work in large scale in the Western world. Of course, LRCers would say that's because of the inherent rebelliousness and self-will of man. But not so, it's simply that Westerners know better than to mistake submitting to a man with submitting to God. They look around to places like, say China, and see the results of doing that.

Church history is filled with "obstinate" men, who were condemned for their inherent rebelliousness and self-will, but which our Lord has wisely used for His own purpose. Huss, Luther, Wycliff, Tyndale, and many others stand out, however, there are far more whose names only the Lord truly remembers.

Absolute submission to man is never demanded by the Word of God, and always becomes a powerful tool in Satan's hand. One cannot look at the stories of Ham and Meriam, used so frequently by LSM to reinforce this teaching, and declare that their failures were a lack of total submission.

Cal · 01-11-2012, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

It seemed to me at the time that all the "reservations" were adequately addressed, and some still could not see the importance of 77150's thought.

I understand. I've had reservations about reservations before myself.

Quote:

Sometimes when I want to make a point, I quote you instead of other posters, because I know you are such a nice guy!

Uh-huh.

Cal · 01-11-2012, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Church history is filled with "obstinate" men, who were condemned for their inherent rebelliousness and self-will, but which our Lord has wisely used for His own purpose. Huss, Luther, Wycliff, Tyndale, and many others stand out, however, there are far more whose names only the Lord truly remembers.

Absolute submission to man is never demanded by the Word of God, and always becomes a powerful tool in Satan's hand. One cannot look at the stories of Ham and Meriam, used so frequently by LSM to reinforce this teaching, and declare that their failures were a lack of total submission.

This consideration always led to the question I've asked many times here: At what point does an individual have the right to say "Enough!" and to move on to begin anew?

LRC doctrine answers "never." But the irony of this is that "the Recovery" was based on men leaving bad systems and moving to something purer. But when WL institutionalized "the Recovery" and put himself in charge of it somehow the principle of leaving the corrupt for the purer became obsolete, and the principle became the matter of falling in line because now all of a sudden "the Recovery" was in the hands of men and would remain so no matter what anyone else thought.

UntoHim · 01-11-2012, 10:29 AM

Along those lines, and going along with the them of the thread, what about the whole "one minister with the one ministry for the age" deal? There was always a lot of talk about the silver lining of the Recovery - usually starting with Luther, down from Zinzendorf to Darby to Watchman Nee and then of course to Witness Lee. Funny thing happened then....all of the sudden the silver line comes to a screeching halt! What's up with that? No more recovery of teachings and practices, no more progress forward....just keep going over and over those Life Studies from 30 or 40 years ago. Oh...and make sure you don't make "brothers we" made at you.

TLFisher · 01-11-2012, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have heard that WN's original fellowship on this teaching was balanced with numerous caveats, but LSM removed those warnings and safeguards in their version,

That is where Watchman Nee's Character of the Lord's Worker comes in which is ommitted in LSM's Authority and Submssion.
Without it, there has been an unchecked freedom to abuse saints as we have previously seen in Ontario, California. Just submit, character is a non-issue.

OBW · 01-11-2012, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

Sept 24, 1996 the elders in Anaheim wrote an apology to PL for the actions that the elders in Anaheim had taken in 1988 in disciplining him. I think this is a clear example of those that forsake the law praise the wicked, but such as keep the law contend with them. Several of those who signed this letter are BBs.

They have forsaken the Law.

Great post. With one question. Is this for us to better understand the errors of the BBs or Lee or the LRC in general? Or is it to develop an arsenal to bring out in discussion with the current membership?

If the latter, then the last sentence I quote will be the reason that it fails.

Under Lee's theology, the Law is abolished. It has been crucified. For him, that means that even if you are wrong, you are right if you are "in your spirit."

So the current membership will generally accept that there can be no wrong, especially from those who are their leaders and therefore must be in spirit.

TLFisher · 01-11-2012, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

.

Under Lee's theology, the Law is abolished. It has been crucified. For him, that means that even if you are wrong, you are right if you are "in your spirit."

So the current membership will generally accept that there can be no wrong, especially from those who are their leaders and therefore must be in spirit.

I would say that's the case generally if they're uninformed. Suppose an elder conducts himself unbecomingly and word gets out. What do you suppose the response would be? "Even if he's wrong he's still right"? Then off to the side there may be a brother or even a couple quarantined for basically being politically incorrect or not keeping issues "in-house". Their quarantine is recognized, but a leader whose gross sin may be more severe would get whisked off to a nearby locality for special care. OBW, I realize you may think I'm referring to Texas, but I'm not. Given handling of the situation is ironically similar.
What do you think the response among North American saints would be had Ron Kangas had given the same message at a Puget Sound blending conference that he gave in South America? In the words of Titus Chu from his June 2006 letter "attacking brothers from the podium".
Abuse is something that is very conscious in the American mind.

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

This is similar to the contrast of the righteous and wicked seen in Proverbs.

77150 · 01-11-2012, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Great post. With one question. Is this for us to better understand the errors of the BBs or Lee or the LRC in general? Or is it to develop an arsenal to bring out in discussion with the current membership?

If the latter, then the last sentence I quote will be the reason that it fails.

Under Lee's theology, the Law is abolished. It has been crucified. For him, that means that even if you are wrong, you are right if you are "in your spirit."

So the current membership will generally accept that there can be no wrong, especially from those who are their leaders and therefore must be in spirit.

I answered this question in post 57

OBW · 01-11-2012, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

I answered this question in post 57

So the answer is that this is for our benefit in discovering by what means of unrighteousness the BBs erred in the excommunication of TC?

It is just for us?

What do we accomplish?

Since the issue is excommunication, surely an important factor is whether the charge is one scripturally worthy of excommunication. And if it is not, then why does it matter whether they lied to arrive at it? The result is an unrighteousness either way.

I guess I just don't see the importance of proving that anyone lied. I think that misrepresenting the basis for excommunication is sufficiently a lie. Doesn't matter if the claim itself is a lie.

But then, who can say. If the issue is whether they were actually being faithful to the ministry of Lee when they charged TC with not being faithful to the ministry of Lee, it is hard to say since there are so many angles and sides to Lee's ministry. Remember, there's always two sides to truth — at least according to Lee.

So I guess I will be a little less interested in the discussion. Unless it morphs into something else.

77150 · 01-11-2012, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

So the answer is that this is for our benefit in discovering by what means of unrighteousness the BBs erred in the excommunication of TC?

It is just for us?

What do we accomplish?

No. In Post 57 I said "So, proving that the excommunication of TC was in fact the speaking of lies with the intention of sowing discord would be the basis for me to ask for the Lord to step in and overthrow the house of the wicked."

My purpose is to build a prayer that I will pray to the Lord.

"Thus we are to lay hold of his pledged assurances, spread them before Him, and say "Do as thou hast said" (2 Samuel 7:25). Observe how Jacob pleaded the promise in Genesis 32:12; Moses in Exodus 32:13; David in Psalm 119:58; Solomon in 1Kings 8:25; and do thou, my Christian reader likewise." (This quote is from A. W. Pink, Profiting from the Word, and is quoted in "Lord Thou Saidst").

"What God spoke in Promise was the root and the life of what they spoke in prayer." (Andrew Murray, With Christ in the School of Prayer, again quoted in "Lord Thou Saidst").

OBW · 01-11-2012, 04:21 PM

It seems to be a moving target. And while you may consider your reasons and goals different from what I have stated, it keeps coming back to needing to build a firm prooftext arsenal to establish the right or need to "clean house" at the LSM.

That is not going to happen. The most we are likely to ever do is sway some of the followers to wake up and see the spiritual and scriptural flaws in the foundation upon which a house of cards has been placed. The BBs read this forum. Or they have someone doing it for them and summarizing. If our names are discoverable (and mine surely is, and has been) they know who is saying what. Or they have an idea.

And they are not impressed. They go to their conferences and proclaim how they stand firm against our evil accusations. They slander our positions in the eyes of the followers and warn them that they will become leprous if they read these negative forums.

We have learned over and over that it is the constant putting of scriptural truth in front of them that stands in opposition to what they have been taught, but that eventually causes them to accidentally read with the Lee-colored glasses removed and begin to see something that has been hidden from them.

But, as I mentioned before, this seems to be where you want to go. Or it seems that now I know a little more about where you want to go. (Despite claiming that prior posts have made it known, I don't get your latest statements out of those posts. There's a reason that I make such long posts. Short, quick and to the point is usually misunderstood (their fault). Or not made clear (my fault). Probably more of the latter.)

77150 · 01-11-2012, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

It seems to be a moving target. And while you may consider your reasons and goals different from what I have stated, ...

I have said repeatedly and consistently that my motive is to put together a basis for a prayer to the Lord. Why can't you hear?

Why do you keep asking a question and then ignore my answer to provide your own only to say that it won't work? That is known as a "straw man".

"Happy are they who suspend their desires until they know their Father's will, and then, asking according to His will, they can rise to the height of His own mighty promise, "If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you" (John 15:7) (A.B. Simpson, The Life of Prayer, p.22).

The Lord is the one that repays those that hate Him to their face (Deut. 7:10) not me. He has promised to hear when I call. So be at Peace, this is the same God that dealt with Pharoah.

OBW · 01-11-2012, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

Why do you keep asking a question and then ignore my answer to provide your own only to say that it won't work? That is known as a "straw man".

If I were trying to assert what it is you are doing or saying, knowing that it is not, then it would legitimately be a straw man. I have been seeking to understand what it is you are saying. That you think you have been clear does not prove that I have understood you as you wish to be understood.

It may actually be the way I have read certain things rather than the way you said them, or what you meant by them. But no matter how it happened, I was not reading you correctly.

And although I have provided my understanding of what you were saying, it was not to shoot anything down, but was for the purpose of clarifying what you meant. Your exasperation seems to indicate that you may not really care whether you are bing misunderstood. And your insistence that this is an attack on you suggests that you are not reading my posts. I have not attacked you in any way other than to get involved in some discussion a while back in general about "unregistered" posts. And that wasn't to attack you, but to deal with the confusion that so many unregistereds was creating.

UntoHim · 01-11-2012, 07:04 PM

77150, let's go back to your original post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

The Experience of Life teaches there are 4 matters that must be cleared up. 2 are relevant to this thread:
1. Unrighteous matters – illegal (For example Daystar)
2. Improper matters or indecent matters (For example the sins of PL)

Your main claim here seems to be that the blended brothers claim to be following the ministry of Witness Lee (as noted above), but they are not following the ministry of Witness Lee.

The glaring weakness in your claim is that Witness Lee himself did not deal with the unrighteous, illegal matter of Daystar. This is well documented on this and other forums on the Internet.

Furthermore, Witness Lee himself did not deal with the indecent matters of his son, Phillip. This is also well documented on this and other forums on the Internet.

So, how can you hold Witness Lee's followers up to a higher standard than you are holding up Witness Lee to? Sorry to make this rather inconvenient for you, but you should have been using those prayers to overthrow the house of the wicked while the master of the house was still around....just sayin.

TLFisher · 01-11-2012, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So, how can you hold Witness Lee's followers up to a higher standard than you are holding up Witness Lee to? Sorry to make this rather inconvenient for you, but you should have been using those prayers to overthrow the house of the wicked while the master of the house was still around....just sayin.

Is it a higher standard or is it the fact Witness Lee is with the Lord? Futhermore I'd like to take this time and clear up any misunderstandings when I quoted the verse from James 4:16.
Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.
The brothers ought to know better and have had opportunity to have known better. They cannot use how Witness Lee conducted his inability to handle sin affecting the churches as a crutch to justify their own inactions and actions.

77150 · 01-12-2012, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

77150, let's go back to your original post: Your main claim here seems to be that the blended brothers claim to be following the ministry of Witness Lee (as noted above), but they are not following the ministry of Witness Lee.

Coupled with the fact that they use this claim as a critical basis to sow discord, agreed.

Quote:

The glaring weakness in your claim is that Witness Lee himself did not deal with the unrighteous, illegal matter of Daystar. This is well documented on this and other forums on the Internet.
Furthermore, Witness Lee himself did not deal with the indecent matters of his son, Phillip. This is also well documented on this and other forums on the Internet.

How does this weaken the claim that the basis for the excommunication was lies and deceit? If I am claiming that the roof to a building is riddled with termites, would that claim be weakened if the basement also was riddled with termites? I don't understand the problem here.

Quote:

So, how can you hold Witness Lee's followers up to a higher standard than you are holding up Witness Lee to? Sorry to make this rather inconvenient for you, but you should have been using those prayers to overthrow the house of the wicked while the master of the house was still around....just sayin.

How can you say I am holding them up to a "higher standard than WL"? I haven't discussed WL at all. What standard have I held WL up to? As you have already pointed out his failings are well documented on this site it is not necessary to rehash that. However, digging into WL's failings, in my mind, would have little impact on the LRC. WL is dead, and for the most part, WL's sins are not accountable to the vast majority of those currently in the LRC. Therefore the value in discussing his sins would be mainly for hisorians, theologians and the judgement seat of Christ.

"No one discards the garb of winter until the summer has begun". So in my mind the more you shoot holes in WL's ministry the tighter the LRC will cling to it. So if your goal is to cause them to cling more tightly to it, that's great. But that is not my goal.

Cal · 01-12-2012, 06:36 AM

The BBs considered Lee faithful to the ministry of Nee. But that doesn't mean that they believe Lee did not make enhancements to Nee's ministry. Just that (they would claim) he didn't change its basic premise. This, no doubt, is the way they look at their own handling of Lee's ministry. They consider themselves faithful to it, yet they've already changed some of its emphases to suit their purpose.

In other words, like Lee did with Nee, they get to have their cake and eat it too. They claim to be Lee's faithful legacy, yet it's clear they've already enhanced his ministry.

So I'm afraid the claim that they are not faithful to Lee's ministry would fall on deaf ears. They would claim they are faithful to the spirit of Lee's ministry, which gives them all the wiggle room they want and all that their non-thinking followers require.

LRCers are, ironically, relativists when it comes to making absolute claims.

Ohio · 01-12-2012, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

LRCers are, ironically, relativists when it comes to making absolute claims.

Is that another way to view hypocrisy?

When it comes to the faults and flaws of the rest of Christianity, LC'ers pride themselves in pointing how they are only being "honest" with their hopelessly degraded condition.

When it comes to their own unrighteousness, LC'ers are quick to point out that "nobody is perfect," and that "everybody makes mistakes."

What did you say about "eating cake."

Cal · 01-12-2012, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Is that another way to view hypocrisy?

Compulsive writers like myself always jump on a chance to make a clever wordplay.

77150 · 01-12-2012, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

The BBs considered Lee faithful to the ministry of Nee. But that doesn't mean that they believe Lee did not make enhancements to Nee's ministry. Just that (they would claim) he didn't change its basic premise. This, no doubt, is the way they look at their own handling of Lee's ministry. They consider themselves faithful to it, yet they've already changed some of its emphases to suit their purpose.

In other words, like Lee did with Nee, they get to have their cake and eat it too. They claim to be Lee's faithful legacy, yet it's clear they've already enhanced his ministry.

Currently the claim is based on quotes on how to receive the brothers. I think the quote is good, and it does highlight the hypocrisy. However, I also agree that it is not perfect and that there is wiggle room.

However, I don't think there is any wiggle room in "the dealing with sins". There is no wiggle room to say that what PL did was a sin. There is therefore no wiggle room to justify the letter signed by the elders in Anaheim as an apology to PL. There is no stated "enhancement" to WL's ministry or WN's ministry to justify PL's actions.

77150 · 01-12-2012, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

So I'm afraid the claim that they are not faithful to Lee's ministry would fall on deaf ears. They would claim they are faithful to the spirit of Lee's ministry, which gives them all the wiggle room they want and all that their non-thinking followers require.

LRCers are, ironically, relativists when it comes to making absolute claims.

I don't care if they are faithful to WL's ministry and I doubt the Lord Jesus does either. What I care about is that they use "being faithful to WL's ministry" as a basis to excommunicate someone. If they were faithful to WL's ministry in doing this then I would consider them to be in error, but not evil.

However, if this is a lie and is being used to justify what amounts to an abomination to the Lord then that does rise to the level of being wicked.

The Lord has already said this is something He hates and that He will repay those that hate Him to their face. How could anyone say that bringing this to His attention in prayer will "fall on deaf ears"?

77150 · 01-12-2012, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Is that another way to view hypocrisy?

When it comes to the faults and flaws of the rest of Christianity, LC'ers pride themselves in pointing how they are only being "honest" with their hopelessly degraded condition.

When it comes to their own unrighteousness, LC'ers are quick to point out that "nobody is perfect," and that "everybody makes mistakes."

What did you say about "eating cake."

This is true and anyone who denies it is a liar. This is why Christians have to "deal with sins" to take care of our conscience.

If they have admitted that they are not perfect and they have made mistakes then the question becomes "how did they deal with that mistake".

1. Has the way the brother dealt with their sin dispelled the discordant condition between himself and you?
2. Has the way this brother dealt with their sin testified to the salvation of God and thereby given God glory?
3. Have you been benefitted by this brothers repentance?

If the answer is yes it is evidence that they have sought to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL. If the answer is no then it is evidence that they have not been faithful to the ministry of WL. As a result they would be condemned by their own words. Those in the LRC may not care what I or you say, but it is pretty tough to ignore when BP condemns BP with his own words.

Ohio · 01-12-2012, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Compulsive writers like myself always jump on a chance to make a clever wordplay.

Punditry?!

Cal · 01-12-2012, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

However, if this is a lie and is being used to justify what amounts to an abomination to the Lord then that does rise to the level of being wicked.

So, the question becomes do they know they are lying. And if they've deceived themselves about even that are they just "in error" or are they "evil?"

77150 · 01-12-2012, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

So, the question becomes do they know they are lying. And if they've deceived themselves about even that are they just "in error" or are they "evil?"

Since when does ignorance become a defense? The principle is that those who teach are held to a higher standard and judged accordingly (James 3:1).

For example, EM signed the letter of apology. Perhaps EM is teaching on the Bible, and you learn that the same brother who is teaching you how to live the Christian life is the same that apologized to a philanderer, an adulterer and an abuser, for the elders in the church disciplining him for these actions. Would you ever listen to another thing EM says?

Suppose EM explains this as "Everyone makes mistakes". Does that resolve the issue for you? Not for me. And I doubt it would for anyone else as well. But worse, I now have two issues with EM, first is his signing that letter and the second is his trying to brush it aside without dealing with it properly.

Cal · 01-12-2012, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

Since when does ignorance become a defense?

Well, I guess since you implied it was. You were the one that said that ignorance was the difference between being in error and being evil.

I.e.:

Quote:

What I care about is that they use "being faithful to WL's ministry" as a basis to excommunicate someone. If they were faithful to WL's ministry in doing this then I would consider them to be in error, but not evil.

77150 · 01-12-2012, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, I guess since you implied it was. You were the one that said that ignorance was the difference between being in error and being evil.

I.e.:

Excommunication is in the NT. There is a Biblical basis for it. In the case of TC I don't believe that any of the accusations merited excommunication. However, if WL had taught that the things done by him did merit excommunication then it would not be a lie to say that you were excommunicating TC based on your seeking "to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL". However, in my opinion, they would be in error. Granted my opinion doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.

By showing that their actions were a direct contradiction to WL's ministry you call into question the initial claim that it was based on their seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry. Once again, it is not absolute proof. As you have already noted the Ministry of WL may seem to be contradictory on this particular point.

However, there is no contradiction on the aspect of PL's sins truly being sin, or on the authority of the church to discipline members that sin after the same example.

Nor is there any basis to say that being ignorant of this is a defense.

As we know there is a basis to make a distinction on sins committed by "mistake" versus those that are committed knowingly. Hence the application of the cities of refuge. Again, no one implies that anyone was ignorant that killing someone is bad, rather that the murder was done accidentally instead of premeditated. Accidental murder is not evil, reckless perhaps, irresponsible perhaps, but not evil. Premeditated murder is evil.

Cal · 01-12-2012, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

As we know there is a basis to make a distinction on sins committed by "mistake" versus those that are committed knowingly.

But you earlier said that ignorance was not an excuse. Your above statement says ignorance is an excuse. So which is it? You seem to be all over the place on this point. I'm not picking on you, I'm just having a hard time figuring out what you actually believe.

Excommunication is in the NT, but never based upon not following one man's ministry. So if someone excommunicates someone based on that that's an evil, whether it's done in ignorance or not. The effect is the same, though the Lord might take the ignorance into account.

If someone cynically excommunicates someone for not following a man's ministry when in fact is not the real reason for doing it, i.e. they have ulterior motives, then they are guilty of other sins as well.

But excommunicating for not following a ministry, or excommunicating for fleshly political reasons are all sins. They are just different sins.

Ignorance is not an excuse, but it is a mitigating factor. The Lord knows hearts and judges accordingly. But the damage to the wrongly excommunicated person is pretty much the same either way.

Ohio · 01-12-2012, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

But you earlier said that ignorance was not an excuse. Your above statement says ignorance is an excuse. So which is it? You seem to be all over the place on this point. I'm not picking on you, I'm just having a hard time figuring out what you actually believe.

Ignorance can reduce the crime from 1st degree murder to involuntary manslaughter. Still not an excuse, but we're talking about two different things.

77150's thought here is not too difficult to understand.

Cal · 01-12-2012, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ignorance can reduce the crime from 1st degree murder to involuntary manslaughter. Still not an excuse, but we're talking about two different things.

77150's thought here is not too difficult to understand.

It is for me.

TLFisher · 01-12-2012, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

However, I don't think there is any wiggle room in "the dealing with sins". There is no wiggle room to say that what PL did was a sin. There is therefore no wiggle room to justify the letter signed by the elders in Anaheim as an apology to PL. There is no stated "enhancement" to WL's ministry or WN's ministry to justify PL's actions.

Not that I disagree with what you're saying, but when the issue of confronting sin is brought up the typical response is you're going up the wrong tree (The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil). In reality what they mean by eating of The Tree of Life is not making issues of person, matters, or things. Ignore it and go on positively. At least brothers I knew do not have the stamina to confront sin. Just get into the ministry and speak positive, affirming words.

UntoHim · 01-12-2012, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

How does this weaken the claim that the basis for the excommunication was lies and deceit?

The basis for excommunication was the same exact basis that Witness Lee used against John Ingalls and John So - it was all based on lies and deceit. Since many of the blended brothers attended and participated in that kangaroo court "Fermentation of the Present Rebellion", they simply used Lee's previous actions against those brothers as justification to "quarantine" Titus Chu. (speaking of Chu, boy did that whole quarantine deal boomerang on him!)

Quote:

How can you say I am holding them up to a "higher standard than WL"? I haven't discussed WL at all. What standard have I held WL up to?

Of course we are discussing Witness Lee...I assume that is what the initials "WL" stand for in the title of the thread! The blended brothers, just as Lee, are a very pragmatic group of fellows. They know what Lee taught (probably better than you or I), but they also were close observers of of Witness Lee's actions. The big hole in your argument is that the blended brother are indeed “seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of Witness Lee”…the entire ministry…what he taught AND what he did. I’m afraid you are trying to divorce Lee’s word’s from his actions – don’t know why you would want to do that…the blended brothers certainly are not! So the “standard” that the blended brothers hold themselves to is a moving target. Why? Because that is the very same moving target standard that Witness Lee held himself to. At times you will find the blended brothers doing what Lee said (when it’s convenient) and at other times you will find them ignoring what Lee taught and just doing what Lee did (when it’s convenient)

Quote:

Therefore the value in discussing his sins would be mainly for historians, theologians and the judgement seat of Christ.

Depends upon which sins. If it’s those sins which involve abuse and taking advantage of his followers, then they are fair game. Speaking of the blended brothers, if we let them define the legacy of Witness Lee it would be a great disservice to current and former LC members, and to all concerned.

Quote:

"No one discards the garb of winter until the summer has begun". So in my mind the more you shoot holes in WL's ministry the tighter the LRC will cling to it. So if your goal is to cause them to cling more tightly to it, that's great. But that is not my goal.

Nobody has to shoot any holes in WL’s ministry….it’s pretty much Swiss cheese as it stands already. My goal would be to open the eyes of people so they can see all the holes for themselves, and then they can at least make an informed decision about following this man and the religion he invented.

In regards to your stated goal

Quote:

“This thread is not about the sins or the lies. It is about "dealing with sins"

I have already told you that I don’t think this is an appropriate subject for a thread. In any event you have plowed along anyway, and round and round we go, only agreeing on something that we already knew…that the blended brothers are hypocrites who don’t even follow their own religious dogma. When others have pointed out that they are simply going about their business just as their mentor did, you don’t want to deal with this fact and try to change the subject.

Quote:

I asked myself if God overthrows the house of the wicked then why hasn't he?

So you think calling the blended brothers “the house of the wicked” is going to warm them up to you? Seriously, I don’t believe you are going about this with the heart and attitude of a Christian. We are not in the harsh age of the Old Testament. We are in the age of grace. We have the writings of the original apostles, who have given us instruction and direction on how we are to deal with our wayward brothers in Christ. I suggest you turn to the pages of the New Testament to learn how to pray to God about dealing with other Christians, and forget about this “overthrowing the house of the wicked” stuff.

77150 · 01-12-2012, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

But you earlier said that ignorance was not an excuse. Your above statement says ignorance is an excuse. So which is it? You seem to be all over the place on this point. I'm not picking on you, I'm just having a hard time figuring out what you actually believe.

Being ignorant that "murder is bad" is not an excuse.

Being ignorant that my car's breaks were not working, hence the accident that killed the pedestrian is an excuse.

Being ignorant that we should not lie and devise evil against my brother and sow discord is not an excuse.

Being ignorant that WL's ministry is not actually "the NT ministry" and therefore all the additional assumptions that come from there are erroneous, does mitigate the situation. I feel that regardless the excommunication is done in error.

Patty Hearst was judged based on something called "the Stockholm syndrome". The idea being that influence of the cult like group took away much of what we would normally consider to be normal human responsibility. In her case robbing a bank with a machine gun was "excused" due to the Stockholm syndrome.

My point is you cannot claim the "Stockholm syndrome" if I can disprove the initial claim of "seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL".

77150 · 01-12-2012, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Not that I disagree with what you're saying, but when the issue of confronting sin is brought up the typical response is you're going up the wrong tree (The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil). In reality what they mean by eating of The Tree of Life is not making issues of person, matters, or things. Ignore it and go on positively. At least brothers I knew do not have the stamina to confront sin. Just get into the ministry and speak positive, affirming words.

The ministry they tell you to get into includes the Experience of Life and the chapter on dealing with sins.

TLFisher · 01-12-2012, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

The ministry they tell you to get into includes the Experience of Life and the chapter on dealing with sins.

It's been at least 15 years since I've read The Experience of Life. What is the context of dealing with sins? Is that in relation to your own sins or when needing to confront a sinful situation?

TLFisher · 01-12-2012, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

Being ignorant that "murder is bad" is not an excuse.

Being ignorant that my car's breaks were not working, hence the accident that killed the pedestrian is an excuse.

Being ignorant that we should not lie and devise evil against my brother and sow discord is not an excuse.

Being ignorant that WL's ministry is not actually "the NT ministry" and therefore all the additional assumptions that come from there are erroneous, does mitigate the situation. I feel that regardless the excommunication is done in error.

You're touching something that has been addressed on this forum. Needing to know the other side of the story (aka the other side of the coin). Problem being some saints want to remain ignorant. They don't want to know what Titus Chu said, what John Ingalls said, and so on. Their ignorance is verified by their claim they don't want to know. It's by their ignorance bearing of false witness continues.

OBW · 01-12-2012, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

. . . I'd like to take this time and clear up any misunderstandings when I quoted the verse from James 4:16.
Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.
The brothers ought to know better and have had opportunity to have known better. They cannot use how Witness Lee conducted his inability to handle sin affecting the churches as a crutch to justify their own inactions and actions.

Excellent point. Their actions tell of wanton disregard for righteousness. They know better, but carry on is if there is no requirement to do as they know.

And they even try to provide "spiritual" reasons for their unrighteousness.

77150 · 01-13-2012, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

We are not in the harsh age of the Old Testament. We are in the age of grace. We have the writings of the original apostles, who have given us instruction and direction on how we are to deal with our wayward brothers in Christ. I suggest you turn to the pages of the New Testament to learn how to pray to God about dealing with other Christians, and forget about this “overthrowing the house of the wicked” stuff.

As per your instructions I began with the book of Matthew

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
5:24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
5:25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

Should I continue?

UntoHim · 01-13-2012, 09:08 AM

We all have Bibles. No need to start posting verses.

I guess you've run out of original things to say about the subject. Why don't you take the weekend off and enjoy.

TLFisher · 01-14-2012, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

The ministry they tell you to get into includes the Experience of Life and the chapter on dealing with sins.

Here's an excerpt what was spoken in South America:

"There is the tree of life; and with the tree of life is a way of discernment. And, there is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Well, let’s consider the tree of the knowledge of good and evil first. Suppose you hear something, you receive an email. Someone is making an accusation. How can you discern?

The temptation is to ask, who is right and who is wrong. Or you may try to find out for yourself what is right and what is wrong. Oh, this man of death, Steve Isitt, he wrote something. And someone else is sending it everywhere. “I need to figure this out; oh, I never heard these things.” Could this be true? Did the brothers behave like that? As soon as you think this way, you yourself are finished. Okay? Because you are on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You apply that tree to the situation.
"

"But there is another way to discern.

This is the way of God.

It’s the way of the apostles. And, we see this in 2 Cor. 11. Paul said, “I betrothed you to Christ”. I am jealous over you with the jealousy of God, that your thoughts would be corrupted from the simplicity toward Christ. Just as the serpent seduced the woman, you may be seduced. So Paul realized the issue here was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil bringing in death.

He discerned by another standard; not right and wrong, but life or death."

As I understand to make a particular sin an issue, that is equated with the Tree of Knowledge, but as 77150 is reference to The Experience of Life, I wonder what's being taught is you or I as an individual believer dealing with our own sins, but not to confront sins of another. Pretend you didn't see or hear anything.

77150 · 01-14-2012, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Here's an excerpt what was spoken in South America:

"There is the tree of life; and with the tree of life is a way of discernment. And, there is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Well, let’s consider the tree of the knowledge of good and evil first. Suppose you hear something, you receive an email. Someone is making an accusation. How can you discern?

The temptation is to ask, who is right and who is wrong. Or you may try to find out for yourself what is right and what is wrong. Oh, this man of death, Steve Isitt, he wrote something. And someone else is sending it everywhere. “I need to figure this out; oh, I never heard these things.” Could this be true? Did the brothers behave like that? As soon as you think this way, you yourself are finished. Okay? Because you are on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You apply that tree to the situation.
"

"But there is another way to discern.

This is the way of God.

It’s the way of the apostles. And, we see this in 2 Cor. 11. Paul said, “I betrothed you to Christ”. I am jealous over you with the jealousy of God, that your thoughts would be corrupted from the simplicity toward Christ. Just as the serpent seduced the woman, you may be seduced. So Paul realized the issue here was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil bringing in death.

He discerned by another standard; not right and wrong, but life or death."

As I understand to make a particular sin an issue, that is equated with the Tree of Knowledge, but as 77150 is reference to The Experience of Life, I wonder what's being taught is you or I as an individual believer dealing with our own sins, but not to confront sins of another. Pretend you didn't see or hear anything.

How could anyone buy into this teaching, it is a complete joke. When you justify the wicked, and lie to justify the deceitful you will ultimately come to a place that is this shameful and ridiculous.

How did the Lord Jesus deal with the sins of the Pharisees? When he said they "devour widow's houses" was he referring to his mother? When he said they adorned the tombs of the prophets He wasn't referring to anything they did to him directly. How did Paul deal with the report of a sinful brother in Corinth? Did he pretend he didn't hear or see anything? Why doesn't RK follow this advice when it comes to excommunicating TC? The hypocrisy in this teaching is so blatant do we really have to point out that his pants are on fire?

77150 · 01-14-2012, 10:05 AM

Our God and Father, you are glorified when righteous men rejoice. When a sinner repents there is joy in heaven. When men who have been redeemed and regenerated by your Holy Spirit repent of their sins, confessing them and making restitution for them then there is rejoicing and the God of our salvation is glorified. So Lord, I pray that you would be glorified in this. I pray that if anyone was defrauded by the LSM with regards to the Daystar debacle, that those responsible for the LSM would give you glory and make restitution for this sin.

Our Father, which art in heaven, you are glorified in your Son. When your Son healed the sick and the dead you were glorified in Him. So I pray that the Lord would heal the sick situation. Jane has testified of being falsely accused of instigating a rebellion. She has published her testimony and made it available for all to read. Those involved in making these false accusations and of scorning her as a result have been made aware that sin. So just as they have reviled her, persecuted her, and said all manner of evil against her falsely, for your sake. So also I pray that there would be rejoicing and exceeding joy at the manifestation of your glory. Bring them to repentance, let them own up to their sin and You O Lord will be glorified.

O Lord, how long will they turn your glory into shame? It is a glory to you when the righteous contend with the workers of iniquity. But it is a shame when your representatives bow down to the workers of iniquity and placate the wicked. A written apology to PL in 1996 is a shame to You and Your church. They have lost their saltiness, they are good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden underfoot. How long before they confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father? How long before your church is taken out from under a bushel basket of the LSM and shines as a light to the world?

O Lord these are of they that say and do not. WL taught that when you are made aware of sins you must deal with them in a way that brings glory to the God of our salvation. BM brought the sins of the LSM to WL’s attention and he slandered BM in “The Fermentation of the present rebellion”. JI brought the sins of PL to WL’s attention and he also was persecuted for righteousness sake by WL. JF brought the sins of WL’s ministry to WL’s attention and he also was persecuted for righteousness sake. This is hypocrisy. But the BB’s claim that they “seek to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL” and they also slander and persecute your servants and saints. They have devised schemes and sown discord. They exalt themselves as “blended brothers”, those that are faithful to the one true ministry “which is the New Testament Ministry”. And yet they have broken Your law, they do not walk in Your way, and still they teach others that their actions are “the New Testament Ministry”. Clearly the proselytes of WL are twofold more the sons of hell according to thy word. They have devoured widow’s houses. They have shut up the kingdom according to your word. They make being “faithful to WL’s ministry” more important than being faithful to You. They hold you debtor if you do not attend their training and buy their books. They have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgement, mercy and faith. Within their cup is full of extortion, do as LSM says or risk the fate of TC. They fabricate lies in order to make merchandise of the saints and the church.

Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD (Jeremiah 6:15). Even to this day they have not repented to give you glory.

Lord your word says that you are the one that “repayeth them that hate Him to their face, to destroy them”. Your word says that you “will not be slack to him that hateth You, You will repay him to his face.” (Deut 7:10). So Lord we pray that You would bow down your ear and hear this prayer. That you would cause the righteous to rejoice and be exceeding glad. That you would manifest your glory in the midst of your church. That the workers of iniquity would be put to shame and that every knee would bow to you and every tongue would proclaim that Jesus is Lord. O Lord, You hate wickedness, and workers of iniquity and those that love violence (Ps 5:5, 11:15 and 45:7). So I pray that you would show mercy on those who have suffered at their hands, show mercy to answer this prayer.

UntoHim · 01-15-2012, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 77150

I have said repeatedly and consistently that my motive is to put together a basis for a prayer to the Lord.

Here is the prayer. And with this I believe this thread has run it's course. Thanks to all who participated.

12-31-2011, 07:23 AM	#1
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL? ------------------------------------- __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

01-05-2012, 11:43 AM	#2
77150 Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 115	Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL? The Experience of Life teaches there are 4 matters that must be cleared up. 2 are relevant to this thread: 1. Unrighteous matters – illegal (For example Daystar) 2. Improper matters or indecent matters (For example the sins of PL) 2nd I am limiting the discussion of this thread to people that are alive. For the purpose of this thread the issue I am raising is how RG, BP, RK and others have dealt with the very public sins with which they were involved. Since WL and PL are no longer alive I will leave that issue with the historians and the Lord Jesus. However, in the case of Daystar I think financial reconciliation should be handled by the LSM so that is not a closed issue. 3rd I am limiting the discussion of this thread to the sphere of the sin committed by the brothers who are currently alive. So writing and publishing a “whitewash” of PL’s sins could be a sin ascribed to RG or RK, but PL’s sins cannot unless there is evidence that a brother was complicit in the sin. 4th According to Witness Lee’s teaching in The Experience of Life sins that involve money should be repaid according to the amount taken and a little extra. Also, in the event that the person harmed cannot be found repayment should be made to the closest relative. If that person also cannot be found then the money should be given to God. Witness Lee suggested that the money be given to the poor (Num. 5:7-8). Proverbs 19:17 says, “He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto Jehovah.” 5th I am limiting discussions to those who have actually been sinned against. If you lost money in Daystar you are invited to post. If you feel that you were lied to then you are invited to post. The purpose of this thread is not so much to make a historical record of the events, but rather to hear from those that feel wronged. In every example I would ask 3 questions which are also straight from Witness Lee’s teaching in The Experience of Life: 1. Has the way the brother dealt with their sin dispelled the discordant condition between himself and you? 2. Has the way this brother dealt with their sin testified to the salvation of God and thereby given God glory? 3. Have you been benefitted by this brothers repentance? The purpose of this thread is to measure the actions of those that hold up WL as the MOTA, with their own actions. The letter of quarantine concerning Titus Chu was a solemn testimony by BBs saying they “are seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, which is the New Testament Ministry” (letter of warning Oct 1, 2006). This is according to Romans 2:13 “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” __________________ PS 150 Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.

01-05-2012, 02:04 PM	#3
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Re: Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL? First of all this Daystar situation has been covered extensively on the Forum. I would rather see you find one of those threads and continue on so we don't go over a lot of covered ground. Secondly, I don't want to see an open discussion of "the way the brother dealt with their sin", especially with current members of the Forum, or with people who were not in leadership positions. Lastly, I don't think it's a good thing to have a thread in which one of the themes is "to hear from those that feel wronged" This kind of thing will come out from time to time as necessary in the course of our dialogs, but I don't want to make it the focus of any particular thread. I think this theme of "to measure the actions of those that hold up WL as the MOTA, with their own actions" is more then appropriate for our Forum, and instead of all your limitations, maybe it would be better just to make this the general theme of the thread. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

01-05-2012, 03:44 PM	#4
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL? Most who have ever been in the LRC have been lied to. If you heard the excommunication of Max R If you were around when The Fermentation . . . was written If you heard the sales pitch for Daystar If you were told that the sins of PL, if any, are a private matter and not important to you or to any local church If you were lead to believe that there is such a thing as the "Minister of the Age" or a singular "Oracle of God" in this age But I do agree that it is better that people speak concerning what they know rather than just what they hear from others. But once the facts are out on the table, why is the jury limited to the abused rather than any participant? In other words, isn't the discussion of the issue better with much consideration rather than just those who are the "injured." Would justice be served better by having only aggrieved persons prosecute, determine guilt, and mete out punishment? Might be a lot of hangings for minor offenses. And one more consideration: Are we discussing things in terms of Lee's ministry to demonstrate their duplicity and hypocrisy? Otherwise, it is a little like judging a pirate based on the code of ethics of pirates (or a mafia boss/syndicate based on the way another such mafia boss/syndicate acts). Ultimately we need to judge Lee's teachings in terms of scripture and sound teaching. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

01-05-2012, 05:59 PM	#5
77150 Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 115	Re: Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL? This thread is not about the sins or the lies. It is about "dealing with sins". According to WL dealing with sins testifies of God's salvation and gives glory to God. It is not necessary to dredge up "wrongs". Question is very simple, what is your experience of a BB dealing with their own sin? Did they deal with their sin according to the way WL taught? I asked myself if God overthrows the house of the wicked then why hasn't he? As you said lots of these sins have been hashed out on many of the threads. But here are some problems, first, proving that dead men like WL and PL are sinners would not prompt any action by the Lord on those that remain. Why should I or anyone else be held accountable for WL's sins? This is why I want to limit the discussion to those that are alive. Second, proving that someone made a mistake in 1987 promoting PL is not enough. Everyone makes mistakes. However, at some point they should have realized their sin and at that point they should have dealt with it. Not doing so, while at the same time condemning others and teaching others to follow "the entire ministry of WL" is hypocrisy. Third, the Experience of Life is such a fundamental book in the LRC that it is certain that all BBs are familiar with these teachings. __________________ PS 150 Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.

01-06-2012, 02:20 PM	#12
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL? I am working on an index of the old Bereans forum so that it can be referenced more easily. Should have it done in a few days. It is tedious copy/paste and reformat. There are 1185 threads from the beginning of the currently-existing archive. There were others in previous renditions that have been lost forever. My index will be in Excel format so it can be sorted and searched using regular Excel tools. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

01-09-2012, 05:28 AM	#14
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL? I am not sure what it is you mean when you keep referring to whether certain one "signed anything." Do you feel that those who are leaders of the LSM are excused if they did not "sing something" — are not on record with respect to specific things? That the repetition of the content of their error by leadership is excusable as long as they were not the originators of the lie? Not sure what "signing anything" is supposed to mean and how it limits the discussion. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

01-09-2012, 11:38 AM	#20
TLFisher Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Renton, Washington Posts: 3,508	Re: Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL? This is from a message given in 1968 and printed as The Practical Expression of the Church. As you will read this message by Witness Lee is scriptural, but I cannot say the BB's have been faithful to this portion of Witness Lee's ministry. There has been a serious lack of receiving liberally or generally. Before I get to the text of Witness Lee's ministry, here is an example of the current mode of receiving: "There is a church in Riverside, standing on the ground of the oneness of the Body of Christ. It seem that the brother you mention had fellowship not with the church but with an independent group of Christians. Our contact with dissenting ones needs to be according to life and truth and according to the feeling of the Body." THE PROPER RECEIVING OF THE SAINTS It is only by being so liberal and general that we can receive all the saints in a proper way. If we are otherwise, we cannot avoid being sectarian in the matter of receiving. If we are special in anything and insist upon that, we will probably not receive those who differ from us in certain matters. But the Apostle said, “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.” What he meant when he referred to “him that is weak in the faith” is illustrated in the following verses: i.e., the matter of eating and keeping of days. By this we are affirmatively told that we must receive the saints who differ from us in these things. Any saint who holds a different opinion or concept regarding the things we are in favor, we must receive, “for God hath received him.” As long as he is a saint, as long as he has received hin, we have no right to reject him. Our receiving must be the same as God’s receiving, no less and no more. God’s receiving is the basis of our receiving. Our receiving must not be according to our taste, our opinion, or our assertion. It must be in accordance with God’s receiving. It must be based upon God’s receiving- nothing else. God receives people according to His Son. As long as a person receives His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, as his personal Savior, regardless of the concepts he holds regarding all other things, God receives him immediately. Since God receives people in this way, we too must receive people in the same way. Our receiving must be in accordance with God’s receiving. If our receiving differs from His, it means that we are wrong: either we are more narrow or more broad than God. This will cause much trouble and damage to the church life. God’s receiving is based upon Christ’s receiving, and Christ’s receiving is in accordance with our faith in Him. Whoever believes in Him, He will receive. Whoever receives Him, He will never reject. He said, “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37). Since coming to Him, believing in Him, receiving Him, is the only condition for Christ’s receiving, so we must receive people upon the same basis with nothing added. As long as anyone believes in Christ our Lord, as long as He receives Him as His personal Savior, we must receive him with nothing else required. Regardless of how he may dissent in so many other things, as long as he is a real believer in the Lord, we have no choice but to receive him, for the Lord has received him. This is why the Apostle said, “Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.” We must receive whoever Christ has received. We must have such a proper receiving of all the saints that we may keep the proper unity; otherwise, we can never keep ourselves from being sectarian and causing much confusion and damage to the church life. To practice the church life by keeping the proper unity, such a general receiving is necessary. May the Lord have mercy upon us! (page 66-67)

01-09-2012, 04:51 PM	#21
77150 Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 115	Re: Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL? 2 Cor 7:2 Receive us; we have wronged no man, we have corrupted no man, we have defrauded no man. If we refuse to receive WL because he has wronged a man in the false accusations of the “sister’s rebellion”, or if we refused to receive WL because he allowed his son to corrupt saints, or if we refused to receive WL because he defrauded saints as a result of the Daystar debacle that would be Biblical. JS and JI had legitimate Biblical basis to not receive WL. But these were not the issues in casting out TC. No the issue was LSM trainings and publications. The issue was that they “sought to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL” and they felt that TC did not. However, according to WL “Any saint who holds a different opinion or concept regarding the things we are in favor, we must receive, “for God hath received him.” (WL, The Practical Expression of the Church, page 66-67). The BBs were in favor of the ministry of WL, TC held a different opinion or concept than they did. However, no one disputed that “God had received him”. Therefore, anyone seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL would receive him. “As long as a person receives His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, as his personal Savior, regardless of the concepts he holds regarding all other things, God receives him immediately. Since God receives people in this way, we too must receive people in the same way. Our receiving must be in accordance with God’s receiving. If our receiving differs from His, it means that we are wrong: either we are more narrow or more broad than God.” (WL, The Practical Expression of the Church, page 66-67). I think that it is clear from the action taken in quarantining TC that the “receiving” of the BBs differs from God’s receiving. Therefore this action is condemned by the ministry of WL as being wrong and being too narrow. Clearly, justifying this action as being the result of “seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL” is hypocrisy. "As long as anyone believes in Christ our Lord, as long as He receives Him as His personal Savior, we must receive him with nothing else required. Regardless of how he may dissent in so many other things, as long as he is a real believer in the Lord, we have no choice but to receive him, for the Lord has received him." (WL, The Practical Expression of the Church, page 66-67). Justifying your action by accusing TC or any other brother of “dissenting” is also condemned by WL’s ministry. Once again, doing this while also claiming to be “seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL” is hypocrisy. It is deceitful. "This is why the Apostle said, “Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.” We must receive whoever Christ has received. We must have such a proper receiving of all the saints that we may keep the proper unity; otherwise, we can never keep ourselves from being sectarian and causing much confusion and damage to the church life." (WL, The Practical Expression of the Church, page 66-67). The BBs claim that they are for the “oneness of the Body” while “being sectarian” and “causing confusion and damage to the church life”. They claim that they seek to be “faithful” to the “entire ministry of WL” yet are condemned by WL’s ministry as being sectarian and causing confusion and damage to the church life. According to the Recovery Version of Galatians, the footnotes in chapter 5:19-21 being sectarian is a work of the flesh. WL taught in “The Experience of Life” that we need to deal with the flesh. “Romans 8:8, “They that are in the flesh cannot please God.” The Bible has spoken much about the flesh, and at this point it concludes that the flesh cannot please God. If man belongs to the flesh, minds the flesh, and lives by the flesh, whatever he does, either good or bad, cannot please God.” It may be that Abraham was trying to please God when he had a son by Hagar, and it may also be that the BBs were trying to please God when they excommunicated TC and a number of churches, but the Bible and WL teach that “those who are in the flesh cannot please God”. __________________ PS 150 Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.

01-09-2012, 06:31 PM	#22
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Re: Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL? The blended brothers are behaving just as Witness Lee behaved. I don't see a lick of difference between the two of them, and over the years, nobody has presented one shred of evidence to show any significant difference between the two. And quoting things that Witness Lee wrote 40 or 50 years ago is much to do about nothing. Witness Lee did not practice the things posted here, and neither do the blended brothers. So? Even Witness Lee was not faithful to the entire ministry of Witness Lee! So why should his closest followers be any different? __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

01-10-2012, 09:08 AM	#34
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL? Although whether the BBs are faithful to WL is not a useless subject, I've shied away from it because it's very hard to demonstrate due to the fact that WL was all over the place with his ministry and often taught diametrically opposed things without explanation. He also taught things to co-workers that were unique to what he taught publicly. And he privately confided things which were also unique, like his purported reservations about Chu. This gave the BBs the "out" which they've often retreated to--that because of their intimate knowledge of WL they know what he really meant about everything. The whole argument of who is faithful to the guru is old hat because it just goes round and round. It's a red herring anyway. The BBs' actual error is more fundamental than straying from WL and lying about it. Their real error is claiming that being faithful to WL is a boast they should make before the Lord in the first place. The Lord never tells us to be faithful to a man's ministry. We're supposed to be faithful to Him. So once you get caught up in defending your faithfulness to WL you're already off the path. The whole business of who is more faithful to WL is like who is king of the playground sandbox. Children think it's important, but grownups know better. It's disconcerting how many of those who have left the BBs still feel the need to show that they haven't left WL. Do they really think the Lord cares they are faithful to a man's ministry? Or is it a culture they feel the need to genuflect to?

01-11-2012, 10:29 AM	#73
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Re: Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL? Along those lines, and going along with the them of the thread, what about the whole "one minister with the one ministry for the age" deal? There was always a lot of talk about the silver lining of the Recovery - usually starting with Luther, down from Zinzendorf to Darby to Watchman Nee and then of course to Witness Lee. Funny thing happened then....all of the sudden the silver line comes to a screeching halt! What's up with that? No more recovery of teachings and practices, no more progress forward....just keep going over and over those Life Studies from 30 or 40 years ago. Oh...and make sure you don't make "brothers we" made at you. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

01-11-2012, 04:21 PM	#80
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL? It seems to be a moving target. And while you may consider your reasons and goals different from what I have stated, it keeps coming back to needing to build a firm prooftext arsenal to establish the right or need to "clean house" at the LSM. That is not going to happen. The most we are likely to ever do is sway some of the followers to wake up and see the spiritual and scriptural flaws in the foundation upon which a house of cards has been placed. The BBs read this forum. Or they have someone doing it for them and summarizing. If our names are discoverable (and mine surely is, and has been) they know who is saying what. Or they have an idea. And they are not impressed. They go to their conferences and proclaim how they stand firm against our evil accusations. They slander our positions in the eyes of the followers and warn them that they will become leprous if they read these negative forums. We have learned over and over that it is the constant putting of scriptural truth in front of them that stands in opposition to what they have been taught, but that eventually causes them to accidentally read with the Lee-colored glasses removed and begin to see something that has been hidden from them. But, as I mentioned before, this seems to be where you want to go. Or it seems that now I know a little more about where you want to go. (Despite claiming that prior posts have made it known, I don't get your latest statements out of those posts. There's a reason that I make such long posts. Short, quick and to the point is usually misunderstood (their fault). Or not made clear (my fault). Probably more of the latter.) __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

01-12-2012, 06:36 AM	#86
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL? The BBs considered Lee faithful to the ministry of Nee. But that doesn't mean that they believe Lee did not make enhancements to Nee's ministry. Just that (they would claim) he didn't change its basic premise. This, no doubt, is the way they look at their own handling of Lee's ministry. They consider themselves faithful to it, yet they've already changed some of its emphases to suit their purpose. In other words, like Lee did with Nee, they get to have their cake and eat it too. They claim to be Lee's faithful legacy, yet it's clear they've already enhanced his ministry. So I'm afraid the claim that they are not faithful to Lee's ministry would fall on deaf ears. They would claim they are faithful to the spirit of Lee's ministry, which gives them all the wiggle room they want and all that their non-thinking followers require. LRCers are, ironically, relativists when it comes to making absolute claims.

01-13-2012, 09:08 AM	#108
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Re: Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL? We all have Bibles. No need to start posting verses. I guess you've run out of original things to say about the subject. Why don't you take the weekend off and enjoy. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

01-14-2012, 10:05 AM	#111
77150 Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 115	Re: Have the BBs been faithful to the entire ministry of WL? Our God and Father, you are glorified when righteous men rejoice. When a sinner repents there is joy in heaven. When men who have been redeemed and regenerated by your Holy Spirit repent of their sins, confessing them and making restitution for them then there is rejoicing and the God of our salvation is glorified. So Lord, I pray that you would be glorified in this. I pray that if anyone was defrauded by the LSM with regards to the Daystar debacle, that those responsible for the LSM would give you glory and make restitution for this sin. Our Father, which art in heaven, you are glorified in your Son. When your Son healed the sick and the dead you were glorified in Him. So I pray that the Lord would heal the sick situation. Jane has testified of being falsely accused of instigating a rebellion. She has published her testimony and made it available for all to read. Those involved in making these false accusations and of scorning her as a result have been made aware that sin. So just as they have reviled her, persecuted her, and said all manner of evil against her falsely, for your sake. So also I pray that there would be rejoicing and exceeding joy at the manifestation of your glory. Bring them to repentance, let them own up to their sin and You O Lord will be glorified. O Lord, how long will they turn your glory into shame? It is a glory to you when the righteous contend with the workers of iniquity. But it is a shame when your representatives bow down to the workers of iniquity and placate the wicked. A written apology to PL in 1996 is a shame to You and Your church. They have lost their saltiness, they are good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden underfoot. How long before they confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father? How long before your church is taken out from under a bushel basket of the LSM and shines as a light to the world? O Lord these are of they that say and do not. WL taught that when you are made aware of sins you must deal with them in a way that brings glory to the God of our salvation. BM brought the sins of the LSM to WL’s attention and he slandered BM in “The Fermentation of the present rebellion”. JI brought the sins of PL to WL’s attention and he also was persecuted for righteousness sake by WL. JF brought the sins of WL’s ministry to WL’s attention and he also was persecuted for righteousness sake. This is hypocrisy. But the BB’s claim that they “seek to be faithful to the entire ministry of WL” and they also slander and persecute your servants and saints. They have devised schemes and sown discord. They exalt themselves as “blended brothers”, those that are faithful to the one true ministry “which is the New Testament Ministry”. And yet they have broken Your law, they do not walk in Your way, and still they teach others that their actions are “the New Testament Ministry”. Clearly the proselytes of WL are twofold more the sons of hell according to thy word. They have devoured widow’s houses. They have shut up the kingdom according to your word. They make being “faithful to WL’s ministry” more important than being faithful to You. They hold you debtor if you do not attend their training and buy their books. They have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgement, mercy and faith. Within their cup is full of extortion, do as LSM says or risk the fate of TC. They fabricate lies in order to make merchandise of the saints and the church. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD (Jeremiah 6:15). Even to this day they have not repented to give you glory. Lord your word says that you are the one that “repayeth them that hate Him to their face, to destroy them”. Your word says that you “will not be slack to him that hateth You, You will repay him to his face.” (Deut 7:10). So Lord we pray that You would bow down your ear and hear this prayer. That you would cause the righteous to rejoice and be exceeding glad. That you would manifest your glory in the midst of your church. That the workers of iniquity would be put to shame and that every knee would bow to you and every tongue would proclaim that Jesus is Lord. O Lord, You hate wickedness, and workers of iniquity and those that love violence (Ps 5:5, 11:15 and 45:7). So I pray that you would show mercy on those who have suffered at their hands, show mercy to answer this prayer. __________________ PS 150 Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.