Judge not that ye be not judged...

[Nell]

"poor, poor Christianity"
"Degraded Christianity"
"moo-cows"

To what extent, if any, has "the ministry" of Witness Lee heaped judgment upon itself? Upon the Local Churches? Has the Local Church brought the judgment of being not just "poor", but doubly poor, upon itself?

Have the Local Churches become degraded because of their own name-calling of their brothers and sisters in Christ? Remember the song?

"Overcome! Overcome! Overcome degraded CHRISSSS-tianity!" A song. How shameful.

Has the LC Leadership become a herd of mooing cows?

What other judgments were pronounced by Lee upon his brothers and sisters, and are those judgments visible in the LC today?

What other self-inflicted judgments, if any?

Judging Others: Matt. 7:1-6
“Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgement you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye’, when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

6 “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.


I remember in the early days, Lee pronounced an enormous amount of judgment/criticism of denominational churches for their practice of hiring pastors and preachers to serve their flocks. Hirelings. That's what Lee called them. Hirelings. The logic was, if their pastors were paid, then the churches owned those whom they paid. Controlled them. They could not speak the truth that was not "approved" by the ones who paid their salaries...or they could get fired. Then he boasted profusely that "we don't have any hirelings", we don't pay anyone.

Does the Local Church pay those who serve it today?

Nell

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Nell

Does the Local Church pay those who serve it today?

Yes the LSM church in my city had at least two elders on the payroll and at least 4 Full Time working on campus recruiting students to the LSM. I don’t know if they had to raise support for a percentage of their income but they were on payroll.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

I remember in the early days, Lee pronounced an enormous amount of judgment/criticism of denominational churches for their practice of hiring pastors and preachers to serve their flocks. Hirelings. That's what Lee called them. Hirelings. The logic was, if their pastors were paid, then the churches owned those whom they paid. Controlled them. They could not speak the truth that was not "approved" by the ones who paid their salaries...or they could get fired. Then he boasted profusely that "we don't have any hirelings", we don't pay anyone.

Does the Local Church pay those who serve it today?

Nell

As long as the LC's don't call these workers "Pastors," then everything is OK, and approved by the throne of God. So that's why they are called "full-timers," "trainees," and "co-workers." These are the only approved names. It doesn't matter that they are paid just like in the rest of Christianity, as long as they got the right names. Does that make sense?

It's just like when names for the church are picked. As long as it is "church in Anaheim" or "church of the Fullertonians" then they enjoy all the blessings of God. Otherwise they are just poor, degraded, divided, hopeless, and helpless.

Do you understand the rules now? It's all backed up by the MOTA and God's New Testament Economy.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nell

"poor, poor Christianity"
"Degraded Christianity"
"moo-cows"

Not to mention, "devilish" and "satanic". All these demarcations may in some objective sense be true, but in a spiritual sense they're curses. We're called to bless, not curse. The ones who put the curse on others, curse themselves.

"What pit ye digged, ye have fallen into", said the psalmist, and Jesus echoed with "What therefore ye would have done to yourself, do therefore unto others." In the divine view, "other" becomes the stand-in for the true "self". Only by embracing, blessing the "other" do we become freed from the Adamic curse. If we contrarily revile and curse, so we do to our own self.

What happened to the passive and silent LC crowds who sat under these curses? They vicariously partook the judgment. By silently acquiescing to the curse, they agreed to put themselves under it. Now the way back home to the Father was apparently sealed shut, because it was closed to rapprochement with fellow believers.

The LC cut themselves off with the curse.

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

Now, some here have pointed out my own combative spirit, and my using invective like 'braindead' to characterise the thoughtlessness of the LC'ers who sit passively through teachings that are arbitrary, self-contradictory, against scripture (it's called "natural" and "fallen" in great swaths), and against the apostolic precedent. But the Deputy God spoke it, so it's received in the LC assemblies as from God.

Perhaps my observations have some truth, just as WL's repeated views against the mass of current Christianity, harboring as it does strange festivals, practices, and thoughts introduced centuries after Christ to entertain and pacify the natives.

But my observations may lack the grace and truth that WL also lacked in his, and promote a rancorous and party spirit. Proud, boastful of 'truths' and so forth.

Mea culpa.

Please forgive my interjections of personal ambitions (to be something) and my unresolved issues (leading to un-Christlike quarrels).

We all need healing. May the Lord have mercy. May we all have the grace to bless and not curse, to endure with love, to see the common good and not the failure of the "other", which is surely a deception of the adversary.

The most I can say for my posts is that they have some basis (observation, scripture). (As did WL's.) But at least mine have not been leveraged for pecuniary bases. WL can not say the same. So his curses should be utterly renounced.

And I'll try to soften my tone. . . "and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain." To curse others is not to hold fast. May we let go of the curse, and hold to the Word of promise. I really liked the "by which you are being saved" part. It's not to sit passively under curses and invective and judgment; it's rather to actively let go of all things that hinder the Word of promise operating in us. We're not "saved" as much as "being saved". Just as life doesn't begin at birth but at conception. We received the Spirit, now we must not let go of the life. Bless, seek the good in all and to all, and thus let the life grow.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Yes the LSM church in my city had at least two elders on the payroll and at least 4 Full Time working on campus recruiting students to the LSM. I don’t know if they had to raise support for a percentage of their income but they were on payroll.

So. LoT, what happened between the time WLee condemned other Christian churches in the denominations for employing "hirelings" and the time when Lee's churches began to employ hirelings themselves?

Is this the fulfillment of the verses "judge not, that ye be not judged?" Lee judged and then began down the same path.

Nell

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Ohio

As long as the LC's don't call these workers "Pastors," then everything is OK, and approved by the throne of God. So that's why they are called "full-timers," "trainees," and "co-workers." These are the only approved names. It doesn't matter that they are paid just like in the rest of Christianity, as long as they got the right names. Does that make sense?

It's just like when names for the church are picked. As long as it is "church in Anaheim" or "church of the Fullertonians" then they enjoy all the blessings of God. Otherwise they are just poor, degraded, divided, hopeless, and helpless.

Do you understand the rules now? It's all backed up by the MOTA and God's New Testament Economy.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying the rules. I believe I do understand. Let's call the rules: word games.

So.

Word games notwithstanding, judging other churches for having hirelings then employing hirelings yourself seems to be rather blatant.

1) Is this the result of hypocrisy or is it Lee, et al, experiencing the judgment he pronounced onto others?
2) Do you think God plays word games?

Nell

[Nell]

Originally Posted by aron

Not to mention, "devilish" and "satanic". All these demarcations may in some objective sense be true, but in a spiritual sense they're curses. We're called to bless, not curse. The ones who put the curse on others, curse themselves.

"What pit ye digged, ye have fallen into", said the psalmist, and Jesus echoed with "What therefore ye would have done to yourself, do therefore unto others." In the divine view, "other" becomes the stand-in for the true "self". Only by embracing, blessing the "other" do we become freed from the Adamic curse. If we contrarily revile and curse, so we do to our own self.

What happened to the passive and silent LC crowds who sat under these curses? They vicariously partook the judgment. By silently acquiescing to the curse, they agreed to put themselves under it. Now the way back home to the Father was apparently sealed shut, because it was closed to rapprochement with fellow believers.

The LC cut themselves off with the curse. ...

The LC cut themselves off with the curse, or, did Lee's judgmental spirit spoken toward others came back upon him "with the same judgment (he) pronounced"? It seems that judgment and "curse" may be closely related.

Nell

[Nell]

Originally Posted by aron

...
Now, some here have pointed out my own combative spirit, and my using invective like 'braindead' to characterise the thoughtlessness of the LC'ers who sit passively through teachings that are arbitrary, self-contradictory, against scripture (it's called "natural" and "fallen" in great swaths), and against the apostolic precedent. But the Deputy God spoke it, so it's received in the LC assemblies as from God.

Perhaps my observations have some truth, just as WL's repeated views against the mass of current Christianity, harboring as it does strange festivals, practices, and thoughts introduced centuries after Christ to entertain and pacify the natives.

But my observations may lack the grace and truth that WL also lacked in his, and promote a rancorous and party spirit. Proud, boastful of 'truths' and so forth.

Mea culpa.

Please forgive my interjections of personal ambitions (to be something) and my unresolved issues (leading to un-Christlike quarrels).

We all need healing. May the Lord have mercy. May we all have the grace to bless and not curse, to endure with love, to see the common good and not the failure of the "other", which is surely a deception of the adversary.

The most I can say for my posts is that they have some basis (observation, scripture). (As did WL's.) But at least mine have not been leveraged for pecuniary bases. WL can not say the same. So his curses should be utterly renounced.

And I'll try to soften my tone. . . "and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain." To curse others is not to hold fast. May we let go of the curse, and hold to the Word of promise. I really liked the "by which you are being saved" part. It's not to sit passively under curses and invective and judgment; it's rather to actively let go of all things that hinder the Word of promise operating in us. We're not "saved" as much as "being saved". Just as life doesn't begin at birth but at conception. We received the Spirit, now we must not let go of the life. Bless, seek the good in all and to all, and thus let the life grow.

Thanks Aron...seems that the lights came on there. You are forgiven. And, you're right. We all need healing.

We also need to heed the warning to "judge not" since, according to the verse, we are heaping judgment on ourselves, and specifically, in the same measure we dish it out.

Does that mean, every time Lee (and we) judged Christianity, that same judgment fell back on us?

Nell

[Evangelical]

In denominations, pastor is a secure, ongoing, fully time permanent position.

In the recovery they are not like that. If a church decides to pay the elder that is up to them, but usually it is only full time workers on campuses. It is usually for a period of time, not guaranteed to be until retirement.

The paying of the worker is not the issue, it is the position of pastor that is the issue - paying of a person to support their permanent position which is not found in scripture - in the early church, pastors did not run churches. Elder is not a full time permanent vocation like a pastor or priest.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In denominations, pastor is a secure, ongoing, fully time permanent position.

In the recovery they are not like that. If a church decides to pay the elder that is up to them, but usually it is only full time workers on campuses. It is usually for a period of time, not guaranteed to be until retirement.

The paying of the worker is not the issue, it is the position of pastor that is the issue - paying of a person to support their permanent position which is not found in scripture - in the early church, pastors did not run churches. Elder is not a full time permanent vocation like a pastor or priest.

Thanks for verifying my points.

Pastor evil. Full-timers and workers good.

Both are paid staff without difference.

Change the name and the LCM calls them legit. Hypocrites.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In denominations, pastor is a secure, ongoing, fully time permanent position.

In the recovery they are not like that. If a church decides to pay the elder that is up to them, but usually it is only full time workers on campuses. It is usually for a period of time, not guaranteed to be until retirement...
...paying of a person to support their permanent position which is not found in scripture - in the early church, pastorsdid not run churches..

This may be true as a whole, I couldn’t speak to it with any other locality, but is the opposite of what I experienced first hand at the Local LSM church I was a part of for over a year.

The paid elders I knew had been there for decades. They ran the church. They knew me well and treated me great. I had 1:1 access and relationship with them unlike most in the church. They’ll be there for awhile. But I agree they’re not “guaranteed retirement”, but then again no pastor I’ve ever known personally has either...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In denominations, pastor is a secure, ongoing, fully time permanent position.

In the recovery they are not like that. If a church decides to pay the elder that is up to them, but usually it is only full time workers on campuses. It is usually for a period of time, not guaranteed to be until retirement.

The paying of the worker is not the issue, it is the position of pastor that is the issue - paying of a person to support their permanent position which is not found in scripture - in the early church, pastors did not run churches. Elder is not a full time permanent vocation like a pastor or priest.

Evan G you are constantly looking for differences where there is none, except in the gross generalizations of your mind.

What's the difference between some worker, reporting back to headquarters, "running the church," and a pastor? Not much at all.

Most churches, however, get to "approve" of new pastors, whereas in the LC's, the elders and local saints have no choice. When HQ's sends a new worker "boss" to town, the church is not entitled to any opinion.

I know, because that's exactly what happened to my LC. After watching this kid operate, I had enough, and decided to leave. Nothing "local" there. That system became worse than all the denominations they regularly judged.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

"poor, poor Christianity"
"Degraded Christianity"
"moo-cows"

What goes around, come around. Watch out it doesn't bite you.

I was there in plenty of meeting where WL called all the LC's "moo-cows." He let it be known that the LC's had failed, and had become Laodicea. The LC's, for the most part, had become Laodicean, lifeless, "know-it-all's." These are Lee's words, not mine. He used this to build up his ministry, "stealing" from all the LC's, their best saints and their offerings.

So here we have just more ministry word-games to dupe the saints.

Pastor bad, Full-Timer good
Seminary bad, Full Time Training good
Go to church bad, Go to meetings good
Christians bad, Saints good
Communion bad, Break Bread good
Worship bad, Enjoy the Lord good
Go to heaven bad, Go to New Jerusalem good
Pope bad, MOTA good
Bishop bad, Regional Worker good
Missal bad, HWfMR good
Pews bad, Padded seats good

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In denominations, pastor is a secure, ongoing, fully time permanent position.

In the recovery they are not like that. If a church decides to pay the elder that is up to them, but usually it is only full time workers on campuses. It is usually for a period of time, not guaranteed to be until retirement.

The paying of the worker is not the issue, it is the position of pastor that is the issue - paying of a person to support their permanent position which is not found in scripture - in the early church, pastors did not run churches. Elder is not a full time permanent vocation like a pastor or priest.

No. Evangelical.You don't define the issue. Start your own topic. This one is about Witness Lee passing judgment on his brothers and sisters and then becoming the recipient of his own judgmental practices.

"The paying of the (hireling) worker" is EXACTLY the issue. Paid workers are hirelings. Hired hands. The scripture uses the word "hireling." However you try to spin it with your word games, you don't get to change the subject. You pay someone to work for you, you employ a hired hand.

Witness Lee judged the denominations for their use of "hired hands". Then Witness Lee began hiring his own. Regardless of who signs the check, Lee knew about the practice and didn't stop it. Lee judged others and now Lee is being judged by his own words.

Nell

John 10
11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

"The paying of the (hireling) worker" is EXACTLY the issue. Paid workers are hirelings. Hired hands. The scripture uses the word "hireling." However you try to spin it with your word games, you don't get to change the subject. You pay someone to work for you, you employ a hired hand.

There's nothing wrong with brothers or sisters being supported by others. The N.T. addresses this. (I Tim 5.17-18; Luke 10.7)

The hireling, however, only cares for his wages, and thus is loyal only to his paycheck. This is what troubled me. N.T. workers owe their loyalties to God and to the ones that care for them.

The LC system demands that all their workers owe allegiance to headquarters, and headquarters alone. The few workers, whom I have seen over the years, who served only God and the saints, were eventually fired, quarantined, and excommunicated by those who wrote the paychecks.

It was these fiery trials of the faith which determined who was a hireling and who was a real shepherd.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nell

Thanks Aron...seems that the lights came on there.

At best, one can say the lights flicker on and off. Peter is our NT exemplar here, not some culturally-derived "untouchable" like "Paul the MOTA", a self-serving fiction if there ever was one.

Originally Posted by Nell

We also need to heed the warning to "judge not" since, according to the verse, we are heaping judgment on ourselves, and specifically, in the same measure we dish it out.

Does that mean, every time Lee (and we) judged Christianity, that same judgment fell back on us?

Nell

All are under the curse. "There is none good, not even one." Only Jesus is "the true light that shines into the world."

Those of us who think they have the "light" to judge the rest, may want to reconsider. The NT is too clear. "Whoso among you with no sin, let him cast the first stone".

The way home, the way out of the curse, is to bless, to receive, to encourage, to console. Not to judge, demarcate and shun. Not to create self-serving fictions where the "Other" is "poor" while "We" are "rich". That kind of thinking is not the way home.

[Trapped]

Although some elders are not full-time, I would say they are permanent (under normal conditions), are they not?

From what I've seen, the local church both pays and doesn't pay those who serve it.

I know of elders who do not have another "vocation" who are not paid or supported by the church because they can live off of what they already have.

I know of elders who DO have another job who are not paid or supported by the church.

I know of elders who are solely supported by the church.

I know of elders who are supported by a church that does not have sufficient funds to do so, so they take multiple other jobs to cover the rest.

I know of serving ones who are supported (usually just barely above the point that covers their basic living expenses).

I know of serving ones who are not supported at all.

I wonder if Witness Lee's issue was with the "hiring" of an "outside person"? As opposed to someone being appointed from within and being supported because he otherwise could not do it. I understand both appear the same, and I am in no way defending the dripping derision from Witness Lee.

How do other churches (non-LC) handle the elder/pastor thing? I don't even know. Is it often members from within who grow/mature into the position? Or is it really bringing in someone from "the outside" who does not know the congregation? Genuinely asking here....not even really in the context of this discussion, just curious now because I never thought about it until now.

[Weighingin]

Trapped's observations regarding support are true. There does not seem to be any organized ways of support. Some workers will be supported by the LSM.
Some churches, either individually or with other churches, may feel to send a monthly amount to a coworker. The elders who serve locally may be self supporting. Sometimes, monetary offerings may be given to them.

Regarding Trapped's last query, my children attended a Christian school. I was riding with the assistant principal to an event. He told me he had interviewed for pastoral jobs that had been advertised.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Although some elders are not full-time, I would say they are permanent (under normal conditions), are they not?

From what I've seen, the local church both pays and doesn't pay those who serve it.

I know of elders who do not have another "vocation" who are not paid or supported by the church because they can live off of what they already have.

I know of elders who DO have another job who are not paid or supported by the church.

I know of elders who are solely supported by the church.

I know of elders who are supported by a church that does not have sufficient funds to do so, so they take multiple other jobs to cover the rest.

I know of serving ones who are supported (usually just barely above the point that covers their basic living expenses).

I know of serving ones who are not supported at all.

I wonder if Witness Lee's issue was with the "hiring" of an "outside person"? As opposed to someone being appointed from within and being supported because he otherwise could not do it. I understand both appear the same, and I am in no way defending the dripping derision from Witness Lee.

How do other churches (non-LC) handle the elder/pastor thing? I don't even know. Is it often members from within who grow/mature into the position? Or is it really bringing in someone from "the outside" who does not know the congregation? Genuinely asking here....not even really in the context of this discussion, just curious now because I never thought about it until now.

Most churches are open and honest. They interview applicants and make a job offer to someone to be their pastor for a $ figure with benefits. They pass an offering plate for contributions to the needs of the church. They have fund-raisers. They may offer a book written by a pastor at no cost, in return for a contribution. They do what they do. Open and above board. Right or wrong.


When I was in it, there was a hole in the wall somewhere for you to make contributions and no one ever asked for contributions. This seemed to be the "purist" approach. That is, if the Lord leads you to give, then give. If there was a need, the Lord would make it known to the body, as individuals, and the body would give, in whatever manner they chose, to meet the need. Lee boasted about this as a put-down to other Christian churches as a point of "poor, degraded". Maybe another relevant verse is "pride cometh before a fall."

To pass judgment on other Christians for their practice of handling money is, IMHO, petty at a minimum, and maximum hypocrisy---especially when your "church" does the same thing. I.e., with the same judgment you judge, you are judged.

I honestly don't have much of a problem with paying folks to do a job, even in the local churches. My problem is the hypocrisy of judging others.

The denominations are at least honest about it.

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

How do other churches (non-LC) handle the elder/pastor thing? I don't even know. Is it often members from within who grow/mature into the position? Or is it really bringing in someone from "the outside" who does not know the congregation? Genuinely asking here....not even really in the context of this discussion, just curious now because I never thought about it until now.

Established denominations usually draw on certain Bible schools or seminaries for youth leaders, assistant pastor, worship leader, etc. With time these ones may move on to become pastor for some needy church.

I am also familiar with some non-denominational community churches that basically "grew up" with their pastor, depending on his gifts/talents. Look at Saddleback Church. Rick Warren grew that church of 20,000 from nothing.

Some small rural congregations hire retired brothers who love to labor in the word to come and share with the church. Some of these brothers are the richest ministers. One I recently heard was a retired State Trooper. He shared richly on Psalm 23.

These are the diversities of gifts and ministries which the Lord Spirit will use to shepherd His people. Whenever man comes along to define "THE God-ordained way," you can be sure it is not "THE" God-ordained way at all. No such pattern in history ever existed. No way can ever be "the way," because Jesus is "the way," and He can use any way, many ways, and all ways to meet His people's needs.

For example, John Darby hated diverse musical instruments in the worship of God. Thus all the Exclusive Brethren around the world must sing a cappella. Nee and Lee permitted pianos only. But look at how many diverse instruments David and Solomon used in their worship. Lee hated drums, but Christians throughout sub-Saharan Africa nearly all use drums of some sort. Who is WL to tell the entire body of Christ "THE WAY" to worship God? ... "THE WAY" to meet? ... "THE WAY" to minister?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Seminary bad, Full Time Training good
Go to church bad, Go to meetings good
Christians bad, Saints good
Communion bad, Break Bread good
Worship bad, Enjoy the Lord good
Go to heaven bad, Go to New Jerusalem good
Pope bad, MOTA good
Bishop bad, Regional Worker good
Missal bad, HWfMR good
Pews bad, Padded seats good

[/INDENT]

LOL You nailed it!

[Kevin]

LC's orginal post in Facebook:

"A servant of the Lord has no salary unlike those in the denominations are making business and jobs"

My response in the comments from the LC's OP:

Kevin: I would like to make a response to the OP, first of all, as we engage doctrinal discussions over differing conclusions, the tone and mood should be done in the spirit of charity and love instead of being hostile to one another. Also, the scriptures commands us that we should be like the bereans to test everything with objective, honest and intense scrutiny (Acts 17:11). Let scripture should be our final authority for faith and practice.

To cut to the chase, let me first address the OP:

"The premise that elders/pastors should not be paid a salary in their service of the church."

I understand the OP makes a good point that it's also true that some are there for the money especially the false teachers of our day who are filthy rich literaly, namely the prosperity pastors.

"Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. In this case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy. But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself. For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord. Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him. (1 Corinthians 4:1-5)

By the way, there's no negative connotation in the NT regarding pastor /elder receiving wages. The pattern goes way back in the OT - the priesthood received the tithes for their support.

In the New Testament leadership, every churches have plurality of leaders and no one is higher in position than the others. The reason for church support was not about who is the highest of the leaders but who does the work that requires full-time commitment according to the calling of the Lord. Those who are gifted and led to be preachers and teachers in the church have a mandate from scriptures to be supported.

The standard verse referenced in that regard is 1 Timothy 5:18 (ESV): "For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” Paul uses that same Old Testament reference in 1 Corinthians 9:9-14.

The word "double honor" in 1 Timothy 5:17 pertains to monetary support base on the context.

Looking up the term,
"wages"
________________________

Original: μισθός
Transliteration: Misthos

- Phonetic: mis-thos'

- Definition:

1. dues paid for work

a. wages, hire

2. reward: used of the fruit naturally resulting from toils and endeavours

a. in both senses, rewards and punishments

b. of the rewards which God bestows, or will bestow, upon good deeds and endeavours

c. of punishments

- Origin: apparently a primary word

- TDNT entry: 15:35,6

- Part(s) of speech: Noun Masculine

- Strong's: Apparently a primary word; pay for service (literally or figuratively) good or bad: - hire reward wages.
Cognate: G3405, G3406, G3407, G3408, G3409, G3410, G3411, G489
_________________________

Pastor/Missionaries who have full-time ministries should be supported by the church, BUT pastors/elders, missionaries may have an option to receive it or not depending on many possible reasons...

"Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached the gospel of God to you without charge? I robbed other churches by taking wages from them to serve you; and when I was present with you and was in need, I was not a burden to anyone; for when the brethren came from Macedonia they fully supplied my need, and in everything I kept myself from being a burden to you, and will continue to do so."
(2 Cor. 11:7-9)

Getting support or love gift or salary whatever different churches call it are both instructed and optional.

LC: So, salary paid? As far as i know support or love gift are different from wage.

Kevin: Carlo, sometimes semantics cause a little bit troubling.

LC: Bro again to support or to offer are different from giving a wage..

Kevin: Again, the Scripture text that says "The laborer deserves his wages". Receiving wages as fruit of your labor is biblical.

LC: The question is that verse refers to the church system or for the elders? Because worldly system must not brought to the church..

Kevin: Then kindly exegete the passage.

LC: Bro.. You have two definition of wages above.
1. dues paid for work
a. wages, hire

2. reward: used of the fruit naturally resulting from toils and endeavours

Now let me clarify it to you bro and compare the two meaning of what kind of wages the elders received?

1.First of all an elder is NOT HIRED by the church so there's no wages (def. 1 ) Only the hired person needs payments.
But a wages (def. 2) a reward from their labor. A double honor or offering. And an offering is not fixed and known to everyone. Thats what the elders received.. A support an love offering or honor for them not wages (def. 1) as a hired person.

2. If the bible mentioned wages in relation to labors of an elder. It is a wages (def.2) that is a reward and not fixed..So it is not a wages of being hired or having a fixed amount to receive .(def. 1).

3. They labor and they received wages(def. 2) or reward (def.2) as in luke 10:7 "And in that house remain, eating and drinking the things FROM them, for the worker is worthy of his wages. Do not move from house to house."

They received a reward or wages(def.2).... Wages(def. 1) not as a HIRED person.

4. 1 Cor. 9:9 - For in the law of Moses it is written: “You shall not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God cares?

"Or does He say it altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written because the a plowman should plow in hope, and he who threshes, in hope of partaking." (1 Cor. 9:10)

In this verse in relation to 1 tim. 5:18 ...it emphasized that a plowman should plow in hope.

That's living by faith.. Not living by PAYMENT (def. 1).

5. Nowhere in the bible you can find out that church hired a pastor or an elder but they are appointed by the apostles.. Not HIRED by the church.

They have a wages(def. 2) a reward and honor but never a wages (def. 1) because they are not a hired person.

6. The church never practice the worldly sytem. As what Christianity do today.. Having a hired pastors or priest ..pastors for hire.. Is that the way the church practice in the beginning? Nope.

APPOINTED not HIRED.

Kevin: Just a quick response: First of all, fallacious "Hired". We never hire pastors. That is not our position

LC: Aw that's good bro. Anyway let's just stop here.. I do not sense life here anymore.. Thank you bro.. Amen.

Kevin: In that case, this will be my last response on per items.

"1.First of all an elder is NOT HIRED by the church so there's no wages (def. 1 ) Only the hired person needs payments.
But a wages (def. 2) a reward from their labor. A double honor or offering. And an offering is not fixed and known to everyone. Thats what the elders received.. A support an love offering or honor for them not wages (def. 1) as a hired person."

Remember what I said above that there's really no difference from the office of an elder and pastor biblically speaking? And the reason for supporting them depends on the kind of service they render, fulltime or part time. A full-time elder/pastor should be fully supported financially, it's not important how you call the support, be it called support or salary? And I also said that the full-time pastor may even receive or decline the financial support if he can do without it?

The problem with churches regarding supporting of pastors/elders stem from the unbiblical principles of doing ministry. Pastor/elders are commended to service and not hired as the norm in Christianity today. They are homegrown tested Christian individuals who have qualified lives and gifts that the church recognizes. It's not like a pro basketball where you hire an imported player to lead the team in terms of scoring.

Think about this very carefully.

Elders equals pastors, not elders, then pastors, then bishop, no no they are one and the same and no hierarchy of position.

Getting into a full-time work is not through hiring an outsider but commending a homegrown.

Support or salary are just different terms of financial renumeration. It does not matter what the mode of giving, amount should be generous or double portion.

Not all homegrown elders/pastors needs or wants to be supported in the biblical church set up. You see the problems that arise regarding financial support issue stem from the unbiblical views and practices of church ministry.

"2. If the bible mentioned wages in relation to labors of an elder. It is a wages (def.2) that is a reward and not fixed..So it is not a wages of being hired or having a fixed amount to receive .(def. 1)."

Again bro, this statement is coming from the grave misunderstanding and administration of church leadership. Yes the support of pastors/elders may not be fixed because church offerings aren't fix either, but there should be no issues whether fixed or not fixed, the pastors still can live by faith on a fixed salary amount because they trust in the Lord everyday and they don't live on bread alone. I hope you are beginning to see my point bro.

Unbiblical church leadership and administration lead to problems like that.

The term wages is just the same as salary and it's not important.

wage\ˈwāj\
noun
: an amount of money that a worker is paid based on the number of hours, days, etc., that are worked
Full Definition
1 a : a payment usually of money for labor or services usually according to contract and on an hourly, daily, or piecework basis — often used in plural

sal·a·ry\ˈsal-rē, ˈsa-lə-\
noun
: an amount of money that an employee is paid each year
Full Definition
: fixed compensation paid regularly for services

They are both defined as payment. But terms are not important but the obedience of supporting those who work for the Lord.

We may call it reward as well. It doesn't matter how we call it as long as it is generous and double portion. The Lord will not reward us by picking the perfect term.

Giving fix amount of wages/salary in my opinion is practical and wise as long as the church can afford it. But it does not mean that the church is tied to giving fix amount, it might even grow bigger or get smaller at times, and the pastor should be flexible about it as well.

Some churches who are against giving fix amount are saying it's not living by faith but they do not give generously either. Thus they are actually putting the life of the pastor not really by faith but by FATE.

LC: Ok bro go om to your support in salary. To your hired pastor.. Pls don't say not hired.. Because if we talk about salary it's a matter of hiring.

Kevin: *scratching my head

End of discussion.....


Actually, we had a long discussion about this, but it ended up a fight. The LC was such a scoffer.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Nell

Lee boasted about this as a put-down to other Christian churches as a point of "poor, degraded".

I honestly don't have much of a problem with paying folks to do a job, even in the local churches. My problem is the hypocrisy of judging others.

I hear you. The "we have/they don't", "we know/they don't", "we are/they are not" thing riles me up.

As a kid I heard saints say on multiple occasions of other churches, "Ughh....they don't even know that the church isn't a physical building! They think it's the structure on the corner of the street!" with a haughty self-righteous attitude. Even as a young person who grew up steeped in it, I knew that attitude was not okay.

And guess what! Other churches actually take care of needy people without any thought or expectation of return or them joining their church to increase their "annual growth numbers"! Those "poor Christians" just express Jesus with their human caring hearts and give needy people food or supplies or their time to meet their human need! And the local churches don't. So we're even.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I hear you. The "we have/they don't", "we know/they don't", "we are/they are not" thing riles me up.

As a kid I heard saints say on multiple occasions of other churches, "Ughh....they don't even know that the church isn't a physical building! They think it's the structure on the corner of the street!" with a haughty self-righteous attitude. Even as a young person who grew up steeped in it, I knew that attitude was not okay.

And guess what! Other churches actually take care of needy people without any thought or expectation of return or them joining their church to increase their "annual growth numbers"! Those "poor Christians" just express Jesus with their human caring hearts and give needy people food or supplies or their time to meet their human need! And the local churches don't. So we're even.

I have visited several churches over the years, and often hear “Church, let’s stand to honor the reading of the Word...” and other such references to the “church” as those people in attendance...not the physical building.

Do you think this judgmental speaking by the LC membership has brought the same judgment upon the LC?

Nell

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Nell

I have visited several churches over the years, and often hear “Church, let’s stand to honor the reading of the Word...” and other such references to the “church” as those people in attendance...not the physical building.

I have had the same experience.

Originally Posted by Nell

Do you think this judgmental speaking by the LC membership has brought the same judgment upon the LC?

I need some clarification on what you mean by "has brought the same judgment upon the LC". Three different things come to my mind:

1. I can't seem to help interpreting "judgment", in the way you are asking the question, as "punishment". Do you mean punishment (to me this goes beyond judgment)?

2. Or do you mean Lee/LC judged Christianity and now Christianity has turned around and judges the LC (for the LC's haughty and contemptuous pronouncements of other Christians, etc....) - many Christian groups look upon the LC's with a level of distrust and wariness.

3. In the past, when I read the verses you quoted in your original post in this thread, I always assumed the "lest you be judged" was something the Lord did. And I assumed this meant down the road at the judgment seat.....although now that I'm having to say that out loud I have to admit I don't know if that is true or not. My concept is the Lord doesn't judge in this age, but I don't know if that's just a concept.

Are any of these what you mean by judgment?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I hear you. The "we have/they don't", "we know/they don't", "we are/they are not" thing riles me up.

As a kid I heard saints say on multiple occasions of other churches, "Ughh....they don't even know that the church isn't a physical building! They think it's the structure on the corner of the street!" with a haughty self-righteous attitude. Even as a young person who grew up steeped in it, I knew that attitude was not okay.

And guess what! Other churches actually take care of needy people without any thought or expectation of return or them joining their church to increase their "annual growth numbers"! Those "poor Christians" just express Jesus with their human caring hearts and give needy people food or supplies or their time to meet their human need! And the local churches don't. So we're even.

My Christian auto mechanics shop does more for the needy then the LC ever did. Every year they ask their customers to bring bags of food for the county food bank. Those who need brakes, get them free.

Real Christians DO NOT spend their lives playing word games such as these to bribe their consciences.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I have had the same experience.
I need some clarification on what you mean by "has brought the same judgment upon the LC". Three different things come to my mind:

1. I can't seem to help interpreting "judgment", in the way you are asking the question, as "punishment". Do you mean punishment (to me this goes beyond judgment)?

My context is that judgment is based on guilt or innocence. Then comes punishment or being released or set free.

2. Or do you mean Lee/LC judged Christianity and now Christianity has turned around and judges the LC (for the LC's haughty and contemptuous pronouncements of other Christians, etc....) - many Christian groups look upon the LC's with a level of distrust and wariness.

I don't know that Christianity has judged the LC to the extent that the LC/WLee has judged Christianity. I'm not saying it hasn't, but to my knowledge, no one has stood up in Sunday morning church services and called the LC ugly names.

Rather, for its behavior, Christianity responded to the LSM/Witness Lee in a strong, but respectful and dignified manner. You could say this was the church's judgment on the LSM/Witness Lee. They certainly presented a clear case in their request:

In part:
"More than 70 evangelical Christian scholars and ministry leaders from seven nations have signed an unprecedented open letter to the leadership of the “local churches” and Living Stream Ministry.

This letter is a public appeal to disavow and withdraw controversial statements made by their founder, Witness Lee, on the doctrine of God and the doctrine of man. The letter also asks the “local churches” and Living Stream to renounce statements made by Lee that denigrate evangelical Christian denominations and organizations. Finally, the letter appeals to the leadership of the “local churches” and Living Stream to discontinue their use of lawsuits and threatened litigation against Christian individuals and organizations to answer criticisms or resolve disputes."

Open letter to the LSM Leadership from 70 evangelical Christian scholars and ministry leaders from seven nations

3. In the past, when I read the verses you quoted in your original post in this thread, I always assumed the "lest you be judged" was something the Lord did. And I assumed this meant down the road at the judgment seat.....although now that I'm having to say that out loud I have to admit I don't know if that is true or not. My concept is the Lord doesn't judge in this age, but I don't know if that's just a concept.

Are any of these what you mean by judgment?

Maybe God doesn't judge in this age with the ultimate judgment. He does however tell US to judge NOW as stated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5. There is certainly the judgment seat down the road. However, it isn't clearly stated that ALL of God's judgment is down the road. In fact, I believe God's judgment now reflects His mercy to us.

In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul says: 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you."
So God will judge the unbelievers outside the church. But the church is charged to judge church members.

The 5th chapter begins with this: 5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife.

Then 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this?

Verse 5
hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,[a][b] so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

So Paul tells us to judge this man's behavior, that ultimately his spirit may be saved. This sinning brother was indeed a brother in the church. It was God's mercy to him that those in the church judged his behavior when there was still time for him to repent and not the future when it would be too late. This was for the sake of the church as well as his own sake.

IMHO these 70 Christian leaders rebuked the behavior of the LSM and Witness Lee, as the church in Corinth should have. It also stands as a word from the universal church as a call for the LSM to repent while there is still time.

We cannot judge a man's heart. We are not qualified. Paul was concerned for the man's spirit in the final judgment. Because of this, he rebuked the church for NOT judging the man's behavior which should touch his heart. I can't even imagine what handing a brother over to Satan means. We (I) don't know if this sinning brother repented or not. In the case that he may not have repented, what happens to his spirit in the final judgment? Another topic.

This is my understanding of judgment. That and:
1 Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

So. Back to the question of whether LSM/Lee brought judgment on themselves by their judgmental spirit against their brothers, the matter seems to be getting "seriouser and seriouser."

Hope that helps--

Nell

[Evangelical]

We should be careful of how we speak of God's servants, namely, to compare a full time worker who is supported by the church with the hirelings of denominations. A young man foregoes a university degree or graduate job, goes to the training, afterwards, needs support to work full time on the campuses. He lives in the meeting hall or with someone who opens their home for hospitality. A local church supports him to cover his basic needs. It is not much. This is mostly covered by members of the church. The support may end after a few months or 1 year, it depends. He does not intend to do this forever, but to serve God while young, and then later find employment, marriage etc. I do not see how the term "hireling" can be applied to this person.

Let's forget for the moment that he is actually preaching the gospel most of the time. Unlike most pastors who are organizing and conducting "services", wedding, funerals, baptisms, for unregenerate people.

Most differently, if that full time worker is not paid, and leaves, then the church does not close down (unlike denominations where loss of a pastor or priest often scatters the church). Having a full time worker in the church is a bonus, but not a necessity.

There is no paid position like pastor or priest in most (not all) denominations where there is an expectation to receive a regular income. A full time worker is not the same as the vocation of a pastor or priest.

I see a few ways in which the term "hireling" is appropriate for denominations, but not for the local church. Denominations will have an open position, like an employment job in a company, and they will seek people to fill that position. In the local churches it is a matter of having people willing to be full timers and the church agreeing to support them. There is no actual position to be filled.

[Trapped]

First of all no one forgoes a university degree to go to the training.....you have to get one in order to go to the training. Some may postpone an advanced degree or further schooling until after the training, however, although still others get all their advanced schooling done before going to the training.

It varies person by person whether they want to serve forever or not. Some fully intend to and do. Some are clear they will not.

You are correct that a full-time worker is not the same as the vocation of a pastor. I would say comparing pastors to full-time workers in the LC's is a disparate equation. Can you redo your comparison by equating an LC elder with a pastor? I believe in that equation, whether it is the elders or the pastor who do not get paid and subsequently leave, the deleterious effect on the church would be similar.

Regarding a "position to be filled", I would disagree, and I'm sure we will further disagree here. While the LC's don't use the term "position", both are a need of the church. A pastor is a need for certain reasons. A full-time worker in the LC, while not a "position", is still a need for other reasons. It is a need for the reason that the elders have a burden for or have decided that, for example, they want to have a presence on a nearby campus and to do so they "need" full-timers. A locality may have people willing to be full timers, but if there is no "need" or "burden" for the campus then it stops there. People who are willing to be full-timers end up being full-timers because the church has created a need for them by initiating a burden for a campus work. That need does create a "(non)position" to be filled.

The other side of the coin is, support/getting paid is most certainly an expectation of the vast majority of saints in the LC who return from the training with a desire to serve, as is any "hireling's" expectation. While the support is not much, the expectation is fully there that it will cover the basic living expenses. There are Christian churches out there who also have a presence on college campuses and who have their own "full-timers" who do not receive an ounce of support, and who spend part of their year fundraising for themselves so they can live off of that the rest of the year while they serve on campus in their own groups. If in the LCs the support is withdrawn or runs out and our full-timers in the LCs were put in the position of having to raise their own funds, you better believe that, for most if not all of them, that willingness to serve would shrink as rapidly as their support....just like a "hireling"!

I don't say any of this to denigrate the full-timers. But I also don't see a need to denigrate the practices of other churches either.

[Evangelical]

Yes I was thinking about advanced degrees.

Whoever was making the comparison between pastors and full-timers does not know much about full-timers. Having a full-timer or not makes no difference to the running of the church. The campus work can be done by student volunteers and supported by the church. A full-timer certainly helps but is not needed. I have been to many on-campus meetings where there is no full-timer present. Every adult there had full-time jobs.

I do not see the loss of an elder and loss of pastor as the same thing. There are plenty of elders to be an elder if an elder leaves, and the church would keep meeting regardless, because the elder is not "leading the service" and there would be many people who could step-in.

In a denomination, there is unlikely to be many in the congregation who have sufficient pastoral qualifications to "lead the church"... if the organization even allows for it. Typically a church follows a pastor wherever he/she goes.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We should be careful of how we speak of God's servants, namely, to compare a full time worker who is supported by the church with the hirelings of denominations.

For Evangelical to categorically declare all pastors in Christianity as "the hirelings of denominations" should clearly be identified as "Judge not that ye be not judged."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I see a few ways in which the term "hireling" is appropriate for denominations, but not for the local church. Denominations will have an open position, like an employment job in a company, and they will seek people to fill that position. In the local churches it is a matter of having people willing to be full timers and the church agreeing to support them. There is no actual position to be filled.

When LSM sent their operatives into the Midwest in order to train a certain minority of local church dissidents into filing lawsuits against their own brothers, sisters, and elders, by definition these evil workers, these "dogs" as Apostle Paul would call them, became worse than "hirelings."

These Blended staff "co-workers" at LSM may speak many wonderful and spiritual sounding things in trainings and conferences, but make no mistake, their loyalties do not lie with the Lord or His people, but with some Anaheim book publisher who writes their paychecks.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We should be careful of how we speak of God's servants, namely, to compare a full time worker who is supported by the church with the hirelings of denominations.

Facts that Mr. E. ignores.

*1 The Local Church of Witness Lee IS a denomination. They have taken a name - the name of Witness Lee. They have taken a doctrinal stand which also describes their denomination - the doctrine of locality. Put these two pillars of the Local Church/LSM and you have one of the most denominated groups that exist today. None of the opining and bloviating by the current LC leaders or members changes these two facts.

*2 The Blended Brothers, LSM Co-Workers, Elders and Full-Timers fit the description of hirelings infinitely more than the average pastor, elder or ministry worker in "poor, poor Christianity." A hireling is simply a person who is beholden to another person, persons or organization. In the case of those within the religious system of the Local Church, they are beholden to the person and work of Witness Lee through the corporation he founded - The Living Stream Ministry. Let us not forget that Lee clearly and strongly stated that NO PERSON or PERSONS can replace him - the only thing that could replace him was "a corporation": The Living Stream Ministry. Every one of the positions I noted above - All the way from the most Blended of Blended Brothers all the way down to the little sister starting her first day at the FTT - They are all beholden as hirelings to the corporation that Witness Lee founded.
-

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We should be careful of how we speak of God's servants, namely, to compare a full time worker who is supported by the church with the hirelings of denominations.

The LSM is certainly careful about how they speak of God's servants, the same way the Madison Avenue advertisers are careful. Appearance is everything. As long as they can fool enough paying customers, they can make a good living.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I see a few ways in which the term "hireling" is appropriate for denominations, but not for the local church.

Perhaps the local church members who pay their own living are exempt, but those who run the ministry, i.e. the MOTA and his upper-echelon, who are dependent, bought and paid for, the same as the pastor with the church board. If you're a cheerleader you get paid. The loudest cheerleaders rise to the top.

The LSM and affiliated local churches are either the unique move of God on the earth, and thereby qualified to judge all others as deficient, or it's a sham and a fraud.

I think the latter, because of: a) the deficient hermeneutics/interpretations (covered in detail elsewhere); b) the flip-flop on women (they co-started the movement, with Ruth Lee as the "editorial board" for decades); c) Daystar (following several financial scandals in the Far East); Philip Lee; paranoia and control issues (see "rebellions" and "storms" aplenty).

The LSM and affiliated local churches are not qualified to judge "poor Christianity" - they're a poster child for what's wrong with contemporary Christianity. One of many, unfortunately. Professional cult watcher HH characterized them as a mixture of ignorance and zeal, following his tour of Asia.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The Blended Brothers, LSM Co-Workers, Elders and Full-Timers fit the description of hirelings infinitely more than the average pastor, elder or ministry worker in "poor, poor Christianity." A hireling is simply a person who is beholden to another person, persons or organization. In the case of those within the religious system of the Local Church, they are beholden to the person and work of Witness Lee through the corporation he founded - The Living Stream Ministry. Let us not forget that Lee clearly and strongly stated that NO PERSON or PERSONS can replace him - the only thing that could replace him was "a corporation": The Living Stream Ministry. Every one of the positions I noted above - All the way from the most Blended of Blended Brothers all the way down to the little sister starting her first day at the FTT - They are all beholden as hirelings to the corporation that Witness Lee founded.
-

This is similar to what I was saying - millions of dollars flowing through the system, with those persons who control the flow, controlingl the work, along with the doctrine and the members. The rest are typically either co-opted by the money flow or they get out.

I'm sure there are a few "pure ones" on the fringes. But they go on in spite of the system, not because of it.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We should be careful of how we speak of God's servants, namely, to compare a full time worker who is supported by the church with the hirelings of denominations. A young man foregoes a university degree or graduate job, goes to the training, afterwards, needs support to work full time on the campuses. He lives in the meeting hall or with someone who opens their home for hospitality. A local church supports him to cover his basic needs. It is not much. This is mostly covered by members of the church. The support may end after a few months or 1 year, it depends. He does not intend to do this forever, but to serve God while young, and then later find employment, marriage etc. I do not see how the term "hireling" can be applied to this person.

Let's forget for the moment that he is actually preaching the gospel most of the time. Unlike most pastors who are organizing and conducting "services", wedding, funerals, baptisms, for unregenerate people.

Most differently, if that full time worker is not paid, and leaves, then the church does not close down (unlike denominations where loss of a pastor or priest often scatters the church). Having a full time worker in the church is a bonus, but not a necessity.

There is no paid position like pastor or priest in most (not all) denominations where there is an expectation to receive a regular income. A full time worker is not the same as the vocation of a pastor or priest.

I see a few ways in which the term "hireling" is appropriate for denominations, but not for the local church. Denominations will have an open position, like an employment job in a company, and they will seek people to fill that position. In the local churches it is a matter of having people willing to be full timers and the church agreeing to support them. There is no actual position to be filled.

Be careful who you call names. With the same judgment you judge, you are judged.

Didn’t Lee to borrow money for “the work” on a note signed by a brother in The Church in Boston, then floating a loan to himself and a few of his buddies with that money to finance a for-profit business in the far east? Then Lee gets all huffy when the brother holds him accountable for the transaction. This brother signed the paperwork on the loan which puts him on the hook for what took place, then Lee tells him it’s “none of his business”.

And Lee points fingers at his brothers and sisters, denigrating them as "hirelings". Talk about hypocrisy.

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For Evangelical to categorically declare all pastors in Christianity as "the hirelings of denominations" should clearly be identified as "Judge not that ye be not judged."

You don't know the difference between a pastor and a full-time worker. I think you have been out of the recovery for too long to be able to give an informed opinion.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We should be careful of how we speak of God's servants, namely, to compare a full time worker who is supported by the church with the hirelings of denominations.

But that doesn't apply to all denominations per se. Witness Lee falsely equated to identify all denominations into the same category of hiring pastors.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

Be careful who you call names. With the same judgment you judge, you are judged.

Didn’t Lee to borrow money for “the work” on a note signed by a brother in The Church in Boston, then floating a loan to himself and a few of his buddies with that money to finance a for-profit business in the far east? Then Lee gets all huffy when the brother holds him accountable for the transaction. This brother signed the paperwork on the loan which puts him on the hook for what took place, then Lee tells him it’s “none of his business”.

And Lee points fingers at his brothers and sisters, denigrating them as "hirelings". Talk about hypocrisy.

Nell

What has that got to do with hiring workers in the church?

I was responding to your question "Does the Local Church pay those who serve it today? ". Well, yes, a local church can, but it's support, not salary.

[Evangelical]

Here is the position description for a pastor:

https://learn.org/articles/What_are_..._a_Pastor.html

If anyone can find the equivalent position description for an elder or a full-time worker please post it.

Failure to find the equivalent hopefully proves the difference.

[Evangelical]

For an interesting read, here is a list of 30 rules that hirelings ( )at Hillsong church have to follow:

https://brianchouston.com/2015/09/09...teaching-team/

The following makes my "hireling detector" start beeping:

The preaching must be IN LINE WITH OUR BELIEF..

Set time limits - losing authority by preaching for too long:


the moment you go over time, you are outside of your authority!

"Cultural values" which means "Hillsong cultural values":

REINFORCING – NEVER CONTRADICTING – OUR CULTURAL VALUES.



The word "Jesus" is so far down the page it was quicker to word search it but I am pleased to see that "exalting Jesus" is number 20 in the list.


"EASILY TRANSITIONED INTO AN ALTAR-CALL"

Interesting that they still call them "altar-calls". That's where people who have been itching for a clap go to the front and those who really want to get saved stay seated and mutter silently under their breath.

"PREACHED FROM NOTES YOU’D BE PROUD TO SHOW ME. "

Sounds like Brian Houston reviews all the messages before they get preached.

"REFLECTS YOUR LEVEL OF AUTHORITY."

- so speakers speak under their authority, what about God's authority?

"FOCUSED AS MUCH ON DELIVERY AS CONTENT. "
- this is the part in the job description where they look for "exciting personality, excellent communication skills"


This paragraph:

Culture, atmosphere and DNA in a church is not accidental. Just like culture, atmosphere and DNA of your home is not. You have to be deliberate about it - especially from the ‘platform’. Leadership in this area is about making intentional and focused choices, and taking a degree of measured risk.

Reflects this one by Nell:

The logic was, if their pastors were paid, then the churches owned those whom they paid. Controlled them. They could not speak the truth that was not "approved" by the ones who paid their salaries...or they could get fired.

If a pastor in Hillsong preaches negative messages, speaks for too long, or does not fit within the Hillsong culture or their "DNA" as they call it, they will be out of a job. That's a hireling.

[Evangelical]

If Lee's statement about hirelings did not have a degree of truth to it then these article would not exist:

"When the Pastor Gets Fired"

https://www.christianitytoday.com/pa...l/83l4050.html

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You don't know the difference between a pastor and a full-time worker. I think you have been out of the recovery for too long to be able to give an informed opinion.

Of course I do. I was active in their program far longer than you, and I saw things up close, not from the other side of the world like you. Obviously you have never read my posts, and some of the nasty behavior I have witnessed from your "full-time workers." On the other hand, I constantly come across hard-working, fervent, honorable, spiritual elders and pastors in the rest of the body of Christ.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What has that got to do with hiring workers in the church?

I was responding to your question "Does the Local Church pay those who serve it today? ". Well, yes, a local church can, but it's support, not salary.

Once again, LSM changes the terms, and their people think they have a better mousetrap. That my friend, by definition, is deception.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Once again, LSM changes the terms, and their people think they have a better mousetrap. That my friend, by definition, is deception.

I see that coming.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Once again, LSM changes the terms, and their people think they have a better mousetrap. That my friend, by definition, is deception.

That's not deception. I raised the point that there are different types of payment, such as a gift. For example the words salary, gift, allowance, each have different meanings. If the church gives money to the elder to pay for travel, public transport, this is not really a salary.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Let's forget for the moment that he (full-timer) is actually... Unlike most pastors who are ...

Most differently, if that full time worker is ... (unlike denominations where loss of a pastor or priest often ...

There is no ... like pastor or priest in most (not all) denominations .... A full time worker is not the same ...

Denominations will have ... In the local churches it is a matter of ...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Whoever was making the comparison between pastors and full-timers does not know much about full-timers.

Have you forgotten to count yourself in "whoever"?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You don't know the difference between a pastor and a full-time worker. I think you have been out of the recovery for too long to be able to give an informed opinion.

Could you have been out of Christianity for too long to be able to give an informed opinion?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Here is the position description for a pastor:

https://learn.org/articles/What_are_..._a_Pastor.html

If anyone can find the equivalent position description for an elder or a full-time worker please post it.

Failure to find the equivalent hopefully proves the difference.

Assisting in church financial matters
Overseeing management of all areas of the congregation's ministry
Supporting, overseeing and evaluating congregation staff
Holding regular staff meetings to coordinate ministries
Ensuring church facilities are functioning

Are you saying the elders or full-times don't do any of these? Are they really functioning members of the body?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The following makes my "hireling detector" start beeping:

The preaching must be IN LINE WITH OUR BELIEF..

Set time limits - losing authority by preaching for too long:

Doesn't prophesying have to follow the "flow"?
Doesn't prophesying have time limit?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Have you forgotten to count yourself in "whoever"?

I was not comparing, I was contrasting - sounds like someone needs to read the Dictionary.

Ohio and others were comparing the two, as if they had never stepped foot in a local church.

As Trapped wrote:

"comparing pastors to full-time workers in the LC's is a disparate equation"

[Kevin]

Doesn't prophesying have time limit?

Two minutes each, saints. Remember short, quick and living!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Two minutes each, saints. Remember short, quick and living!

Given that the topic is pastors and elders, each member prophesying for 2 minutes is not in context, and no one "loses their authority" if they speak longer... and it's not a rule. It's actually a worse comparison than pastors/full-timers, people must be desperate for material.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Given that the topic is pastors and elders, each member prophesying for 2 minutes is not in context, and no one "loses their authority" if they speak longer... and it's not a rule. It's actually a worse comparison than pastors/full-timers, people must be desperate for material.

NO. The topic is "Judge not that ye be not judged." You are playing evasive word games in an attempt to deflect the obvious hypocrisy of Lee's name-calling: poor, poor Christianity; poor degraded Christianity, mooing cows, etc.. Lee accused his brothers and sisters in other churches of employing hirelings, boasting that HE doesn't hire pastors. Then Lee and the LSM began paying for the services of various workers in service of his church...whatever words you use to spin the practice.

As a result, what we hear is a lot of mooooooo-ing.

Nell

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Established denominations usually draw on certain Bible schools or seminaries for youth leaders, assistant pastor, worship leader, etc. With time these ones may move on to become pastor for some needy church.

I am also familiar with some non-denominational community churches that basically "grew up" with their pastor, depending on his gifts/talents. Look at Saddleback Church. Rick Warren grew that church of 20,000 from nothing.

Some small rural congregations hire retired brothers who love to labor in the word to come and share with the church. Some of these brothers are the richest ministers. One I recently heard was a retired State Trooper. He shared richly on Psalm 23.

These are the diversities of gifts and ministries which the Lord Spirit will use to shepherd His people. Whenever man comes along to define "THE God-ordained way," you can be sure it is not "THE" God-ordained way at all. No such pattern in history ever existed. No way can ever be "the way," because Jesus is "the way," and He can use any way, many ways, and all ways to meet His people's needs.

For example, John Darby hated diverse musical instruments in the worship of God. Thus all the Exclusive Brethren around the world must sing a cappella. Nee and Lee permitted pianos only. But look at how many diverse instruments David and Solomon used in their worship. Lee hated drums, but Christians throughout sub-Saharan Africa nearly all use drums of some sort. Who is WL to tell the entire body of Christ "THE WAY" to worship God? ... "THE WAY" to meet? ... "THE WAY" to minister?

Thank you Ohio. I am fully behind your position here and Jesus is the Way. He is the only way. The LC 'the new way' just offended my heart so thoroughly...it seemed another usurpation of Christ and His headship, His position of being our way to the Father. Something so wrong with it. And I agree, He cannot be limited to the LSM 'way'.....just the idea of every believer He justifies, He sanctifies, He called, He redeemed by the sacrifice at the cross....to believe that every precious one of these is somehow lacking the 'way' if they are outside the LSM system is so far fetched, so presumptuous!

Nell, I don't mean to change the subject of this thread, I just don't know anything about it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Assisting in church financial matters
Overseeing management of all areas of the congregation's ministry
Supporting, overseeing and evaluating congregation staff
Holding regular staff meetings to coordinate ministries
Ensuring church facilities are functioning

Are you saying the elders or full-times don't do any of these? Are they really functioning members of the body?

Have you forgotten how much time it takes for elders and full-timers to make sure all of their congregation attends LSM's "feasts," conferences, special events, and reads all their books?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Two minutes each, saints. Remember short, quick and living!

Don't forget "to the point."

Read my signature line below.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Thank you Ohio. I am fully behind your position here and Jesus is the Way. He is the only way. The LC 'the new way' just offended my heart so thoroughly...it seemed another usurpation of Christ and His headship, His position of being our way to the Father. Something so wrong with it. And I agree, He cannot be limited to the LSM 'way'.....just the idea of every believer He justifies, He sanctifies, He called, He redeemed by the sacrifice at the cross....to believe that every precious one of these is somehow lacking the 'way' if they are outside the LSM system is so far fetched, so presumptuous!

Nell, I don't mean to change the subject of this thread, I just don't know anything about it.

Great points.

Following your comments, byHismercy, the biggest single failure of LC elders is to forsake Jesus, our one true way to God, and substitute the ways and methods, the winds and waves of teaching, of an Anaheim Book Publisher.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Thank you Ohio. I am fully behind your position here and Jesus is the Way. He is the only way. The LC 'the new way' just offended my heart so thoroughly...it seemed another usurpation of Christ and His headship, His position of being our way to the Father. Something so wrong with it. And I agree, He cannot be limited to the LSM 'way'.....just the idea of every believer He justifies, He sanctifies, He called, He redeemed by the sacrifice at the cross....to believe that every precious one of these is somehow lacking the 'way' if they are outside the LSM system is so far fetched, so presumptuous!

Nell, I don't mean to change the subject of this thread, I just don't know anything about it.

BHM,

Do you have questions or comments about the first post in this thread?

Nell

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Nell

BHM, Do you have questions or comments about the first post in this thread?

Only that, I agree with you. I see nothing wrong with compensating pastors, church leaders, full-timers, serving ones.....just don't give your private system special terminology then lamblast all others for the exact same practice. A horse of a different color.....is still a horse. That is not charity, not equitable, even. A sin, I think.

As to the other question of judgment....I cannot speak to that. That will be between them (those who don't reject this sin) and the Lord.

[Evangelical]

According to the writings of Nee and Lee, a servant of God is not supposed to receive any salary.

If we serve God then we should ask God for our salary. If we serve man then we should ask man for our salary. (paraphrased Nee)

But giving is a matter of free will. The question is , are payments in the local church today free will giving or are they some sort of salaried, contractual arrangement. If it's salaried like the denominations then it would be hypocritical. If it is free will giving it is not hypocritical in my view, there is a clear difference.

A hypocrite is someone who has a log in their own eye but only sees a speck in another person's eye. I don't know that the amount of salary giving in the local churches is as much as the denominations. I think it is more of a "speck" in terms of volume.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

According to the writings of Nee and Lee, a servant of God is not supposed to receive any salary.

If we serve God then we should ask God for our salary. If we serve man then we should ask man for our salary. (paraphrased Nee)

But giving is a matter of free will. The question is , are payments in the local church today free will giving or are they some sort of salaried, contractual arrangement. If it's salaried like the denominations then it would be hypocritical. If it is free will giving it is not hypocritical in my view, there is a clear difference.

Sorry Evan G. it is unfortunate that all you seem to know is book knowledge, not from the Bible books, but from Nee's and Lee's books.

I know a dear brother who quit being a full-timer and reentered the workforce in a sales commission job. He told me that he felt he was now serving God and living by faith more than all his time as a full-timer.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry Evan G. it is unfortunate that all you seem to know is book knowledge, not from the Bible books, but from Nee's and Lee's books.

I know a dear brother who quit being a full-timer and reentered the workforce in a sales commission job. He told me that he felt he was now serving God and living by faith more than all his time as a full-timer.

It's a strange comment from you - looking to God for our needs, particularly as God's servants, is biblical.

There are different ways to serve God, most ways don't depend on how we feel about it. "I feel like I'm serving God" is not a reliable indicator.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But giving is a matter of free will. The question is , are payments in the local church today free will giving or are they some sort of salaried, contractual arrangement. If it's salaried like the denominations then it would be hypocritical. If it is free will giving it is not hypocritical in my view, there is a clear difference.

Can you explain what you mean by payments in the local church being free will giving?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

According to the writings of Nee and Lee, a servant of God is not supposed to receive any salary.

Uh. Yeah. We don't follow Watchman Nee or Witness Lee anymore. Maybe you missed that. We fact check everyone's ministry with the Bible as the standard. We are particularly put off by hypocrisy.

If we serve God then we should ask God for our salary. If we serve man then we should ask man for our salary. (paraphrased Nee)

I believe we should make our requests known to the Lord regardless of who writes the check.

But giving is a matter of free will. The question is , are payments in the local church today free will giving or are they some sort of salaried, contractual arrangement. If it's salaried like the denominations then it would be hypocritical. If it is free will giving it is not hypocritical in my view, there is a clear difference.

I like this quote: "God's word declares that our lives, our beings, our breath---come as gifts from God. Of ourselves we have nothing. All our notions of ownership are an illusion; all our pride, a deception. We are not sovereign but completely dependent. Everything we have---our possessions, our money, our riches, every moment of our lives---everything has been given to us.

Every heartbeat is borrowed. … “

A hypocrite is someone who has a log in their own eye but only sees a speck in another person's eye.

I know what a hypocrite is.

I don't know that the amount of salary giving in the local churches is as much as the denominations. I think it is more of a "speck" in terms of volume.

So as long as the LC doesn't pay as much in salaries as their Christian brothers do, it's all good? That's rich.

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Can you explain what you mean by payments in the local church being free will giving?

If there is giving by free will to support someone it is not a salary.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

Uh. Yeah. We don't follow Watchman Nee or Witness Lee anymore. Maybe you missed that. We fact check everyone's ministry with the Bible as the standard. We are particularly put off by hypocrisy.

You misapplied Matt. 7:1-6. You don't seem to know the difference between a log and a speck. If denominations all over are giving their pastors guaranteed ongoing salaries of 56k, that would be a log, and if the local churches are supporting elders by free will giving (not salary), that would be a speck. You seem to have ignored the point Jesus was making - ignoring the log but focusing on the speck.

Your OP says Lee criticized a "practice of hiring pastors and preachers to serve their flocks". Maybe he criticized the practice, not necessarily the giving of money to workers.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If there is giving by free will to support someone it is not a salary.

Do you mean giving by free will by the saints who offer money to the church knowing that the church has discretion over how that money is used, including using it to support elders or serving ones?

Or, do you mean giving by free will by the church to the serving ones?

Or, do you mean when certain saints or localities (outside of the locality in question) know of a serving one who needs to be supported and, of their own free will, "pledge" (for lack of a better word) to provide that support for a particular serving one for either a specified or unspecified period of time?

In your most recent response to Nell, which I read after I wrote the three paragraphs above, you contrasted a pastor receiving an ongoing salary of $56k with the local churches supporting elders "by free will giving". I cannot say that I see the difference without a further explanation of what you mean by free will giving. I'm not trying to belabor the point; I am really trying to understand.

I believe more often than not it is the norm for those elders or serving ones who receive support to be able to expect that support in a regular, ongoing, consistent (monthly? bi-monthly?) way until or unless funds run out (i.e. what we all would call "a salary")............just like in a denomination.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You misapplied Matt. 7:1-6. You don't seem to know the difference between a log and a speck. If denominations all over are giving their pastors guaranteed ongoing salaries of 56k, that would be a log, and if the local churches are supporting elders by free will giving (not salary), that would be a speck. You seem to have ignored the point Jesus was making - ignoring the log but focusing on the speck.

Your OP says Lee criticized a "practice of hiring pastors and preachers to serve their flocks". Maybe he criticized the practice, not necessarily the giving of money to workers.

As usual, I was not speaking to the Bible itself, but your INTERPRETATION of the Bible. Witness Lee's entire ministry is based on his INTERPRETATION of the Bible.

Of course, all we have is our reading of the Word and our understanding of what we read. Your "understanding" includes a double-standard that allows you to criticize others for doing the same thing you are doing.

I think you are confused. You, Witness Lee and the LSM are the critics. You have the log-in-the-eye problem. Lee started the name-calling by calling his brothers "hirelings". Your Christian brothers formally requested that you all stop your denigrating behavior toward them.

Matthew 7:3-5 English Standard Version (ESV)
3 Why do you (and Witness Lee) see the speck that is in your brother's eye (the eyes of other Christians), but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you (Witness Lee) say to your/his brother (other Christians), ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

According to my understanding, neither logs nor specks are acceptable. Both need to be removed. You take care of your log and leave your brothers alone...as they requested. You have your compensation plan, they have theirs.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

As usual, I was not speaking to the Bible itself, but your INTERPRETATION of the Bible. Witness Lee's entire ministry is based on his INTERPRETATION of the Bible.

Of course, that's all we have is our reading of the Word and our understanding of what we read. Your "understanding" includes a double-standard that allows you to criticize others for doing the same thing you are doing.

If the LSMers did not have their "double-standards," they would not have any standards at all. Think lawsuits. Thinks smear campaigns. Think surreptitious campus activities. Think wholesale categorical condemnations on all Christians. Apparently the Christian life is a whole lot easier for LSM without standards to restrain them on the narrow way that leads to life.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

According to the writings of Nee and Lee, a servant of God is not supposed to receive any salary. If we serve God then we should ask God for our salary. If we serve man then we should ask man for our salary. (paraphrased Nee)

Please provide a documented quote from Witness Lee. I don't recall Lee saying anything like this. Not sure about Nee, but since you Local Churchers don't follow Watchman Nee (at least when he contradicts Lee) I'm not as interested in what Nee taught.

I would think there are quite a number of sisters/women who volunteered tens of thousands of hours at the Living Stream who are wishing Philip Lee never got any salary...from God or from man. After all, if his Acting God daddy had not showered him with a lavish salary, maybe he would have had to get a real job, and then he wouldn't have had as much time on his hands to sexually abuse and harass those poor sisters, or to use all that expendable cash on booze, porn mags and Rolex watches.

But giving is a matter of free will. The question is , are payments in the local church today free will giving or are they some sort of salaried, contractual arrangement. If it's salaried like the denominations then it would be hypocritical.

Have you reviewed any of the tax forms released by the Living Stream Ministry? There are quite a number of "salaried" employees. Some are payed rather handsomely, with some pretty nice benefits and perks. Do you think Benson Phillips has no "contractual arrangement"? How about Kerry Robichaux - do you think a smart guy like him is just hoping and wishing that he'll get paid? Not on your life. He gets a salary..he has a contractual arrangement.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Have you reviewed any of the tax forms released by the Living Stream Ministry? There are quite a number of "salaried" employees. Some are payed rather handsomely, with some pretty nice benefits and perks. Do you think Benson Phillips has no "contractual arrangement"? How about Kerry Robichaux - do you think a smart guy like him is just hoping and wishing that he'll get paid? Not on your life. He gets a salary..he has a contractual arrangement.
-

And let's not be fooled into thinking that one's "salary" or "contractual arrangement" with LSM has absolutely no effect on one's decisions and Christian service. Once all of these brothers, grown up in the LC's, leave their home church and become employed by LSM, they lose all independence. They become captives, or as Evan G calls them "hirelings."

The Bible teaches us that our loyalties and service ultimately must be to the Lord Himself. Throughout the centuries untold men of God have sacrificed their own lives and futures because they refused to compromise their service. LSM regularly condemns this type of "independence," but without a certain amount of it, all workers become compromised "man-pleasers." I definitely prefer that workers and ministers are supported by their home churches, than by some distant book publisher, which places loyalty to them above all.

Look at Titus Chu of Cleveland or Dong Yu Lan of Sao Paulo. Both of them were connected for years to the work at LSM. They both had long term relationships which they had no intention to sever, but they also maintained a certain independence from the financial / bureaucratic / legalistic / and exclusive theological bondage to LSM. Because of that her Blended authorities could not control them, and viewed them as threats, which demanded surgical removal at all cost -- even the collateral damage of hundreds even thousands of saints.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Please provide a documented quote from Witness Lee. I don't recall Lee saying anything like this. Not sure about Nee, but since you Local Churchers don't follow Watchman Nee (at least when he contradicts Lee) I'm not as interested in what Nee taught.

I would think there are quite a number of sisters/women who volunteered tens of thousands of hours at the Living Stream who are wishing Philip Lee never got any salary...from God or from man. After all, if his Acting God daddy had not showered him with a lavish salary, maybe he would have had to get a real job, and then he wouldn't have had as much time on his hands to sexually abuse and harass those poor sisters, or to use all that expendable cash on booze, porn mags and Rolex watches.

Have you reviewed any of the tax forms released by the Living Stream Ministry? There are quite a number of "salaried" employees. Some are payed rather handsomely, with some pretty nice benefits and perks. Do you think Benson Phillips has no "contractual arrangement"? How about Kerry Robichaux - do you think a smart guy like him is just hoping and wishing that he'll get paid? Not on your life. He gets a salary..he has a contractual arrangement.
-

I'm not sure what you mean by not following Nee - we read Watchman Nee's books.

The matters you raised are not the same thing as "local churches paying elders a salary". These matters you raised has nothing to do with my giving going to support an elder's salary.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'm not sure what you mean by not following Nee - we read Watchman Nee's books.

The matters you raised are not the same thing as "local churches paying elders a salary". These matters you raised has nothing to do with my giving going to support an elder's salary.

I’m not sure, Untohim may be right?

It depends on what your definition of is is...

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'm not sure what you mean by not following Nee - we read Watchman Nee's books.

Wow. Just wow. Please ask you local elder, or better yet, shoot an email or make a call to one of the Blended Brothers and ask them about following Watchman Nee. Nee is the founder and the father of the Local Church movement. Are you saying you don't follow the founder and the father of your movement? This would be like a Mormon saying "I don't follow Joseph Smith", or a Seventh Day Adventist saying "I don't follow Ellen G. White, or a Christian Scientist saying "I don't follow Mary Baker Eddy".

The matters you raised are not the same thing as "local churches paying elders a salary". These matters you raised has nothing to do with my giving going to support an elder's salary.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

According to the writings of Nee and Lee, a servant of God is not supposed to receive any salary.

So you don't consider the brothers over there on La Palma Ave in Anaheim as "servants of God"? Well then, my brother, you better skip that call about asking about following Watchman Nee, and tell them that you are initiating a class action suit against the Blended Brothers for taking a salary when it is clearly against the teachings of Nee and Lee.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Wow. Just wow. Please ask you local elder, or better yet, shoot an email or make a call to one of the Blended Brothers and ask them about following Watchman Nee. Nee is the founder and the father of the Local Church movement. Are you saying you don't follow the founder and the father of your movement? This would be like a Mormon saying "I don't follow Joseph Smith", or a Seventh Day Adventist saying "I don't follow Ellen G. White, or a Christian Scientist saying "I don't follow Mary Baker Eddy".





So you don't consider the brothers over there on La Palma Ave in Anaheim as "servants of God"? Well then, my brother, you better skip that call about asking about following Watchman Nee, and tell them that you are initiating a class action suit against the Blended Brothers for taking a salary when it is clearly against the teachings of Nee and Lee.

Are you saying that Witness Lee contradicted Watchman Nee's teaching about servants of God receiving salaries?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Are you saying that Witness Lee contradicted Watchman Nee's teaching about servants of God receiving salaries?

That's exactly what all of us have said for years.

Go back and read Nee's TNCCL and compare with the Blended's practices.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's exactly what all of us have said for years.

Go back and read Nee's TNCCL and compare with the Blended's practices.

Somebody needs to explain this apparent discrepancy.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Somebody needs to explain this apparent discrepancy.

Not here. Open another topic.

Or, on 9/6/2016 you started a topic on this forum “Nee’s Local Church”. You could start there.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

Not here. Open another topic.

Or, on 9/6/2016 you started a topic on this forum “Nee’s Local Church”. You could start there.

Thankyou, I thought this has been discussed before by others also.