Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins?

UntoHim · 01-07-2010, 01:21 PM

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

ZNPaaneah · 11-20-2011, 10:21 AM

I logged in this morning to respond to a post directed at me in another thread. While perusing the site I saw this Post #139 in “Regarding the Ground of Oneness…” by UntoHim.

“Witness Lee never broke the principle that “Jesus is Lord”, so I’m not sure why you bring this up, however whether or not he was a true servant to God is now up for review, and whether you like it or not the jury is composed of me, other members of this forum, and many other Christians who may or may not have any experience with the Local Church. My PERSONAL opinion is that Witness Lee, as an “apostle”, has been tried and found to be false.”

I did try to understand the statement in red.

Here is how I understand the complete context of this statement:

1. OBW in post #132 says “You can't get blessings and cursings from the same mouth. Or sustenance and poison from the same kitchen. If there is poison, then it is all poisoned.”
2. Unreg in 133 restates this as “WL's sins makes all of his teachings suspect or "you can't get blessing and cursing from the same mouth". And takes exception saying that all Bible teachers have sinned. And then in post #137 says “To me that Biblical principle that trumps all others is that "Jesus is Lord", not WL, not me, and who am I to judge another man's servant, to his own master he stands or falls.”
3. Then UntoHim in post #139 apparently understands this to mean that WL violated the Biblical principle of Jesus is Lord. I understood it differently, that WL was the servant of the Lord, and therefore it is for the Lord to judge him, not us.

So I may have misunderstood this discussion, and if so please clarify and that will be that. But the question that I am asking in this thread is this: can you dismiss WL’s entire ministry because of his sins? Do the sins that WL committed poison every word that he spoke?

I will share my own opinion, then sit back and listen as others lay out their case. If anyone sways me with their posts I will comment, and I do plan to read all posts on this thread.

First, I am not aware of any biblical basis that would make me or any other members of this forum a jury to judge any servant of the Lord. Jesus is the judge of all, not me. Jesus is Lord, and as such, He will judge his own servants. They will stand or fall based on His judgment, not mine. The Jewish leaders Judged Jesus ministry to be false and had him crucified. God also judged, and Jesus was resurrected. To me, anyone who wants to set himself or herself up as a jury to judge a servant of God is usurping the headship of the Lord.

My position is that there is a difference between “trying an apostle and finding him to be false” and teaching that WL’s ministry is forfeit based on his sins. I think you can try an apostle by looking at their teachings, not the same thing as looking at the person. I also think that you can look at sins and judge sins. Fair enough. But when you take the next step and say because of this man’s sins he was not a servant of the Lord I feel you have overstepped. That is not for you to say, that is for the Lord. That very act violates the Lordship of Jesus. So if this forum is, as UntoHim has stated, a jury to determine if WL was a true servant of the Lord then I don’t want any part of it.

I will listen to reasonable posts. If anyone can sway me that Christians do in fact have a NT calling to judge one another I will consider what you say carefully. I understand that we should judge the truth, and the teachings, and sin. It is that extra step that I am taking issue with.

11-20-2011, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My position is that there is a difference between “trying an apostle and finding him to be false” and teaching that WL’s ministry is forfeit based on his sins. I think you can try an apostle by looking at their teachings, not the same thing as looking at the person. I also think that you can look at sins and judge sins. Fair enough. But when you take the next step and say because of this man’s sins he was not a servant of the Lord I feel you have overstepped. That is not for you to say, that is for the Lord. That very act violates the Lordship of Jesus. So if this forum is, as UntoHim has stated, a jury to determine if WL was a true servant of the Lord then I don’t want any part of it.

Z,

It's even worse than that.

A poster that Witness Lee was "not clean" thereby denying the power of the precious blood of Christ. It is one thing to reject a man's ministry, but it is entirely shocking to hear this poster reject the most fundamental truth of the christian faith.

Cassidy

UntoHim · 11-20-2011, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Here is how I understand the complete context of this statement:
3. Then UntoHim in post #139 apparently understands this to mean that WL violated the Biblical principle of Jesus is Lord. I understood it differently, that WL was the servant of the Lord, and therefore it is for the Lord to judge him, not us.

How in the world do you come up with this stuff? If you worked this hard at actually following the line of thought instead of misunderstanding on purpose, we might get somewhere. You are the one that brought up the totally irrelevant "the Biblical principle of Jesus is Lord". This was a red herring to draw attention away from the matter at hand.

Quote:

So I may have misunderstood this discussion, and if so please clarify and that will be that.

As I just said, you seem to be misunderstanding on purpose - you're making a concerted effort to misstate, misrepresent and change the context, and the more I try to clarify the more you throw out red herrings.

Quote:

But the question that I am asking in this thread is this: can you dismiss WL’s entire ministry because of his sins? Do the sins that WL committed poison every word that he spoke?

Personally I don't dismiss his entire ministry because of his sins - there are plenty of reasons to dismiss many of the teachings purely upon theological reasons. Of course now that the clear record of the life and times of Witness Lee and his sons have been exposed, it sure doesn't help the case of those who would make him out to be the one minister with the one ministry for the age.

Quote:

First, I am not aware of any biblical basis that would make me or any other members of this forum a jury to judge any servant of the Lord. Jesus is the judge of all, not me. Jesus is Lord, and as such, He will judge his own servants. They will stand or fall based on His judgment, not mine..

So we are just supposed to swallow hook, line and sinker the claims of anybody who comes along and claims to be the one apostle, the only one oracle speaking for God on earth, the only one with "recovered" teachings and practices? Really? Not here in America. No sir. Too many brave men and woman have gave their lives so that we DON'T have to just believe somebody cause they say so. You can wait for the Judgment if you want, but my Bible tells me that not only can I judge, it's my responsibility to my family and those who may be under my influence to judge, especially apostles who call themselves apostles and are false.

Quote:

My position is that there is a difference between “trying an apostle and finding him to be false” and teaching that WL’s ministry is forfeit based on his sins. I think you can try an apostle by looking at their teachings, not the same thing as looking at the person. I also think that you can look at sins and judge sins. Fair enough. But when you take the next step and say because of this man’s sins he was not a servant of the Lord I feel you have overstepped. That is not for you to say, that is for the Lord. That very act violates the Lordship of Jesus. So if this forum is, as UntoHim has stated, a jury to determine if WL was a true servant of the Lord then I don’t want any part of it.

Will you please stop saying anybody is "teaching". We are simple members of a public forum discussing and debating. Nobody has been designated as teachers here, nobody has been designated as students either. You are simply wrong about separating an apostles teachings from "the person". The apostle Paul made strong and frequent references to his manner of living. He repeatedly advised the readers of his epistles to follow him in his manner and mode of living as well as following his teachings. He also exposed and warned against other "apostles", and NOT just for their false teachings, but because they were hypocritical in their manner and mode of living.

Quote:

I will listen to reasonable posts. If anyone can sway me that Christians do in fact have a NT calling to judge one another I will consider what you say carefully. I understand that we should judge the truth, and the teachings, and sin. It is that extra step that I am taking issue with.

So Witness Lee was just another "Christian". Have you been to the LSM website lately? Do you know whose name is on nearly EVERY book, tape and video? Do you remember what Witness Lee said about himself, and what the current LC leaders say about him? This is a man who held himself out to be judged. His followers are now practically screaming for the whole world to judge him. Well, they are getting their wish - at least on this forum they are.

ZNPaaneah · 11-20-2011, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So we are just supposed to swallow hook, line and sinker the claims of anybody who comes along and claims to be the one apostle, the only one oracle speaking for God on earth, the only one with "recovered" teachings and practices? Really? Not here in America. No sir. Too many brave men and woman have gave their lives so that we DON'T have to just believe somebody cause they say so. You can wait for the Judgment if you want, but my Bible tells me that not only can I judge, it's my responsibility to my family and those who may be under my influence to judge, especially apostles who call themselves apostles and are false.

To consider the claims that WL was "the MOTA" is reasonable and Biblical and I took part in that discussion. I saw no reason to take this to the next level and say that WL was not a true servant of the Lord. To do so is in my understanding stepping over a clear boundary.

Now if I understand your argument, we are in America (the land of the free?), too many brave men and women gave their lives so that we could enjoy these freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. As US citizens we enjoy these freedoms and we have the rights afforded all citizens and we have the responsibility to stand up and defend these rights when challenged. Hmmh, I think I heard this argument before, but where? Oh yeah, WL used this same argument to justify his lawsuits against other Christians.

Ironically, this reminds me of another verse that the Lord spoke:

7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Ohio · 11-20-2011, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My position is that there is a difference between “trying an apostle and finding him to be false” and teaching that WL’s ministry is forfeit based on his sins. I think you can try an apostle by looking at their teachings, not the same thing as looking at the person. I also think that you can look at sins and judge sins. Fair enough. But when you take the next step and say because of this man’s sins he was not a servant of the Lord I feel you have overstepped. That is not for you to say, that is for the Lord. That very act violates the Lordship of Jesus. So if this forum is, as UntoHim has stated, a jury to determine if WL was a true servant of the Lord then I don’t want any part of it.

It's nearly impossible to find a servant of the Lord in the Bible whose children brought honor to their father and glory to God. The two seem almost mutually exclusive.

King David was an abject failure when it came to raising children. One of his sons raped one of his daughters, and David did nothing about it, consequently another one of his sons was forced to take justice in his own hands.

Looking at Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, I'm hard-pressed to find any good patterns of marriage and child-rearing, and these are the Patriarchs of Israel.

We have discussed the corruptions of old Eli the priest and his boys, but it was the failures of Samuel's own children that caused Israel to cry out for a king.

Looking at the many examples in the Bible, ZNPaaneah has some solid points about not judging WL. In this regard, the forum goes often beyond "what has been written" in judging WL. This does not mean, however, that ministers cannot be held accountable by the church, rather they must be.

Paul Cox · 11-20-2011, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's nearly impossible to find a servant of the Lord in the Bible whose children brought honor to their father and glory to God. The two seem almost mutually exclusive...

For my part I must say that I never judged Witness Lee for the failings of his sons. Let me be the last to do that. I have grown sons of my own. I have sympathy for WL and how he must have felt about his sons.

My criticisms have to do with how Lee handled the matter of his son Philip, once it was clear what he was doing, and how the future Blendeds circled the wagons around him, forsaking righteousness in favor of a man and his ministry. That's why I can't have respect for them now, and they've got nothing to say that I'm interested in hearing. Even their projection of the ministries of Lee and Nee are tainted and best avoided, as far as I am concerned.

As I have stated before, they have no truths of importance that have not already been delivered to the Church through other ministers. And some of their so-called "high peak truths" are nothing more than tomfoolery.

P.C.

OBW · 11-21-2011, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

To consider the claims that WL was "the MOTA" is reasonable and Biblical and I took part in that discussion. I saw no reason to take this to the next level and say that WL was not a true servant of the Lord. To do so is in my understanding stepping over a clear boundary.

What boundary is that? When any lay claim to such a serious thing as "Minister of the Age" they take on some significant requirements. Surely if there is only one MOTA, then that very status must be subject to testing like that of an apostle. And if there is such a claim and it is discovered to be false, what does it say about the one making the claim?

I note that comparison is made to other ministers of various kinds and of their less-than stellar lives. And the correct response is that all men are fallen. But at the same time, few, if any, of these are claiming such a significant position among ministers. With some exceptions, they are mostly serving those they are called to serve with the best that they can do with the help of the Holy Spirit. They do not claim elite status and call all others unworthy of receiving your attention.

And they don't set up businesses that invite investors into a scheme that is not registered with the SEC and is not above board. They do not underhandedly take the savings of their followers and then walk away unscathed when the business collapses.

Something about those who are serving their belly comes to mind.

You can complain about the fact that preachers are often (and almost always) paid. And that the so-called "business" side of a church is often inefficient at its best. But there is no deceit in obtaining its funding. There is no mystery concerning where the money goes.

And in the few cases where there is a mystery, the Feds often step in and charges are filed.

And you can complain about the empire at some of the mega churches. For every mega church out there (even assuming there is some generic problem with that) there are a sea of small churches that cumulatively include what is probably a majority of the Protestant membership.

When Jimmy Swaggert as caught with a prostitute, the Assemblies of God, under whose banner JS preached, ordered that he simply step down. He refused and continued on his own. Lee had no problem. There was no organization over him. He put his son into his private business, the Living Stream Ministry, and when it was discovered that the son was engaged in immoral acts inside the LSM offices, it was hushed-up. 10 years later, it happened again. This time, more than one came with the reports from those molested by PL. Again, no action. And when those with the report took it upon themselves as the leaders of their assembly to deal with the problems that were being caused in their church by PL and the ongoing meddling of the LSM office, those elders were run off and the facts covered.

At least David mourned in public. He repented in sackcloth and ashes for his sins against Uriah and Bathsheba. He suffered publicly for his failures concerning his sons and daughters. At least one Psalm walks us through the change that came over him as he went from hiding to open repentance.

But for Lee, there was none. He may have expressed some bad feelings about those who lost their savings, but the part of the Daystar business that continued to operate — the manufacturing plant — continued to try to make him money without doing one thing about repaying those that had been defrauded by illegally induced, unregistered investments in companies that had no actual financial presence in any jurisdiction.

The church(es) in Taiwan were saddled with the debts of a 1950s business venture of Lee's. Eldon hall was said to have a storage area full of suits that Lee and sons had tried to sell at the the World's Fair shortly before the start of the LRC in the US. There were health products being sold in the churches when I started in 1973. And then came Daystar. It may have already been going, but there was a specific time that it was "sold" in Dallas after we started there. So at this point, Lee had managed to return to saddling the churches with the risks of his private business ventures.

And you think you can't find where Paul would suggest that Lee should never be given a microphone, a video camera, or the opportunity to speak as a teacher? It would not matter how good his teaching might have been. It should never have been uttered. If those in the US had been warned about Lee before he came, maybe he would never have been given the time of day. But even those who knew, like Samuel Chang, would never speak up. Whether Chinese culture, fear of retaliation, or just plain belief in the nonsense taught, they remained silent about the unrighteousness.

And yet we wax poetic about the chain of events that led us to the place where "blessings abound" and all Christians of any kind not within the fold are chastised as worldly, satanic, demonic, etc., while we eat up the "you're special" rhetoric.

It is not that the LRC is not Christian. Or that Lee never taught anything right. It is that even his teachings leaned toward allowing his vices. Right and wrong not mattering. Dismissing any kind of call to righteousness as being "from the self." I dare say that Jesus would have turned to Lee and suggested rather strongly that if he wanted to teach that way, then he would find himself at the end of the line waiting to enter whatever it is that our "afterlife" actually is. It's right there in black-and-white in Matthew 5.

Ohio · 11-21-2011, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

For my part I must say that I never judged Witness Lee for the failings of his sons. Let me be the last to do that. I have grown sons of my own. I have sympathy for WL and how he must have felt about his sons.

My criticisms have to do with how Lee handled the matter of his son Philip, once it was clear what he was doing, and how the future Blendeds circled the wagons around him, forsaking righteousness in favor of a man and his ministry. That's why I can't have respect for them now, and they've got nothing to say that I'm interested in hearing. Even their projection of the ministries of Lee and Nee are tainted and best avoided, as far as I am concerned.

As I have stated before, they have no truths of importance that have not already been delivered to the Church through other ministers. And some of their so-called "high peak truths" are nothing more than tomfoolery.

P.C.

I completely agree.

I would never fault WL for his sons' behaviors.

But I also think it is completely fair to expose publicly how WL publicly smeared the reputations of all the godly men who approached him privately in order to deal righteously with with PL, the LSM "office" manager. Those who love and receive the ministry of WL need to know what WL did to other brothers (Ingalls et. al.) who once served with him, just as all of us who love the Psalms know how David killed Uriah, and all of us who love Peter know that he denied the Lord 3 times.

It is extremely unrighteous, and contrary to the holy nature of God, that WL should be portrayed by his minions at LSM as some perfected and flawless god-man, the latest in the lineage of "Ministers of the Age", and some supposed "acting God" on earth. I believe this false image of WL needs to be torn down and smashed, because it directly insults our holy God.

The Bible is fair to point out all the flaws of men, even the servants of God, while LSM has never been fair or upright. In this regard, LSM has been completely dishonest. They have elevated WL and canonized him in the eyes of all the "faithful." This insults our God, whose only Son is the only perfect Man.

ZNPaaneah · 11-21-2011, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

What boundary is that?

James 4:11-12

4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
4:12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

What is the boundary:

1. We are commanded not to speak evil of a brother.
2. We are commanded to be doers of the law, and according to James when you are judging your brother you are not a doer of the law but a judge.
3. Who art thou that judgest another? The NT never appointed us as a judge over our brothers. Jesus is the judge of both the living and the dead.
4. Paul says that we can judge “the things of this world” and that the saints “will judge the world” and that we “will judge angels”. Never once were we appointed as judges over other believers. We can judge sin, we can judge righteousness, and we can rightly divide the truth. But the boundary is that we are not here to judge one another.

Ohio · 11-21-2011, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

James 4:11-12

4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
4:12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

What is the boundary:

1. We are commanded not to speak evil of a brother.
2. We are commanded to be doers of the law, and according to James when you are judging your brother you are not a doer of the law but a judge.
3. Who art thou that judgest another? The NT never appointed us as a judge over our brothers. Jesus is the judge of both the living and the dead.
4. Paul says that we can judge “the things of this world” and that the saints “will judge the world” and that we “will judge angels”. Never once were we appointed as judges over other believers. We can judge sin, we can judge righteousness, and we can rightly divide the truth. But the boundary is that we are not here to judge one another.

It is difficult still for many believers to discern the boundaries here. How can we "judge sin and judge righteousness," yet not judge the brothers??

My way is to limit critique and only address behaviors and actions that hurt others. Because of my that, some have criticized me in return, but that's fine, I'm just a fallen sinner saved by grace.

ZNPaaneah · 11-21-2011, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

...But even those who knew, like Samuel Chang, would never speak up. Whether Chinese culture, fear of retaliation, or just plain belief in the nonsense taught, they remained silent about the unrighteousness.

And yet we wax poetic about the chain of events that led us to the place where "blessings abound" and all Christians of any kind not within the fold are chastised as worldly, satanic, demonic, etc., while we eat up the "you're special" rhetoric.

There is no need for me to wax poetic, you have already done that. Suppose I cede that everything you have said is the truth and that WL could not say anything in his defense. Let me also cede that your judgement is just and right and that even though you have usurped Jesus position as judge that He would thank you because you have done all the hard work and made it easy for Him.

Even if you cede all that you are forgetting Hebrews 10:30

10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

Vengeance belongs to the Lord, not to you. You are robbing the Lord of his opportunity to take vengeance.

By all means expose falsehood, lies, deceit. But when it comes to judgement and vengeance you have to leave that to the Lord.

ZNPaaneah · 11-21-2011, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is difficult still for many believers to discern the boundaries here. How can we "judge sin and judge righteousness," yet not judge the brothers??

My way is to limit critique and only address behaviors and actions that hurt others. Because of my that, some have criticized me in return, but that's fine, I'm just a fallen sinner saved by grace.

This is the word of Righteousness spoken of in Hebrews 5:12-14

Ohio · 11-21-2011, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Vengeance belongs to the Lord, not to you. You are robbing the Lord of his opportunity to take vengeance.

By all means expose falsehood, lies, deceit. But when it comes to judgement and vengeance you have to leave that to the Lord.

Isn't the greatest role of a judge to pass sentence or execute the judgement? None of us can do that, even if WL were alive. It is altogether another matter to discuss how people have been hurt by the system.

Those within the system are convinced and held by fear in complete silence. They feel the judgement of Ham or Meriam will come upon them if they say anything. Obviously this is wrong, and has only served to enable the leaders to do worse.

What I am looking for is to remain within my healthy limits. For me to keep silent would have been wrong. For me to judge others is also prohibited. What should be the proper role of those departing from an abusive system that has deteriorated over time?

OBW · 11-21-2011, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There is no need for me to wax poetic, you have already done that. Suppose I cede that everything you have said is the truth and that WL could not say anything in his defense. Let me also cede that your judgment is just and right and that even though you have usurped Jesus position as judge that He would thank you because you have done all the hard work and made it easy for Him.

Even if you cede all that you are forgetting Hebrews 10:30

10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

Vengeance belongs to the Lord, not to you. You are robbing the Lord of his opportunity to take vengeance.

By all means expose falsehood, lies, deceit. But when it comes to judgment and vengeance you have to leave that to the Lord.

Off topic. Non responsive. Strawman. Red herring.

Any number of ways to respond to your irrelevancy.

I have not exacted vengeance on anyone. I am warning others of a dangerous pit with a false floor covering it. I do not desire to skewer Lee. I desire for those who are blinded by his charm, charisma, and rhetoric to be freed from it. It would be the same if he were alive. I really don't care if he gets his "just dessert." I only care that chains are broken, eyes are healed, and captives are set free.

I presume that a dose of the truth — and not just "truth" as defined by Lee — will help many find their way to that freedom and healing. It won't be to my benefit, but to theirs.

TLFisher · 11-21-2011, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

My criticisms have to do with how Lee handled the matter of his son Philip, once it was clear what he was doing, and how the future Blendeds circled the wagons around him, forsaking righteousness in favor of a man and his ministry. That's why I can't have respect for them now, and they've got nothing to say that I'm interested in hearing. Even their projection of the ministries of Lee and Nee are tainted and best avoided, as far as I am concerned.

As I have stated before, they have no truths of importance that have not already been delivered to the Church through other ministers. And some of their so-called "high peak truths" are nothing more than tomfoolery.

Paul, I'd agree with what you and Ohio are speaking. It's more the practices than the theology. On my part, it's the practices that have been the premise of my posts. Maybe someone more theologically inclined could critique WL's ministry. I am not that one. However I am able to discern how some LC practices are in variance to the Bible.

OBW · 11-21-2011, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

James 4:11-12

4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
4:12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

What is the boundary:

1. We are commanded not to speak evil of a brother.
2. We are commanded to be doers of the law, and according to James when you are judging your brother you are not a doer of the law but a judge.
3. Who art thou that judgest another? The NT never appointed us as a judge over our brothers. Jesus is the judge of both the living and the dead.
4. Paul says that we can judge “the things of this world” and that the saints “will judge the world” and that we “will judge angels”. Never once were we appointed as judges over other believers. We can judge sin, we can judge righteousness, and we can rightly divide the truth. But the boundary is that we are not here to judge one another.

Ohio has already said it fairly well. There is more than one declaration in scripture concerning judgment, even of brothers. And others require that we do judge each other. To declare this one as if it is the only one that applies is most disingenuous.

As for being judges of other believers, what exactly were they doing in 1 Corinthians concerning the one living in open immorality if not judging? You have chosen only those passages that restrict judgment. If you think you have exhausted the topic with those few mentions, then you should redo your research. If you know better, then . . . well . . . you know better and should speak as if you do.

Do you suppose that all those Judaisers that Paul kept fighting were simply unregenerated Jews mucking-up the works? No. They were mostly brothers with a claim (real or imagined) of representing the HQ in Jerusalem. He judged them harshly. Even mentioning some by name, and noting that some were serving their bellies. These were not outsiders. They were standing as authorities for God in the midst of the church (by their own claim).

And if Lee's teachings are worthy of note, then they will be found elsewhere. There are no special teachings and benefits/blessings reserved for those who follow certain teachers. The very assertion that there are is itself a falsehood and evidence of a wrongful claim of spiritual authority.

UntoHim · 11-21-2011, 03:06 PM

From ZNPaaneah's opening post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I understand that we should judge the truth, and the teachings, and sin. It is that extra step that I am taking issue with.

Maybe before we go further, I would like to get some clarification from ZNP on what he means by the "extra step". Please be specific and point us to a specific post that you see as taking this extra step. If you have time, please point to the specific phrase or wording which you feel crosses the line. Please do your best to be as "factual" as possible, addressing the issue at hand and not the person. Feel free to shoot the message but not the messenger, unless the messenger happens to be me.... I'm holding myself out as fair game in this respect.

Admittedly, I feel that for the most part what is happening on the Forum is the judging of the truth, teachings and sin. Maybe there are some who have crossed the line and I have simply missed the post. Maybe I've seen it and look at it differently. In any event, as I have stated many times, I would like to see this Forum as a "safe and sane" place for all concerned to come and dialog, and I am deeply committed to this. As we all know, there is simply no other venue for current Local Church members to have open and honest dialog, or even to have access to information regarding the true history of Witness Lee and the Local Church.

ZNPaaneah · 11-21-2011, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Off topic. Non responsive. Strawman. Red herring.

Any number of ways to respond to your irrelevancy.

I have not exacted vengeance on anyone. I am warning others of a dangerous pit with a false floor covering it. I do not desire to skewer Lee. I desire for those who are blinded by his charm, charisma, and rhetoric to be freed from it. It would be the same if he were alive. I really don't care if he gets his "just dessert." I only care that chains are broken, eyes are healed, and captives are set free.

I presume that a dose of the truth — and not just "truth" as defined by Lee — will help many find their way to that freedom and healing. It won't be to my benefit, but to theirs.

Off Topic? The topic is defined in the first post, it is the comment in red. You are not the topic. What you are doing and what you desire to do is completely irrelevant to this thread. The use of the term “true servant of God” is without doubt a judgement. If your post summarizing the sins of WL was not a defense of this judgement then your post was off topic and a strawman. The use of the term jury in post #1 implies judgement. I am aware that my understanding may not have been the intended meaning, so I made it clear in the first post just say so and that would be that. So although that post quotes your quote of James, I did not imply that it was clear what you were saying. That is why I said Unreg “restated” your post.

If we were both at the judgement seat of Christ when WL was being judged and the Lord said “You are not a true servant of God, depart from me, I never knew you” that would be a judgement and it would be vengeance. That is the topic of this thread, whose place is it to utter that judgement? Is it for this forum, or for Untohim, or is this something reserved only for the Lord.

This is why I also quoted the reference to the church in Ephesus in Revelation by Untohim. Is judging that an apostle is false equivalent to saying that WL is not a true servant of God or not? Nor have I suggested that I have the answer, as Ohio has pointed out this is like splitting hairs. I feel it is like what is referred to in Hebrews, immature Christians are not practiced in the word of righteousness. I would agree that this is not an easy concept, but I think it is crucial.

So your post does not address the topic nor have you clarified the confusion of your post. Do you believe there is a fundamental truth in the NT that blessing and cursing cannot come from the same source. Since WL’s sins can be considered cursing or poison is that a valid basis to reject all of his ministry?

ZNPaaneah · 11-21-2011, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Ohio has already said it fairly well. There is more than one declaration in scripture concerning judgment, even of brothers. And others require that we do judge each other. To declare this one as if it is the only one that applies is most disingenuous.

As for being judges of other believers, what exactly were they doing in 1 Corinthians concerning the one living in open immorality if not judging? You have chosen only those passages that restrict judgment. If you think you have exhausted the topic with those few mentions, then you should redo your research. If you know better, then . . . well . . . you know better and should speak as if you do.

Do you suppose that all those Judaisers that Paul kept fighting were simply unregenerated Jews mucking-up the works? No. They were mostly brothers with a claim (real or imagined) of representing the HQ in Jerusalem. He judged them harshly. Even mentioning some by name, and noting that some were serving their bellies. These were not outsiders. They were standing as authorities for God in the midst of the church (by their own claim).

And if Lee's teachings are worthy of note, then they will be found elsewhere. There are no special teachings and benefits/blessings reserved for those who follow certain teachers. The very assertion that there are is itself a falsehood and evidence of a wrongful claim of spiritual authority.

I do not declare this verse in James as if it is the only verse that applies to judgement. To conclude that I do is indefensible. What I do claim is that James makes a very clear boundary, probably the clearest wording in the NT. The boundary delimits how far your judgment can go. The word “disengenuous” has the meaning of false or hypocritical. I find this accusation that my post was disengenuous insulting and unwarranted. This is now the second time I have had an issue of your ease with using derogatory terms towards my posts, although the previous case was on another forum.

I opened this thread in post #1 stating my opinion and my position. Never once did I imply I had given a thorough discourse on the issue, rather I opened the floor for others to share their own views and stated that I was open to being convinced. Yes I am well aware that this is a complex issue, there is the case of excommunication, there is the case of Paul dealing with Judaizers, there is the appeal to Caesar. I chose out a passage that I felt best identified the boundary to judgement, because you asked what is the boundary. You did not ask for a comprehensive review of every verse and case in the NT.

That said, my position is based on my reading of all of these cases. This is why I said we are supposed to judge sin. The brother in Corinth was always referred to as a brother, he was never judged, the sin was judged. In 1Cor 5:3 Paul said he had judged “concerning him” he didn’t say he had “judged him”. The excommunication was compared to the purging out of leaven from the house. Again, remove the sin from your midst, yet at the same time the purpose was for the brother to be saved :that the spirit may be saved”. You cannot conclude that “leaven” referred to the brother because the church is urged to welcome him back once he had repented. By contrast when one says that “WL was not a true servant of God” this may be understood that his name is not in the book of Life or it may be understood that He was a false apostle. Are we judging the brother or his work? It is my position that there is a distinction and that to judge his work is reasonable, but we have no place judging the brother.

You also refer to Paul’s word in Romans
16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. Causing division is an action that can be judged, to say that someone doing this is not serving Christ is not equivalent to saying they are not a servant of Christ. It could be that they are deceived and think they are serving Christ.

I had an experience this weekend that I think is very illustrative. I was in a meeting with the principle when another teacher came in and said that a computer was missing. The computer was being used by one of my students. She was in his room making up missing work, but when she left he noticed the computer was missing. We viewed the images from the cameras and we could see that one minute before leaving the room she had the computer, and was the only student in the room along with the teacher and then she left and the computer was gone. The evidence was pretty clear that she had taken the computer. What was very clear was that there was no one else that could have possibly taken it and she was clearly the one responsible for it. So I was sitting in a room with the Dean who is responsible for school security and the teacher that was in the room who is responsible for the computer. I was there because I was her teacher, the term in this case is “Parenti en loci” I was there on behalf of her parents to do what I could to support her. So I suggested that she might have taken the computer to finish her work. The marking period ended the day she took the computer and she was currently failing, but I had told her that if she completed the work by Monday I would change her grade to a pass. Perhaps she doesn’t have computer access at home and the only way she could finish the work was to take the computer. As a result the principle gave her amnesty until Monday, if it turned out that she was trying to finish her work she was not going to make an issue of it.

The point is this, I don’t know the hearts, only Jesus does, and this can have a big influence on how someone is judged. Judging that the girl took the computer is not the same thing as judging that she is a thief. Also, deciding if someone merits amnesty or not is not for me to decide it is for the Principle (or in the case of WL it is for the Lord) to decide.

On this forum we may have saints who are concerned with “breaking the bonds” as you say, we may have those who are concerned with their own salvation, we may have those who are concerned with the salvation of others, but none of us is the judge, and it is not for us to issue judgements. We are not a jury deciding if WL was a true servant of God, that judgement is for Jesus alone.

ZNPaaneah · 11-21-2011, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

From ZNPaaneah's opening post:

Maybe before we go further, I would like to get some clarification from ZNP on what he means by the "extra step". Please be specific and point us to a specific post that you see as taking this extra step. If you have time, please point to the specific phrase or wording which you feel crosses the line. Please do your best to be as "factual" as possible, addressing the issue at hand and not the person. Feel free to shoot the message but not the messenger, unless the messenger happens to be me.... I'm holding myself out as fair game in this respect.

Admittedly, I feel that for the most part what is happening on the Forum is the judging of the truth, teachings and sin. Maybe there are some who have crossed the line and I have simply missed the post. Maybe I've seen it and look at it differently. In any event, as I have stated many times, I would like to see this Forum as a "safe and sane" place for all concerned to come and dialog, and I am deeply committed to this. As we all know, there is simply no other venue for current Local Church members to have open and honest dialog, or even to have access to information regarding the true history of Witness Lee and the Local Church.

Sure the wording was this "Whether [WL] was a true servant of God is now up for review". We have reviewed his teachings. We have discussed his sins. I also agree with you that we can judge him to be a "false apostle" and we have discussed this in great detail. I understand this may have been the intended meaning in "true servant of God". However, I feel this crosses the line and can also imply his standing before the Lord. I think the last two posts I have made explain in detail the distinction.

So although Paul told the Corinthians to "purge out the old leaven" and that he had "judged concerning him" I don't think he ever went over the line to "judge him". Rather he judged the sin. When he said that causing divisions is not serving Christ but their own bellies, he was judging the sin, not the sinner.

This may seem like a fine distinction, but you can't accurately judge the sinner unless you can know the heart, and we can't know the heart, only Jesus does.

UntoHim · 11-21-2011, 08:31 PM

ZNP,
So we can judge Witness Lee as a false apostle, but we've crossed the line when we question if he is a true servant of God? I see a disconnect here. Please explain the difference between the two and how it applies to our discussions.

I don't believe that your "purge out the old leaven" example is relevant to our discussions regarding Witness Lee, who claimed to be the sole person on earth speaking as God's oracle. The example you give from 1st Corinthians is regarding "a brother" in one particular local church. Again there is a disconnect. Should people look at (and yes judge) these two in the same manner?

ZNPaaneah · 11-22-2011, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

ZNP,
So we can judge Witness Lee as a false apostle, but we've crossed the line when we question if he is a true servant of God? I see a disconnect here. Please explain the difference between the two and how it applies to our discussions.

I don't believe that your "purge out the old leaven" example is relevant to our discussions regarding Witness Lee, who claimed to be the sole person on earth speaking as God's oracle. The example you give from 1st Corinthians is regarding "a brother" in one particular local church. Again there is a disconnect. Should people look at (and yes judge) these two in the same manner?

I did not raise the example of the brother in Corinth, that was raised by OBW who pointed out that the topic of judging is very broad and cannot be covered with the verse reference I gave from James 4:11-12. Ohio also pointed out that we are called to judge certain things so it is very difficult to distinguish. I have agreed with this point that this is a matter of the word of righteousness, which according to Hebrews, is not a simple matter.

The Bible charges us to judge the prophets. We should examine the prophecies and judge those that are false. Judging a statement or action is a matter of righteousness. However, we are not called to judge the person. The verse in James is very clear on this -- 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
4:12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

Paul also expresses the same sentiment when he says "who are you to judge another man's servant, to his own master he stands or falls".

Jesus also covers this when he says "Judge not lest you be judged for with what judgment you judge you shall be judged". This verse is probably handled more carelessly than any other verse in the Bible. First, this is not a prohibition against judging sin because we will be judged if we sin regardless of whether or not we judge sin. Also, not judging sin can also be a sin as some have pointed out concerning LSM and WL. Likewise this does not refer to choosing something, for example where to meet, since that would violate man's free will. What we are prohibited from doing is judging someone else. If I judge that WL was "not a true servant" then will I also be judged in the same way? If I argue that I have the right to say this because America is a free country, then won't I be judged for condemning WL for suing Christians since that also was his right as an American?

So there are two issues here: which principle is correct "Americans have the right to sue" or "Christians should not sue other Christians but rather choose to suffer loss"? To discuss this is a matter of righteousness. But to then take this to the next step and say because WL violated this or that principle therefore he was not a "true servant of God". That, to my understanding, is what Jesus prohibited, that is what James prohibited and that is what Paul prohibited. I have looked and so far I do not see any example in the NT where that line was crossed. That said, there are areas where they seemed to have walked right up to that line.

Cal · 11-22-2011, 07:35 AM

Judge has several meanings. Obviously when Jesus praised the church in Ephesus which had "put to the test" or "tried" those who call themselves apostles He was implying they had performed a kind of judgment.

We cannot dispense the final judgment on anyone. But to make any decision one renders a judgment in the broad sense.

I cannot judge anyone's heart as the Lord can. But I do have the right and even responsibility to decide whether I think someone is teaching truth.

I cannot judge Lee as a man, but I can come to some conclusion about his quality as a teacher and leader. Whether one calls that "judgment" or not is secondary. The fact is it does and must happen.

UntoHim · 11-22-2011, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

...Judging a statement or action is a matter of righteousness. However, we are not called to judge the person.

I noticed you skipped over and never addressed my point about how the apostle Paul held himself out as an example, not just in his teaching, but also in IN HIS MANNER AND MODE OF LIVING, IN OTHER WORDS HIS PERSON.

This is very simple. This is not complicated. Witness Lee held himself out as "an apostle of the first order". He and his followers held him up as "THE wise master builder". He was likened as the one general with the one sounding of the trumpet for the whole earth. He did everything accept declare that he was the reincarnation of the apostle Paul (although he came close to that in that in that infamous elders meeting in 1988) This is not some little brother within a single local church who fell into sin. This man affected the lives of tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of God's people, over a half century on nearly every continent.

Witness Lee is now dead. He will face the Lord on that day just as all believers will. He will answer for all his words and actions just as all believers will. He will receive his just rewards from the Lord just as all believers will. Nothing that we say here on this public forum is going to change this, nothing that we say is going to add or detract when he stands before the Lord on that day. However………..

Witness Lee, in his wake, has left a sizable group of churches which still refer to themselves as “The Lord’s Recovery”. The leadership of this group still, to this very day, refers to Witness Lee as the one apostle with the one ministry for the age. They still, to this very day, ascribe to him the things I described above, and even worse.

The Local Church is actively and aggressively seeking new membership in their movement. I believe that people need to know about the real Witness Lee and the real history of the Local Church movement. Current and former members deserve to know. Family members of current and former members deserve to know. People, especially young people and new Christians who are being courted by current members, deserve to know. The Christian public in general deserves to know.

Ohio · 11-22-2011, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Judge has several meanings. I cannot judge anyone's heart as the Lord can. But I do have the right and even responsibility to decide whether I think someone is teaching truth.

Some random thoughts ...

Judges in our judicial system don't even like to refer to themselves as "I am the judge here," instead they prefer to use the phrase "this court ..." Judges can only judge actions. Only the Lord can judge the hearts of man. Judges cannot make law, rather they interpret the law and apply it. The true Judge has made the law, and has assigned men on earth to apply it.

We as Christians must discern the teachings and actions of others. Many of us in the LC's put far more trust in our LC leaders that we should have, believing that they were governed singularly by the scriptural mandate "to give account of your soul." I have witnessed and heard stories of elders being publicly chastised for placing the care of their flock above the demands of LC workers, both in Anaheim and Cleveland.

One area where posters can "cross the line" as ZNP has recently stated, is to heap condemnation on WL or other leaders. Courts have jurors that determine guilt, witnesses to reveal the facts, and counselors to establish the facts, but none of these assigns judgment. In this sense, posters can be witnesses, counselors, and jurors, but not judges.

I Cor 5 is a case where it appears like Paul was judging a man for sin which was damaging the assembly. Paul assumed responsibility that should have been the elders. He even delivered the man to Satan. Later, following a time of repentance in which the sin was stopped, Paul encouraged the church to receive the offender back into fellowship.

Personally, I believe most of what the Lord was referring to when He said "judge not lest you be judged," was all those petty condemnations which arise in our heart towards others. Happened to me a million times. Most are rooted in fleshly fickle feelings and need to be taken to the cross. Included here are those gossips and backstabbing suspicions which arise from those fleshly thoughts. These also need to be deposited at the closest cross.

Cal · 11-22-2011, 10:30 AM

To go back to the original title of the thread, I think whether people receive or reject another's ministry is entirely up to them and their consciences.

And I think what OBW is saying is that according to his assessment he can reject WL's ministry because he sees so many faults with both it and the way WL operated that for him he sees no way to reconcile the whole mess. That's his recommendation of the situation to readers of this board.

(And, by the way, people have the right to reject OBW's ministry for the very same reasons.)

-----

The argument which some are making that OBW rejects WL's ministry therefore OBW must be rejecting things like justification by faith is simply a stupid argument. I wouldn't register for the board either if that's the best I had to offer.

-----

The idea that any Christian can have the attitude of "Hey, I have a ministry, and the rest of you have to receive it" is false. No one has the right, including WL, to expect anyone to receive his or her ministry.

I would hope what I share in a ministerial fashion is acceptable by other believers. But whether they accept it or not is not something I should expect. For example, I might have a lot of good teachings to share, but I might be proud. Others might detect that and be less receptive of me because of that. It's my job to work on myself to be a good presenter of my ministry. But I can't go around being indignant because I'm not received. That's just the wrong approach. It doesn't mean I accept wholesale people's assessment of me, but it does mean I at least consider it as possible constructive criticism.

-----

The whole "not a true servant of the Lord" argument is pointless because it all depends on what one means by a "true servant of the Lord." We throw around these phrases and we never define what they mean.

We say things like "so-and-so is a true servant of the Lord" as kind of general compliment. That's probably as far as we should take the use of that label. We say someone is a "really good Christian," and the like. But we probably shouldn't say someone is a "really bad Christian," should we? I wouldn't think so.

ZNPaaneah · 11-22-2011, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I noticed you skipped over and never addressed my point about how the apostle Paul held himself out as an example, not just in his teaching, but also in IN HIS MANNER AND MODE OF LIVING, IN OTHER WORDS HIS PERSON.

I did not skip this. I said that the prohibition on judging cannot refer to choosing because that would violate our free will. Imitating Paul's life and example is a matter of our choosing what is excellent. Paul also said "that it is a small thing to me if I am judged by you, I don't even judge myself, rather I am judged by the Lord".

This is a difficult discussion if we cannot clearly define the terms.

ZNPaaneah · 11-22-2011, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I noticed you skipped over and never addressed my point about how the apostle Paul held himself out as an example, not just in his teaching, but also in IN HIS MANNER AND MODE OF LIVING, IN OTHER WORDS HIS PERSON.

This is very simple. This is not complicated. Witness Lee held himself out as "an apostle of the first order". He and his followers held him up as "THE wise master builder". He was likened as the one general with the one sounding of the trumpet for the whole earth. He did everything accept declare that he was the reincarnation of the apostle Paul (although he came close to that in that in that infamous elders meeting in 1988) This is not some little brother within a single local church who fell into sin. This man affected the lives of tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of God's people, over a half century on nearly every continent.

Witness Lee is now dead. He will face the Lord on that day just as all believers will. He will answer for all his words and actions just as all believers will. He will receive his just rewards from the Lord just as all believers will. Nothing that we say here on this public forum is going to change this, nothing that we say is going to add or detract when he stands before the Lord on that day. However………..

Witness Lee, in his wake, has left a sizable group of churches which still refer to themselves as “The Lord’s Recovery”. The leadership of this group still, to this very day, refers to Witness Lee as the one apostle with the one ministry for the age. They still, to this very day, ascribe to him the things I described above, and even worse.

The Local Church is actively and aggressively seeking new membership in their movement. I believe that people need to know about the real Witness Lee and the real history of the Local Church movement. Current and former members deserve to know. Family members of current and former members deserve to know. People, especially young people and new Christians who are being courted by current members, deserve to know. The Christian public in general deserves to know.

I agree. That is why I have contributed to this and other forums. However, like Paul, I think we should carry out this commission by setting ourselves forth as an example, not only in teaching but also in the way we conduct ourselves. This is why I mentioned the example of Michael contending with Satan for the body of Moses. He refused to rebuke Satan directly but said "the Lord rebuke thee". Even though Satan clearly deserves to be rebuked, it is not Michael's place to do that, but the Lord's.

Likewise we also do have the position and place to contend for righteousness, but we don't have the position to judge our brother. It is that simple. Judge teachings, yes. Judge sins, yes. Judge unrighteousness, yes. Especially when you consider that one of the great errors of the LRC and WL was their willingness to judge brothers and sisters.

Cal · 11-22-2011, 11:01 AM

Another problem is the confusion produced when referring to someone's ministry. Just what is being referred to? The black and white teachings? The way they were presented? The personality and attitude of the minister? How he or she conducted business? All these come into play when talking about a ministry. It's not just the teachings. Two ministers can share similar teachings and give very distinct impressions.

In the case of WL, however, there was more involved. Most ministers simply teach and allow you to make up your own mind whether to receive their teaching. WL demanded much more than that. He expected people to treat him like "the minister of the age." That alone for many is a serious red flag.

ZNPaaneah · 11-22-2011, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

The whole "not a true servant of the Lord" argument is pointless because it all depends on what one means by a "true servant of the Lord." We throw around these phrases and we never define what they mean.

We say things like "so-and-so is a true servant of the Lord" as kind of general compliment. That's probably as far as we should take the use of that label. We say someone is a "really good Christian," and the like. But we probably shouldn't say someone is a "really bad Christian," should we? I wouldn't think so.

This is the other side, judging also includes the aspect of judging that "WL is the MOTA" etc. We had a discussion on "apostles" and whether they still exist. There was a range of agreement on this topic, some were more willing to accept that we still have apostles, others were not, fair enough. But even if your understanding of the word differs on this, wouldn't you agree that you are prohibited from judging that any particular man is the "MOTA"?

After all, didn't that and other discussions conclude that many former members felt guilty for judging that WL was the MOTA, or that the LRC was an elite group of Christians, or that Christianity was fallen. When the Lord said "judge not lest you be judged" isn't that what he was referring to?

Ohio · 11-22-2011, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Another problem is the confusion produced when referring to someone's ministry. Just what is being referred to? The black and white teachings? The way they were presented? The personality and attitude of the minister? How he or she conducted business? All these come into play when talking about a ministry. It's not just the teachings. Two ministers can share similar teachings and give very distinct impressions.

In the case of WL, however, there was more involved. Most ministers simply teach and allow you to make up your own mind whether to receive their teaching. WL demanded much more than that. He expected people to treat him like "the minister of the age." That alone for many is a serious red flag.

Perhaps the most significant of these was how WL directed other workers and elders.

ZNPaaneah · 11-22-2011, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Another problem is the confusion produced when referring to someone's ministry. Just what is being referred to? The black and white teachings? The way they were presented? The personality and attitude of the minister? How he or she conducted business? All these come into play when talking about a ministry. It's not just the teachings. Two ministers can share similar teachings and give very distinct impressions.

In the case of WL, however, there was more involved. Most ministers simply teach and allow you to make up your own mind whether to receive their teaching. WL demanded much more than that. He expected people to treat him like "the minister of the age." That alone for many is a serious red flag.

I would define their "ministry" as their work. It implies that this is work done as a servant of the Lord, and this can include the way in which you conduct your life. For example, placing PL in charge of LSM would be part of WL's ministry, even if he never taught or published anything regarding this decision. Likewise, private discussions with JI, AK and others on this issue would also be part of his ministry.

11-22-2011, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

The argument which some are making that OBW rejects WL's ministry therefore OBW must be rejecting things like justification by faith is simply a stupid argument. I wouldn't register for the board either if that's the best I had to offer.

I assume this sophomoric counter argument is meant for me so thanks for the opportunity to respond. Yet you are truly straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

In another thread you turn a complete blind eye to a poster who claimed that WL was not "clean" because of his sins therefore his ministry should be discarded too. The premise of that argument is even worse than the one OBW made because that argument suggests that the blood of Christ is not efficacious for that brother (WL). What poster has a right to make such a declaration? None. Yet it is part and parcel to the attitudes expressed in this forum such as yours where people seat themselves in the judgment seat reserved for Christ and Christ alone.

You let that camel slip right down without so much as hiccup.

Cassidy

Cal · 11-22-2011, 12:15 PM

When Jesus prohibits judging in Matt 7, he does so in the sense of our acting as if we are above the particular failing we cite in another. You have to read it in context. He says in effect that if you judge someone you are saying that others can look for the same failing in you. He says it is a kind of blindness to say someone else has a sin and to not even consider that you might be doing the same thing yourself. This is consistent with Romans 2:1-3.

He immediately goes on to say do not give pearls to swine. But how can you fulfill that commandment without judging who is a swine and who isn't?!

In John 7:24, Jesus commands us to judge righteously. He does not tell us there wholesale not to judge. Rather he tells us to judge, just so as we do so righteously.

Taken as a whole, Jesus is not prohibiting all judging in Matt 7, just self-righteous judging.

Matt 7
1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you look at 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,’ and behold, the log is 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 what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

John 7
23 If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses will not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath? 24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”

Cal · 11-22-2011, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is the other side, judging also includes the aspect of judging that "WL is the MOTA" etc. We had a discussion on "apostles" and whether they still exist. There was a range of agreement on this topic, some were more willing to accept that we still have apostles, others were not, fair enough. But even if your understanding of the word differs on this, wouldn't you agree that you are prohibited from judging that any particular man is the "MOTA"?

After all, didn't that and other discussions conclude that many former members felt guilty for judging that WL was the MOTA, or that the LRC was an elite group of Christians, or that Christianity was fallen. When the Lord said "judge not lest you be judged" isn't that what he was referring to?

I think you are carrying the "not judging" thing too far. Jesus tells us to judge righteously (John 7:24).

The reason it is wrong to judge that WL was the MOTA is because there is no possible way anyone could know he is such a thing. I think the righteous judgment in that case would be "I don't know because I cannot know."

OBW · 11-22-2011, 03:28 PM

The whole problem here is that you are making a huge presumption that to judge the nature of what we can see is somehow to be "speaking evil."

Quote:

The point is this, I don’t know the hearts, only Jesus does, and this can have a big influence on how someone is judged. Judging that the girl took the computer is not the same thing as judging that she is a thief. Also, deciding if someone merits amnesty or not is not for me to decide it is for the Principle (or in the case of WL it is for the Lord) to decide.

And no one has suggested that we must know the heart. The evidence is in the actions. If there are certain signs, Paul suggested that rejection was acceptable, and even insisted upon.

You are claiming that pointing to strong evidence is equivalent to speaking evil and therefore cannot be. This is the kind of speaking that allowed Benson, Ray, Lee, Kangas, and so many others to declare that anyone who exposes the wrongs of their spiritual superiors (most notably Lee or any of the upper echelons) is guilty no matter how right they are.

It simply falls back under that heinous rule of "right and wrong do not matter, only the spirit." Well, the "spirit" they are speaking of is not the one that Paul ever spoke of. It is something else. It is some code for "spiritual authorities are exempt from righteousness." And to suggest otherwise is to join them.

Quote:

Off Topic? The topic is defined in the first post, it is the comment in red. You are not the topic. What you are doing and what you desire to do is completely irrelevant to this thread.

Funny way to argue with me. I was responding to a post of yours other than the first one. You didn't respond to me, but to something else. It makes your response "off topic" relative to what I was speaking of. It was more truly a strawman — not necessarily for advantage of defeating it and appearing to defeat may actual argument. But it was a change of the subject. Willful or not. Underhanded or not. You dodged the subject.

And every bit of this is relevant to whether you can dismiss Lee's ministry. According to Paul, it is quite essential that those kinds of things be considered. You, along with others, were so strong for the adherence to the qualifications for elders, yet you do not even require those for the source of your teachings. You do not require that your teacher(s) at least admit their faults and repent when they are found in sin. And take at least some time out if not step aside altogether. Instead, they are clothed in an impenetrable shield that makes all faults, great or small, irrelevant. Why? Because they brought a bunch of teachings to us that made us feel superior? If we dismiss the source of our superiority, we will fall in our own eyes.

It would be a great fall. But again, only in our own eyes. We are the only ones who ever thought we were so much because of those teachings. And even if we have rejected the superiority, if we cling to the erroneous teachings, we know that they will not be found anywhere else, so we continue to cling to the source.

It does seem a dichotomy to declare that we are all fallen and then note that we accept the teachings of many fallen teachers. But those teachers are not declaring their folly to be righteous, their business to be no one's but their own. Yet their business controls the very life of the churches it touches. How can that only be Lee's own business? The very position reeks of hypocrisy. If it affects the churches by requirement, then it is the business of every member of those churches.

So a man who puts an openly immoral man in charge of the affairs of those churches through a "ministry office" is to be allowed to do so and any comment about it declared to be "evil"? And how is this so important? That office has directed that its churches must cease certain meetings of the church, and instead have meetings for the purpose of effectively reading through materials that must be bought from the ministry. It is making God's house a house of merchandise. A personal piggy bank. I don't fault the churches for having book sales, even of LSM books. I fault the LSM for forcing itself upon the churches and requiring their payments. It is a variant on the sale of indulgences.

Complain about this being "off topic" if you will. It is sound reason for rejecting the ministry of Lee.

And you can reject the ministry of Lee, and his "service" to the churches, without denying him a place among the redeemed. And without speaking evil of him.

But speaking evil of him is really about speaking of him in a manner that would be blaspheme if said of God. Blaspheme is to say something knowingly untrue about God as a slight against his character. Speaking the truth is not blaspheme. (And there are people these days that are sure that God cannot be the God that wiped out all but 8 people in a flood. So they either have to say that is a misunderstanding of God written into "scripture" by men, or that God is unjust. Either way is to misrepresent God.) We are not misrepresenting Lee. We are telling it like it is. That is not evil.

OBW · 11-22-2011, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But even if your understanding of the word differs on this, wouldn't you agree that you are prohibited from judging that any particular man is the "MOTA"?

How do you arrive at the notion that we have no right, or even responsibility, to judge whether a person actually is what he claims to be, especially if he is asserting a claim of authority upon others?

You have created a universe in which those who dare to make a claim are, by default, not subject to questioning.

"You don't question God!" "I'm just trying to find out why God needs a Starship."

That may seem a ridiculous example. But if we cannot judge for ourselves whether any particular person is a MOTA, then we are stuck with a universe in which every nut who opens his mouth in a way that is attractive will be able to do anything they want. I recall Max R making fun of the rash of "Yogis" [sic] coming out in the late 70s. He noted that all they had to do was say "Up is up. Down is down. The hands of the clock go 'round and 'round" and they would have a following. You now would declare that no one has any right to question their veracity.

And if we are misunderstanding you, then you really need to restate a few of these lines because several of us are having problems with them. We failed to stand up when more ridiculous things than this were said by Lee back in the 60s and 70s and look what it got us.

OBW · 11-22-2011, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

The premise of that argument is even worse than the one OBW made because that argument suggests that the blood of Christ is not efficacious for that brother (WL).

The blood of Christ is very efficacious, even for Lee. But as he has sinned openly against the flock, he is also required to repent to the flock. Failure there removes his "right" to any claim of "teacher." Just ask Paul. MOTA is right out.

OBW · 11-22-2011, 04:24 PM

I'm going to make one last comment for the day. Be sure to read it all before you (whoever) comment. Don't accuse me of something that I don't say, especially where I make it clear what I am and/or am not saying.

I believe that there are requirements on those who teach us. Those requirements are not so great that the very existence of human frailty would reject anyone actually of the human race. But they are still very real. Just like the qualifications for elder and deacon, there are qualifications for anyone who is teaching. And depending on what kind of teaching, the level of qualifications increases. (But that is irrelevant for this post.)

(I note that Lee and his successors constantly demean virtually all teachers outside of the LRC. They are all "clergy" which is "bad." But if anyone says anything about any of them, especially Lee (even after his death), they are subject to excommunication. So the playing field for determining qualifications for leadership is far from level. The only leaders of the church are declared to be in the LRC. All those others are leaders of harlots.)

But let's look at what scripture provides on the subject.

Unfortunately, the qualifications to be a teacher are not gathered together as nicely as Paul did for elders and deacons. So we have to find different passages and piece them together.

Stop those who are teaching "differently." Who are teaching endless genealogies and other things that just increase arguments and strive. (And I would argue that soliloquies about what it means to be "the one" bringing "the ministry" is a kind of genealogy that leads to identification of a "MOTA," and "oracle," or even an "acting god.")

Reject those that cause divisions. Those that denigrate your brothers and sisters in Christ as demonic, satanic, and even the Whore of Babylon.

Note those that keep putting the law on you. Who require circumcision, a standing order for LSM books, and a proper respect for "our brother, Witness Lee."

It may not always be our place to decide whether teachings are good or bad (stubble or precious stones). But when we see it, we shouldn't just sit there and take it.

But there is no place in scripture that suggests that we are to simply accept every Tom, Dick, and Harry that comes along with a claim of revelation. It almost seems as if the thrust of those defending the ministry of Lee are determined that because they like some of the things he said, the evidence that he was not what he claimed to be should be overlooked. And further, anyone who disagrees is going against scripture to do so.

And for every one who is taking one of these positions — any variant — I suggest that you should be stuck with Lee, Benny Hinn, Jim Baaker, Herbert W. Armstrong, Joseph Smith, Thomas Campbell, William Miller, Harold Campings, Jimmy Swaggert, Brian McLaren, etc.

We are not charged to slander any of these men. Or to misrepresent the things they taught or said. But we are, at a minimum, not refrained from determining whether the teachings of any of these men, or of any others you want to include in the mix, are sound.

And if you read Paul's comments on the subject, there is not only the watchfulness concerning proper teachings, but of open, unrepentant character flaws that evidence a person not right before God in a manner sufficient to allow them as a teacher. Of those unrepentant persons, I find Lee to be among them. And I also find significant flaw in his teachings. I cannot say which is the cause of the other. But they do seem to go hand-in-hand.

But some are determined that if he ever said a true thing, then he is to be left to fleece the flock. He can no longer do that. (I am not thankful for his death, just noting that due to it, there is nothing new going on there.) But others continue to push is faulty teachings. And they do it in a more dictatorial manner than even Lee did. Yet it is an outgrowth of Lee's teachings. It is the logical progression of teachings that make position and doctrine trump obedience and righteousness. That suggest that a "spiritual authority" should not submit to any accusation. Interesting that this is essentially Nee's teaching. At least he didn't hide behind it. That was what Lee did. Then his successors drove a truck through it.

ZNPaaneah · 11-22-2011, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

The whole problem here is that you are making a huge presumption that to judge the nature of what we can see is somehow to be "speaking evil."
And no one has suggested that we must know the heart. The evidence is in the actions. If there are certain signs, Paul suggested that rejection was acceptable, and even insisted upon.

Do you read what has been written? I am looking at verses that tell us not to judge and am trying to make a distinction between what we are to judge and what we are not to judge. If you can explain James, and Paul and Jesus better, by all means do so. James talks about speaking evil and judging the brothers. I did not presume this, it is in the Bible. The question is what does this mean?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

You are claiming that pointing to strong evidence is equivalent to speaking evil and therefore cannot be. This is the kind of speaking that allowed Benson, Ray, Lee, Kangas, and so many others to declare that anyone who exposes the wrongs of their spiritual superiors (most notably Lee or any of the upper echelons) is guilty no matter how right they are.

Once again this is utterly false. Where did I make such a claim. I have repeatedly said that based on my understanding of the Bible we are to judge sin. My point in the story about the girl is that pointing to the photographic evidence, the "strong evidence" you refer to, is fine. Even judging that the girl took the computer is also fine. I have no issue with the exposing of the wrong doing that was done. My issue is to take the next step of judging that the girl is a thief, or judging that the girl deserves amnesty. I have been involved in discussions of the evidence concerning WL's sins as well as others. Please back up your statement that "I am claiming that pointing to strong evidence is equivalent to speaking evil".

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

It simply falls back under that heinous rule of "right and wrong do not matter, only the spirit." Well, the "spirit" they are speaking of is not the one that Paul ever spoke of. It is something else. It is some code for "spiritual authorities are exempt from righteousness." And to suggest otherwise is to join them.

No it doesn't. I have agreed with UntoHim that we are called to judge if the apostles or prophets are false. I reconcile this with James and Paul and Jesus by saying that judging actions is something we are called to do, but judging the hearts is not. When did I ever make a distinction that "spiritual authorities are exempt from righteousness"? You put that in quotes, who are you quoting? I never said this, I never implied this, to say that I did is a lie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Funny way to argue with me. I was responding to a post of yours other than the first one. You didn't respond to me, but to something else. It makes your response "off topic" relative to what I was speaking of. It was more truly a strawman — not necessarily for advantage of defeating it and appearing to defeat may actual argument. But it was a change of the subject. Willful or not. Underhanded or not. You dodged the subject.

I have no idea what post you are referring to. What it means is that your posts are impossible to follow or decipher.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

And every bit of this is relevant to whether you can dismiss Lee's ministry. According to Paul, it is quite essential that those kinds of things be considered. You, along with others, were so strong for the adherence to the qualifications for elders, yet you do not even require those for the source of your teachings. You do not require that your teacher(s) at least admit their faults and repent when they are found in sin. And take at least some time out if not step aside altogether. Instead, they are clothed in an impenetrable shield that makes all faults, great or small, irrelevant. Why? Because they brought a bunch of teachings to us that made us feel superior? If we dismiss the source of our superiority, we will fall in our own eyes.

What are you talking about? This is gibberish. "You don't require that your teacher(s) at least admit their faults and repent when they are found in sin." When did I say this? Based on what are you making this allegation. This post is absurd gibberish. You have ascribed beliefs to me that I don't have nor have I ever made. They are "clothed with an impenetrable shield that makes all faults, great or small, irrelevant." Where do you get this garbage, I never said any such thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

It would be a great fall. But again, only in our own eyes. We are the only ones who ever thought we were so much because of those teachings. And even if we have rejected the superiority, if we cling to the erroneous teachings, we know that they will not be found anywhere else, so we continue to cling to the source.

It does seem a dichotomy to declare that we are all fallen and then note that we accept the teachings of many fallen teachers. But those teachers are not declaring their folly to be righteous, their business to be no one's but their own. Yet their business controls the very life of the churches it touches. How can that only be Lee's own business? The very position reeks of hypocrisy. If it affects the churches by requirement, then it is the business of every member of those churches.

So then expose the hypocrisy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

So a man who puts an openly immoral man in charge of the affairs of those churches through a "ministry office" is to be allowed to do so and any comment about it declared to be "evil"?

Who has said this? If these are the facts, and they are public knowledge, by all means "judge the sin". I have spoken plainly and consistently. There is no basis whatsoever to twist my words to say what you are saying. James is the one who said not to speak evil of a brother, if you have a problem with that verse take it up with James, not me. There are many examples in the NT of evil doers being exposed. I have referred to several, I have acknowledged them, and I have also done the same in my participation on this and other forums.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

And how is this so important? That office has directed that its churches must cease certain meetings of the church, and instead have meetings for the purpose of effectively reading through materials that must be bought from the ministry. It is making God's house a house of merchandise. A personal piggy bank. I don't fault the churches for having book sales, even of LSM books. I fault the LSM for forcing itself upon the churches and requiring their payments. It is a variant on the sale of indulgences.

Complain about this being "off topic" if you will. It is sound reason for rejecting the ministry of Lee.

And you can reject the ministry of Lee, and his "service" to the churches, without denying him a place among the redeemed. And without speaking evil of him.

But speaking evil of him is really about speaking of him in a manner that would be blaspheme if said of God. Blaspheme is to say something knowingly untrue about God as a slight against his character. Speaking the truth is not blaspheme. (And there are people these days that are sure that God cannot be the God that wiped out all but 8 people in a flood. So they either have to say that is a misunderstanding of God written into "scripture" by men, or that God is unjust. Either way is to misrepresent God.) We are not misrepresenting Lee. We are telling it like it is. That is not evil.

You have spoken many things in here that are untrue concerning me. I would never take your word about anyone. This post is slanderous.

ZNPaaneah · 11-22-2011, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

How do you arrive at the notion that we have no right, or even responsibility, to judge whether a person actually is what he claims to be, especially if he is asserting a claim of authority upon others?

You have created a universe in which those who dare to make a claim are, by default, not subject to questioning.

"You don't question God!" "I'm just trying to find out why God needs a Starship."

That may seem a ridiculous example. But if we cannot judge for ourselves whether any particular person is a MOTA, then we are stuck with a universe in which every nut who opens his mouth in a way that is attractive will be able to do anything they want. I recall Max R making fun of the rash of "Yogis" [sic] coming out in the late 70s. He noted that all they had to do was say "Up is up. Down is down. The hands of the clock go 'round and 'round" and they would have a following. You now would declare that no one has any right to question their veracity.

And if we are misunderstanding you, then you really need to restate a few of these lines because several of us are having problems with them. We failed to stand up when more ridiculous things than this were said by Lee back in the 60s and 70s and look what it got us.

Igzy said "there is no possible way to know he is such a thing" I was responding to this. My point is the word "judge" does not have to refer to a negative judgment. My point was that when Jesus said "judge not lest you be judged" we usually take that to mean "don't think evil of someone else" but it could also mean "don't think that someone else is "the MOTA" either". I then pointed out that many on this and other forums have expressed regret or even guilt that they accepted some of these judgments while in the LRC. So, as a result of judging that WL was the MOTA or that the LRC is some kind of elite group of Christians they also are feeling that they are getting judged with the same judgement with which they judged.

ZNPaaneah · 11-23-2011, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Z,
It's even worse than that.
A poster that Witness Lee was "not clean" thereby denying the power of the precious blood of Christ. It is one thing to reject a man's ministry, but it is entirely shocking to hear this poster reject the most fundamental truth of the christian faith.
Cassidy

I believe you are referring to Post #136 in the thread on the ground of the church. Particularly to this line:

The word of God came to us through holy men, cleansed men, such as David and Moses.

Witness Lee was not clean.

I was under the impression that this had been edited out by the poster, but have since seen that it hasn't. Since then I have seen Igzy and OBW's reference to this and read their comments.

I am also grieved by this. When looking at the sins committed by the "holy men" of the Bible I feel that WL's sins as described on this forum are on par with them. I do not see them as categorically more heinous (i.e. the sin for which there is no forgiveness as mentioned by Jesus). I understand OBW's point that when you sin before all you need to confess before all. However I also agree with you that the final analysis on who is and is not clean is up to the Lord.

But, looking at all three posts, I don't see that anyone has denied that the blood cleanses our sins.

For example, I have repeatedly asked OBW to apologize for posts he has made, and this has gone on for months. Has he ever done that? No. Were the posts made before all? Yes. By his own admission shouldn't he therefore apologize before all? Yes. I feel I have the right to point these out, but I don't have the right to then say "he is not clean". That is for the Lord to judge.

OBW · 11-23-2011, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My point was that when Jesus said "judge not lest you be judged" we usually take that to mean "don't think evil of someone else" but it could also mean "don't think that someone else is "the MOTA" either".

The very implication of the term "judge" is to render a verdict or decision on some aspect of the character of a person, or of a teaching. And you seemed very clearly to be suggesting that the verses you were pointing to said we should not only not judge anyone, but also not even bother considering whether they really were what they claimed to be.

When it says judge not or you will be judged, it is speaking in worldly terms in which those who render a judgment put themselves under the microscope. Someone who is unrighteous yet rendering judgment will find their existence scrutinized. It is, unfortunately, a kind of "shoot the messenger" approach. But when it comes to claims of the righteousness of someone else, it is not unexpected.

But everyone is judged in the end, so it cannot be talking about that judgment. And it should be understood that we are not in the position to render the ultimate judgment.

So if you want to suggest that we need to understand what it means to judge, and what kind of judgment is allowable — even expected — and what kind is reserved for God, throwing out one passage is pointless. Go find them all. Lay them out together. Let us ponder the similarities and differences and see if there is order in where and how we should judge, where and how we should be careful, and what is not ours.

This would be much better than this nonsense of reading James as saying that judging is speaking evil (it does not say that). Speaking evil may come out of judging. It could come out of a lack of discernment (not judging). In fact, the very exercise of discernment is a form of judging. It is incumbent upon us to exercise discernment. And when we say "discernment of spirits," could that be as much about the force, character, etc., of the person behind the situation, teachings, etc., as it is about "spirits," suggesting angels or demons, Satan or God?

Paul named a few to avoid. There were different reasons. There was Jannes and Jambres, and Hymenaous and Phyletus (I probably spelled those horribly). I doubt those were just ordinary brothers. They were asserting some kind of authority or position, or somehow making themselves a problem to either a specific church or some churches in general (not stated). Paul said to beware of people like them. not just those specific ones. If we are to beware of people like them, then we need to discern (judge) whether they are, in fact, like those. So it is not just Paul's place to make a judgment and everyone else just accept and follow.

It may rightly be that not every one of us has the clear discernment to make such a judgment. But if you persist in attacking the very charge to consider it, that seems more contrary to scripture than in at least trying to get it right by using discernment and judging. My observations may not be the end-all of the discussion. But if someone dismisses them by saying I shouldn't even think about it or say it out loud, then Paul's charge to exercise discernment is undermined. It may be that discussion with others (one of those Acts 15 councils?) could prove me wrong. But to simply say I shouldn't attempt to say it or think it is just plain wrong. Even scripturally wrong.

No. It is not my place to judge anyone's eternal position. Or even attempt to declare what their reward (or punishment if you buy Lee's thinking) will be. Yet to consider that a particular path may lead to a certain outcome may be quite sobering. It may be that the thought that someone is "turned over to Satan" for a time is very fruitful to how others consider their more hidden sins.

Lee thought his sin was hidden. At least enough that he could make its stain go away by lying about those who saw the sin and brought the charge to him. It would seem that one brought the charge to him. Then two or three as witnesses. And the obvious problem was brought to the church. PL was excommunicated (although Lee stepped in and reversed the order for a time (years?)) and the church very temporarily freed from the bondage of a "ministry office" run by an immoral person. Then there was a conference in which Lies were told about those who brought the report about PL. It was transformed into something else. A three-ring circus in which everything became about ambition to overthrow Lee. PL was not mentioned. Only Anaheim knew better. But even too many of them thought MOTA position (even without that term yet on the table) covered all sins. I'm surprised that Anaheim survived as a church after that. They knew what was going on. Did they just move more people from other places to shore up the ranks of the faithful? The ones who put their fingers in their ears and allowed Jannes and Jambres to continue?

It is my assertion that Lee's businesses, even the LSM, was a way to earn money off the backs of the churches. And even the LSM damaged the churches. It cannot be separated from Lee. Lee the minister and LSM, the ministry of Lee, are not two different things. One brought "high peaks" while the other controlled and even damaged churches. I discern too many of the "high peaks" to be false teachings. So I conclude that there is a problem with Lee, the teacher, not just PL, the "ministry office" in Lee's personal ministry.

Take exception to the things I lay out as evidence. These are things brought out by multiple witnesses. It is not just my rant.

Don't declare that no one should judge the situation. I think Paul has strongly said otherwise. As has Jesus. Don't pull out that hollow "judge not another man's servant" dodge. It doesn't fit.

seeking1 · 11-23-2011, 07:33 AM

"I discern too many of the "high peaks" to be false teachings."

OBW, would you mind elaborating on what teachings you're referring to. Not that I disagree, but I'd just like to know.

I know the whole "baby w/ the bath water" thing has probably been beaten to death but, it's something that I've been contemplating lately. If you follow the "a little leaven" line of reasoning, then wouldn't the whole "lump" of Lee be leavened?

Cal · 11-23-2011, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Igzy said "there is no possible way to know he is such a thing" I was responding to this. My point is the word "judge" does not have to refer to a negative judgment. My point was that when Jesus said "judge not lest you be judged" we usually take that to mean "don't think evil of someone else" but it could also mean "don't think that someone else is "the MOTA" either". I then pointed out that many on this and other forums have expressed regret or even guilt that they accepted some of these judgments while in the LRC. So, as a result of judging that WL was the MOTA or that the LRC is some kind of elite group of Christians they also are feeling that they are getting judged with the same judgement with which they judged.

This is what I thought you meant. But I don't agree that the "judge not" passage in Matt 7 applies to it. That passage is talking about self-righteous judgment, not judgment that is impossible to make.

Suppose a woman is a prostitute and I have certain knowledge that she is. If I say "that dirty whore" in a self-righteous manner, then that is what the Lord is addressing in Matt 7.

But if I don't have certain knowledge of her and I say "that woman is a prostitute" that's not the judging Matt 7 is talking about. That's more like bearing false witness. Because I'm saying something is true that I don't for certain know is true. Saying WL is the MOTA falls into that category, I would think.

Like I said, I think you are interpreting Matt 7 too broadly. The Lord says in other places that we need to judge in certain cases.

OBW · 11-23-2011, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I believe you are referring to Post #136 in the thread on the ground of the church. Particularly to this line:

The word of God came to us through holy men, cleansed men, such as David and Moses.

Witness Lee was not clean.

I was under the impression that this had been edited out by the poster, but have since seen that it hasn't. Since then I have seen Igzy and OBW's reference to this and read their comments.

I am also grieved by this. When looking at the sins committed by the "holy men" of the Bible I feel that WL's sins as described on this forum are on par with them. I do not see them as categorically more heinous (i.e. the sin for which there is no forgiveness as mentioned by Jesus). I understand OBW's point that when you sin before all you need to confess before all. However I also agree with you that the final analysis on who is and is not clean is up to the Lord.

But, looking at all three posts, I don't see that anyone has denied that the blood cleanses our sins.

For example, I have repeatedly asked OBW to apologize for posts he has made, and this has gone on for months. Has he ever done that? No. Were the posts made before all? Yes. By his own admission shouldn't he therefore apologize before all? Yes. I feel I have the right to point these out, but I don't have the right to then say "he is not clean". That is for the Lord to judge.

Apologize for what? For disagreeing with your position? Are you unable to separate yourself from the things you say?

You constantly assert that I am calling you a liar for suggesting a strawman argument. You ignore that I do not suggest that it is intentional. Even state that I only note that you are not responding to the point I made, but to something else. Whether intentional or not, since it stands in for my actual point, it is a strawman. I think you will find every one of them to be in that nature. But if you become too "one" with your argument, it is too easy to consider that an attack on the argument is a personal attack.

And since my observations had been that you were quite intelligent, probably even more so than myself, I began to find so many of the misdirects to be stacking up as suggesting that you didn't really want to deal with my point, but to simply make your own.

If that is the case, then say so. Just say you don't care what I say. I won't waste my time on someone who is intending to dismiss me.

But I have mostly presumed otherwise. And for long periods of time. The one or two times that I actually "called you out" you have declared that I have misread you. One time declaring that you didn't have time yet to respond. But you had time to post several paragraphs on the topic, just not responsive to the question.

In a few instances you have pointed back at posts and declared that you did not say some particular thing. You do so with incredulity. But the places that you point to were not understood to support your incredulity. And you have a number of posters on the forum saying the same thing. Not just me. You make absolute statements and then run from their absoluteness. Someone takes exception with what you say and you declare an ad hominem.

Even this post is not an ad hominem. This post is not declaring that what you say is invalid because you are (whatever). It is pointing to the faults in your reasoning. Even where that reasoning is about what is being said to you. No one has called you a liar. But there does seem to be a serious disconnect between what we say and how you respond to it. And you don't like people disagreeing with you. Get used to dissappointment. It happens to us all the time.

I do not declare that my statements are simply true. But too often you do not respond by taking on my argument, but by suggesting that I shouldn't even think it. Or say it. Or act incredulous that I could think it.

Like that Jesse thing. It's fine to think what you want about how Jesse taught David. But you can't declare with any certainty that Jesse taught David anything. It is speculation. And the fact that Jesse's name is mentioned does not support your claim. Yet you persist. And respond with incredulity when we disagree.

Then we come to the discussion about Lee's "position" as any kind of teacher, from children's church all the way up to MOTA. And you start throwing out James with the suggestion that maybe we can't even judge whether the claim of MOTA is valid. And if you didn't intend to suggest that, then just say so. Admit that the very short thing you wrote could be misunderstood and clarify it for us. I am accused of repeating myself in multiple posts. It is because someone has responded in a manner that convinces me that I was not clear about what I said. Maybe I just am never as clear as I think I am.

There is a simple solution for you. Drop the "poor me" attitude. Quit taking exception to those who take exception to points made. Get engaged in making your point more clearly. Be strong for your point. That is OK. But don't be inflexible. If you think the rest of us have not changed our positions as a result of these discussions, you would be horribly mistaken. This forum gave me more reason to avoid the LRC and to rethink the whole of it. But it has also given me pause to moderate my position on the people. Even on the brothers who have harmed others so greatly. I see the errors of theology, like the Ground and Jesus became the Holy Spirit as less egregious in themselves. I do continue to hold that what grows out of those is seriously harmful to the current condition of the LRC.

But back to the present. You want to discuss what is ours to judge? Bring out all the verses. I suggest that you include near synonyms, like discernment, choice, etc. Let's discuss what we are to judge/discern and what is not ours. I think that the evidence will show that we are instructed by Paul to take note of Lee's sins when considering him as a minister. There is a difference between David, Moses, and Lee. Yes, they all were openly disobedient. And there was open sin. But David and Moses repented. Lee did not. Even his near deathbed repentance was too vague and general to have been understood as repenting for what should have set him aside.

And David essentially stepped aside for a time to repent and mourn over his sin. Since Lee's sins were against the churches, it would require that he also repent openly to them. He did not. From the start of the sin until the repentance, there is no place for his teaching. And there is evidence that the first unrepented sin was in the 50s. Maybe earlier. It clearly happened in the mid 70s. First with Daystar, and then with PL. The only repentance was for pushing the envelope with Max. And he wasn't even honest with that. He blamed it all on Max. And ignored PL.

The event in the 80s was just continuance of the original sin. David's situation, and that of Moses, did not go on for such a period of time. David slipped by for 9 months and paid dearly. And openly. It is recorded for all to read. Moses was dealt with immediately. If Lee was chastised by God, he would have had to deal with how it flowed out onto the people. First in effectively stealing their savings. (And since the way the thing was sold was illegal, I'm pretty sure that a court of law would have agreed and penalized them for the scheme, maybe even with jail time.) Then with pushing an immoral person on the churches and allowing him to force the sale of LSM products. Which went into their pocket in some form. Lee lived in a house provided by the church. He traveled at others' expense. And he forced churches to buy his books. There is a record of this.

No repentance. I think Paul would reject. Trying to stall the inquiry seems quite the dodge.

And one thing to add. Since there seems to have been an ongoing issue from the 50s until his death, his constant insertion of himself as spiritual leader can be nothing but suspect. It should suggest a disconnect between the claimed connection with God and the kind of disconnect with God that the ongoing sin indicates. That should give me reason to seriously question anything that Lee taught that was not simply a verbatim repeat of standard orthodoxy. Surely anything peculiar should be suspect. It should at least require that we get into our minds and out of our emotions and search the scriptures. Come together to reason over the proposed teachings. Take the weight of centuries of teaching to the contrary rather than rejecting even opening their books and reading only his.

That is the kind of arrogance that seems contrary to even a true MOTA. If there actually should be such a person, Lee fails to act like one. He now seems more like the guy who eluded the FBI for years as recently portrayed in the movie "Catch Me If You Can."

ZNPaaneah · 11-23-2011, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is what I thought you meant. But I don't agree that the "judge not" passage in Matt 7 applies to it. That passage is talking about self-righteous judgment, not judgment that is impossible to make.

Suppose a woman is a prostitute and I have certain knowledge that she is. If I say "that dirty whore" in a self-righteous manner, then that is what the Lord is addressing in Matt 7.

But if I don't have certain knowledge of her and I say "that woman is a prostitute" that's not the judging Matt 7 is talking about. That's more like bearing false witness. Because I'm saying something is true that I don't for certain know is true. Saying WL is the MOTA falls into that category, I would think.

Like I said, I think you are interpreting Matt 7 too broadly. The Lord says in other places that we need to judge in certain cases.

So how would you distinguish between "self righteous judgment" and someone who is "judging the heart". In the example you give I can see someone judging that someone else committed fornication, adultery, or sold their body for sex. But to then take the next step and say they are a "whore" to me is what is forbidden.

As to the MOTA, there was a range of understanding on this. You held to the strictest understanding of Apostles having the authority to write scripture, others held a more lenient view. I don't think we ever found a definitive verse on this matter. Now Paul told the Corinthians that they should have been able to judge that he was an apostle. Also, how could the Lord commend the church in Ephesus for trying those that say they are apostles and finding them false, if you can't discern if someone wasn't a true apostle. So I have no issue with someone who thinks we still have apostles or with someone who judges that a particular brother is an apostle. But MOTA implies more than that, "Minister of the Age". Even if you feel that we still have the gift of apostles, how could you judge that one particular one is the "MOTA", it seems to me to be similar to when the Lord said "to sit on my right hand or my left is not mine to give". If the Lord would say that how much more us?

Cal · 11-23-2011, 08:11 AM

First off, nobody is perfect. Everyone sins and falls short of the glory of God. Simply that someone stumbles does not invalidate all the work he or she has ever done for the Lord. Luther and Darby are two good examples. Both had serious failings at the end of their lives (for that matter Moses did, too.)

Witness Lee had failings, too. He also had successes. In that sense he is no different than any other imperfect servant.

If I am interpreting OBW correctly then I disagree with him that Lee completely forfeited his standing as a teacher. I don't know that Darby repented of his exclusivism or that Luther repented of his hatred for Jews before they died. But I can still read their writings and get good out of them. I can still be inspired by the faithfulness they did show. And be warned by their failings.

Lee taught a lot of things and much of it is good. That shouldn't be the issue and I think OBW goes too far with his dismissal of Lee.

What I think is the issue is this whole thing about Lee being some special MOTA--the very real belief that there was something special about the man himself that leads LRC folks to make irrational life choices and allows them to be manipulated.

If we can look back on Luther and Darby and view their life and work objectively, and see them as flawed men who did some good things and also made some mistakes then why can't we do it with Lee?

This to me is the crux of the matter. We must see Lee as we see any other historical figure. LRCers must learn to not be intimidated by his shadow. The MOTA, the infallible apostle who is right even when he is wrong, must be exposed and discarded. It's easy to do with those other so-called "MOTAs" like Luther and Darby. The same approach must be taken with Lee.

The Lord allows us all to be exposed. And the bigger we claim to be the harder He lets us fall. This is a mercy. Can you imagine the delusion we'd be under if Lee had been near perfect? Did you ever think that the Lord lets mighty figures like Moses and David and Luther fail precisely so we will not hold them in too high esteem? And so that people with an agenda are less able to abuse that reverence to control and manipulate us?

ZNPaaneah · 11-23-2011, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

First off, nobody is perfect...

I am very much encouraged by this post. Thanks.

Cal · 11-23-2011, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So how would you distinguish between "self righteous judgment" and someone who is "judging the heart".

Self-righteous judgment means one does not humbly think they are susceptible to the same failing they accuse others of having. I explained this in post #34

Judging someone else's heart could be self-righteous. It could also simply be mistaken.

Quote:

In the example you give I can see someone judging that someone else committed fornication, adultery, or sold their body for sex. But to then take the next step and say they are a "whore" to me is what is forbidden.

I agree and that's what I said.

Quote:

But MOTA implies more than that, "Minister of the Age". Even if you feel that we still have the gift of apostles, how could you judge that one particular one is the "MOTA", it seems to me to be similar to when the Lord said "to sit on my right hand or my left is not mine to give". If the Lord would say that how much more us?

I agree with this, too. I just don't think that Matt 7 is the source for this view.

Cal · 11-23-2011, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am very much encouraged by this post. Thanks.

Thanks.

I think dismissing Lee's work wholesale is the just the mirror error of considering him the MOTA. It's an extreme.

Lee lived a life and did a work for the Lord. He had both successes and failures. He ran his race.

Now approach him as you would any teacher or writer, living or passed on. Consider the man and consider his ministry. Take the good. Learn from the mistakes. Ignore claims that he had a corner on the market of truth.

And be grateful that God deems to consider any of us His servants, or that He smiles at any of our flawed work.

ZNPaaneah · 11-23-2011, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Self-righteous judgment means one does not humbly think they are susceptible to the same failing they accuse others of having.

So how would you apply that? How would I know that when a person had issued a judgment what they were thinking? How would I know if they were humble?

Also, in the example you gave of the "dirty rotten whore" would it make it OK if I first thanked God, humbly admitting that I also am susceptible, by saying "I thank you that by the grace of God I am not like her"?

Cal · 11-23-2011, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So how would you apply that? How would I know that when a person had issued a judgment what they were thinking? How would I know if they were humble?

Also, in the example you gave of the "dirty rotten whore" would it make it OK if I first thanked God, humbly admitting that I also am susceptible, by saying "I thank you that by the grace of God I am not like her"?

You have to trust the Holy Spirit to guide you. We are talking about heart matters here.

As to your second question, you'd have to ask God if it's okay on a case by case basis. Paul called some of the Jews "dogs" and his words became scripture. For some reason the Lord allowed it in that instance.

In general we have to be careful of being harsh, but that doesn't mean we should never be.

Cal · 11-23-2011, 09:43 AM

Suppose someone comes up to me and says "I think Susan is a prostitute."

I would think my first reaction should be "Okay, why is he telling me this and why do I need to know it."

Suppose he follows up with, "Please pray for her. I'm very concerned."

But suppose he follows up with, "I always knew she was no good."

These are completely different scenarios which require keen spiritual discernment to handle. Discernment by the way is a kind of judgment.

UntoHim · 11-23-2011, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Witness Lee is now dead. He will face the Lord on that day just as all believers will. He will answer for all his words and actions just as all believers will. He will receive his just rewards from the Lord just as all believers will. Nothing that we say here on this public forum is going to change this, nothing that we say is going to add or detract when he stands before the Lord on that day. However………..

Witness Lee, in his wake, has left a sizable group of churches which still refer to themselves as “The Lord’s Recovery”. The leadership of this group still, to this very day, refers to Witness Lee as the one apostle with the one ministry for the age. They still, to this very day, ascribe to him the things I described above, and even worse.

The Local Church is actively and aggressively seeking new membership in their movement. I believe that people need to know about the real Witness Lee and the real history of the Local Church movement. Current and former members deserve to know. Family members of current and former members deserve to know. People, especially young people and new Christians who are being courted by current members, deserve to know. The Christian public in general deserves to know.

To say that Witness Lee was not perfect is a smokescreen. Whether it is said to be a smokescreen on purpose or not is irrelevant to the fact that the statement itself veils the realities that we are faced with in the here and now.

Even the most diehard Local Churcher will readily proclaim that Witness Lee was not perfect. So? So he was not perfect. Next question. Who did he proclaim himself to be? Next question. Who do his followers proclaim that he was? How does what Lee said about himself match up with reality? How does what his followers proclaim about him match up with reality? This will get us to the heart of the matter, and this is what needs to be addressed. When faced with the unmentionable, deplorable actions of his son don't you all remember what Witness Lee said... "nobody is perfect!".

The title of the thread is not "Can you dismiss WL's ministry because he was not perfect". No sir.

Another poster made a comment that Witness Lee may have disqualified himself because he was "not clean". Of course what we get from a diehard Lee defender was "oh my God I can't believe they are now saying that Witness Lee was not saved!"

Thankful Jane can speak for herself, but the CLEAR connotation was that Witness Lee was living in an unrepentant state - As far as can be perceived from the outside this was absolutely true. The man was constantly trampling on those within and without the movement. He was caught misappropriating donated church funds on many occasions. He basically masterminded a substantial money-laundering scheme to defraud the government. He used the solicited donations of church members (some life savings) in a bungled business adventure in which everybody lost except himself and his sons.

All this, without one single apology. No apology. No repentance. Yes, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness"(1 John 1:9) Notice the parts in bold. IF. CONFESS. SINS. IS FAITHFUL. TO CLEANSE. ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. To become clean from unrighteousness there is an IF. I don't see when and where Witness Lee completed the process.

Does this mean his entire ministry, the entire body of work, should be dismissed? No, probably not. But neither should he or his followers get a free pass to present Witness Lee as something he was not. Neither should they get a free pass to present his ministry as something that it was not.

Ohio · 11-23-2011, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The title of the thread is not "Can you dismiss WL's ministry because he was not perfect". No sir.

This is my conclusion to the matter.

WL and PL should have been subjected to a Whistler like tribunal for their actions. Some of PL's actions actions also warranted a 911 call. Whether they then repented or not would decide how many saints or churches would still receive his ministry. At least the facts would be made public, as they well should be.

I personally believe that the blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, can restore any brother back to fellowship with God, but repentance and cleansing may not restore their ministry. Restoration of the person and restoration of his work are separate matters.

ZNPaaneah · 11-23-2011, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

To say that Witness Lee was not perfect is a smokescreen. Whether it is said to be a smokescreen on purpose or not is irrelevant to the fact that the statement itself veils the realities that we are faced with in the here and now.

Even the most diehard Local Churcher will readily proclaim that Witness Lee was not perfect. So? So he was not perfect. Next question. Who did he proclaim himself to be? Next question. Who do his followers proclaim that he was? How does what Lee said about himself match up with reality? How does what his followers proclaim about him match up with reality? This will get us to the heart of the matter, and this is what needs to be addressed. When faced with the unmentionable, deplorable actions of his son don't you all remember what Witness Lee said... "nobody is perfect!".

The title of the thread is not "Can you dismiss WL's ministry because he was not perfect". No sir.

Another poster made a comment that Witness Lee may have disqualified himself because he was "not clean". Of course what we get from a diehard Lee defender was "oh my God I can't believe they are now saying that Witness Lee was not saved!"

Thankful Jane can speak for herself, but the CLEAR connotation was that Witness Lee was living in an unrepentant state - As far as can be perceived from the outside this was absolutely true. The man was constantly trampling on those within and without the movement. He was caught misappropriating donated church funds on many occasions. He basically masterminded a substantial money-laundering scheme to defraud the government. He used the solicited donations of church members (some life savings) in a bungled business adventure in which everybody lost except himself and his sons.

All this, without one single apology. No apology. No repentance. Yes, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness"(1 John 1:9) Notice the parts in bold. IF. CONFESS. SINS. IS FAITHFUL. TO CLEANSE. ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS. To become clean from unrighteousness there is an IF. I don't see when and where Witness Lee completed the process.

Does this mean his entire ministry, the entire body of work, should be dismissed? No, probably not. But neither should he or his followers get a free pass to present Witness Lee as something he was not. Neither should they get a free pass to present his ministry as something that it was not. [/COLOR]

Let us consider an example I think that we can all agree on. David's sin was heinous, and after committing that sin there was a moment prior to the prophet coming to speak to him before he repented. However, before that sin he had done great works of faith, he had written a number of psalms that became part of the Bible. So the question is this, did the sin that David committed somehow annul his works of faith, perhaps put them into suspended animation, until he repented? I don't think so. I think what the Bible records is that "we have this treasure in earthen vessels". On the one hand David can write wonderful psalms and do great deeds, and then the very next day he can do a horrible sin, and it doesn't annul anything. When he was doing great deeds of faith he was a man of flesh. I think Igzy alluded to this when he said he thought it was sovereign that all of these great holy men of faith committed sins that were recorded so that we would realize they were all men of flesh.

So in the same way you cannot dismiss WL's work because "he was not clean" but that principle doesn't apply to others because they repented. There is no basis to say that if someone sins all previous works are dismissed. We are all well aware of WL's sins, failings and shortcomings. The question is if sinning is like hitting a "clear all" button on the computer and it wipes out everything you have ever done.

The closest I can see to this principle is that if you break a nazarite vow you have to start over. This doesn't mean that your hair doesn't grow back (your vow can be renewed) as in the case of Samson, nor does it mean that everything Samson had done previously was voided, it merely means that vow that he had was broken and he had to start again.

UntoHim · 11-23-2011, 12:00 PM

ZNP,
I really wish you would stop comparing Witness Lee to David. Don't you realize how silly it sounds? Why are you comparing somebody who was anointed King of Israel, a man that God Himself proclaimed to be "a man after my own heart", a man who God saw fit to place him in the lineage of the Lord Jesus, with some self-proclaimed apostle wannabe? And then you make matters worse by implying that Lee's writings are to be compared to the Psalms. It really makes you look silly and thoughtless, not to mention it's a little disconcerting, that after all that we know about Witness Lee, that you would still want to hold him up on such a pedestal.

Witness Lee (and us) are living in a completely different age then the Old Testament characters. God has given us more. He expects more. Especially from the leaders. The standard for God's testimony has risen. The stakes are higher. Unless you are a Jew you are not born as one of God's people. You must accept the Gospel in order to enter God's Kingdom. If we, as God's latter day people, fail to proclaim this Gospel, and fail to live our lives as citizens of His Kingdom, in many respects we have failed God. This is especially true of Christian leaders. How much the more for a leader of an entire movement. The standard is even higher. The stakes are even higher.

Did the public let Jim Bakker give the old "Oh David sinned and got away with it so...." excuse? Nah, he ended up in the gray bar hotel. Did the public let Ted Haggard off the hook just cause he had a vibrant megachurch and the ear of the President of the US? No Sir. These men sinned against their wifes, familys and God's people, and tried to hide it for a long time. They were unrepentant. God gave them both lots of chances. Along the way they probably did a lot of good for a lot of people. What was the price? They both lost their ministries. And they should have.

ZNPaaneah · 11-23-2011, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

ZNP,
I really wish you would stop comparing Witness Lee to David.

I am referring to Post #136 in the thread on the ground of the church. In that Post the contrast with WL and David is made. Cassidy took great offense at that post interpreting it to mean that it was a slight against the blood of Christ. You, Igzy and others commented on Cassidy's post. I felt that with all of the discussion on it I needed to quote the original post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Don't you realize how silly sounds?

Of course I realize how silly this is. OBW accuses me of things that have absolutely no substantiation, things that if Zeek or Awareness had said they would have been booted from the forum. Many post things that are clearly off topic, yet all of a sudden you seem to care less about that. You pretend that you can't distinguish that my post was quoting a critical post to this thread. A post that clearly influenced the title of this thread. You also pretend that I am comparing David to WL when in fact I am evaluating the principle that was put forth in that post. I do not use WL since it is up for discussion whether he ever even had a ministry. No one disputes that David had a ministry so I applied the principle to him, just as the poster had done. So, yes I realize how silly it is for me to post on this forum. I also realize how silly it is to treat that other post seriously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Why are you comparing somebody who was anointed King of Israel, a man that God Himself proclaimed to be "a man after my own heart", a man who God saw fit to place him in the lineage of the Lord Jesus, with some self-proclaimed apostle wannabe? And then you make matters worse by implying that Lee's writings are to be compared to the Psalms.

Ask Thankful Jane she posted it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

It really makes you look silly and thoughtless, not to mention it's a little disconcerting, that after all that we know about Witness Lee, that you would still want to hold him up on such a pedestal.

What pedestal is that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Witness Lee (and us) are living in a completely different age then the Old Testament characters. God have given us more. He expects more. Especially from the leaders. The standard for God's testimony has risen. The stakes are higher. Unless you are a Jew you are not born as one of God's people. You must accept the Gospel in order to enter God's Kingdom. If we, as God's latter day people, fail to proclaim this Gospel, and fail to live our lives as citizens of His Kingdom, in many respects we have failed God. This is especially true of Christian leaders. How much the more for a leader of an entire movement. The standard is even higher. The stakes are even higher.

Oh, that pedestal. We usually refer to that as a soap box.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Did the public let Jim Bakker give the old "Oh David sinned and got away with it so...." excuse? Nah, he ended up in the graybar hotel. Did the public let Ted Haggard off the hook just cause he had a vibrant megachurch and the ear of the President of the US? No Sir. These men sinned against their wifes, familys and God's people, and tried to hide it for a long time. They were unrepentant. God gave them both lots of chances. Along the way they probably did a lot of good for a lot of people. What was the price? They both lost their ministries. And they should have.

All the more reason not to use them to examine a spiritual principle.

As to being thoughtless I started this thread to determine if it was worthwhile visiting this forum and I think it has been very helpful in that sense. I also think it is quite clear that there is no scriptural basis for some of the judgment that goes on here, it is indefensible, and instead you and others resort to the same kind of ridicule and slander I saw in the LRC.

UntoHim · 11-23-2011, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am referring to Post #136 in the thread on the ground of the church. In that Post the contrast with WL and David is made. Cassidy took great offense at that post interpreting it to mean that it was a slight against the blood of Christ. You, Igzy and others commented on Cassidy's post. I felt that with all of the discussion on it I needed to quote the original post.

Please don't skip around and refer to a post made last week on another thread. If you do please go ahead a quote it so we can know the context. I went and looked and that poster was simply reacting to YOUR reference to David in the post before. Funny thing... So was I. I was referring to the reference you made to David (again) in the previous post, where you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Let us consider an example I think that we can all agree on. David's sin was heinous, and after committing that sin there was a moment prior to the prophet coming to speak to him before he repented.

If you really didn't mean to make a comparison between David and Witness Lee why don't you just say so. Say you really didn't mean it and let's move on.

Quote:

Ask Thankful Jane she posted it.

Jane made no such comparison, in fact she did the opposite.

Quote:

What pedestal is that?
Oh, that pedestal. We usually refer to that as a soap box.

Forget I mentioned it.

Quote:

All the more reason not to use them to examine a spiritual principle.

Nonsensical non response. Try again.

Quote:

As to being thoughtless I started this thread to determine if it was worthwhile visiting this forum and I think it has been very helpful in that sense. I also think it is quite clear that there is no scriptural basis for some of the judgment that goes on here, it is indefensible, and instead you and others resort to the same kind of ridicule and slander I saw in the LRC.

If you are going to be so non responsive, misrepresenting and misquoting at every turn, I think it may be better for you to keep your visiting at a minimum. I took your original question to be "HOW can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sin" (which is how it should have been worded), so myself and others have gone about answering your question. You don't like the answers your getting so you choose to claim "no scriptural basis for some of the judgment that goes on here". You basically asked us to judge. Some of us have.

This thread has run it's course.

ZNP, go ahead and take the last word.

OBW · 11-28-2011, 05:38 PM

Igzy responded that he thought I was incorrect to conclude that Lee should be simply rejected because of his sins. I understand the context in which he is working, and do not deny him his conclusion.

But I wish to make my case.

And not by simply rehashing all the previous discussion — mine or others.

My overall conclusion is based upon the directives that Paul gave concerning the stopping of incorrect teachings, and more specifically, certain teachers on account of not only their teachings, but their character. That is not a mystery.

And ZNP and Igzy have both indicated that they do not understand this to mean that there is never a place for Lee to teach, but that there is cause to reject him at a time. Well, at least sort of. I sort of think that ZNP is not sure that there is any ground to reject Lee at all, even in part. Only to note his shortcomings but accept what he teaches.

And there was the comparison to David and Moses. And comparisons have also been made to any number of contemporary ministers/teachers/theologians. And the comparisons are not entirely invalid.

But there is also a differentiation — at least relative to David and Moses. While David fell — hard — with respect to Uriah and Bathsheba, he retained his position as king. But he also repented in a way that restored his righteousness. His lament over Absalom is recorded in scripture. Moses struck the rock the second time and lost the right to enter the Good Land. (I think there was something else, but this one will do.) But he was dealt with by God at the time and continued in righteousness.

Under Paul’s various decrees, there are certain things that are to be rejected as far as teachings are concerned. While I could make some case for some of Lee’s teachings literally fitting those things, we will skip that. But Paul also noted that there are some who are holding themselves out as teachers and in some manner doing what they do to fill their bellies (in so many words). Those were equally to be rejected. It really didn’t matter what you thought about their teachings, their character betrayed their motives and source. They were to be rejected.

I have never said that Lee only taught garbage, or that everything he said was theologically incorrect. But the combination of correct teachings with exclusivist teachings, teachings of a special minister of God (under any title) which is defined in a manner that his followers will only conclude is him, directing that nothing but his material needed to be read, then placing an immoral person at the helm of the only publisher that could supply those materials, and speaking lies about anyone who points to the immorality of that person or suggests that a “local church” not do as directed by that person results in a current position of “rejected.” And until that is cleared-up, and repented for to all involved and all who were affected, it remains outstanding and he remains rejected.

And what I would add is that, while those in the US did not know of it, a different form of the same thing happened in the 50s. First, he tried to replace all leadership that did not follow his directive to have nothing to do with another minister. Then he got into a business venture that went under and he saddled the churches in Taiwan with his debts. He may have managed to run off those who openly opposed him, but there was still trouble over it, so he left for the US to try a different field while things cooled down there. As I read Paul’s various directives, I conclude that Lee was not an acceptable teacher at that time.

Since there was nothing done to rectify the situation in Taiwan, even though we Americans were ignorant of the situation, Lee’s standing is with respect to the Church, not just an assembly. So his beginnings in the US stood in opposition to Paul’s instructions to reject him. It wasn’t our fault we didn’t see it at the time. And unfortunately, too many were caught by his charisma (yes, a little Chinese man with a little trouble speaking clear English can have charisma) and then turned a blind eye to the next chapters — Daystar and then PL (2 times, at least). Then he lies about people. Starting in the 70s. I’m not sure how much to blame Max for anything. But it is clear that the rhetoric surrounding his exit was not really about Max, but about something else. Max was just the scapegoat. Maybe even planned that way.

From the 50s until his death, Lee was unrepentant related to his “sins.” They were not just private sins, but actions perpetrated upon his flock of followers. Since he entered the US already in a condition that should have rejected him, there is reason that we should never have invited him to speak to us in little home gatherings in various places in Texas. In NYC. In Las Angeles. In other homes in other places. We just didn’t know it.

But because it was true, even if unknown, it means that Lee was not righteous to stand in front of anyone an proclaim to be speaking for God. He first needed to go back to Taiwan and repent for his treatment of the leaders that liked the ministry of TAS. For his treatment of the churches in general for forcing his personal business debts upon them. Only then would he have an honest standing to see if anyone would even listen to him in the US.

Without that repentance, he did not have the standing to speak here in the US. We should never have had “local churches” with him as the MOTA. With the LSM as the publisher. With PL as the “ministry office.” With Max doing whatever he did or didn’t actually do.

And for this reason, I conclude that I cannot accept that God was sending Lee to teach us anything. Therefore, anything that he taught that was out of the mainstream needs a completely sound base that has no reference to Lee in any way. And because I have observed Nee’s illogic become good because he says it, I cannot simply say that Lee just taught Nee and that makes it OK.

Since I cannot conclude that Lee was righteously speaking for God, I cannot accept anything that he said that gives me any kind of problem with the teachings that abound in a consistent manner throughout Christianity. And there are many such things despite the differences that result in the splits. The amount of agreement is staggering when compared to the actual differences. And when thoughts that arise from my days in the LRC make me reconsider what I am hearing, I immediately require that something prove Lee before I bother trying to prove the other. I will eventually do that too. But Lee no longer gets the “starting point” position.

Cal · 11-29-2011, 08:07 AM

Very clear post, OBW. I understand your point and generally agree. Basically I hear you saying that Lee forfeited the benefit of any doubt. I've said this before myself.

It's that benefit of the doubt that the LRC movement poured so liberally on Lee. To the point where they made him the "minister of the age." Such a person automatically gets all the benefit of the doubt. In addition Lee even got the benefit of our feeling guilty for doubting him!

I have never felt about any historical figure the way I was made by the movement to feel about Nee and even more so, Lee. It was as if there was this aura of specialness bestowed on them that compelled us to follow them no matter what, to actually fear not following them.

I've often wondered what Lee would have had to have done for his most loyal followers to put him aside. I have to imagine that if he had in a public meeting taken out a gun and shot John Ingalls between the eyes some would have still considered him the minister of the age. Such is the craziness of the whole MOTA mindset. It's a mindset with no fail-safe or off switch. Like the Energizer bunny it just keeps going and going and going. The MOTA became as good as God himself. Better even because he is more practical and doesn't have to be perfect!

The issue whether to dismiss Lee's ministry or not is really a minor one. Simply look at him as you would any other teacher: Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Murray, Darby, Graham, Warren, Myer, or any more minor teacher if you prefer, and ask how you view their teachings. What does their living tell you? Do you tremble at the thought of possibly rejecting the instructions of some God-ordained MOTA? Probably not. So why worry about it with Lee?

One reason. You were conditioned to.

It is this conditioning that must be purged, along with any remaining belief that things call MOTAs exist. Only then will you be able to view Lee and Nee clearly, and only then will you know how to handle their ministries.

As long as you believe in the MOTA, you are a slave to all kinds of thoughts you shouldn't even have to process.

OBW · 11-29-2011, 10:00 AM

Igzy,

I think that the angle that has been missing in the discussion is that this is not simply about whether it is correct to lay claim to the title MOTA, or to allow others to designate you as such without strong condemnation for it.

It also is not simply about some longstanding minister of good standing who has a moral lapse and then becomes a spiritual liability from that time forward.

It is a pattern of moral lapses going back longer than most of us have been alive on which there is no evidence of actual apology or repentance prior to his death over a decade ago. That person lost any claim to position in at least the 50s. Maybe before. So there is little reason to start from a framework in which he is presumed to be a "good teacher" (not trying to invoke the imagery of the man who called Jesus "good teacher"). He starts from a place where we should not have been listening. If someone felt compelled to listen to him and then study it really carefully then pass on what they concluded was valid and valuable, that would be fine.

But that never happened. Lee was the source of truth for the LRC faithful. We needed to get out of our minds to accept his teachings and we happily followed. And virtually all other theologians rejected his teachings. Only an exorcist and a ministry in need of funds has fallen in line, at least in what they will speak of.

I have realized that I was directly duped for 14 years. Then for many more years than that I remained in Lee's fog, thinking that there were all these great teachings simply mired in a system that didn't live up to its own standards. I am learning differently. Few items, alone and in themselves, are truly "bad." But the "Collected Works" lead somewhere that a Christian with their mind in gear would not agree to go.

It is the constant interspersing of garbage with the truth. Sectarian ideas phrased in the rhetoric of oneness. An air of humility in a man who would reject anyone else's teachings, and spit on a book by another. I don't really like all of what certain contemporary writers produce. But I do not spit on any of it. And I don't refer to them as demonic or Satanic.

And while I may not have spent as many years allegedly given to the study of the Word as Lee did, I do recall that his former calling may have been as an accountant. Assuming that is true, he should have kept his day job. I honestly think that my pathetic understanding of scripture is at least founded on the scripture. I'm beginning to see more and more that Lee was not bound by scripture, but only by what he could define as a principle through which scripture could be reworded.

OBW · 11-29-2011, 10:15 AM

One follow-up. My last post made some sweeping statements. For anyone who is incensed at them, rather than trying to dismantle them as a unit, let's turn to the teachings and the practices one-by-one and see how they fare. I will concede that I cannot prove my generalities in a single reply. But that does not make it invalid. It just makes the proof difficult.

And it has been happening here and on the old BARM for several years. We have discussed many of the doctrines; "ground of locality," "God's economy" (both the teaching and the book), the Trinity, the definition of soul and spirit, Spiritual Authority (Authority and Submission), elders, apostles, abiding v obedience, works v dispensing. The list goes on.

One thread was about teachings of Lee's that someone really liked. So many of them seemed to start with virtual dismissal of the actual words of the underlying scripture due to an over lay of "God's economy." Another thread covered the places where Lee altered readings and understandings in a manner that altered the meaning of scripture (under the title "The Leaven of Lee" or something like that).

We have discovered that even Nee openly restated scripture to his liking and no one batted an eye.

So if you want to discover the Lee (and possibly Nee) that evidences a disconnect from God rather than some special connection, we should pick a topic and start discussing it.

And as I so often will state, Nee and Lee are not authorities for this purpose. We can read what they say. But it is not true until it is discovered to be true because it accurately aligns with the scripture or with standard understandings of scripture. I would even go so far as to suggest that Brethren teachings should be considered suspect because, at some level, they did no better than Nee and Lee. Even to the point of similar exclusivity.

Cal · 11-29-2011, 10:42 AM

OBW,

I agree with your point. My point was that until people jettison the MOTA concept (and with it the Recovery concept), they will not be able to see Lee in a way where his failings even matter.

The "Recovery" was and is nothing more than Lee's private church, a subset of the Church in which he could make up certain rules and teachings which always pointed back to him as the final authority on everything. "The Recovery" is not scriptural, but he convinced enough people that it was real and he was at the helm.

Those two principles, being the Recovery and being the MOTA, are self-reinforcing. When rival publications appeared, Lee gave lip service to personal freedom while stating in no uncertain terms that any teachings which were not completely in line with his were not of the Recovery, i.e. not of God's up-to-date, unique move.

In other words, when you boil it down, it was all about him and what he thought. Period. Don't believe me, just read www.afaithfulword.org, an astounding bundle of circular logic whose conclusions are totally based on the notion that Lee and Nee were MOTAs which must never be questioned.

I agree that if Lee were any typical Christian teacher, he would not be taken very seriously (in fact he is not) because of his arrogance and his shady dealings. But until one learns to look at him simply as one looks at any other Christian, one is going to continue grade him on a curve, the curve of him being right even when he's wrong.

Thankful Jane · 11-29-2011, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I have realized that I was directly duped for 14 years. Then for many more years than that I remained in Lee's fog, thinking that there were all these great teachings simply mired in a system that didn't live up to its own standards. I am learning differently.

First, I'd like to make one thing clear. I never said Lee's ministry should be "rejected." This word was introduced in response to my post about Lee not being clean and was then argued with in strawman fashion. My actual words were that Lee's teachings could not be trusted. In my mind, there is a big difference.

When I post, I am addressing people who are, or were, under the spell of Lee's teachings and persona. (If I were addressing ones who had never been involved with his teachings, I would recommend they not become involved with his ministry, i.e. reject it.) However, I do not think that it is possible to be devoted to his ministry for years and then one day decide to reject it and just walk away. Once you have been willingly webbed in Lee's ministry, you have to use your will to de-web yourself, string by string, or you will not find freedom and spiritual health. You'll remain in the fog that Mike mentioned. That's a fog most of us exes know all too well.

De-webbing requires seeing truth for yourself in the light of the Word. That, to me, is one of the biggest benefits of forum discussions. When we help each other examine, in the light of the pure Word, what Lee taught, then here and there truth breaks out, and minds get set free. Like Igzy, that is why I started posting here, and that is why I still follow the forums when I am able and post as time permits.

I continue to be involved periodically in one-on-one conversations with people who have struggled and struggled in their Christian walk after leaving the Local Church. They range the gambit from agnostic to severely depressed. I find that the root of much of their trouble is Lee's teachings that are imbedded in their brain. Only as they receive and accept sound scriptural refutation of such teachings do they start to find mental clarity and then freedom and peace.

I agree with OBW that it's best to look at Lee, teaching by teaching, and compare each teaching to the Word of God. Lots of that has been done already on internet forums and much of that bears repeating because of new readers. In addition, lots more needs to be done for the sake of the webbed.

I continue to pray that we will fight the good fight for one another and that the truth of the Word of God will prevail.

Thankful Jane

OBW · 11-29-2011, 04:57 PM

Jane,

You may not have said that Lee's ministry should simply be rejected. But I have.

Thankful Jane · 11-29-2011, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Jane,
You may not have said that Lee's ministry should simply be rejected. But I have.

Yes, I understand that you did

. I was clarifying my position on this after reading through this thread. I have no problem with someone reaching the point they reject the ministry of Lee overall, as I understand from your posts that you have done. I just don't advise others to take this step without some specific purging and clearing up of the beliefs they embraced wholeheartedly. I hope that was clear in what I wrote.

Jane

OBW · 11-30-2011, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Yes, I understand that you did

. I was clarifying my position on this after reading through this thread. I have no problem with someone reaching the point they reject the ministry of Lee overall, as I understand from your posts that you have done. I just don't advise others to take this step without some specific purging and clearing up of the beliefs they embraced wholeheartedly. I hope that was clear in what I wrote.

I think that it was very clear.

And when I say that I reject Lee outright, I also clearly did not simply leave the LRC and immediately reject Lee. I actually defended him for many (many) years. It was only when I was faced with this and its predecessor forums that I began to see that I should reject the whole, not just cherry-pick.

But I am also surrounded by strong evangelical teachings so that I am never at risk of doing the old baby-with-the-bathwater thing. I know what is sound. But when something gives me reason to stop and think, I stop and think. I explore anything that doesn't jive.

And I've concluded that the fact that it has Lee's name attached to it is grounds to start with a strongly skeptical view.

Thankful Jane · 11-30-2011, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

And I've concluded that the fact that it has Lee's name attached to it is grounds to start with a strongly skeptical view.

Yes, I have concluded likewise. I believe that anyone who will ask the Lord for help in knowing what is true and will seriously and objectively examine the unadulterated Word of God will reach the same conclusion.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth ...

11-30-2011, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

First, I'd like to make one thing clear. I never said Lee's ministry should be "rejected." This word was introduced in response to my post about Lee not being clean and was then argued with in strawman fashion. My actual words were that Lee's teachings could not be trusted. In my mind, there is a big difference.
I find that the root of much of their trouble is Lee's teachings that are imbedded in their brain.
Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane,

The distinction you make between teachings that cannot be trusted vs. teachings that should be rejected is a matter semantics. If you don't trust teachings then reject them until you are convinced otherwise.

"imbedded" in their brain? Are you a clinical psychologist? Seriously, it appears that you are engaging in subjective validation. You expect to see some telltale trait and sure enough there it is, you find it every time.

Besides, what beliefs are not "imbedded" in the brains of people? Are your beliefs not "imbedded" in your brain? If not, then where? I this whole idea about "de-webbing" is a bit nutty and maybe dangerous.

Cassidy

UntoHim · 12-01-2011, 11:07 AM

Cassidy, If you really want to be a stickler about semantics you would have noticed that Jane made a clear distinction between “teachings that cannot be trusted” and the rejection of Witness Lee’s entire ministry. Most reasonably people would have picked up on the difference. Actually, I think maybe you did to but are just trying to stir the pot... not that stirring the pot is against Forum rules, but don't forget the old adage that "too many cooks spoil the broth".

None of us who were subjected to the teachings of Witness Lee for a substantial period of time need to be a clinical psychologist to know the affect they had upon us. The teachings and practices had a profound affect both the heart and the mind, and sorry to say that for the most part the affect was not positive. This is the main reason why much of our discussions regarding The Local Church seem to gravitate towards the “negative” side of the ledger.

12-01-2011, 04:08 PM

IMHO an all or nothing stance as it pertains to Bible teachers is somewhat childish. God gave us sober minds and discerning spirits and unlike Lee, the Blendeds, Titus Chu, etc. most Bible teachers today don't expect their audiences to accept everything they say as "the gospel truth". Adults discuss things and weigh things. So after hearing a sermon my wife and I discuss it on the way home and we may disagree with a few things or different things or whatever. So what? What's the big deal?

But I do know one thing: if I ever came across a teacher who expected absolute agreement and acceptance of his teachings as "the truth" = finding the nearest exit and escaping through it as quickly as possible! There's too many good teachers out there who don't think this about themselves to be fiddling around with those who do.

Cassidy · 12-01-2011, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Cassidy, If you really want to be a stickler about semantics you would have noticed that Jane made a clear distinction between “teachings that cannot be trusted” and the rejection of Witness Lee’s entire ministry. Most reasonably people would have picked up on the difference. Actually, I think maybe you did to but are just trying to stir the pot... not that stirring the pot is against Forum rules, but don't forget the old adage that "too many cooks spoil the broth".

None of us who were subjected to the teachings of Witness Lee for a substantial period of time need to be a clinical psychologist to know the affect they had upon us. The teachings and practices had a profound affect both the heart and the mind, and sorry to say that for the most part the affect was not positive. This is the main reason why much of our discussions regarding The Local Church seem to gravitate towards the “negative” side of the ledger.

Untohim,

I am not trying to stir the pot. I actually think the "de-webbing" practice is nutty and maybe dangerous. I mean, if something is unhealthy then it would be best to disconnect ourselves and others from it asap. I'd prefer that rather than this idea of staying in an unhealthy situation while someone attempts to remove trillions of synapses from my brain in an attempt to unravel my belief system. Sounds like a slow drip water torture version of de-programming.

Yet, I do agree with you that we don't need to be clinical psychologists to make decisions about our own experiences and share them with others both positive and negative. That is all part of what makes the world an interesting place to live.

Ohio · 12-01-2011, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

I am not trying to stir the pot. I actually think the "de-webbing" practice is nutty and maybe dangerous. I mean, if something is unhealthy then it would be best to disconnect ourselves and others from it asap. I'd prefer that rather than this idea of staying in an unhealthy situation while someone attempts to remove trillions of synapses from my brain in an attempt to unravel my belief system. Sounds like a slow drip water torture version of de-programming.

I'm jumping into a conversation and may mess up the context, but as I understand the "de-webbing" practice, it is to reject those teachings of WL which are not healthy, and hold onto those which match the Bible.

Some former members who did not properly "de-web" the good from the worthless (see Heb 5.14) have sadly discarded their faith also as they left the LC's. This is most unfortunate. This forum serves as an aid to expose all the dangers of WL's teachings without discarding what healthy things we have received from the Lord. Sometimes this is difficult, especially for ones like me who had very little Bible foundation before entering the Recovery.

Cassidy · 12-01-2011, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

... as I understand the "de-webbing" practice, it is to reject those teachings of WL which are not healthy, and hold onto those which match the Bible.

If that is what "De-webbing means then there is no need to call it "de-webbing'" because it is just part of normal human cognitive process. We all do it and not with just Witness Lee.

In fact, I'm doing it right now.

However, the poster meant more than that as is apparent from her description of "de-webbing" and the introduction of the term to describe the process of systematically unraveling someone's belief system over a period of time.

Even if such a meticulous mind-altering extraction where proven to be good therapy it should only be practiced by someone who is qualified to perform it. Otherwise, the rest of us should do our best to talk straight, be a friend, and pray a lot for those in need.

Ohio · 12-01-2011, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Otherwise, the rest of us should do our best to talk straight, be a friend, and pray a lot for those in need.

Good point. Amen to that!

It's better for Thankful Jane to respond to your questions about her posts.

11-20-2011, 10:21 AM	#2
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? I logged in this morning to respond to a post directed at me in another thread. While perusing the site I saw this Post #139 in “Regarding the Ground of Oneness…” by UntoHim. “Witness Lee never broke the principle that “Jesus is Lord”, so I’m not sure why you bring this up, however whether or not he was a true servant to God is now up for review, and whether you like it or not the jury is composed of me, other members of this forum, and many other Christians who may or may not have any experience with the Local Church. My PERSONAL opinion is that Witness Lee, as an “apostle”, has been tried and found to be false.” I did try to understand the statement in red. Here is how I understand the complete context of this statement: 1. OBW in post #132 says “You can't get blessings and cursings from the same mouth. Or sustenance and poison from the same kitchen. If there is poison, then it is all poisoned.” 2. Unreg in 133 restates this as “WL's sins makes all of his teachings suspect or "you can't get blessing and cursing from the same mouth". And takes exception saying that all Bible teachers have sinned. And then in post #137 says “To me that Biblical principle that trumps all others is that "Jesus is Lord", not WL, not me, and who am I to judge another man's servant, to his own master he stands or falls.” 3. Then UntoHim in post #139 apparently understands this to mean that WL violated the Biblical principle of Jesus is Lord. I understood it differently, that WL was the servant of the Lord, and therefore it is for the Lord to judge him, not us. So I may have misunderstood this discussion, and if so please clarify and that will be that. But the question that I am asking in this thread is this: can you dismiss WL’s entire ministry because of his sins? Do the sins that WL committed poison every word that he spoke? I will share my own opinion, then sit back and listen as others lay out their case. If anyone sways me with their posts I will comment, and I do plan to read all posts on this thread. First, I am not aware of any biblical basis that would make me or any other members of this forum a jury to judge any servant of the Lord. Jesus is the judge of all, not me. Jesus is Lord, and as such, He will judge his own servants. They will stand or fall based on His judgment, not mine. The Jewish leaders Judged Jesus ministry to be false and had him crucified. God also judged, and Jesus was resurrected. To me, anyone who wants to set himself or herself up as a jury to judge a servant of God is usurping the headship of the Lord. My position is that there is a difference between “trying an apostle and finding him to be false” and teaching that WL’s ministry is forfeit based on his sins. I think you can try an apostle by looking at their teachings, not the same thing as looking at the person. I also think that you can look at sins and judge sins. Fair enough. But when you take the next step and say because of this man’s sins he was not a servant of the Lord I feel you have overstepped. That is not for you to say, that is for the Lord. That very act violates the Lordship of Jesus. So if this forum is, as UntoHim has stated, a jury to determine if WL was a true servant of the Lord then I don’t want any part of it. I will listen to reasonable posts. If anyone can sway me that Christians do in fact have a NT calling to judge one another I will consider what you say carefully. I understand that we should judge the truth, and the teachings, and sin. It is that extra step that I am taking issue with.

11-21-2011, 08:31 PM	#22
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,824	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? ZNP, So we can judge Witness Lee as a false apostle, but we've crossed the line when we question if he is a true servant of God? I see a disconnect here. Please explain the difference between the two and how it applies to our discussions. I don't believe that your "purge out the old leaven" example is relevant to our discussions regarding Witness Lee, who claimed to be the sole person on earth speaking as God's oracle. The example you give from 1st Corinthians is regarding "a brother" in one particular local church. Again there is a disconnect. Should people look at (and yes judge) these two in the same manner? __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

11-22-2011, 07:35 AM	#24
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? Judge has several meanings. Obviously when Jesus praised the church in Ephesus which had "put to the test" or "tried" those who call themselves apostles He was implying they had performed a kind of judgment. We cannot dispense the final judgment on anyone. But to make any decision one renders a judgment in the broad sense. I cannot judge anyone's heart as the Lord can. But I do have the right and even responsibility to decide whether I think someone is teaching truth. I cannot judge Lee as a man, but I can come to some conclusion about his quality as a teacher and leader. Whether one calls that "judgment" or not is secondary. The fact is it does and must happen.

11-22-2011, 10:30 AM	#27
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? To go back to the original title of the thread, I think whether people receive or reject another's ministry is entirely up to them and their consciences. And I think what OBW is saying is that according to his assessment he can reject WL's ministry because he sees so many faults with both it and the way WL operated that for him he sees no way to reconcile the whole mess. That's his recommendation of the situation to readers of this board. (And, by the way, people have the right to reject OBW's ministry for the very same reasons.) ----- The argument which some are making that OBW rejects WL's ministry therefore OBW must be rejecting things like justification by faith is simply a stupid argument. I wouldn't register for the board either if that's the best I had to offer. ----- The idea that any Christian can have the attitude of "Hey, I have a ministry, and the rest of you have to receive it" is false. No one has the right, including WL, to expect anyone to receive his or her ministry. I would hope what I share in a ministerial fashion is acceptable by other believers. But whether they accept it or not is not something I should expect. For example, I might have a lot of good teachings to share, but I might be proud. Others might detect that and be less receptive of me because of that. It's my job to work on myself to be a good presenter of my ministry. But I can't go around being indignant because I'm not received. That's just the wrong approach. It doesn't mean I accept wholesale people's assessment of me, but it does mean I at least consider it as possible constructive criticism. ----- The whole "not a true servant of the Lord" argument is pointless because it all depends on what one means by a "true servant of the Lord." We throw around these phrases and we never define what they mean. We say things like "so-and-so is a true servant of the Lord" as kind of general compliment. That's probably as far as we should take the use of that label. We say someone is a "really good Christian," and the like. But we probably shouldn't say someone is a "really bad Christian," should we? I wouldn't think so.

11-22-2011, 11:01 AM	#30
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? Another problem is the confusion produced when referring to someone's ministry. Just what is being referred to? The black and white teachings? The way they were presented? The personality and attitude of the minister? How he or she conducted business? All these come into play when talking about a ministry. It's not just the teachings. Two ministers can share similar teachings and give very distinct impressions. In the case of WL, however, there was more involved. Most ministers simply teach and allow you to make up your own mind whether to receive their teaching. WL demanded much more than that. He expected people to treat him like "the minister of the age." That alone for many is a serious red flag.

01-07-2010, 01:21 PM	#1
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,824	Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? -------------------------------------- __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

11-22-2011, 12:15 PM	#35
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? When Jesus prohibits judging in Matt 7, he does so in the sense of our acting as if we are above the particular failing we cite in another. You have to read it in context. He says in effect that if you judge someone you are saying that others can look for the same failing in you. He says it is a kind of blindness to say someone else has a sin and to not even consider that you might be doing the same thing yourself. This is consistent with Romans 2:1-3. He immediately goes on to say do not give pearls to swine. But how can you fulfill that commandment without judging who is a swine and who isn't?! In John 7:24, Jesus commands us to judge righteously. He does not tell us there wholesale not to judge. Rather he tells us to judge, just so as we do so righteously. Taken as a whole, Jesus is not prohibiting all judging in Matt 7, just self-righteous judging. Matt 7 1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you look at 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,’ and behold, the log is 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 what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. John 7 23 If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses will not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath? 24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”

11-22-2011, 04:24 PM	#40
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,384	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? I'm going to make one last comment for the day. Be sure to read it all before you (whoever) comment. Don't accuse me of something that I don't say, especially where I make it clear what I am and/or am not saying. I believe that there are requirements on those who teach us. Those requirements are not so great that the very existence of human frailty would reject anyone actually of the human race. But they are still very real. Just like the qualifications for elder and deacon, there are qualifications for anyone who is teaching. And depending on what kind of teaching, the level of qualifications increases. (But that is irrelevant for this post.) (I note that Lee and his successors constantly demean virtually all teachers outside of the LRC. They are all "clergy" which is "bad." But if anyone says anything about any of them, especially Lee (even after his death), they are subject to excommunication. So the playing field for determining qualifications for leadership is far from level. The only leaders of the church are declared to be in the LRC. All those others are leaders of harlots.) But let's look at what scripture provides on the subject. Unfortunately, the qualifications to be a teacher are not gathered together as nicely as Paul did for elders and deacons. So we have to find different passages and piece them together. Stop those who are teaching "differently." Who are teaching endless genealogies and other things that just increase arguments and strive. (And I would argue that soliloquies about what it means to be "the one" bringing "the ministry" is a kind of genealogy that leads to identification of a "MOTA," and "oracle," or even an "acting god.") Reject those that cause divisions. Those that denigrate your brothers and sisters in Christ as demonic, satanic, and even the Whore of Babylon. Note those that keep putting the law on you. Who require circumcision, a standing order for LSM books, and a proper respect for "our brother, Witness Lee." It may not always be our place to decide whether teachings are good or bad (stubble or precious stones). But when we see it, we shouldn't just sit there and take it. But there is no place in scripture that suggests that we are to simply accept every Tom, Dick, and Harry that comes along with a claim of revelation. It almost seems as if the thrust of those defending the ministry of Lee are determined that because they like some of the things he said, the evidence that he was not what he claimed to be should be overlooked. And further, anyone who disagrees is going against scripture to do so. And for every one who is taking one of these positions — any variant — I suggest that you should be stuck with Lee, Benny Hinn, Jim Baaker, Herbert W. Armstrong, Joseph Smith, Thomas Campbell, William Miller, Harold Campings, Jimmy Swaggert, Brian McLaren, etc. We are not charged to slander any of these men. Or to misrepresent the things they taught or said. But we are, at a minimum, not refrained from determining whether the teachings of any of these men, or of any others you want to include in the mix, are sound. And if you read Paul's comments on the subject, there is not only the watchfulness concerning proper teachings, but of open, unrepentant character flaws that evidence a person not right before God in a manner sufficient to allow them as a teacher. Of those unrepentant persons, I find Lee to be among them. And I also find significant flaw in his teachings. I cannot say which is the cause of the other. But they do seem to go hand-in-hand. But some are determined that if he ever said a true thing, then he is to be left to fleece the flock. He can no longer do that. (I am not thankful for his death, just noting that due to it, there is nothing new going on there.) But others continue to push is faulty teachings. And they do it in a more dictatorial manner than even Lee did. Yet it is an outgrowth of Lee's teachings. It is the logical progression of teachings that make position and doctrine trump obedience and righteousness. That suggest that a "spiritual authority" should not submit to any accusation. Interesting that this is essentially Nee's teaching. At least he didn't hide behind it. That was what Lee did. Then his successors drove a truck through it. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

11-23-2011, 07:33 AM	#45
seeking1 Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Ohio Posts: 33	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? "I discern too many of the "high peaks" to be false teachings." OBW, would you mind elaborating on what teachings you're referring to. Not that I disagree, but I'd just like to know. I know the whole "baby w/ the bath water" thing has probably been beaten to death but, it's something that I've been contemplating lately. If you follow the "a little leaven" line of reasoning, then wouldn't the whole "lump" of Lee be leavened?

11-23-2011, 08:11 AM	#49
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? First off, nobody is perfect. Everyone sins and falls short of the glory of God. Simply that someone stumbles does not invalidate all the work he or she has ever done for the Lord. Luther and Darby are two good examples. Both had serious failings at the end of their lives (for that matter Moses did, too.) Witness Lee had failings, too. He also had successes. In that sense he is no different than any other imperfect servant. If I am interpreting OBW correctly then I disagree with him that Lee completely forfeited his standing as a teacher. I don't know that Darby repented of his exclusivism or that Luther repented of his hatred for Jews before they died. But I can still read their writings and get good out of them. I can still be inspired by the faithfulness they did show. And be warned by their failings. Lee taught a lot of things and much of it is good. That shouldn't be the issue and I think OBW goes too far with his dismissal of Lee. What I think is the issue is this whole thing about Lee being some special MOTA--the very real belief that there was something special about the man himself that leads LRC folks to make irrational life choices and allows them to be manipulated. If we can look back on Luther and Darby and view their life and work objectively, and see them as flawed men who did some good things and also made some mistakes then why can't we do it with Lee? This to me is the crux of the matter. We must see Lee as we see any other historical figure. LRCers must learn to not be intimidated by his shadow. The MOTA, the infallible apostle who is right even when he is wrong, must be exposed and discarded. It's easy to do with those other so-called "MOTAs" like Luther and Darby. The same approach must be taken with Lee. The Lord allows us all to be exposed. And the bigger we claim to be the harder He lets us fall. This is a mercy. Can you imagine the delusion we'd be under if Lee had been near perfect? Did you ever think that the Lord lets mighty figures like Moses and David and Luther fail precisely so we will not hold them in too high esteem? And so that people with an agenda are less able to abuse that reverence to control and manipulate us?

11-23-2011, 09:43 AM	#55
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? Suppose someone comes up to me and says "I think Susan is a prostitute." I would think my first reaction should be "Okay, why is he telling me this and why do I need to know it." Suppose he follows up with, "Please pray for her. I'm very concerned." But suppose he follows up with, "I always knew she was no good." These are completely different scenarios which require keen spiritual discernment to handle. Discernment by the way is a kind of judgment.

11-23-2011, 12:00 PM	#59
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,824	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? ZNP, I really wish you would stop comparing Witness Lee to David. Don't you realize how silly it sounds? Why are you comparing somebody who was anointed King of Israel, a man that God Himself proclaimed to be "a man after my own heart", a man who God saw fit to place him in the lineage of the Lord Jesus, with some self-proclaimed apostle wannabe? And then you make matters worse by implying that Lee's writings are to be compared to the Psalms. It really makes you look silly and thoughtless, not to mention it's a little disconcerting, that after all that we know about Witness Lee, that you would still want to hold him up on such a pedestal. Witness Lee (and us) are living in a completely different age then the Old Testament characters. God has given us more. He expects more. Especially from the leaders. The standard for God's testimony has risen. The stakes are higher. Unless you are a Jew you are not born as one of God's people. You must accept the Gospel in order to enter God's Kingdom. If we, as God's latter day people, fail to proclaim this Gospel, and fail to live our lives as citizens of His Kingdom, in many respects we have failed God. This is especially true of Christian leaders. How much the more for a leader of an entire movement. The standard is even higher. The stakes are even higher. Did the public let Jim Bakker give the old "Oh David sinned and got away with it so...." excuse? Nah, he ended up in the gray bar hotel. Did the public let Ted Haggard off the hook just cause he had a vibrant megachurch and the ear of the President of the US? No Sir. These men sinned against their wifes, familys and God's people, and tried to hide it for a long time. They were unrepentant. God gave them both lots of chances. Along the way they probably did a lot of good for a lot of people. What was the price? They both lost their ministries. And they should have. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

11-28-2011, 05:38 PM	#62
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,384	On Dismissing Lee Because of His Sins Igzy responded that he thought I was incorrect to conclude that Lee should be simply rejected because of his sins. I understand the context in which he is working, and do not deny him his conclusion. But I wish to make my case. And not by simply rehashing all the previous discussion — mine or others. My overall conclusion is based upon the directives that Paul gave concerning the stopping of incorrect teachings, and more specifically, certain teachers on account of not only their teachings, but their character. That is not a mystery. And ZNP and Igzy have both indicated that they do not understand this to mean that there is never a place for Lee to teach, but that there is cause to reject him at a time. Well, at least sort of. I sort of think that ZNP is not sure that there is any ground to reject Lee at all, even in part. Only to note his shortcomings but accept what he teaches. And there was the comparison to David and Moses. And comparisons have also been made to any number of contemporary ministers/teachers/theologians. And the comparisons are not entirely invalid. But there is also a differentiation — at least relative to David and Moses. While David fell — hard — with respect to Uriah and Bathsheba, he retained his position as king. But he also repented in a way that restored his righteousness. His lament over Absalom is recorded in scripture. Moses struck the rock the second time and lost the right to enter the Good Land. (I think there was something else, but this one will do.) But he was dealt with by God at the time and continued in righteousness. Under Paul’s various decrees, there are certain things that are to be rejected as far as teachings are concerned. While I could make some case for some of Lee’s teachings literally fitting those things, we will skip that. But Paul also noted that there are some who are holding themselves out as teachers and in some manner doing what they do to fill their bellies (in so many words). Those were equally to be rejected. It really didn’t matter what you thought about their teachings, their character betrayed their motives and source. They were to be rejected. I have never said that Lee only taught garbage, or that everything he said was theologically incorrect. But the combination of correct teachings with exclusivist teachings, teachings of a special minister of God (under any title) which is defined in a manner that his followers will only conclude is him, directing that nothing but his material needed to be read, then placing an immoral person at the helm of the only publisher that could supply those materials, and speaking lies about anyone who points to the immorality of that person or suggests that a “local church” not do as directed by that person results in a current position of “rejected.” And until that is cleared-up, and repented for to all involved and all who were affected, it remains outstanding and he remains rejected. And what I would add is that, while those in the US did not know of it, a different form of the same thing happened in the 50s. First, he tried to replace all leadership that did not follow his directive to have nothing to do with another minister. Then he got into a business venture that went under and he saddled the churches in Taiwan with his debts. He may have managed to run off those who openly opposed him, but there was still trouble over it, so he left for the US to try a different field while things cooled down there. As I read Paul’s various directives, I conclude that Lee was not an acceptable teacher at that time. Since there was nothing done to rectify the situation in Taiwan, even though we Americans were ignorant of the situation, Lee’s standing is with respect to the Church, not just an assembly. So his beginnings in the US stood in opposition to Paul’s instructions to reject him. It wasn’t our fault we didn’t see it at the time. And unfortunately, too many were caught by his charisma (yes, a little Chinese man with a little trouble speaking clear English can have charisma) and then turned a blind eye to the next chapters — Daystar and then PL (2 times, at least). Then he lies about people. Starting in the 70s. I’m not sure how much to blame Max for anything. But it is clear that the rhetoric surrounding his exit was not really about Max, but about something else. Max was just the scapegoat. Maybe even planned that way. From the 50s until his death, Lee was unrepentant related to his “sins.” They were not just private sins, but actions perpetrated upon his flock of followers. Since he entered the US already in a condition that should have rejected him, there is reason that we should never have invited him to speak to us in little home gatherings in various places in Texas. In NYC. In Las Angeles. In other homes in other places. We just didn’t know it. But because it was true, even if unknown, it means that Lee was not righteous to stand in front of anyone an proclaim to be speaking for God. He first needed to go back to Taiwan and repent for his treatment of the leaders that liked the ministry of TAS. For his treatment of the churches in general for forcing his personal business debts upon them. Only then would he have an honest standing to see if anyone would even listen to him in the US. Without that repentance, he did not have the standing to speak here in the US. We should never have had “local churches” with him as the MOTA. With the LSM as the publisher. With PL as the “ministry office.” With Max doing whatever he did or didn’t actually do. And for this reason, I conclude that I cannot accept that God was sending Lee to teach us anything. Therefore, anything that he taught that was out of the mainstream needs a completely sound base that has no reference to Lee in any way. And because I have observed Nee’s illogic become good because he says it, I cannot simply say that Lee just taught Nee and that makes it OK. Since I cannot conclude that Lee was righteously speaking for God, I cannot accept anything that he said that gives me any kind of problem with the teachings that abound in a consistent manner throughout Christianity. And there are many such things despite the differences that result in the splits. The amount of agreement is staggering when compared to the actual differences. And when thoughts that arise from my days in the LRC make me reconsider what I am hearing, I immediately require that something prove Lee before I bother trying to prove the other. I will eventually do that too. But Lee no longer gets the “starting point” position. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

11-29-2011, 08:07 AM	#63
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: On Dismissing Lee Because of His Sins Very clear post, OBW. I understand your point and generally agree. Basically I hear you saying that Lee forfeited the benefit of any doubt. I've said this before myself. It's that benefit of the doubt that the LRC movement poured so liberally on Lee. To the point where they made him the "minister of the age." Such a person automatically gets all the benefit of the doubt. In addition Lee even got the benefit of our feeling guilty for doubting him! I have never felt about any historical figure the way I was made by the movement to feel about Nee and even more so, Lee. It was as if there was this aura of specialness bestowed on them that compelled us to follow them no matter what, to actually fear not following them. I've often wondered what Lee would have had to have done for his most loyal followers to put him aside. I have to imagine that if he had in a public meeting taken out a gun and shot John Ingalls between the eyes some would have still considered him the minister of the age. Such is the craziness of the whole MOTA mindset. It's a mindset with no fail-safe or off switch. Like the Energizer bunny it just keeps going and going and going. The MOTA became as good as God himself. Better even because he is more practical and doesn't have to be perfect! The issue whether to dismiss Lee's ministry or not is really a minor one. Simply look at him as you would any other teacher: Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Murray, Darby, Graham, Warren, Myer, or any more minor teacher if you prefer, and ask how you view their teachings. What does their living tell you? Do you tremble at the thought of possibly rejecting the instructions of some God-ordained MOTA? Probably not. So why worry about it with Lee? One reason. You were conditioned to. It is this conditioning that must be purged, along with any remaining belief that things call MOTAs exist. Only then will you be able to view Lee and Nee clearly, and only then will you know how to handle their ministries. As long as you believe in the MOTA, you are a slave to all kinds of thoughts you shouldn't even have to process.

11-29-2011, 10:00 AM	#64
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,384	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? Igzy, I think that the angle that has been missing in the discussion is that this is not simply about whether it is correct to lay claim to the title MOTA, or to allow others to designate you as such without strong condemnation for it. It also is not simply about some longstanding minister of good standing who has a moral lapse and then becomes a spiritual liability from that time forward. It is a pattern of moral lapses going back longer than most of us have been alive on which there is no evidence of actual apology or repentance prior to his death over a decade ago. That person lost any claim to position in at least the 50s. Maybe before. So there is little reason to start from a framework in which he is presumed to be a "good teacher" (not trying to invoke the imagery of the man who called Jesus "good teacher"). He starts from a place where we should not have been listening. If someone felt compelled to listen to him and then study it really carefully then pass on what they concluded was valid and valuable, that would be fine. But that never happened. Lee was the source of truth for the LRC faithful. We needed to get out of our minds to accept his teachings and we happily followed. And virtually all other theologians rejected his teachings. Only an exorcist and a ministry in need of funds has fallen in line, at least in what they will speak of. I have realized that I was directly duped for 14 years. Then for many more years than that I remained in Lee's fog, thinking that there were all these great teachings simply mired in a system that didn't live up to its own standards. I am learning differently. Few items, alone and in themselves, are truly "bad." But the "Collected Works" lead somewhere that a Christian with their mind in gear would not agree to go. It is the constant interspersing of garbage with the truth. Sectarian ideas phrased in the rhetoric of oneness. An air of humility in a man who would reject anyone else's teachings, and spit on a book by another. I don't really like all of what certain contemporary writers produce. But I do not spit on any of it. And I don't refer to them as demonic or Satanic. And while I may not have spent as many years allegedly given to the study of the Word as Lee did, I do recall that his former calling may have been as an accountant. Assuming that is true, he should have kept his day job. I honestly think that my pathetic understanding of scripture is at least founded on the scripture. I'm beginning to see more and more that Lee was not bound by scripture, but only by what he could define as a principle through which scripture could be reworded. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

11-29-2011, 10:15 AM	#65
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,384	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? One follow-up. My last post made some sweeping statements. For anyone who is incensed at them, rather than trying to dismantle them as a unit, let's turn to the teachings and the practices one-by-one and see how they fare. I will concede that I cannot prove my generalities in a single reply. But that does not make it invalid. It just makes the proof difficult. And it has been happening here and on the old BARM for several years. We have discussed many of the doctrines; "ground of locality," "God's economy" (both the teaching and the book), the Trinity, the definition of soul and spirit, Spiritual Authority (Authority and Submission), elders, apostles, abiding v obedience, works v dispensing. The list goes on. One thread was about teachings of Lee's that someone really liked. So many of them seemed to start with virtual dismissal of the actual words of the underlying scripture due to an over lay of "God's economy." Another thread covered the places where Lee altered readings and understandings in a manner that altered the meaning of scripture (under the title "The Leaven of Lee" or something like that). We have discovered that even Nee openly restated scripture to his liking and no one batted an eye. So if you want to discover the Lee (and possibly Nee) that evidences a disconnect from God rather than some special connection, we should pick a topic and start discussing it. And as I so often will state, Nee and Lee are not authorities for this purpose. We can read what they say. But it is not true until it is discovered to be true because it accurately aligns with the scripture or with standard understandings of scripture. I would even go so far as to suggest that Brethren teachings should be considered suspect because, at some level, they did no better than Nee and Lee. Even to the point of similar exclusivity. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

11-29-2011, 10:42 AM	#66
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? OBW, I agree with your point. My point was that until people jettison the MOTA concept (and with it the Recovery concept), they will not be able to see Lee in a way where his failings even matter. The "Recovery" was and is nothing more than Lee's private church, a subset of the Church in which he could make up certain rules and teachings which always pointed back to him as the final authority on everything. "The Recovery" is not scriptural, but he convinced enough people that it was real and he was at the helm. Those two principles, being the Recovery and being the MOTA, are self-reinforcing. When rival publications appeared, Lee gave lip service to personal freedom while stating in no uncertain terms that any teachings which were not completely in line with his were not of the Recovery, i.e. not of God's up-to-date, unique move. In other words, when you boil it down, it was all about him and what he thought. Period. Don't believe me, just read www.afaithfulword.org, an astounding bundle of circular logic whose conclusions are totally based on the notion that Lee and Nee were MOTAs which must never be questioned. I agree that if Lee were any typical Christian teacher, he would not be taken very seriously (in fact he is not) because of his arrogance and his shady dealings. But until one learns to look at him simply as one looks at any other Christian, one is going to continue grade him on a curve, the curve of him being right even when he's wrong.

11-29-2011, 04:57 PM	#68
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,384	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? Jane, You may not have said that Lee's ministry should simply be rejected. But I have. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

12-01-2011, 11:07 AM	#73
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,824	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? Cassidy, If you really want to be a stickler about semantics you would have noticed that Jane made a clear distinction between “teachings that cannot be trusted” and the rejection of Witness Lee’s entire ministry. Most reasonably people would have picked up on the difference. Actually, I think maybe you did to but are just trying to stir the pot... not that stirring the pot is against Forum rules, but don't forget the old adage that "too many cooks spoil the broth". None of us who were subjected to the teachings of Witness Lee for a substantial period of time need to be a clinical psychologist to know the affect they had upon us. The teachings and practices had a profound affect both the heart and the mind, and sorry to say that for the most part the affect was not positive. This is the main reason why much of our discussions regarding The Local Church seem to gravitate towards the “negative” side of the ledger. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

12-01-2011, 04:08 PM	#74
me Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Can you dismiss WL's ministry because of his sins? IMHO an all or nothing stance as it pertains to Bible teachers is somewhat childish. God gave us sober minds and discerning spirits and unlike Lee, the Blendeds, Titus Chu, etc. most Bible teachers today don't expect their audiences to accept everything they say as "the gospel truth". Adults discuss things and weigh things. So after hearing a sermon my wife and I discuss it on the way home and we may disagree with a few things or different things or whatever. So what? What's the big deal? But I do know one thing: if I ever came across a teacher who expected absolute agreement and acceptance of his teachings as "the truth" = finding the nearest exit and escaping through it as quickly as possible! There's too many good teachers out there who don't think this about themselves to be fiddling around with those who do.