Bill Freeman

[Testing123]

Bill Freeman has been one of the most prominent of former Local Church leaders in recent times. Like others before and after, he has gone on to perpetuate his own version of "Local Church Lite," bringing to some of Witness Lee's theology his own trademark twist - including a penchant for Greek grammar, a heavy focus on church history and familiarity with historical Christian writings, an emphasis on community (including communal living), and a particularly mystical/subjective/introspective approach to the Christian life.

Freeman started out in the late 1960's in Yorba Linda, California, and later spearheaded the beginnings of the LC in Seattle. The imprint of his influence on the LCs in the whole Northwest of the USA was longstanding, and, to a certain extent, continues today. Very many of those in leadership positions in the LCs there would have been under Freeman's direct influence until the mid to late 1980s. At that time, Freeman and his wife left Seattle with a large segment of the Seattle congregation to begin a new group in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Before having separated from the LC and moving to Arizona, Freeman had been a prominent "co-worker" and apologist for Witness Lee and those churches associated with him. In the 1970s, LSM published two apologetics works by Freeman - one on mingling, the other on the Trinity. In the 1980s, Freeman began publishing works under his own imprint Northwest Christian Publications that were circulated among LC members. In Arizona, this publishing organization was transitioned to a new company known as Ministry Publications. At one time, both in Washington and Arizona, Freeman produced a daily radio program and a magazine (now defunct) known as The Christian. Freeman's closest associate was his son-in-law, Kirk Eland.

During the Arizona years, Freeman and his group attracted, for a time, other prominent ex-LC leaders seeking "Local Church Lite," including the likes of Bill Mallon (who relocated to Scottsdale) and Ransford Ackah, who brought the churches in Ghana into close coordination with Freeman and his associates.

However, over the years, old problems began to resurface among the group, particularly allegations that Freeman's wife, Patsy, was responsible for orchestrating the divorces of dozens of members from among the congregation. In 1999, following a protracted dispute, Patsy Freeman left her husband with a large segment of the Scottsdale congregation to Lake Oswego, WA. Scottsdale's ties with her husband were then severed, and two years later, Freeman himself moved to Moses Lake, WA, the site of a longstanding "independent" LC.

Eventually, Bill and Patsy Freeman reunited and, along with several of their most loyal followers, relocated to Spokane, WA with the apparent intention of a new attempt at "Local Church Lite." In a recent video, Bill Freeman can be seen preaching in (what appears to be) a private residence, using a text-only edition of the Recovery Version of the New Testament. The move to Spokane (2005-2006) was not without controversy. Numerous investigative articles were written by a local student-run newspaper after ten or more houses were purchased by group members.

Hope this is a good starting point. It's an important, interesting, and unfortunate topic.

Links

Ministry of the Word - Freeman's website (http://www.thechristian.org)

Rick Ross: The Freeman Group (http://www.rickross.com/groups/freeman_group.html)

Apologetics Index: Bill and Patsy Freeman (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/f/f37.html)

[djohnson]

I heard after both Freeman and his wife left the Scottsdale area the church they started continued on there for a while but eventually had at least one more major split unrelated to the Freemans. Do you know any details about this testing123?

[Testing123]

I heard after both Freeman and his wife left the Scottsdale area the church they started continued on there for a while but eventually had at least one more major split unrelated to the Freemans. Do you know any details about this testing123?

Sorry, djohnson, I don't know any details of this, but I'd be interested to know more if anyone does. Two prominent brothers in the church in Scottsdale were Dan Elkins and Dave McCarthy. I have believed that neither of the two continued with Freeman. Elkins recently spoke at a retreat hosted by The Church in Moses Lake, as can be found on their website. In the first message, he referred to still being in the Phoenix area.

This is the group that Freeman started in Scottsdale:

Scottsdale Church
12000 N Scottsdale Rd
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
480-948-4488

[djohnson]

From what I understand Elkins is still there and McCarthy and quite a number of others left. As to the "why" behind the split I have no details.

[countmeworthy]

From what I understand Elkins is still there and McCarthy and quite a number of others left. As to the "why" behind the split I have no details.


If you make a skip & a hop to the other board..go to the testimonies section or read the posts by Brent & Brad Barber. They go by Brent B & Brad B.

Brent I think, lived with the Freemans'. It's a horror story to be sure.

[finallyprettyokay]

When I first discovered the other forum, Brent used to post a lot. I am not sure if Brad was posting then or not. It is highly (HIGHLY) possible that I made them one person in my mind. Being new, and all. :o

I enjoyed him (or them ;) ) very much. Does anyone know how he/they are? Well, I hope.

fpo

[Terry]

The imprint of his influence on the LCs in the whole Northwest of the USA was longstanding, and, to a certain extent, continues today. Very many of those in leadership positions in the LCs there would have been under Freeman's direct influence until the mid to late 1980s. At that time, Freeman and his wife left Seattle with a large segment of the Seattle congregation to begin a new group in Scottsdale, Arizona.


By the time I moved to Bellevue, WA in 1993 Bill Freeman was long gone. I never knew much about him other than bits and pieces I'd hear from various brothers and sisters.
One thing that puzzled me was there was no differentation with what happened in Seattle than what happened in Anahiem.
What did happen?

Terry

[Ohio]

By the time I moved to Bellevue, WA in 1993 Bill Freeman was long gone. I never knew much about him other than bits and pieces I'd hear from various brothers and sisters.

One thing that puzzled me was there was no differentiation with what happened in Seattle than what happened in Anaheim.

What did happen?

Terry

Terry, the infamous Feb 1986 Elders' Training was in effect a quarantine of Bill Freeman. It was also the end of all other publications around the country. WL/LSM controls brought every leading brother under dominion. "Sign the form on the table, brother!" All those who didn't like the "new rules," were either asked or told to leave. I think Bill Freeman was just the first to go. Many more followed. Those who stuck around (John Ingalls et al) to protest, got "lynched" by WL minions, mainly BP and his Texan lieutenants.

[finallyprettyokay]

Okay. I was thinking about my post asking about the status of former posters, and I noticed that under the thread Whatever happened to ... the admonishment to please post only regarding former leaders, elders and co-workers.

SO, I hearby withdraw my inquiry. Of course, that is a fair, very fair, rule and I apologize for not thinking through my question better.

:iagree: I agree with the rule.

Thanks, everyone. I am still learning --- :idea:

FPO

[Terry]

Terry, the infamous Feb 1986 Elders' Training was in effect a quarantine of Bill Freeman. It was also the end of all other publications around the country. WL/LSM controls brought every leading brother under dominion. "Sign the form on the table, brother!" All those who didn't like the "new rules," were either asked or told to leave. I think Bill Freeman was just the first to go. Many more followed. Those who stuck around (John Ingalls et al) to protest, got "lynched" by WL minions, mainly BP and his Texan lieutenants.

Ohio, you are right to a point. I don't think Bill Freeman was quarantined. It's not so clear cut or definitive. Rather he was called out by brothers wanting Bill to cease his ministry and line up with Witness Lee. On one hand Bill Freeman wanted to go on in the Recovery, but on the other hand he didn't want to put up with what was being asked of him.
As for other brothers from this Elder's training, it may be the direction Witness Lee was speaking didn't sit well with some. I have not heard the tape so it would be interesting to hear what Witness Lee was speaking to cause brothers to walk out.

Terry

[Ohio]

Ohio, you are right to a point. I don't think Bill Freeman was quarantined. It's not so clear cut or definitive. Rather he was called out by brothers wanting Bill to cease his ministry and line up with Witness Lee. On one hand Bill Freeman wanted to go on in the Recovery, but on the other hand he didn't want to put up with what was being asked of him.


Quarantine only is applied to those who don't leave first. Had Bill resisted, then he would have had his own quarantine.

[KSA]

When Don Hardy came to visit us in Russia for the 1st time, I was still in LC. And I took him to one LC meeting. Actually that meeting very much sped up my departure. When I was having fellowship with brothers from Moscow, they, on the one hand, told me that Don is not quarantined and therefore can come to the meetings; on the other hand, they behind my back smeared Don's name in the churches in our region. So the fact that Bill was not served official "quarantine letter", means nothing. If he ventures to set his foot in LC land, he will right away find out that "verbal" and "mental" quarantine is as real as the "written" one. The absence of "written" quarantine helps to cloak the real quarantine in a hipocritical pseudo-spiritual garb - "we never quarantined him, he is welcomed any time".

[djohnson]

My understanding of the Freeman issue is that there was a constant problem with his wife interfering in the private lives of LCS members. This problem continued even after they left the LCS and contributed to the fiasco in Scottsdale. My guess is even if they stayed in the LCS under Lee's thumb it would have eventually imploded.

[Indiana]

I received the following email recently concerning brother Bill Freeman.

"He has been diagnosed with a very aggressive form of Pulmonary Thyroid cancer. It is in the lymph nodes and is pressing on his jugular vein and on his carotid artery. Without surgery he will die. With surgery he may also die. In any event it will be a very serious surgery. He is at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona now. I get the idea that they cannot wait very long to make a decision about the surgery."

He needs our prayers saints.

[Indiana]

The email that was posted earlier appears to have been inaccurate concerning Bill's health. Although he does have cancer, he told a brother by phone today that he was "not dying."

[Indiana]

this email is from Don Bowen concerning Bill

FYI AND PRAYER. BRO. BILL WILL BE OPERATED ON THIS FRIDAY
THE 16th. AS OF LAST WEEK...UNLESS .HE HAS ALREADY BEEN HEALED!

Don [former elder from Arizona]

[Indiana]

This email reports Bill's status following his operation.

Bill has made it thru surgery. He has had a muscle removed along with thyroid gland, lymph nodes and jugular vein. He will possibly need intense physical therapy for his shoulder due to one nerve that was moved around during surgery. He will start iodine radiation therapy for 4-6 weeks. Then a scan will be done to see If and WHERE else the cancer has spread. He does have his voice box. His hospital stay will last 2-7 days depending on drainage tubes in his neck. He will remain in AZ for at least a couple of months.

[Indiana]

from Don Hardy, today

HELLO DEAREST ONES: some of you asked me about Br.Bill Freeman. Several months ago Bill had surgery at Mayo Hosp. in PHX: they removed his thyroid & part of esophegus (sp? & correct report?). Main Point is, Bill is "cancer free." All glory to God & His Mercy. He said Mayo may still want to do a "blu-dye" test thru-out his body. But Bill is thanking & praising the Lord "at home." Br.Don H

[Terry]

Recently I listened to a message Bill Freeman gave in 1982 on the Outward and Inward Christian. First time I have heard this brother speak. Amazing how much the portion of his speaking relates to the present; individually and corporately.

http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/CenturyOfSelf/

Terry

[Paul Cox]

Ohio, you are right to a point. I don't think Bill Freeman was quarantined. It's not so clear cut or definitive. Rather he was called out by brothers wanting Bill to cease his ministry and line up with Witness Lee. On one hand Bill Freeman wanted to go on in the Recovery, but on the other hand he didn't want to put up with what was being asked of him.
As for other brothers from this Elder's training, it may be the direction Witness Lee was speaking didn't sit well with some. I have not heard the tape so it would be interesting to hear what Witness Lee was speaking to cause brothers to walk out.

Terry

I went to see Bill in the summer of 1999. I didn't know of the turmoil that had gone on there. He seemed very happy that at his last visit with Witness Lee, Lee accused him of nothing, and basically told him that he felt he, Bill, has never really left. It's always been about what "Brother Lee" thought.

Roger

[Terry]

I had listened to a message of Bill Freeman's at:
http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/CenturyOfSelf/

The topic was Inward and Outward Christians

Bill Freeman's speaking was based on 1 John Chapter 2.

2:8Again, a new commandment write I unto you, which thing is true in him and in you; because the darkness is passing away, and the true light already shineth. 2:9He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother, is in the darkness even until now. 2:10He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is no occasion of stumbling in him. 2:11But he that hateth his brother is in the darkness, and walketh in the darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because the darkness hath blinded his eyes. 2:12I write unto you, my little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.

Four characteristics were described what an outward Christian is:
1. Walks In Darkness:
There's a condition of living, but because of the darkness is unable to see the real situation. Because of walking in darkness, an outward Christian is led into deception. There is lack of transparancy and a lack of confession or apology. There's no confession, apology, or repentance because an outward Christian feels they have nothing to repent or apologize for. Everything done has been right on.
2. Walks in disobedience:
Because of the walk in disobedience, the outward Christian is against the indwelling annointing which is the moving of Christ in us.
There's no real horizontal fellowship in life. An outward Christian has errected four walls to close themself in.
An outward Christian has a defensive behavior. This is due to a lack of an inner dealing with the Lord.
3. Walks in darkness by hating our brother
Because of hate, bitterness, or a grudge, an outward Christian is off in their interpretations of others and in their understanding of others.
4. Living without specific dealings

Four Characteristics of an Inward Christian:
1. Walks in the light
2. Confession/Apology
Because of an inward dealing, there is cleansing which issues in fellowship.
3. Does not Defend nor Vindicate themself
Because expression of the light is truth, an inward Christian is moved to confess or apologize for their behavior.
Because of the truth, obedience translates into increased love for God.
4 Having specific dealings
Even if you're a one week old Christian or one whose a 30 year old Christian you can have specific dealings.

Terry

[aron]

1 John 2:9 "He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother, is in the darkness even until now."

A rather sobering word, there; that one can "say he is in the light" but not be in the light. Obviously there was the examples of the observant Jews, who claimed "Moses" but rejected Jesus, and thus were thrust aside, claims notwithstanding. Secondly, in the light of the epistles to the Asian assemblies, John could be saying this delusion of thinking one had light when one was actually in darkness also applies to some who call themselves "christian".

Now, hating the brother, is a difficult one for me. It is hard to find the line between "taking a stand for the truth" and "hating one another". In other words, if I am for the truth, and I observe a christian in error, and I try to correct them, and they refuse correction, and at some point I say "You are like the Gentiles to me" and turn away, am I then hating my brother? The other peril is to "love" everyone regardless of condition; then eventually the "truth" doesn't matter because we just play some "I'm okay- you're okay" game, irrespective of actual condition.

So I struggle with where to draw the line on that one. I try to speak the truth to all, best as I can, try to be nice to everyone, best as I can, and only in really, really extreme cases do I "turn away". Gross unrepentant sin, foaming at the mouth hysteria, etc. Other than that, I try to say, "Okay, Lord, this is who you gave me today."

[Terry]

Now, hating the brother, is a difficult one for me. It is hard to find the line between "taking a stand for the truth" and "hating one another". In other words, if I am for the truth, and I observe a christian in error, and I try to correct them, and they refuse correction, and at some point I say "You are like the Gentiles to me" and turn away, am I then hating my brother?
The other peril is to "love" everyone regardless of condition; then eventually the "truth" doesn't matter because we just play some "I'm okay- you're okay" game, irrespective of actual condition.

Actually there is a big gap between Matthew 18:16 and 1 John 2:9. We can take a stand for the truth, love our brothers, and love our sisters that they may recieve correction. If you turn away, you're not hating them. There is simply no way to compromise taking a stand for the truth. It's just like when I discipline my children. When their action or their behavior warrants discipline, my disciplining them is out of love. It is to correct their errant actions or behavior. In I John 2:9, the word says "He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother, is in the darkness even until now." So if you hate your brother, you're in darkness.

If you love when the "truth" doesn't matter, isn't that along the lines of creating a dysfunctional atmosphere? It causes one to ask "what is sacred anymore?" The actual condition does matter. To ignore the condition or sweep it aside is a clear sign the darkness has blinded the eyes. If we have light, the actual condition is seen.

Terry

[OBW]

A rather sobering word, there; that one can "say he is in the light" but not be in the light. Obviously there was the examples of the observant Jews, who claimed "Moses" but rejected Jesus, and thus were thrust aside, claims notwithstanding.I have always wondered a little whether there is not still the original covenant in place for the Jews. Prior to Jesus, they were accepted based on their following. While it is not the same as following into salvation as we have in the NT, are they truly "thrust aside" or are they simply still within that old system, as ordained by God (assuming they are actively still in it), while we have chosen the better way of the "once-for-all" sacrifice?

Just wondering.

[OBW]

Actually there is a big gap between Matthew 18:16 and 1 John 2:9. We can take a stand for the truth, love our brothers, and love our sisters that they may recieve correction. If you turn away, you're not hating them. There is simply no way to compromise taking a stand for the truth. It's just like when I discipline my children. When their action or their behavior warrants discipline, my disciplining them is out of love. It is to correct their errant actions or behavior. In I John 2:9, the word says "He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother, is in the darkness even until now." So if you hate your brother, you're in darkness.

If you love when the "truth" doesn't matter, isn't that along the lines of creating a dysfunctional atmosphere? It causes one to ask "what is sacred anymore?" The actual condition does matter. To ignore the condition or sweep it aside is a clear sign the darkness has blinded the eyes. If we have light, the actual condition is seen.

TerryI find that the smile and nod of love and service in the face of error and rejection to be one of the true tests of love. While there is an aspect of "tough love" that a parent must give to a child, it is not the place for another child to give that kind of love to his siblings. It is the place of the parent. Within the confines of human existence, the only parent with respect to which Godly love exists in a "tough love" way is His love. We are but earthly siblings. The only part of His love for the world that we have position to display is not "tough love." We have only been granted a very little of it with respect to church discipline. Those not within the family of faith never have reason to face that.

[Terry]

I find that the smile and nod of love and service in the face of error and rejection to be one of the true tests of love. While there is an aspect of "tough love" that a parent must give to a child, it is not the place for another child to give that kind of love to his siblings. It is the place of the parent. Within the confines of human existence, the only parent with respect to which Godly love exists in a "tough love" way is His love. We are but earthly siblings. The only part of His love for the world that we have position to display is not "tough love." We have only been granted a very little of it with respect to church discipline. Those not within the family of faith never have reason to face that.

Mark 12:28-12:31
28And one of the scribes came, and heard them questioning together, and knowing that he had answered them well, asked him, What commandment is the first of all?12:29Jesus answered, The first is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one: 12:30and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. 12:31The second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

In respect to church discipline, there can be love. It's exists or it doesn't. Love cannot be manufactured. In verse 31, the love Jesus is talking about is not a conditional love. When we love ourselves, there's nothing to consider. It just exists. Practically what's being said is if a brother refuses to repent, keep on loving him. If a brother is blinded by darkness, keep on loving him. As we love our neigbor as ourselves, the love never ceases.

Terry

[OBW]

In respect to church discipline, there can be love. It's exists or it doesn't. Love cannot be manufactured. In verse 31, the love Jesus is talking about is not a conditional love. When we love ourselves, there's nothing to consider. It just exists. Practically what's being said is if a brother refuses to repent, keep on loving him. If a brother is blinded by darkness, keep on loving him. As we love our neigbor as ourselves, the love never ceases.Seems we are dancing around the particular point in your previous post that caused me to post as I did. You said:

If you love when the "truth" doesn't matter, isn't that along the lines of creating a dysfunctional atmosphere? It causes one to ask "what is sacred anymore?" The actual condition does matter. To ignore the condition or sweep it aside is a clear sign the darkness has blinded the eyes. If we have light, the actual condition is seen.There was something out of sync with what you said that I did not completely figure out. I was not sure how "loving" when "truth doesn't matter" that could create a "dysfunctional atmosphere." It seemed that you were suggesting that somehow loving in the face of an error in "truth" created a dysfunction. Of course what you actually said did not exactly say that. But I couldn't figure out any other way to understand it. (It was sort of like saying that it is important to know that when it is unimportant that it is important. Tilt)

My point was that truth is not a qualifier or measure that is checked before love is applied. Surely the ultimate truth is that Christ died for our sins and that accepting that frees you from those sins. But we do not withhold love from those who reject that truth. (And I don't think you are suggesting this.) So what truth is so much higher that it affects our love? Something about orthodoxy or even a Leeism that might actually be true? Surely truth is important, but not at the cost of love. There should be love no matter the disagreement concerning truth, doctrine, practice, etc. Even the notion of "turning away" was not so much as statement about rejecting their person as it was to refuse to listen to the nonsense. We can do that without withholding love. We do not need to excommunicate to not accept error in teaching. And we do not need for their thoughts about what is correct, truth, or error to correspond to ours to express love — the kind of love that we have for ourselves.

More than anything, I see this as a huge failing in the LC system going way back to its early troubles (maybe as far back as the 60s in the US) and continuing in increasing fashion under the BBs. The attitude toward insiders — Max, John (I and S) Bill M, Al K, Don R, Steve, Titus, etc. — has been all over the map, but has never displayed any love other than the love of the leadership for everyone staying in line under their authority. And that amounts to loving yourself as you love yourself. A little narcissistic.

[Terry]

There was something out of sync with what you said that I did not completely figure out. I was not sure how "loving" when "truth doesn't matter" that could create a "dysfunctional atmosphere." It seemed that you were suggesting that somehow loving in the face of an error in "truth" created a dysfunction. Of course what you actually said did not exactly say that. But I couldn't figure out any other way to understand it.

Mike, the dysfunction results when we don't love enough to rebuke. For example suppose a brother has comitted gross sin. Do we just gloss it over when there may be other individuals aware of the gross sin? Suppose a sister has become pregnant out of wedlock, do we just look the other way and say "we love out sister. we don't want to be judgmental". For a member in the assembly who sees these things transpiring, the question had to be asked "is this manner of living acceptable now?" This response I have just typed is how I see "loving" when "truth doesn't matter". This is a case where "a little leaven has leavened the whole lump".

Terry

[OBW]

Mike, the dysfunction results when we don't love enough to rebuke. For example suppose a brother has comitted gross sin. Do we just gloss it over when there may be other individuals aware of the gross sin? Suppose a sister has become pregnant out of wedlock, do we just look the other way and say "we love out sister. we don't want to be judgmental". For a member in the assembly who sees these things transpiring, the question had to be asked "is this manner of living acceptable now?" This response I have just typed is how I see "loving" when "truth doesn't matter". This is a case where "a little leaven has leavened the whole lump".

TerryI fully agree. But the examples are perplexing. You give the example of a sister who is pregnant out of wedlock. That might be no more than the result of a single indiscretion. (And I don't want to quibble over the apparent "down-sizing" of this sin. Sin is sin.) Do we chose to rebuke everyone who is known to have committed a sin? Did someone pass you on the way to the meeting and you were going the speed limit? (Ah. "Man's laws, not God's" you say. But I thought God said to obey man's laws.) When a rebuking word is required is not so easy.

Or is it? Paul mentioned a rebuke when there were those who were sinning and continuing in it despite its visibility. I do not recall a case where he said to check everyone's bedrooms and cabinets and get the radar guns out.

Yet it is easy to somehow make it clear that how that "bump" came to be was a sin, yet still love such a one. The shame is rebuke. Like Pinocchio's nose, there is no hiding the sin. But we should be sure and add a flogging anyway — I didn't think so.

So what is "gross sin"? Is it "gross" because of its nature or because of its wanton repetition, or does it require both? Is lying never "gross" even if repeated? Is sexual sin "gross" once or even just a few times? Does it take a longer period of calling on the Lord or a few more "Hail Marys" to get rid of a "gross" sin?

I'll give my two cents worth. There are crimes that require action on one occurrence. Murder comes to mind. Lying does not. Not so sure about adultery. I think that we should be slow to be the first to cast that stone.

I do not want to make the place for proper church discipline simply go away. But I think that we too often try to spread its applicability based on our personal notions of the nature of the sin. A private word of "rebuke" may be called for in cases where a public one is not. But the "stones" of church discipline are few and far between.

[Terry]

So what is "gross sin"? Is it "gross" because of its nature or because of its wanton repetition, or does it require both? Is lying never "gross" even if repeated? Is sexual sin "gross" once or even just a few times? Does it take a longer period of calling on the Lord or a few more "Hail Marys" to get rid of a "gross" sin?

Mike, noted we all sin. I see a difference beween sin affecting an individual verses sin that may affect an assembly. For that reason it is extremely delicate how situations are handled. How to minister to those individuals, without losing them, and without offending the assembly.

Terry

[OBW]

I do not necessarily have any problem with what you have written in any post except that it is provided in a context that is flush with LC overtones even where we don’t intend them. So when you say “without losing them, and without offending the assembly” you have said a mouthful. In your hypothetical, there surely should be some sense, at least within someone in a responsible position, that the person has some sense of the fact of the sin and is not simply continuing in that sin.

On the other hand, what do you do with the unmarried couple that is not yet saved who has been coming and listening and learning and may be in the process of gaining that knowledge that leads to salvation. Do we need to censure them?

I think that in the case Paul so specifically mentions in 1 Corinthians, we have someone who is professing salvation and is wantonly engaged in sin that even the heathens identify as unacceptable. Here we have a problem, not because there is someone who is sinning, but who is almost boasting in their sin and is willful about it. And they claim to be part of those who are Christian. It taints the brand. Now being fragile and having failings at doing what is right is quite different from simply willing to do what is wrong. The one who struggles with alcohol or pornography is different from the one who produces pornography.

But in the face of all of this, how do you protect your flock? You protect them by teaching them correctly. If they know what is right, they are not weakened by the proximity of unsaved ones who have not yet determined that their living together is not the right choice, or by the girl within the circle of true “members” of the assembly who has given in to a desire of the flesh and is now pregnant. You do not need to protect the assembly by saying anything about her. Or about the man who you know is struggling with pornography. Now if someone is coming among you, or already among you, who is simply a sexual predator, then there is something to say.

I give the following story. It is a true account of Christian “righteousness” in an earlier time in the 20th century. A man and his wife with three kids were members of a small Presbyterian church in the Kansas/Missouri area. The man was abusive and a philanderer. After much tolerance, they separated, and eventually divorced. On the first Sunday after the divorce, all seemed OK. But then came the Sunday where communion was to be observed. Despite the upstanding position of the woman, she was met at the doors by two elders who escorted her to the balcony where she was allowed to observe but not participate. For the rest of her life, this was how it happened.

Now nothing you have mentioned hints of such heavy-handed treatment. But how often do we consider more than the “rightness” of our position before we decide to rebuke, or even excommunicate? The examples in scripture are not mild things. They are very wrong things. And there are almost no examples. Yet we busy ourselves with worrying about how righteous we appear at the cost of how much love we display.

Let’s see. The Great Commandment. Hear Oh Israel, the Lord you God is One God. You should love your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. And you shall display your righteousness and rebuke those who tarnish that display. All the law hinges on these two commands.

I’m not saying that there is no place for proper discipline. But we spend so much time worrying about who to rebuke and very little about who to love (everyone, even the one who actually requires rebuke). There is so much about love. God’s love. His love in us. Our love for our “neighbor.” And there is so little about rebuke. Yet we are more worried about whether they get their rebuke so we are certain about that and label it “tough love” so we don’t have to think about whether there is any real love involved.

I’ll be the first to say that there are certain ones who post such gushy, sweet, emotional things that I almost can’t stand it. But I’d rather them be the ones handing out church discipline than so many others. I may have a hard time getting through those posts at times. They can’t seem to take a strong stand about much of anything except the wonderful time they are having. But they understand love. I’d rather they were the one required to talk to the 16 year old who has shown up pregnant.

For sure the mainstream LC leadership would not be on my list. They are all about what is so right and proper. They only love the ministry. And any neighbor that will let them knock on their door and receive Christ (and preferably become part of the LC). But where’s the benefit in love? Why love someone who doesn’t hold your oracle in high esteem?

I just see a rush to judge and a reluctance to love. It may not be specifically in what you were originally saying. This all started with the phrase “taking a stand for the truth.” What is the truth? I’m not suggesting some kind of postmodern “whatever you think it is.” But do we hold to our version of truth so much stronger than we have the sense that the primary command was to love? And what is truth? I despise the simplistic “reality” that Lee supplied because all it did was create a new level of truth that was higher than others and he claimed was full of his teachings.

But the truth that sets us free is not gleaned from studying the scripture. It is not found in joining the “right” church. Jesus said that obeying his commands was the predicate to knowing the truth. “Hold to” does not merely mean to contend for. It means actually do. To live as if they are worthy of following. And if #1 is love, then worrying about arguing for “truth” is not #1.

Aron said if I am for the truth, and I observe a Christian in error, and I try to correct them, and they refuse correction, and at some point I say ‘You are like the Gentiles to me’ and turn away...But what are the “errors” that we think rise to this requirement? We would scoff if someone said head-coverings on women. But those have been the “errors” for some. We may have moved the line of ridiculousness. But Paul was not talking about eating pork v not eating pork; circumcision v no circumcision, etc. He was talking about someone coming and teaching error concerning the actual person of God/Christ or leading believers into sin. How often do we really face these things?

Sort of like Inigo Montoya, we have developed an over-active sense of error. For Lee and the BBs, it is more like an over-active sense of vengeance (which is what Inigo Montoya was said to have in the movie).

[aron]

OBW: To have someone who is professing salvation and is wantonly engaged in sin that even the heathens identify as unacceptable. Here we have a problem, not because there is someone who is sinning, but who is almost boasting in their sin and is willful about it. And they claim to be part of those who are Christian. It taints the brand.

Yes, there is a confusion about what it means to be "holy". It is not the sin that is the real issue: it is sinning and pretending to be holy. This introduces confusion in the hearts and minds of the new and the weak.

OBW: But in the face of all of this, how do you protect your flock? You protect them by teaching them correctly. If they know what is right, they are not weakened by the proximity of unsaved ones

Yes. It is the truth that sets us free. Our hearts are ready and willing to love, and obey; but our minds are so easily clouded by doubt and confusion.

OBW: I just see a rush to judge and a reluctance to love. It may not be specifically in what you were originally saying. This all started with the phrase “taking a stand for the truth.” What is the truth? I’m not suggesting some kind of postmodern “whatever you think it is.” But do we hold to our version of truth so much stronger than we have the sense that the primary command was to love?

I also see a rush to judge and to hold onto "truths" which quickly overturn our capacity to love one another. A rush to judge, to learn, to organize & arrange, to systematize, to teach the willing acolytes & reprove the unwilling. And somewhere in there a sprinkle of the obligatory platitudes about love.

I am becoming more convinced that no system can catch and hold God. Only if we let ourselves become caught by His flowing love, can we meet Him where He is. Then, the "righteousness" part will come along soon enough. We will seek after the righteousness part because we don't want to be separate from Him. Then it is not we who have caught He, but He who has fully captured us.

[OBW]

I am becoming more convinced that no system can catch and hold God. Only if we let ourselves become caught by His flowing love, can we meet Him where He is. Then, the "righteousness" part will come along soon enough. We will seek after the righteousness part because we don't want to be separate from Him. Then it is not we who have caught He, but He who has fully captured us.Excellent thoughts. Someone recently said that when we think we have it all figured out, we have created God in our image. I think certainty in God a large helping of humility with respect to everything else is needed.

I've been getting a little excited lately (a tough thing for in introvert like me). It is in coming to the realization that this Christian life is quite less propositional and much more action. Much more Orthopraxy and a lot less Orthodoxy. I don't suggest skipping belief. But beyond that, Jesus was much more interested in how we lived than how we gathered to worship. Here we all are, mostly former members of a group whose primary interest was how to worship. Obedience is better than sacrifice.

[Terry]

But in the face of all of this, how do you protect your flock? You protect them by teaching them correctly.

Amen! Teaching correctly is according to healthy teachings found in the Bible.

Terry

[YP0534]

I am becoming more convinced that no system can catch and hold God. Only if we let ourselves become caught by His flowing love, can we meet Him where He is. Then, the "righteousness" part will come along soon enough. We will seek after the righteousness part because we don't want to be separate from Him. Then it is not we who have caught He, but He who has fully captured us.

Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.