[OBW]

I realize that the references to fruit are more than one. And they are not identical in nature. But it seems that it is used as proof to the casual observer of the truth of something. If we claim our lives are being transformed, yet everything looks the same, then it is probably the same and the transformation is not real. Yes, we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. But I don't think this means just thinking different things, but rather having our minds changed so that we have the will to do different things. If we are not doing different things, then our minds must not be transformed.

In this I see the fruit as evidence of what is going on inside. The fruit of the patience of Christ is a lack of horns, bulging veins, and one-finger salutes when someone cuts in front of you and you have to eat your brakes. I'm not suggesting that we have to react perfectly and not get hot. But at some point, there should be enough transformation to not then start to act out in response — shout at them, pull up beside them and try to cut in front of them, and so on.

Fruit. (either way)

When we work with the gay guy in the office, is it clear that we think he is a sinner, or do we treat him like we would treat ourselves?

Fruit.

It seems that fruit is a general view into the general condition. It is difficult to assert that any particular item is the cause of bad fruit. Is deputy authority the cause of bad fruit? Or is getting to deputy authority the fruit of other things? Or is it all just part of a corruption that constantly bears fruit?

I am not saying that deputy authority does not bear fruit. But I have a hard time accepting that deputy authority would be the only thing bearing bad fruit on any person. Therefore bad fruit does not prove deputy authority is bad, but rather that the overall nature of the person from which the fruit is seen is bad. In the right environment, deputy authority or something like it is just part of the overall makeup of someone who is under the microscope. They bear either good or bad fruit. Deputy authority is not singularly a person, therefore it cannot be scrutinized as a singular source of good or bad fruit. Instead, it is part of a whole person. It is one of many features. Not all may be bad. But if we have gotten to deputy authority, then I would suggest that it is nowhere near to being alone. It has several more demons in there with it. And together they spread fruit.

"By their fruit you know them." Not "by the fruit you can scrutinize the doctrine."

However, if you want to scrutinize deputy authority, look at its principles compared to the servant leadership that Jesus insisted upon. At the contrast to the constant examples of how the Pharisees were lording it over their flock. At the way Paul said that an elder should be made an example of when they are found in sin. That should shoot deputy authority in the foot because it does not put leadership on top. It does not insist upon a natural hierarchy that runs from the top dog to the lowest among them. It does not refuse admonition from anyone other than directly from God (lightning bolt?). That is a plain analysis of the tenets of deputy authority put up against those of the Bible. With out ever being given enough time to grow some fruit, it is found wanting.

But if I am going to be taught by someone and it is seen that their fruit is terrible, then I don't need to try to figure out what teaching they have wrong. I just need to understand that they are not qualified to teach. Their fruit has disqualified them. And if someone is claiming to be of Christ but does not practice sound teaching (rephrased — live it) then there is a big question mark. I'm just not sure that this analysis ever gets to the cause of the problem. To the details of the bad teachings. Just he evidence that not all is well.

And that is an important principle. We still have too much effort going into trying to figure which of Lee's teachings we can like (talking about teachings that you can't find elsewhere) when we should reject Lee altogether and find a different source. His fruit was bad. It was bad in Taiwan. (Of course we didn't know of that in time to act on it.) It was eventually seen as bad here. And we let him blame everyone else for the problems inside of his group. Inside of his teaching. He should have been shown the way to his seat. Never allowed the opportunity to teach. Not saying to excommunicate him. But he should never have been more than another brother. And one not worthy of the position of teacher.

By the fruit Lee was disqualified. No need to dissect the bad teachings.

But there is good reason to dissect the bad teachings. They are ensnaring many good Christians. Even among us who have left the LCM far, far behind us. We need to be freed from those teachings. But fruit is not the proof against any particular error. The scripture is. And coming together to reason over it. Not just take someone else's word for it.